"The Wizard of Oz" is widely considered one of the greatest and most influential movies of all-time. A landmark cinematic effort and a childhood touchstone for generations. And it is also something that few people consider - it is a remake!
L. Frank Baum's popular story about Dorothy Gale's journey from tornado-ridden Kansas through enchanted land with new comrades Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion in tow in an effort to meet a magical wizard who might be able to get her home first made it to the big screen in 1925, more than a decade before Judy Garland sang about going "Somewhere Over The Rainbow".
"Wizard of Oz" was a 1925 silent film that departed wildly from the original book. Dorothy is a rather seductive teenager caught in a love triangle between the Scarecrow and the Tin Woodsman (played by Oliver Hardy of Laurel & Hardy fame). Those two beloved characters, along with the Cowardly Lion, are not actually characters, but disguises used by farmhands who get swept into Kansas by the tornado. In fact, the Tin Man, here, is a villain!
Thank goodness for Victor Fleming and the moviemaking magicians from MGM for creating a true American classic, one that has not been diminished by subsequent sequels and remakes. "The Wiz" (1978) moves the fun to New York City where some good musical numbers save the movie from a dreary story and drearier Diana Ross as Dorothy. Disney's "Return to Oz" (1985) sends Dorothy back to the fanciful land after six months of seemingly nonsensical babbling and a stay in a mental hospital. Even The Muppets took a crack at the classic story.
My only question is - WHY? Why try to improve on greatness? Why try to improve on something beloved? These questions come on the heels of recent announcements of planned remakes of "Ferris Bueller", "WarGames" and "Footloose" - which wasn't great but was kinda fun if you like Kenny Loggins' music or Kevin Bacon quoting the Bible. Footloose is actually hitting theaters later this year.
The graveyard of cinema is filled with failed attempts to remake, update, reboot, polish, upgrade, or otherwise put a new finish on classic films. From a business standpoint, I sort of understand. There's already a built-in audience, so that opening weekend will get big box-office numbers. But watch out for that backlash when things go wrong!
"Jaws The Revenge". "Vegas Vacation". "Staying Alive". "Smokey and the Bandit II". "Grease 2". Proof positive that not every film receives a worthy follow-up.
And there are just as many ill-fated forays into remakes. "Meet Joe Black". "Speed Racer". "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle". "The Getaway". "Tarzan, the Ape Man". "The Stepford Wives". "The Pink Panther". "The Day The Earth Stood Still". [If you don't know the originals, check them out.]
For crying out loud, someone actually remade Alfred Hitchcock's uber-horror classic "Psycho" shot-for-shot. There's no thought involved there! And maybe that's the problem. No one's thinking.
No one is thinking that part of the genius of "Planet of the Apes" - whether you bought it or not - was that riveting final shot of astronaut Charlton Heston washed up on an earthly beach with the head of the Statue of Liberty in the background and the notion that man was the villain. How do you top that, or otherwise stun the audience? They are waiting for a zinger. [Part of the reason M. Night Shyamalan's work has dropped off - everyone is expecting a "Sixth Sense" shocker.]
No one is thinking that part of the "pull" of "WarGames" was the dual fear of a possible attack by the Russians and that computers might take over the world. Guess what? The Cold War is over and computers have taken over the world - this blog proves that! - so where's the drama for a remake?
Hollywood movie magic has been replaced by the need for big box-office and the reliance on established brands and retreads. How else do you explain the plans for a new "Flintstones" TV cartoon? It is risky business to try to recapture the greatness of yesteryear or that special feeling we got from a movie that was big when we were in our teens. There's a far greater chance of alienating the audience than there is of improving a classic. And, as a Star Wars fan, I should know. "Phantom Menace", anyone?
Yes, remakes can expose quality material to generations who haven't seen the original. I get that. But I just can't help thinking that Hollywood is running out of ideas. Good ideas anyway. And that makes me sad. Because I have a drawer full of script ideas just begging for someone to take a chance.
Perhaps I'd feel differently if someone remade a total piece of crap and turned it into a cinematic gem. Show me the person willing to take another stab at the gymnastic clunker "American Anthem" or the frighteningly bad "Phantom of the Paradise" and I'll sit up and take notice.
They never remake the bad ones! Otherwise, we'd have already seen a remake of Scott Baio's "Zapped!"
No comments:
Post a Comment