Remakes

Remakes, Re-boots, Adaptations, Undesired Sequels, whatever you want to call them, they're all taking a form or a story that previously existed and "remaking" it in a new way.  There seems to be a lot of fuss over remakes.  Comments range from, "NO!  The book can't possibly be captured on film!" to "But the original was so good!  Why do they need to remake it?"  I can't disagree with these feelings, but there's no reason we should get so upset about stories being remade into a new form.  Remakes should be seen as brand new works that just happen to have recognized source material.  A movie is not a book and a remake is not the original film.  They're completely different entities that should stand alone.  There's no reason the original should influence your opinion of the remake, and there's no reason the remake should tarnish the experience of the original.

What's Original?

I think this is the first thing that needs to be understood before we talk about remakes.  "What is original?"  An original would be considered a brand new idea that has never been expressed before.  At the very least works that don't blatantly borrow from established works are considered to be original.  Avatar is considered to be very unoriginal because of it's resemblance to stories like FernGully or Pocahontas.  But FernGully nor Pocahontas aren't completely original in their stories.  The basic premise of, "Hero is sent to gain the trust of the opposing group so his side can take over.  The Hero realizes his people are the real bad guys," can be found in many other stories.  Disney borrowed from many Shakespearean stories for their plots.  The Lion King resembles Hamlet, The Little Mermaid is like Romeo and Juliet.  Not only that, but even Shakespeare borrowed from others.   There are (arguably) only Seven Basic Plots that all stories are derived from.  Furthermore, it's been said that "There is nothing new under the sun."  Everything has been done before, and will be done again in some way, shape, or form.

When Inception came out everyone lauded it for being "the most original story in a long time."  However, there was very little that truly was original.  It was exceptionally creative, but it borrowed from so many pre-existing ideas.  The plot is that of a basic heist movie.  The hero must complete one last job before he is free from crime and can return to his family.  The dream machine is very reminiscent of The Matrix (which also borrows from other things).  The idea of entering someone else's dream has been done before, though rarely expressed.  The awesome zero gravity fight sequence in the hall is just a contemporary take on  Fred Astaire's "You're All The World To Me."

Every artist borrows from something they have seen before.  Whether it be literature, cinema, non-fiction, or even their own life, artists borrow.  Every creation is a reinterpretation of something that has come before.  The only true original creator is nature.  Nature is the only thing that can give the world, or the universe, something that has never been seen before by anyone.  Afterall we are creations of nature, even ourselves are unoriginal, but that's not to say we're not unique.

What's a Remake?

A remake is not a clone, yet a new work of art that uses an existing piece as it's source material.  For the sake of this post we will include re-boots, book adaptations, and sequels in the category of remake.  An established work of art in any given form is interpreted into a new form.

Stop Calling Them Remakes

So we know what a remake is, but we also know that nothing is original.  Therefore, everything is a remake!  If everything is a remake, why do we only single out certain remakes?  It's not fair to these so called "remakes" and we're not being fair to ourselves.  To denigrate new works simply because they have an established source material is extremely judgemental and does nothing but take away enjoyment from ourselves and from others.

Nothing's original, everything is a remake, so let's change our understanding.  Let's instead say, everything is new, and nothing is a remake.  Rather, the only things that exist are parody and pastiche.  A parody is an imitation of a work, artist, or period with deliberate exaggeration for comedic effect.  Pastiche is art created in a style of another work, artist, or period.  Homage could also be included which is a work created to show respect to a preexisting work.

The person best known for parody is probably, "Weird Al" Yankovic.  “Weird Al”  re-records popular songs and injects humor by altering the lyrics. He accurately recreates the instrumentation, so familiar listeners can instead focus on his funny lyrical changes.  His work is not considered pastiche because the ultimate effect is comedy, not honor (though sometimes it is hard to tell).

There are examples of parody and pastiche all over popular culture, such as, The Daily Show, a fake news show that mostly mocks mainstream news programs.  Pastiche can also be seen everywhere.  As stated earlier Inception borrows heavily from other forms, The Little Mermaid is a retelling of Romeo and Juliet, Quentin Tarantino is known for directly taking elements from other films, and the list goes on.

It would seem you could make the argument that pastiche, parody, and homage are all subcategories of remakes since they are all re-creating an "original" work.  Yet, "Weird Al's" music, The Daily Show, and Inception are not regarded as remakes.  They are known as "originals with borrowed elements."  In pop-culture, remakes are only pieces that intend to be exactly like an original.  But by definition, what is considered to be a remake should be called either pastiche or parody.  It would be impossible to to remake something exactly the same as the original.

Anytime something is remade into a new form, it is being created by a completely different artist (sometimes the same artist but at a new time) who has new ideas and different perspective.  This changes the story and creates something new.  Both parody and pastiche change preexisting works to create new effects.  From comedy to mash-ups they strive to invoke new thoughts.  The source material will always be altered.  The only remakes that truly exist are mechanical or digital "one to one" reproductions of existing objects.  Mass-produced items, prints of artwork, and video replication are examples of the truly remade; those that had an original source "cloned" with the intent of creating an exact replica, A Remake.  If you can accept this new understanding, I hope that you can better enjoy "remakes" and learn to completely separate the new interpretations from the original.  However, the prevalence of remakes as evidence for Hollywood being out of ideas is still up for debate.

The Hunger Games (2012) - Gary Ross

Please note, I will be refraining from discussing the book in this critique of The Hunger Games' story.  The book is a completely different work of art separate from the movie.  Although the book served as inspiration for the film, the film should be critiqued as something completely separate from it's source material.  Soon after this post I will write a post about remakes and adaptations and why I think they should be viewed as "new" stand alone works of art with no connection to the source material.

I hope you enjoy my second post :)

The Story Being Told

To save her sister's life, Katniss Everdeen volunteers to take part in a fight to the death.

The Kind of Story it Tells

This is a tricky thing to nail down, but I would argue the prominent type of story The Hunger Games tells is a "Romantic Comedy"...minus the funny ha-ha part.  Although the film is part sci-fi, part action flick, Katniss's main obstacle is overcoming her relationships.  Gary Ross took on a big challenge telling a story that is equal parts sci-fi, action, and romance.  He balances these three stories very well, but I'd say none in particular were mastered.

As far as this movie being a romantic comedy, I mean this strictly by definition, in the classical sense.  It Happened One Night is considered to be the first romantic comedy ever made.  Before they were called romantic comedies, they were called "Screwball Comedies."  What this means is two opposite characters, usually a down to earth working class man and a woman from higher society with a high opinion of herself, are forced to deal with each other.  Their differences make them clash, offering many opportunities for comedy, yet through their differences they learn from each other and ultimately fall in love.  In essence, this is precisely the relationship of Katniss and Peeta.

Katniss is all about protecting her family and putting on a strong face.  Peeta on the other hand is much more sensitive and does the right thing, regardless of the consequences, even if it means his life.  On top of it, Peeta seems to be a hopeless romantic and Katniss would rather have nothing to do with love.  Although Katniss tends to reject Peeta's affection, she learns from Peeta to take care of those other than herself and her family.  He teachers her to be altruistic to all those in trouble.  Her lesson eventually becomes a beacon of hope for all of Panem.

Analysis

Like I said, this story was a challenge to tell.  How do you tell a compelling sci-fi/action/love story completely in only about two hours?  Well, for starters, I guess the filmmakers have a bit of leeway since it's a series, but you can't assume the majority of your audience is familiar with the series.

On it's face it appears to be a film about a dystopian future where once a year young people are forced to fight to the death as tribute for the kindness of their totalitarian government.  Pretty cool premise, right?  It is, yet that's all it is -- a premise.  It's merely the stage for the drama of the "star-crossed lovers."  It's a very cool premise, but it leaves the audience asking a lot of questions and addresses a lot of issues that are never discussed.  Why did the working class uprise in the first place?  Why was/is the government oppressing the workers?  Why do they make their young fight to the death?  How did they decide on The Hunger Games?  Why is The Hunger Games the most effective way of controlling the working class?  There are many more questions that could be asked, but it all seems to be about some sort of class warfare.  Fair enough, but the only argument, or point the movie tries to make is that "rich bourgeois bad," "poor working class good."  It doesn't offer any point, counter-point, for either side.

It might sound like I'm complaining, but I'm not.  All of those things are fine, so long as you make it clear that that's not what your movie is about.  The Hunger Games is a romantic comedy disguised as an action sci-fi flick, yet it still attempts to be a sci-fi action flick with a social statement.  If the sci-fi dystopian aspects of the film had been briefly establish in the beginning of the film and then ignored, it would have forced the audience to accept those terms without question.  If the film had simply said, "Once a year a boy and girl from each district much be sacrificed to take part in a fight to the death," and it was left at that we as an audience would have accepted that as the way this world is and no further questions would have been asked.  More precisely, no further questions would be screaming out for answers.  But since President Snow has a heart to heart with the Game Maker, explaining that the games are about creating a sense of false hope, we start to wonder why hope is the best way to control the masses?  Why is The Hunger Games the best way to create a sense of false hope?  The list goes on.

Now, The Hunger Games as an action flick.  The action in this film is very well shot and very entertaining, but it's not an action flick.  Katniss spends most of the film running away from things.  Any time Katniss takes action, she seems to instantly have a plan and executes it with little to no error.  Nothing really needs to be planned out nor does Katniss ever truly have to outsmart anyone (other than her sponsors).  The hardest thing for Katniss is navigating human relationships.

The stakes of the film are established, but rarely addressed directly.  The characters rarely show that they're afraid of dying, nor do any of the characters seem to have much of a problem killing someone else.  The only time Katniss ever seems to truly be shaken is when: she volunteers to save her sister, just before she's brought into the arena, and lastly when Rue dies.  Other than that the psychological effects of fighting for your life and taking the lives of others is never addressed.  However, it does express that the bloodthirsty "careers" are bad and have a problem, but it's okay to kill someone if they're trying to kill you.

So, complicated film to tackle.  Sci-fi social issues, life and death, morality, it's a lot to handle for a story targeted at teenagers.  But let's go back to the main plot of the film.  Katniss has to survive The Hunger Games.  To do this, she must be the last one standing, either by killing those who stand in her way or by outlasting everyone else.  Simple enough, yet at every major obstacle it's not her physical strength that allows her to overcome, it's her empathy (or apparent empathy).  She begins the film very stone cold, only looking out for herself, and she ends the film learning to love another person and willing to sacrifice her life for the sake of Peeta and the rest of Panem.  That's what the story is truly about.  It's not about a dystopian society that let's their children fight each other.  That's a different movie called Battle Royale.  The sci-fi wonder and action is merely decoration for the core romantic drama.  They're good decorations, don't get me wrong, but if you look too closely at them you realise they're poorly strung together.

I have no problem with this film being a romantic "comedy."  However, it troubles me that in a movie with such high stakes, targeted at teenagers, the moral seems to be that it's better to die while staying true to yourself than it is to selfishly survive, possibly giving up your convictions.  I truly enjoyed this film, but with as much attention and detail as they put into the sci-fi aspects I would have appreciated it if more of the story had been spent exploring the world and those concepts.  However, this wouldn't have been a problem had the story only been told from the perspective of Katniss.  From her perspective, she knows little to nothing about what the government has done and what The Hunger Games is all about, other than that's the way things are.  She wouldn't have known the answers, so we wouldn't have expected them.  Yet since they spent so much time showing things from the antagonists perspective, we expect to gain more information from them beside their displeasure.

Why You Might Like It

You'll definitely like The Hunger Games if you enjoy stories about young love and strong women.  If you like sci-fi and action, you will also enjoy this film.  It's not a huge part of the film, but it does a good job with what it has.  If you like stories about coming into one's own, self discovery, or fighting "the man" you will find this movie entertaining.

Why You Might Hate It

If you're looking for a true sci-fi action flick, this movie is not for you.  Sci-fi films tend to be very intelligent and very detail oriented, this movie unfortunately is not that.  If you're looking for a true action flick, there are very few edge of your seat, nail biting moments in this movie.  If you despise anything that has to do with romance and learning to externalize your feelings for others, this is not the movie for you.

Why You Should Give It A Chance

Despite being a romantic comedy disguised as a sci-fi action flick, it's a very entertaining romantic, sci-fi, action movie.  It doesn't do any three of them exceptionally well, but it's an applaudable job of balancing the three.  You should see this movie just to see how Gary Ross was able to blend these three genres, as well as adapt a book that is filled with internalisation and interpret them into external action.

Citizen Kane (1941) - Orson Welles

I was trying to figure out what movie I should look at for my first post.  I thought about doing something that was popular, something current, or beloved.  Instead I decided to inspect what is arguably the best movie of all time, at least according to AFI.  For better or for worse, I chose to start out with this movie because it is considered to be the best movie of all time, yet not many people understand why it holds that honor.  A lot of people think it's an old boring movie, and I would totally understand why.  To understand it's importance a lot of context needs to be understood.  Even still, as a stand alone film it has many merits.

Note: This is my first post, so please bear with me as I get into the swing of things and figure out how my critiques should be done :)  In hindsight I realize I chose a beast of a movie to start out with.  Thanks!

The Story Being Told

Citizen Kane is about a group of news reporters trying to discover who deceased newspaper mogul Charles Foster Kane was through his dying words.

The Kind of Story it Tells

It's interesting, I haven't watched this movie in a couple years, and on my most recent viewing I realized it's a story about telling a story.  A prominent man in American history has died and a newspaper needs to tell the story of his life.  The first 13mins of the film are spent by giving us a comprehensive run down of Kane's life from birth to death, his accomplishments, and his missteps.  The newsreel ends and a man speaks forth saying that the newsreel is great except it doesn't tell us who Kane really was.  It tells us what he did, but it tells us nothing about the man himself.  If we simply share what a man did, we are only giving out the bullet points of his life, but if we can express who he was we can connect those dots and hopefully understand him.

Right in the beginning the movie lays out the plot points, but it also tells us what a good story needs to be.  We've already established what Kane did, now we can begin to truly understand who he was.  It's not enough to just watch what somebody did, anyone can do anything, but why they do things is what interests us.  We find out through what may have seemed to be a power hungry control freak of a man, was just a poor guy who missed out on his childhood and wanted nothing more than to have what was taken from him.

Now this is the story the films tells on its own, but the story that encopasses Citizen Kane goes much deeper than what appeared on screen.  I won't go into too much detail since you can do your own research, but Citizen Kane is a satirical drama that directly targeted real life newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst.  Citizen Kane broke a lot of ground by developing a lot of new camera techniques, but it's what it did for the career of Hearst that makes this film "the best movie of all time."  Citizen Kane exposed and effectively ruined Hearst's career, and no other film has had such a great impact on a single man or the world.  Whether or not you have seen Citizen Kane I strongly suggest you watch the PBS special, The Battle Over Citizen Kane.  This special gives context to this epic film, explains it's impact, and helps a contemporary audience better understand why Citizen Kane is such an important film.

Analysis

Objectively I want to say Citizen Kane is indeed a good film, however it's really hard to enjoy it if you don't understand the context.  As a stand alone film, however, what makes the movie enjoyable is how well it tells a story.  The film begins by outlining the main character's life.  We're given enough to know the type of man our hero is, yet not enough to understand him.  This makes us want to keep watching.  The way his story is told is through classic five act structure.  We've already been introduced to him, the inciting incident is him gaining his independence and taking over a newspaper, the climax is when he makes the newspaper successful, the falling action is depicted through Kane confusing power and success with a good life, and the resolution is in discovering that "Rosebud" was his childhood sled, that all he wanted was his childhood.

Although the movie attacked William Randolph Hearst, it also makes us pity him as well as other's we consider to be money grubbing or power hungry.  Even though these "tyrants" may do evil things, the movie claims they do them because they missed out on something and the evil deeds are the only way they know how to cope.  There are many things Kane says that show us who he is: "If I hadn't been rich I could have been a great man."  "Love on my terms.  The only terms anyone ever knows, his own."  He was a man who just wanted to live life, but was only able to live it the way he was taught; which was through the eyes of the banker who took him from his family.

If we ignore this films historical context, I would say this movie does a good job of expressing the problems with working too hard, growing up too fast, getting everything handed to you, and having more power than you know what to do with.  In that sense the piece will remain timeless so long as our society has workaholics and people who are more concerned with earning money and buying things than they are with being a good person.

Why You Might Like It

You will probably like Citizen Kane if you like: classic cinema, history, dramas, dialogue, epic stories, rags to riches, or stories about the human condition.  That last one is what this movie is truly about.  Although people may have more power, more money, and do things we don't think we would do, it doesn't make them any less human than ourselves.

Why You Might Hate It

You probably won't like Citizen Kane if you don't like anything I listed above.  The movie can be a bit slow at times and is somewhat plain if you don't understand the films historical context.

Why You Should Give It A Chance

Well, after all it is arguably "the best movie of all time."  But on a more serious note, the impact this movie had on William Randolph Hearst, Orson Welles, as well as the world is truly amazing.  If you consider yourself to be a movie buff you must absolutely cross this one off your list.  Pay attention to the cinematography in this film.  It was the first time many of the techniques in this film were ever used.  Some of the double exposures and inserts would still be considered experimental to this day.  Before watching this film, I highly recommend watching the documentary, The Battle Over Citizen Kane.  If you've already seen Citizen Kane I still recommend watching the documentary (if you haven't), and then re-watch Citizen Kane.  If you didn't like it before, you'll at least appreciate it more on your second viewing.

"The Story Being Told" -Statement of Intent

As an aspiring filmmaker, and avid movie lover, I've become disenchanted with movie critics as well as a lot of contemporary movies.  Too many people talk too much about "what they liked" and "what they didn't like" and try to pass it off as objective fact.  Strong opinions are getting confused with informed and educated discussion.  Not only that, but I think many filmmakers forget that when they're making a movie their primary goal is to tell a good story.  A "good story" gets confused with spectacle or a high stakes premise.  So as a way to learn as much as I can about how movies are constructed, as well as address what I believe to be the fundamental objective of movie making, I wanted to start a blog where I write about movies from the perspective of storytelling.  If a movie stays true to it's story, it is more likely to be successful in its endeavors.  I will aim not to make judgments on whether or not a movie is good or bad, but whether or not it accomplished it’s story telling goals.  By discussing movies in such a way, you can express that although a movie may be poorly constructed, it may still be a good story, or at least very entertaining.

I encourage anyone who reads my blog to comment and continue the discussion.  I will do my best to reply to anyone who leaves a thoughtful comment.  Thank you, and I hope you enjoy what I have to say.