Cinema Retro columnist David Savages tells us why some twice-told tales should have only been told once.
Like Norman Bates perhaps, in my head there is always an
argument raging. One is the Voice of Reason, of disinterested analysis: It’s always best to reserve judgment until
one sees the finished product. The
other is the Voice of Combat, emotional, and defensive: What the hell? I can see them now, a couple of twentysomething,
backward-cap-wearing Starbucks rats tapping out the ‘remake’ on their laptops. If
they jettison the batty old bird expert in the diner I’m going to track them
down and kill them!
Hm, maybe I care a little bit too much. Even Hitchcock would
probably be shrugging at this point, lighting a cigar. I allow the Voice of
Reason to prevail: This might be
interesting. Naomi Watts is an interesting actress. Let’s see what she can do
with the role of icy, poised Melanie Daniels.
But just when my pulse returns to normal, my eyes fall on
this item: “Forthcoming remake of The
Women…with a script by Diane English, creator of Murphy Brown…starring Meg Ryan…and Eva Mendes. Eva Mendes? Yup, it’s true folks. From what I can gather, the
forthcoming remake of The Women, the
legendary, all-female, cats-in-a-cage comedy originally directed by George
Cukor, has been 12 years in the making and features a veritable tonnage of
award-winning talent, from old vets like Bette Midler, Annette Bening, Carrie
Fisher and Cloris Leachman, to a younger generation of comic actresses like
Debra Messing (Will & Grace),
Jada Pinkett Smith and Eva Mendes. This doesn’t look good. For starters, let’s
compare the original’s tagline with the remake’s:
(1939): The Female of
the Species…when the men aren’t watching!
(2008): The Women is about friends and mothers and daughters. It’s about breaking up and
finding your way back. It’s about reinventing yourself. It’s about walking
through fire for what you believe in. It’s about Women.
I guess the cats have been declawed, shorn of their furs,
and made to mouth
post-feminist-self-empowerment-pink-ribboned-Vagina-Monologues-era bromides
instead.
Instead of icy martinis, we’re being served steaming mugs of
Celestial Seasoning tea.
Apparently the original Anita Loos screenplay (which was
based on Clare Booth Luce’s stage play) has been thrown out. This version will
positively ooze Contemporary Relevance. No more of the mink-draped Countess De
Lave, that would offend animal rights activists. No more tiaras, that’s
objectifying to women. This will be about Living, Loving, and Learning. Sounds
hilarious doesn’t it?
We’ll see how Diane English’s version fares at the box
office and with the critics. I guess remakes serve a larger purpose in our
culture. They introduce new generations to old stories, told in new ways. They
break in young, ambitious directors. They employ young, rising stars and aging
character actors (who were in the original’s principal roles). They give
critics the chance to bloviate on the originals’ superior merits. They keep the
machinery going. Besides, championing a ‘hands-off’ policy toward classic films
risks entombing them. Given the success rate of most remakes (poor to
middling), it only underscores why the originals are considered classics in the
first place. You see, everyone wins!- David Savage