Made Then Remade: Solaris, 1972 and 2002

First, my apologies for the lag between posts. The Austin Film Festival deadline was the other night and I have been trapped in front of my computer writing other stuff. Also, you know, this is a hard movie.


Basically, the story is about Kris Kelvin, a psychiatrist who is summoned to a space station orbiting a planet called Solaris where the crew is going crazy. The crew is going crazy because they see dead people, which Kris discovers after he wakes up to see his wife, Rhea, who killed herself. This freaks him out and complications arise.



I tried to be a good blogger, I really did, I attempted to watch the original Solaris by Soviet director Andrei Tarkovsky. To be fair, I did watch it once in 2002, in anticipation of the remake with George Clooney. Well, watch? Okay, remember this was the days of video and I am a very fast reader and this movie has subtitles. So, once I realized there were going to be long shots of highways and pond water, I hit fast forward and then started reading the subtitles. Good enough. I'm sorry, I just can't. I don't get it. Same problem this time, I just started reading the Think Geek catalog.



Then, I saw the remake. I wouldn't call that film accessible. It was directed by Steven Soderbergh, produced by James Cameron and starred George Clooney and I am not sure any of those guys knew what was going on in it. I spent quite some time trying to figure out what the hell it all meant, read the script, listened to the commentary and nothing. And you know, here's a personal tip, if you get a FREE TICKET for your friend and she has to talk to her boyfriend instead of you on the way to the movie (and on the way back) and then starts rolling her eyes and sighing twenty minutes in, you should really evaluate the amount of time you spend with that person because someday it will make sense. I think you should apply this to anyone you know who has to check in with a significant other every two hours. I feel that's fair.

However, the friends you do want are the ones who will watch this movie with you and try to figure out what it means at your behest. This resulted in one particularly memorable viewing of the film, where alcohol was consumed, (because, yeah, that will help you figure it out) and we basically talked through the whole thing as we tried to utilize our second semester, Junior year, higher education, to try to figure out what this meant. At the end, Ginny came up with about as good a theory as any when she said, "So, the planet is God?" I think that met with the approval of the room and we all had more cookies.

I like to think the film has a meaning, I just don't know what. Basically, the thing could have been a great Doctor Who episode. You know, the Doctor goes to a weird planet and starts seeing a bunch of dead Time Lords who are mad at him. Stuff happens, the universe is at stake, I'm not writing this for you Doctor Who staff. If you would like me to write this for you, please feel free to contact me. The author of the novel says that both films missed the point, it was about encountering something bigger than humanity can conceive, (Yes, Ginny, I guess you're right) and this is the problem. You can't do a remake of a film of a book that apparently the original filmmakers didn't understand. It won't work because no one understands what's going on. Even if you liked it, you still couldn't say what happened: "Uh, George Clooney's wife is dead, but she's not and there's this planet and it's alive? Maybe? It also might be God. WHAT HAPPENED?!"

The most serious problem appears to be Rhea. As in, what is her problem? Why does she want to kill herself? This seems to be a problem that the filmmakers care very little about, she's just some crazy woman. I hate to play the gender bias card, but yes, I am playing it.

The problem is you can't just make a movie that only you understand. I hate to semi-quote Spike Lee, only because he usually says things that piss me off, but film isn't like painting. You can't just make a bunch of canvasses that only you understand, you need other people to get what you were trying to say and I don't, I so clearly don't. I do like Cliff Martinez's soundtrack, though, it's nice to fall asleep to. See, there's only so long you can drag people along without letting them know what's happening or providing some explanation and Solaris far exceeds this time, since it's been about nine years for the newer one. Sorry for the rubbish blog post. I'll do better next time.

So, if you know what's going on or are with the Doctor Who hiring office, let me know what you think in the comments' section.

Made Then Remade: The Philadelphia Story, 1940 and High Society, 1956

Today, we have a proper Classically Obsessed post, featuring two actual classic films in a post about remakes! I think we prefer to believe that remakes are the result of a modern culture that has clearly run out of ideas. You know, the same culture that brought you Fast Five? I submit that this is not the case. Shakespeare took like half his stories at least from someone else. Speaking of which, how many times has Hamlet been performed? (Speaking of which, you should totally watch the one with David Tennant. I hope I didn't mention that already.) Remakes. And this film. In 1956, someone at MGM got the idea to remake The Philadelphia Story only this time with singing. What you get is this film.

So, let's start with the story. Tracy Lord (Katharine Hepburn/Grace Kelly) is a society heiress on the eve of her wedding to George Kittredge, a man of he people who has worked his way to the top. She is annoyed by the memory of her first marriage to C.K. Dexter Haven (Cary Grant/Bing Crosby), a ne'er do well of the upper class. She struggles with her father's infidelities and also with her own inabiity to look past people's weaknesses. In the midst of this, to keep news of her father's dalliances from becoming public, she allows a reporter, Mike Conner (Jimmy Stewart/Frank Sinatra) and a photographer, Elizabeth Imbrie (Ruth Hussey/Celeste Holm), from Spy Magazine into her wedding. There's a crazy little sister, an uncle with wandering hands and she almost falls in love with Mike, waking up thinking she's slept with him, which somehow she didn't which is more perplexing in the remake because well, you know Frank Sinatra, right? The only real difference is the first is in Philadelphia (hence the name) and the second is set in Newport during the weekend of the Newport Jazz Festival which also gives the characters an excuse to sing. Did I mention High Society has Louis Armstrong and songs by Cole Porter? Also, no opening scene where Dexter shoves Tracy to thr ground, which is odd in a film with Bing Crosby. Come on, people, you were thinking it, too. Anyway, it's a great opening scene, no dialogue, says everything about these two characters. In High Society you get Satchmo.



Which is awesome, but clearly this is a different kind of film, which is interesting considering so much of High Society is lifted straight out of The Philadelphia Story. Whole reams of dialogue, sometimes it looks like the costumes. There isn't one thing in High Society that doesn't come from The Philadelphia Story, other than the singing. Anyway, I love the way the jazz band functions as the Greek Chorus in this film.

But honestly, who thought, "Sure, we'll put Bing Crosby in the Cary Grant part." By what stretch of the imagination should Bing Crosby be in the Cary Grant part? It's the only part of this remake that seems off, like couldn't Grace Kelly do better? Oh, well, I guess when Frank Sinatra is in the supporting role, you have to go higher up the food chain of 1956. Meanwhile, I showed the following clip during a presentation about Frank Sinatra one time and the girl who had just presented on Bing Crosby glared at me the whole time. It was very hard not to say, "Bitch, none of my guy's kids killed themselves while they watched his movie."



Anyway, Katharine Hepburn and Grace Kelly. Isn't that the most impossible comparison? They're both elegant, they both were in films with Cary Grant (Come to think of it, Grace Kelly was also in Rear Window with Jimmy Stewart.) and they both scream class. Yet, they're so different. Katharine Hepburn is the tenacious, fiery redhead and Grace Kelly is the cool, impossible blonde. By the way, I love the way Grace Kelly plays drunk.

Then Jimmy Stewart and Frank Sinatra. How weird is that? Jimmy clearly has an aw, shucks kind of part in his performance even as he professes his loathing of the rich, we know he's really insecure. You never get that with Frank. Somewhere after the Oscar, I think Frank became incapable of playing insecure. For example, watch him in this scene with Grace Kelly.



And also, let us fully appreciate the supporting women in these films. Ruth Hussey in the former and Celeste Holm in the latter as Elizabeth Imbrie, playing the part of the spunky girl photographer with a dry sense of humor, who will still cut a bitch if she has to. Don't make her have to. Celeste also gets this song with Frank, which is one of my favorites. Actually, almost every song in High Society is one of my favorites. It's that kind of movie.



So, this is a rare remake in which we took a good movie and made another good movie. It's bizarre. I don't even know what to say. Opinions, anyone? Let me know in the comments section. Also, Bing Crosby apologists, let me know in the comments section.

Made Then Remade: The Thomas Crown Affair, 1968 & 1999

Obviously, it's been a while since my last post for which I apologize. I would like a moment to explain. First, an oversaturation of Paul Newman which I never knew could happen, but apparently it did. I'm still baffled. Second, a series of migraine attacks, which if you don't know suck. Like really suck. Third, the San Antonio Spurs and the NBA Playoffs. The mourning period attached to said playoffs and the reaffirmation of my new hatred for the Memphis Grizzlies. Fourth, I got sucked into Doctor Who. If you want my opinion read on and otherwise skip to the next paragraph: Eccleston sucks, Tennant is awesome, Smith is pretty good, I think Rose is way too stupid to be travelling through time, I don't trust that River Song chick, the new Daleks look like Dyson vacuums and I really want to see an episode about Space Florida. Like, what happened? Did Florida get rebuilt in Space? Why? Are there mosquitoes?

Okay, so that brings us to our new topic: Remakes. I feel there are two basic results for a remake. The first is what is conventionally thought by most serious film people: they're a travesty and sacrilege and the actors from the first film are rolling over in their graves. The second? They end up being quite good because we realize the first film wasn't that great to start with.




That is what I think is the case with the film in question. I'm going to admit some biases now. First, Steve McQueen: not my favorite. Second, Faye Dunaway: not my favorite. Third, Pierce Brosnan: favorite. Fourth, Rene Russo: favorite. By the way, I was wondering what happened to her and apparently she's Thor's mom or something. Hollywood is not kind.

So, The Thomas Crown Affair has the same plot in both films. Thomas Crown is a bored rich guy who steals things for fun. He gets investigated by a a sexy insurance investigator with an amazing wardrobe. And that is pretty much what they share. That and a song that will get stuck in your head FOR DAYS, possibly weeks. It also won an Academy Award. Never try to figure out what the lyrics mean, don't even attempt it.

But here's the thing that puzzles me. There are a lot of similarities between our two Thomas Crowns, but to me, Steve McQueen comes off like a bored rich asshole who needs Ritalin. Pierce Brosnan, not so much. Remember, this film was in the height of his James Bod days. Remember back when James Bond wasn't blond? My God, I hate Daniel Craig in that part. Why is he so hung up on that Vesper chick? I've wandered off topic again. Then again this could be because Steve steals money with a gun, which he doesn't need, but Pierce steals a Monet in a really clever way. They are a lot the same, they even say the same lines, however I really hate McQueen. If somebody could pin down why I hate Steve McQueen, I would appreciate it.

Then there are their leading ladies. Faye Dunaway is still not my favorite actress, but I found I didn't mind her too much. As mentioned, she and Rene Russo both have fabulous wardrobes, though I think Faye wore too many pairs of white tights. I mean, what was that about? I never saw that on Mad Men. Wait, is that next season? Stupid AMC. Rene Russo's wardrobe was designed by Michael Kors and she has an Hermes tote. How much do I love an Hermes tote? Both of the wardrobes are pretty amazing. Then the women are pretty cool. Faye was a symbol of the just burgeoning Feminist movement and social change. Rene is the other side of the coin, a working woman who finds herself somewhat disillusioned by the promises of feminism and the sexual revolution. Also, Rene is about the same age as Pierce in their film, Steve and Faye are eleven years apart, the former of which was noted at the time.

Central to both is the love story, which at times, doesn't seem much like one. Take the damn chess scene in the original. Okay, I get it. The chess is a metaphor for sex, sex is a metaphor for the game they're playing, why are we sitting here for days sucking on chess pieces and what is with the stupid kiss with the 360 degree thing going on? I feel like I'm saying this a lot, but we're not doing Shakespeare here. There's no need to be so damn dramatic. (I would have given you a clip, but apparently the scene is too damn precious to be on YouTube) They avoid this mistake in the remake. Instead of the chess scene, we have a dance sequence followed by some of the most impossible sex ever. Now, tip, if you're at a hotel, don't order the remake on the in-room movies and then have housekeeping walk in at the exact damn moment that scene takes place. They will think you have ordered something else and you will be trying to act like you don't see anything at all. "What, you mean this isn't The Lion King?" So, that's a drawback.



Then there's the ending and changing the ending is usually where you really piss off the purists. The 1968 one ends with Faye betrays Steve and he knew she would. The 1999 edition ends with Rene thinks Pierce has left her, then he really hasn't and we have a happy ending. Oh, I forgot the climax, which is very good.



By the way, if anyone knows John McTiernan, I still want to know how he stole the second painting. I listened to the commentary, he said that they eliminated a sequence explaining it, but I would like to know. Not to mention the art instead of the money gives the film a whole new level of interest and this is an art form based on spectacle. I get that the Faye Dunaway ending is sad and about the character, but I really don't care because at that point I was bored and pushing pause on my Roku remote every two minutes to see how much I had left. It's just one of those films I do not get and it's just the style, revolutionary in its days, hackneyed and tired in ours until Steven Soderbergh cleverly revived it for the Ocean's trilogy. Also, much like the Ocean's trilogy, this film gets a new layer of fun from the supporting cast notably Denis Leary and Frankie Faison as the cops working with Rene.

So, obviously, I've lost my mind, right? You probably love the original. Okay, tell me in the comments why the original is so much better. And why I hate Steve McQueen.

Also, just realized that everything I know about art comes from movies and TV. So, here's a video someone made from the Van Gogh episode of Doctor Who, which was written by Richard Curtis, who I wish would write more or at least let me know where to find his new stuff. So, again, if you know Richard Curtis, let him know.

Made Then Remade: Ocean's Eleven 1960 & 2001

Some things are regarded as sacred. Take Frank Sinatra for example. My good friend, Layla, views Frank and all his works as sacrosanct, not to be dared attempted. Indeed, the man is a hero to many. One of my favorite episodes of The Sopranos is where Carmela and Tony extoll Frank Sinatra as one of the greatest Italians who ever lived along with Christopher Columbus and Michaelangelo. Yet, why do people attempt to imitate Frank Sinatra? George Clooney has his part in this movie, Denzel Washington has his part in the remake of The Manchurian Candidate and why the hell did his son ever attempt to have a musical career? Your dad was FRANK SINATRA, for crying out loud! You could have been the coolest accountant ever, instead you chose to be the singer who will always be remembered as never quite as good as your dad. And what the hell is Nancy's deal? Okay, time to stop the rant about the Sinatra kids.





That brings us to Ocean's Eleven. Now, time to confess my affinity for George Clooney, except the guy keeps ending up with cocktail waitresses. Whatever, you can't handle me... Any chance to watch George Clooney in a gleaming, shiny anything I am pretty much up for so when this came out I was all for it. Now, as for the original, I too, hold an interest in Frank Sinatra, but I respect his singing far more than his acting because that was where he tried the hardest. Sinatra was a good actor when he wanted it like in From Here To Eternity, but other times he was just going through the motions or seeing how little he could get by with, the latter being the case in this film. Not that he didn't have cause because he had spread himself quite thin. Sinatra and the rest of the Rat Pack (Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., Peter Lawford and Joey Bishop, can't believe you didn't know...) were also performing two shows a night at the Sands in Las Vegas and campaigning for John F. Kennedy. If you believe the HBO movie The Rat Pack, Frank was also setting Jack up with the same call girl Momo Giancana slept with and also having Giancana buy all the union votes in Chicago. Have the Sinatra and Kennedy estates called for a cease and desist order yet? So, the movie has some legends surrounding it to say the least and the legacy of the fim probably owes mainly to this because it's certainly not about the film itself.

The plots are similar and that's about it. Sinatra's Ocean plots with his army buddies to rob a group of Las Vegas casinos on New Year's Eve by knocking out the power. Clooney's Ocean plots with a gang of thieves to rob three Las Vegas casinos on the night of a big boxing match, those casinos owned by the new boyfriend of Danny's ex-wife, Tess, played by Julia Roberts. Sinatra's movie has a wife, too, played by Angie Dickinson and I have no idea why she's in it at all. He's Frank Sinatra so he has no problem playing at getting his wife back while he carouses with other women, seriously. There's also a big part for Peter Lawford with some sort of mother issues, that could probably best be explained by his being JFK's brother-in-law and finding the script. No, not really a big fan of Lawford. Then Sammy Davis Jr. does a song...



No songs in the other one. And I think it also has a stronger supporting cast including Carl Reiner, Don Cheadle, Matt Damon and the late great Bernie Mac. There's the other issue which is that Ted Griffin's script for the 2001 version is actually a much stronger story, with a clear antagonist, a reason for the ex-wife being there and lots of fun moments. I actually have no idea what is going on most of the time in the original. Do we need this money or what? The 1960 version doesn't have a lot of fun to it except when Dino sings and is full of guys lamenting that they're going to rob a casino. We're not doing Hamlet here, people! It's just a heist movie. Actually, if you watch David Tennant do Hamlet there is way more funny in that than than the entirety of the 1960 Ocean's Eleven. Now, the movie relies heavily upon Steven Soderbergh's intensely stylized direction, but once again, not doing Hamlet here so it's fine. So, I'm going to risk really pissing off Layla and saying that I like the 2001 version much more than the 1960 version.

Then they made Ocean's Twelve and I would like to go ahead and pick a bone here. The ending makes no sense! Eddie Izzard builds holograms? Is that even a thing? Tess looks like Julia Roberts, WTF? If Tess looks like Julia Roberts, then Danny and Rusty should stop stealing things and just rely on the fact that they look like George Clooney and Brad Pitt and instead open credit cards in their names. They more or less saved their legacy with Ocean's Thirteen, which in the end pays tribute to Sinatra, as Clooney says to the villain Al Pacino after his comeuppance, "You shook Sinatra's hand. You should know better, Willy." And of course this musical moment...



So, do you agree with Layla that I've lost my mind and think the original is perfect in every way? Or are you with me and think the 2001 edition is decidedly better? Tell me you at least agree with me about Ocean's Twelve. Let loose in the comments section.