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.

The Paul Newman Retrospective: What Could Possibly Go Wrong? The Towering Inferno: 1974

Welcome to the second edition of The Paul Newman Retrospective. As promised, I won't shy away from the crap films and this is the first one. This film was nominated for an Oscar for Best Picture. ARE YOU EVEN KIDDING ME???! Luckily, The Godfather Part II came out that year and obviously that won, but the fact that it was even nominated frightens me. Just so you know, I'm not even bothering to learn the names of the characters in this movie, so I'm just going to refer to them with the names of the actors playing them.

So, The Towering Inferno. The screenplay was adapted from two novels about giant buildings that burn down so there is your first sign about the quality of the story. My first sign that this movie wouldn't go well? There's a long helicopter ride during the credits. Anytime, there's a long helicopter ride at the start of a movie everyone is doomed. Also, that's how MASH starts. So, in this film Paul Newman plays the architect of the world's tallest building. He gets off the helicopter somehow managing not to look ridiculous in a deep orange henley. He meets up with the building's owner, William Holden, where we learn Paul wants to retire from making stupid buildings, but he puts it differently. Anyway, he meets up with his lady friend, Faye Dunaway and you can guess what happens. Still, Faye is having problems deciding if she wants to take the promotion at her job or go off to the country somewhere. I was wondering what the hell her problem was until I thought Paul was talking about going to Montana. Gee, Paul, Montana? We couldn't just live wherever Steve Jobs lives, I could commute and you could stay home with the imaginary kids? If you think I thought that too far through, then you are obviously overestimating the amount of intellect required to watch this movie.

Not that there aren't plenty of plots. There's something about a deaf mom and some kids. Robert Wagner tries to run faster than fire. Fred Astaire tries to con a lady and O.J. Simpson rescues a cat. Yes. O.J. Simpson rescues a cat. Oh, and the priest from the Thornbirds buys some cheap wires which make the building catch on fire.

Then, there's Steve McQueen. When the building ineveitably catches fire, fire chief Steve comes to stop it. Good luck. More interesting than the plot of this film is the behind the scenes bitch fest that Steve McQueen had over the size of his part versus Paul Newman. He wanted billing over Paul Newman. Okay?? They settled on diagonal billing so it was like they both had top billing. Also, Steve was mad Paul had twelve more lines than him. Really, Steve, really? And then he had to carry Scott Newman in a scene. Scott Newman plays a fireman, one of his few roles. If you're wondering why you haven't heard about Scott Newman, it's because he very sadly died of a drug overdose in 1978. I know, way for me to bring down the mood. Anyway, if you're bored watching this movie by the time Steve McQueen shows up, I found it entertaining to finish all of Paul Newman's lines to Steve with the word "bitch."

I won't bore you with the other four million things that go wrong with this building and rescuing the people in the building. Let me just tell you how they decide to put out the fire: THEY BLOW UP THE WATER TANKS ON THE TOP FLOOR. First, how can that possibly work? Second, why are the water tanks on the top floor of the tallest building in the world? Does that make any sense?



Per my mom, I'd like you to note the level of badass with which Paul and Steve confront a giant wall of water that could drown them. They're like, "Oh, I'm just a little wet."

Normally, I would try not to give you a video someone made off YouTube, but the song in this film "We May Never Love Like This Again" by Maureen McGovern did win the Academy Award for Best Song that year, so I feel I must share it with you as an example of music in 1970s disaster cinema. Also, this video saves you the trouble of watching the film and I do what I can for my readers. Also, the lyrics are right there at the bottom, so sing and sway and wave your lighters/cell phones.



So, Roger Ebert says this movie does not suck. Therefore, I ask you, have I gotten it wrong? Is this in fact a good movie? Were you worried about that cat O.J. saved too? Did Paul Newman make Steve McQueen his bitch? Tell me any and all of your thoughts about this movie in the comments section. Also, whose brilliant idea was it to build the world's tallest building in San Francisco, the most eathquake-y city on Earth?