REMAKES: Hollywood pulls ideas from the same bag.
By Cole Nelson, Diversions Editor
Last year—November to be more precise—I addressed the issue of contemporary movies and their most common cinematic outlet: the extensive (and fairly overdone) blockbuster. I stated that “the majority of popular contemporary movies are either overflowing with intense fight sequences or are glorified remakes of considerably timeless films.” In doing so, I expressed a certain amount of distaste for the way Hollywood has ended up. An action-packed film hits the big screen nearly every month. That is ridiculous! However, I ignored a very large and profitable branch of modern cinema: the glorified remakes of old (or older) Hollywood films.
Now, it seems that if audiences continue to flock to the theaters to donate their money to these updated stories, this shouldn’t be a problem at all. I, for one, am particularly excited for the Godzilla movie to be released (largely because of Bryan Cranston, but that’s another story). I don’t think the problem lies in the fact that these movies are being made, but rather in the fact that there is a demand for these movies that troubles me.
The issue with the blockbusters, as I argued in my previous article, is that they have been stripped down to a worn-out formula: a very dull version of Joseph Campbell’s archetypal hero journey. Of course, archetypes do become archetypes for a reason. They have an intrinsic quality about them that is universally attractive. Nonetheless, when you have multiple variations of the same story being widely released and idolized only for their technical attributes rather than criticized for their exhausted plots, you end up with a largely deceived audience.
Same goes with the remakes. Hollywood has simply found a template of monetary success to form yet another derivative film and, unfortunately, the masses buy into it. Of course, in our modern day and age, we have much more technological insight to make Robocop even more extravagant than he once was an impressive 27 years ago. And, certainly, Spiderman was severely missed by his fans when he didn’t make a single appearance in a film for nearly five whole years! What would we ever do without him?
Of course, there are always exceptions to such statements. As I said before, there is something quite exhilarating about the new Godzilla that has me anxiously awaiting its wide release even though it contradicts my opinion. Perhaps I have finally fallen prey to those Hollywood schemers—but I do hope that is not the case.
Regardless, it seems to be a bold but increasingly relevant accusation to say that Hollywood has expended all of its ingredients and cooked up a static meal that will forever be prominent as long as people are hungry for it. And there lies the problem. People are hungry for it. Hollywood is simply doing its job to supply the people with what they want (with exception to the occasional film that is often highlighted at awards ceremonies), whether it is strictly for its audiences or for the profit.
I whole-heartedly agree with French director François Truffaut’s demand that, “a film either express the joy of making cinema or the agony of making cinema. I am not at all interested in anything in between.” I think we can simplify the cinematic age we are in as being the in between stage, one that expresses neither the joy nor agony of filmmaking. Rather, it expresses very little other than the thirst for monopolizing an industry that so largely drives the creation of modern films. Cinema should be produced as an art form of highly prestigious effect and utilized as such.
As always, I will forever rely on the more talented, creative, inspired and usually independent filmmakers and storytellers to relieve us of the trend of borrowed modern cinema and provide us with something that is much more genuine and immensely personal, something that truly expresses the joy and agony of itself.
Photo courtesy of www.guardianlv.com