The “Foreign” Remake
a.k.a. You’re Too Fucking Lazy To Read Subtitles - Can’t we just put Al Pacino in it and make sure they talk American all the way through it? Or maybe Tracy Morgan and Chris Rock could do it. Them guys is funny.
Americans would rather not read. This is not a supposition, it is incontrovertible truth according to Hollywood’s powers that be. Reading requires effort and patience. A simple and basic American ethos is that neither of those “skills” should have anything to do with going to see a movie. Once Al Jolson yelped his vaguely racist, out of tune impression of Edward G. Robinson doing an off-Broadway musical in 1927’s The Jazz Singer the majority of the American movie-going masses ceased having to read title cards. The talkies were here to stay and the necessity to read at the movies existed no more. As of that moment the patience and the ability of the average American film watcher to read during a film has decreased exponentially. Ever notice how a narrator will read a letter during an important plot point in a film instead of letting the viewer read it? You might get the idea this is done for dramatic effect - and that’s partly true. It’s mostly done though to keep John Q. Jackass from having to read on his night off work.
When a European or Asian film is very successful overseas, a film distributor who wants to show that film in the US can do one of two things. They can a) Subtitle the film in English so the actors onscreen speak their original dialogue in its native language and the audience reads subtitles for the dialogue in the film. American film distributors believe that this method has it’s place. It’s called, New York/Los Angeles/Cannes/Netflix. In other words, on about 4 screens for a sum total of six days and after that go hit up the folks at the Criterion Collection. The second option is that they can b) dub in the dialogue. This involves bringing in English speaking actors reading a translation of the dialogue and any inflection or verbal emotion included in the speaking portion of the original performance are gone and replaced with the new “English” version. One could surmise that the primary complaint against this method would be to lose the authenticity of the original performance. However, in the eyes of studio heads, the fact that the audio and the moving actor’s mouths do not match up can lead to only two conclusions: 1) The mouth to audio contrast draws a focus to the fact that this film wasn’t originally made in English! Which of course, means it is sub-standard to American films. 2) It looks like a hokier big budget version of a Bruce Lee film. In the eyes of the flick bosses, neither of those are good for receipts.
The conventional wisdom on foreign films breaks down something like this: “Why would I waste my time and energy on a Friday night watching something that I have to read? I didn’t plunk down $10.75 to be dropped into sophomore year English class again. I came to see a movie, not join a fucking book club!” Therefore, distributors and studios are left with the option to come up with other original ideas that will gross better than these foreign options that have already done well in box offices around the rest of the world, or they can make American versions of said foreign films. Hollywood, in it’s infinite laziness and crass assessment of the American populace has opted for the latter. I’ll be damned if it isn’t often very, very successful. A good example of this phenomena is the Al Pacino/Robin Williams remake of Insomnia. Made in 2002, the film is Christopher Nolan’s directorial follow-up to Memento. This film is actually pretty good but I can only speculate as to what possessed Nolan and the other principles to star in the remake of a film made just five years earlier in Sweden. At its core, the issue has nothing to do with which is the better film. That argument is moot. It’s not about which is better, it’s about which is more saleable. What is curious is why remake you'd remake it just five years later. The themes, setting and plot lines are nearly identical. One can deduce that language and “star power” are the only real discernable differences. Well, that and the fact that the original version grossed just north of $200,000 in the US while the remake raked in more than $67 million. Perhaps that is all we need to know about that particular cinematic equation.
Now, let’s go so far as to agree with the general supposed studio belief that the American movie goer is an uneducated slob who is afraid to watch movies in a language he cannot speak, and that he is too lazy and/or dumb to be asked to sit through a film with subtitles. I certainly know some folks who fall into this category, but I also know many, many people from Midwestern America so excited at the prospect of seeing an original idea they’re willing (or happy) to deal with the subtitles - but let’s just take it at face value that the average ticket buyer won’t abide subtitles. If we accept even that as truth, then someone is going to have to sit me down, talk to me like I’m a 5 year old and explain what the fuck the remake of Death At A Funeral is all about.
For those not in the know, Death At A Funeral is a 2007 comedic film that was shot in and takes place in the UK. It was critically well received, did reasonably well at the box office and was directed by a man named Frank Oz. That’s a name you might remember if say, you ever watched an episode of the Muppet Show (he’s the voice of Ms. Piggy) or saw films he directed like Housesitter, In & Out, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels or What About Bob? just to name a few. He also acted in a number of films including 5 of the 6 Star Wars movies. In other words, this is not an industry outsider. Yet, in 2010 Sony Pictures chose to remake the film. At its peak the original was shown on 260 screens while the remake was plastered across 2459 screens. Nearly ten times as much coverage. Did Sony really think their version was 10 times better? No, they just felt it was 10 times more sellable. That’s all that matters. Good has nothing, I mean absolutely jack shit to do with it. Just line up the suckers and we’ll get their buttery dollar bills. Though it's purely speculation on my part, I would guess the case is simply that this angle all a hell of a lot easier than writing an original script.
a.k.a. You’re Too Fucking Lazy To Read Subtitles - Can’t we just put Al Pacino in it and make sure they talk American all the way through it? Or maybe Tracy Morgan and Chris Rock could do it. Them guys is funny.
Americans would rather not read. This is not a supposition, it is incontrovertible truth according to Hollywood’s powers that be. Reading requires effort and patience. A simple and basic American ethos is that neither of those “skills” should have anything to do with going to see a movie. Once Al Jolson yelped his vaguely racist, out of tune impression of Edward G. Robinson doing an off-Broadway musical in 1927’s The Jazz Singer the majority of the American movie-going masses ceased having to read title cards. The talkies were here to stay and the necessity to read at the movies existed no more. As of that moment the patience and the ability of the average American film watcher to read during a film has decreased exponentially. Ever notice how a narrator will read a letter during an important plot point in a film instead of letting the viewer read it? You might get the idea this is done for dramatic effect - and that’s partly true. It’s mostly done though to keep John Q. Jackass from having to read on his night off work.
When a European or Asian film is very successful overseas, a film distributor who wants to show that film in the US can do one of two things. They can a) Subtitle the film in English so the actors onscreen speak their original dialogue in its native language and the audience reads subtitles for the dialogue in the film. American film distributors believe that this method has it’s place. It’s called, New York/Los Angeles/Cannes/Netflix. In other words, on about 4 screens for a sum total of six days and after that go hit up the folks at the Criterion Collection. The second option is that they can b) dub in the dialogue. This involves bringing in English speaking actors reading a translation of the dialogue and any inflection or verbal emotion included in the speaking portion of the original performance are gone and replaced with the new “English” version. One could surmise that the primary complaint against this method would be to lose the authenticity of the original performance. However, in the eyes of studio heads, the fact that the audio and the moving actor’s mouths do not match up can lead to only two conclusions: 1) The mouth to audio contrast draws a focus to the fact that this film wasn’t originally made in English! Which of course, means it is sub-standard to American films. 2) It looks like a hokier big budget version of a Bruce Lee film. In the eyes of the flick bosses, neither of those are good for receipts.
The conventional wisdom on foreign films breaks down something like this: “Why would I waste my time and energy on a Friday night watching something that I have to read? I didn’t plunk down $10.75 to be dropped into sophomore year English class again. I came to see a movie, not join a fucking book club!” Therefore, distributors and studios are left with the option to come up with other original ideas that will gross better than these foreign options that have already done well in box offices around the rest of the world, or they can make American versions of said foreign films. Hollywood, in it’s infinite laziness and crass assessment of the American populace has opted for the latter. I’ll be damned if it isn’t often very, very successful. A good example of this phenomena is the Al Pacino/Robin Williams remake of Insomnia. Made in 2002, the film is Christopher Nolan’s directorial follow-up to Memento. This film is actually pretty good but I can only speculate as to what possessed Nolan and the other principles to star in the remake of a film made just five years earlier in Sweden. At its core, the issue has nothing to do with which is the better film. That argument is moot. It’s not about which is better, it’s about which is more saleable. What is curious is why remake you'd remake it just five years later. The themes, setting and plot lines are nearly identical. One can deduce that language and “star power” are the only real discernable differences. Well, that and the fact that the original version grossed just north of $200,000 in the US while the remake raked in more than $67 million. Perhaps that is all we need to know about that particular cinematic equation.
Now, let’s go so far as to agree with the general supposed studio belief that the American movie goer is an uneducated slob who is afraid to watch movies in a language he cannot speak, and that he is too lazy and/or dumb to be asked to sit through a film with subtitles. I certainly know some folks who fall into this category, but I also know many, many people from Midwestern America so excited at the prospect of seeing an original idea they’re willing (or happy) to deal with the subtitles - but let’s just take it at face value that the average ticket buyer won’t abide subtitles. If we accept even that as truth, then someone is going to have to sit me down, talk to me like I’m a 5 year old and explain what the fuck the remake of Death At A Funeral is all about.
For those not in the know, Death At A Funeral is a 2007 comedic film that was shot in and takes place in the UK. It was critically well received, did reasonably well at the box office and was directed by a man named Frank Oz. That’s a name you might remember if say, you ever watched an episode of the Muppet Show (he’s the voice of Ms. Piggy) or saw films he directed like Housesitter, In & Out, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels or What About Bob? just to name a few. He also acted in a number of films including 5 of the 6 Star Wars movies. In other words, this is not an industry outsider. Yet, in 2010 Sony Pictures chose to remake the film. At its peak the original was shown on 260 screens while the remake was plastered across 2459 screens. Nearly ten times as much coverage. Did Sony really think their version was 10 times better? No, they just felt it was 10 times more sellable. That’s all that matters. Good has nothing, I mean absolutely jack shit to do with it. Just line up the suckers and we’ll get their buttery dollar bills. Though it's purely speculation on my part, I would guess the case is simply that this angle all a hell of a lot easier than writing an original script.
BTW, don’t even pretend that you like the Magnificent Seven better than the Seven Samurai. That shit won’t play here. Even Steve McQueen and Chuck Bronson know better.
No comments:
Post a Comment