So I recently went to see the remake of Arthur and then after seeing it caught a showing of the original on TCM. A few things struck me instantly.
First, the original (and the remake for that matter) was not very funny or very good. I had seen the original before, in fact multiple times. Yet rewatching it the film was not in any way funny or endearing at all. So I have to ask myself why? My first thought is that times have changed. We live in a different era and the remake showed us just that. Every time the protagonist did something scandalous it was posted to facebook, tweeted, caught by the paparazzi. Also, our economy of the last several years has made a foolish money such as Arthur not only pathetic and inappropriate but just sad. Society today has a false facade of caring and such wastefulness is looked upon disdainfully. Finally, the attitudes of society towards the happy drunk has changed. Due to the rise in AA, MaDD and other such entities against slovenly drinking such a protagonist is pitied not tolerated. With all these things said though, what about just looking at them as films and removing societal influences? And there is where I strike upon what is wrong with these two films, at least to me.
Both films fall directly into the postmodern period of filmmaking. Such films make use of a high concept marketability (an easily summarized film synopsis of 25 words or less), they use other entertainment mediums to help sell the product, narrative and writing are disregarded for cheap laughs and visuals and stars become preeminent in the film. Looking at these traits, it can easily be seen why the films fall flat and do not hold up.
In Arthur (1981), what traits of postmodernism are used? High concept is definitely in play. The films star Dudley Moore was riding high after success in Foul Play (1978) and 10(1979). So the film can easily be summed up with "Dudley Moore plays a rich drunk that gets into adventures, falls in love and beats the odds". The film employs the use of Grammy winning artists Burt Bacharach and Christopher Cross who co-wrote the films main song, Arthur's Theme. Bacharach of course is well known but Cross had won five Grammy awards in 1979 and much like Moore fits the "hot" label perfectly. The writing for the film leaves much to be desired and the of course the film also features John Gielgud and Liza Minnelli, two well established stars.
Arthur (2011) copies not only the same script but almost the same formula as the original. The film tries to capture the rising star of Russell Brand who much like Moore has had a string of successes lately. The film can easily be packaged and sold due to Brand alone. They throw in some other big stars such as Helen Mirren, Jennifer Garner and Luis Guzman. The most egregious offense though is that the filmmakers for this remake use almost the same script as the original. No improvements, no changes. It's not a complete shot for shot remake but the lack of originality is offensive.
This is not to say that neither film has any redeeming qualities to them. Arthur(1981) has a great performance by Moore as the alcoholic, fun-loving Arthur and the performance of Gielgud as the droll butler Hobson is spot on. The song by Cross et al is great, in fact I've had it stuck in my head for weeks. As for Arthur(2011) i happen to have enjoyed it a little more and thought it a bit funnier than the original. Russell Brand is one of those actors with a charisma and intelligence that makes it hard not to watch him while on screen. And he probably is more of a natural comedian than Moore, hence more laughs.
After all this writing what is my intent? Well, unless it is a really great film, don't do a remake. Or, don't do a remake unless you want to make it your own. Or maybe, just maybe, writing works? :)
No comments:
Post a Comment