In defense of the Hollywood remake

As all bloggers, writers, and creative people know, these days there is no such thing as a good blogger, writer or creative person. If there were, Hollywood would be experiencing a renaissance, using groundbreaking special effects and half-billion dollar budgets (the highest ever) to tell stories that so acutely describe the human condition that audiences would hug their loved ones tighter, laugh from the depths of their stomach, and cry as their hearts were broken on screen.

Instead, we get Alvin and the Chimpmunks, the Squeakuel.

Since the writer's strike in 2007-2008 in Hollywood, and certainly a little earlier, the movie industry has designed some brilliant methods to eliminate writing from the industry, focusing on reality TV programs or live stand-up, or--and here is the real killer--the Hollywood remake.

As a writer, I'm inclined to see only the doom and gloom of this. Indeed, the Hollywood remake truly had its decade in the aughts, and the trend shows no sign of stopping (check out this list of slated Hollywood remakes) in the tens. But Broadway plays and theater have made billions off of the same script acted by different players. Phantom of the Opera has had over 9,000 runs, but we never accuse Broadway of being unoriginal (Lion King excepted). Why do we have separate standards for Hollywood?

Part of the curse of modern-day Hollywood is that we finally have enough film history to produce remakes. Before the past twenty years, not enough time had passed, and not enough actual film history existed to remake a movie. Now, like pop-culture fashion--another mid-twentieth century product, we as a culture have created enough material that we can start to play with our old tastes, and make nuanced changes to create a new fashion. The same is true with pop-culture in general: GI Joe, Star Trek, etc. Renaissance it may not be, but it's certainly not a regression.

Movies born out of previously successful movies--sequels, prequels, spin-offs, adaptations--are another bane of the movie critics. God did not intend for their to be an Alvin and the Chipmunks sequel, but lo, there it is. Enough have happened that Casablanca 2 wouldn't shock most audiences. Indiana Jones 4, the Matrix sequels, the Lord of the Rings adaptations, all born out of previously existing characters, and as such, are considered lesser art?

Ancient history would say no. Greek tragedies--often the rubric for quality theater--often used the characters from previous plays to tell a new story. It's a simple, cheap and effective technique: the audience already knows the character, his back story, his wants and desires; they already know if he will be the hero or the villain and so the plot can progress with minimal character development. Many were built-in sequels. Agamemnon appears in at least six plays, almost all of which revolve around the well-worn tale of the Trojan war. As for reality TV, the Greeks and Romans fed Christians to lions. What is The Apprentice but an extension of that theme?

The truth is, these days Hollywood can afford the remake. To hear a tale told again, or hear popular characters suffer through another set of circumstances isn't the death of the motion picture. It's a sign of strength. It makes the industry money, and that money allows the Hollywood machine to churn out more movies than ever before. Original art is there, it's just buried underneath the flag-burning attention remakes get. Consider this: IMDB shows 27,456 movies were released in the USA in 2008. In 1942--the year Casablanca hit the silver screen-- that number was 2,063.

So, tragically, it appears good writing, blogging, and creativity does still exist, and has more outlets for expression than ever. What we as consumers choose to do with that all this new material is entirely up to us. I for one, plan on passing on the remakes and going for the newer stuff. At least until I'm ready to cuddle up with an old story I've heard before, but remade with more explosions and CGI.

A movie I won't be seeing: