11 February 2011 / Film The difference between remakes and remakes
This is just me thinking out loud.
There's been a lot of press coverage surrounding the Coen brothers' new film True Grit, and the word "remake" has been bandied about a lot by the critics and twitics. I'm a little uncomfortable with that word, as it serves as a blanket term for two very different kinds of film-making, and insinuates one with the qualities of the other.
Currently, it refers to both a film adapted from another film and a film adapted from another medium that happens to have been adapted before. The latter is a reinterpretation of a common source, much like a new interpretation of a play. In theatre, new stagings are welcome, but in cinema it's often perceived as a symptom of a dearth of new ideas.
The ambiguity of the word often complicates the reading of a film. For example, some are comparing the 2010 True Grit to the 1969 True Grit, as if that was the source material, as if it were the definitive version. They should be viewed as distinct, and equally valid interpretations of Charles Portis' original text.
So we need a new word. And before anyone suggests it, I should point out that "reimagining" is not valid, as it's become synonymous with "appalling drop in quality of Tim Burton films".
Reader Comments (2)
I'm going to go for 'Meiosis'.
Borrowing from wikipedia on meiosis cell division: "Each of the resulting chromosomes in the gamete cells is a unique mixture of maternal and paternal DNA, ensuring that offspring are genetically distinct from either parent."
So taking the metaphor into True Grit, it has the DNA from Charles Portis and the DNA of the Coen's, creating something new and unique. The '69 Wayne version is similar because it shares one 'parent', but it makes the two films more like step-brothers, related but clearly distinct from each other.
Well that's my idea anyway. It's an interesting topic though Daniel, and I have to admit I've never really considered the hypocrisy between the theatre and cinema over the 'remakes' issue.
I don't think a film like True Grit should even be thought of as a "re-imagining" because (in my opinion) that conjures up a thought that it's still somehow based on the first film which came out. It should be an entity in it's own right.
I agree with Matthew, the film both share the same parent but they're not the same film, nor should they be related.
Though this doesn't mean they can't be compared as pieces of cinema, they just shouldn't be reduced to what people call a "remake". They can be compared because they're the screenwriters, directors, actors etc own take on creating a film based on the novel, not because they share the same name.
This is something I've never really "thunk" about, but it's interesting.
On a digression, really excited about watching that True Grit remake on Wednesday.