It is my considered opinion . . .

Moderators: Sue Sue Applegate, movieman1957, moira finnie, Lzcutter

Post Reply
User avatar
mrsl
Posts: 4220
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 5:20 pm
Location: Chicago SW suburbs

It is my considered opinion . . .

Post by mrsl »

.
I have discovered that when watching a remake, you must have NOT seen the original. I guess it's just human nature to compare, but often there is absolutely no comparison that is fair and just. I just saw the remake of Winchester 73 with Tom Tryon and John Saxon. Tom is definitely no Jimmie Stewart, but since the story has been completely re-written, there is no need for him to be similar. Most remakes are fairly good movies in their own right, but the acting and direction are so vastly different between the 40/50's and now, even when the script is followed to the T, the remake comes off lacking somehow. In the original Winchester, Shelly was a seemingly virginal young bride who thought of Stewart and his side kick as "nice people" simply because they had treated her like a lady, and though she may have been a "goo" girl, she wasn't a saint. On the other hand Barbara Luna was a tough, saloon/upstairs girl from the get-go. Shelly brought a kind of warmth to the part which pulled you into her charming psyche, whereas Luna leaves you not really caring what happens to her.

Although I still haven't seen Lee Marvin's Monte Walsh, I expect he also was able to bring a kind of caring from the audience because Lee is good at that, but Tom Selleck didn't play it for sympathy. The only time he really showed feeling was when his lady (?) died. But again, seeing this version, by Selleck I feel this is a remarkable study of the changing times of the American cowboy and how he was forced to deal with it, and I imagine many of them couldn't.

Can anyone give me any more thoughts on the subject?
Anne


***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *

]***********************************************************************
User avatar
Lomm
Administrator
Posts: 531
Joined: September 5th, 2013, 9:14 am

Re: It is my considered opinion . . .

Post by Lomm »

I have to basically take it as a clean slate or I spend the whole film comparing the two. It's hard, especially if the original (as it so often is) was a superior take on the subject.
User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5515
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Re: It is my considered opinion . . .

Post by movieman1957 »

I quite agree you kind of have to take it as new or you do compare. Another example is Audie Murphy's "Destry." Murphy is pleasant enough on his own and handles that genial character that was Jimmy Stewart in the original but best not to make comparisons between the two. The rest of the supporting cast won't hold up to the original but if you leave the comparison alone it is pleasant enough entertainment.

"Monte Walsh" was mentioned and I wonder if others had the same experience when seeing a newer version first. I liked Selleck's better. More of a sense of familiarity that Marvin's was different and suffered for my comparison. (No doubt unfair to Marvin.)

The 1966 version of "Stagecoach" is just asking for comparisons especially as it was made when the original would have been on television. Maybe that would be an instance where you see that one and discover the Ford/Wayne version and maybe have a different opinion of the first.

Remakes are tricky. Back in the 30s and 40s they would have made them likely counting on the audience never remembering the original but often coming our pretty well. "The Maltese Falcon", "Holiday", "Gaslight", etc.

Then when you come to "Rio Bravo" and "El Dorado" would only Hawks be enough to remake his own film? Maybe in the same way Hitchcock did with "The Man Who Knew Too Much" as who else would try?

Then if you want to spend an entire weekend with "A Star Is Born" have at it.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
Post Reply