Fascination with Reimagination

By Aaron 12/6/2007

Tin Man, a Sci-Fi channel mini-series, had its third and final two-hour segment last night. Tin Man? What is that? The Tin Man is a hip new telling of L. Frank Baum’s classic The Wizard of Oz. While this world remains full of magic, it is also much more “realistic.” Each of the classic characters is given a new take, but with an origin story explaining why they search for a brain, or a heart, or courage, or home. Think what The Wizard of Oz would have been like if Peter Jackson had directed it (but, in a rate turn, with a small budget). The series stars Zooey Deschanel as DG (can anyone guess what DG represents?), a young waitress thrust into the world of the O.Z. (the outer zone surrounding Emerald City). I loved the series – I thought it was surprisingly strong for a cable television original, and full of great acting (Alan Cumming and Richard Dreyfuss assume two of Baum’s classic characters). What is great about the series is how it explores more of the story, more of the world of Oz, as well as drawing parallels to our current world. Further, the story’s more detailed good vs evil story for each character makes that theme much more nuanced. And in the end – the movie never tries to replace a classic, but just serves to tell the story after Dorothy.

But…this article is not just about the Tin Man. The Tin Man just got me thinking. On one hand it yanked me into a world I had forgotten since childhood and gave it a new take. That new take fascinated me – I wanted to know all about that world – the evil queen, the old witch, the resistance…I loved all the new twists on old characters, themes, and locales. I soon realized this was not unique to the enthralling Oz, but to all other stories. Simply put, Hollywood reimaginings fascinated me. Beyond Oz (which also boasted the Broadway hit Wicked), there was Neverland (Hook), Shakespeare (Romeo + Juliet, among others), Sherwood (Nottingham), and the Iliad (O Brother, Where Art Thou). Each retelling offered something different, something distinctive that made it fresh. But you have to ask whether exploring these stories near and dear to our heart is a good thing or a bad thing. Does the adaptation contribute to the powerful message of the original? Or does the adaptation damage the classic? These are important questions to ponder as more and more movies are adaptations of classic stories.

Hook shows what happens when Peter Pan grows up and starts a family with Wendy’s granddaughter. You all know you wanted more Peter, and not those awful straight to video sequels Disney has been churning out to all the old classics. Played by Robin Williams, Pan is great, but his nemesis, Dustin Hoffman as Captain Hook is even better. Just like other adaptations, this movie thrives on characters we love. We hang with Peter as he tries to fly again, watch as Hook tries to turn his children against him, and as Tinkerbelle struggles with separation issues. This is great adaptation for parents, who have grown up themselves and might wonder what their childhood hero has going on, and for their kids, who will eat up the movie’s family humor and kid-heavy cast. I enjoyed that the story took us to Peter Pan’s future and showed that kids do have to grow up eventually, and they do need to take responsibility for their actions. The movie does more than just pay homage to the classic, it also builds on the most important theme that most kids probably missed in the original: family matters. Fun Fact: Phil Collins is in this movie!

Romeo + Juliet, my favorite of the “modern updates" of Shakespeare’s greats features a young Leo DiCaprio and Claire Danes as the two famous star-crossed lovers. The movie has a great feel to it with Baz Luhrman color, modern setting and great acting all around (John Leguizamo is great here). This movie is the poster child for Shakespeare remakes, such as 10 Things I Hate About You, O, and Scotland PA, among others that show how modern takes can be great. This adaptation isn’t really for kids, but teenagers can really get into this movie (then again, I’m basing this on experience from when Leo was THE heartthrob, post Titanic). As a modern remake, I couldn’t ask for much more. The movie shows kids how things have still not changed, how love has not changed. In that vein, the movie packs just as much punch as the original, contributing to our appreciation of The Bard’s words and imagination. Don't forget that Shakespeare in Love is another movie that plays off of The Bard's genius while West Side Story is now accepted at face value as West Side Story, but it was inspired by The Bard. Fun Fact: Paul Rudd is in this movie!

Nottingham has not come out yet, but will star Russell Crowe as the Sheriff of Nottingham. Not the classically evil antagonist, but as the law abiding protagonist in a new re-envisioning of the Olde English Tale. With Crowe’s boy Ridley Scott at the helm, this movie could be great. Always fascinated by the Robin Hood legend, I am really looking forward to this one. Again, with Scott, the director who brought you the bloody Gladiator, this movie is probably not for the kiddies. Investigating the other side of the coin makes for an interesting story and also a new story. We have seen Carl Elwes do comedy, Kevin Costner do Kevin Costner, and Erol Flynn do tights. All those stories have amounted to the same story, over and over again, Marian, the archery tournament, Little John at the bridge, the story NEEDS new blood to keep going. This story will SAVE the classic from boredom and renew interest in the greatest outlaw who ever lived. Fun Fact: In the Disney animated favorite, the Sheriff was going to be voiced by James Earl Jones when the animal was going to be a polar bear. Actually, I just made that up.

O Brother, Where Art Thou is another underappreciated flick that brings the Iliad to the 1930’s South. Packing a powerful punch of George Clooney (great performance), John Turturro, and John Goodman, among others, along with a great soundtrack, this is a damn good film. With songs and PG-type action, with a little bit of serious racism, this movie would probably be great for both parents and kids. Just like with old Will, breathing life into Homer has educational value. The movie contributes to our understanding of one of the greatest stories of all time by smoothing over the language, throwing in some great music, and making the story more accessible. Fun Fact: Bob Dylan has covered the movie’s big hit, ‘Man of Constant Sorrow.’ Go figure.

Could “Avatar” Win Best Picture?

By Brett Hogan

 

Last week, the trailer for James Cameron’s sci-fi experiment “Avatar” debuted. While initially unimpressed with the teaser, I began to wonder: Could this film win best picture? 

 

Buzz has been generating for this movie for years. Years. The technology to make this movie didn’t exist when Cameron conceived it, so he invented it. When is the last time you heard of a director spearheading the invention of anything? The casting started in 2005. Most movies these days, even epics, are done in half that time. I could go on. 

 

The most important thing to take away from all of this is that people are saying this will be the future of movies. Now, I don’t agree with the idea that CGI will become more prevalent than it already is. But I do believe that this will set the bar miles higher for sci-fi. I mean, that is what Titanic did. And that won some awards if memory serves.

 

I’ll bet you’re asking yourself, how can you even suggest that a film like this will win Best Picture when the initial trailer was nothing better than visual stimulation? Well, there are a couple of reasons. First, the Academy has expanded Best Picture to ten films. This doesn’t guarantee anything other than improved chances for most films on the cusp.

 

Second, after last year’s Oscars debacle, which saw the best film of the year, “The Dark Knight,” not only get shafted in awards but nominations as well, the Academy is pulling out all the stops to appease those with the loudest voices in the film industry, the fanboys. Now, the Academy probably didn’t lose anything because of that other than some viewers of the award show. Perhaps if people are again outraged with the winners or nominees, the heads of the Academy would lose their jobs. So this is all about the Academy protecting itself, which is not so outrageous.  

 

 

Third, there is an economic motive here. I’ve heard this film will cost $190 million, not counting the R&D costs associated with Cameron’s inventions or the cost of getting 3-D cameras into every theater in the country. The Academy will do everything in its power to get people into the seats and make this the next “Titanic” or “The Dark Knight.” But the Academy doesn’t have much power, besides nominating and awarding, so they will slap the “Nominated for Best Picture” moniker onto every commercial and print ad to get the people who didn’t believe the critics to relent and see this movie.

 

Of course, all of this is pure conjecture, and no revolutionary film (Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, etc.) has ever won the Best Picture category because it changed the game. Except maybe Titanic. But still, could this movie actually win? My answer is no but a nomination is certain and who knows what could happen from there. We’ll know more come February 2010.