“Remake” is a particular branch of cinema. No other art can boast about remaking a previous artwork. No one would dare to “remake” a novel of Tolstoy, or a painting of Picasso, or a music of Bach. All of these arts transcend time and space, and belong in the collective cultural psyche to a single author. Not cinema. Probably because there is no other art so mercantile than cinema, and that,in the eye of Hollywood (where 99% of all remakes are made), movies have a best before date
Let’s get it straight : the unashamed purpose of a remake is to make money. And this goal is reached by two means :
- the first one is the adapt a story to a new market of customers who are too lazy/prejudiced to watch movies from another country or from another time. That comes from the presupposition that no new generation can really enjoy what the previous generation enjoyed, and that an American viewer cannot enjoy an European movie, let alone an Asian, or an African one. That’s unfortunately true for the biggest part of the mainstream audience. How could the lambda Kansas pop-corn muncher sympathise with Tony Leung in Infernal Affairs ? Better have Di Caprio in The Departed !
- the second one is to give the old movies all the benefits of the technological arsenal of the time being, in order to make it more believable and/or more entertaining.
From the box-office point of view, the alpha and omega of Hollywood, the new version of Clash of the Titans directed by Louis Leterrier is already a success. Does it make of the movie a great movie ? Certainly not. However, the thing with this new version is not that the original was really such an awesome piece of art that it provoked any outcry in the mind of the public. After all, who remember anyway the Desmond Davis’s version, and… who remember Desmond Davis anyway !
Truly, the only reason why Clash of the Titans is remembered, cherished, and revered, is because of the Ray Harryhausen stop motions effects : Pegasus, the Kraken, the giant scorpions and vulture, and Medusa. Actually, all these old-fashioned effects rendered the Greek mythology much more appealing and credible than all the CGI effects of the new movie. For example, Harryhausen’s clay and stop motions made of Medusa the ugliest and scarriest opponent of Perseus, a kind of disgusting slug, evil embodied, making of the scene a piece of suspense and horror you wouldn’t even dream of in your most horrible nightmares. While, with Louis Leterrier, the Medusa has been given the face of a Russian model, and the body of sleek CGI snake. Basically, it’s an action scene, and there is no more horror and suspense.
The poetry and eerie atmosphere of the first one is also lost in translation. For example, the fight with the scorpions emerged from the blood of Medusa. There were three scorpions. Why three ? Simply because Calibos pierced the Medusa’s head with a trident, making three wounds, and therefore three creatures. Simple as that. Louis Leterrier, on the contrary, have the scorpions pop-up on the screen like pop-corn in the micro-oven : bigger, stronger, and faster ! The result is you have to keep your eyes on the screen all along, because if you miss one frame, you are lost in the middle of the battle and there is few chance to catch up with it thereafter.
The only creature who benefits the new technological improvements is Pegasus, who is curiously under-used.
The new script follows the line of the first : Perseus has to save Andromeda and for this he fights the Scorpions, the Stygean Witches and the Medusa in order to crush the Kraken. The major change is that the focus has shifted from the duo Perseus-Andromeda. The new movie is not anymore so much about delivering Andromeda, who is as passive as a princess can be in a knight movie. Andromeda is seen at the beginning, and saved of course at the end, but that’s all. She is not even deemed important enough to marry by Perseus. Or rather : Perseus doesn’t deem himself important enough to marry her. This is the most drastic change in the story : it’s all about Perseus and his relations with Gods and Humans. Perseus has a (wannabe) huge dilemma because he has no less than 3 fathers : Zeus, Acrisus the king of Argos, and a fisherman who saved him as a baby from the sea and raised him until manhood. This awkward dysfunctional family status puts Perseus at the forefront of the fight between Gods and Humans. Guess which side he will choose in the end ? Yes, exactly, you’re right. It might actually be moving, if only Worthington would be a more convincing actor. Not that Harry Hamlin was particulary such a great Perseus, but at least… he had a more Greeklish haircut than the Marine-haircut of Worthington, who looks like he jumped on the set as soon as he has left the Avatar shooting !
To finish with, yes, comparing the two movies is like comparing David with Goliath. The Louis Leterrier movie provides much more action, and delivers convincing special effects and action packed sequences, and even tries to wrap the plot up with a farfetched psychological (not to say Freudian) subtext. Will it convey more thrills ? Probably. Will it endear kids to Greek mythology like the first one ? I doubt it. Of course, i may be wrong… because i belong to another generation and I am prejudiced against anyone messing up with my childhood fantasies !
April 29th, 2010 → 5:35 pm @ Hervé THOMAS
0