LUCIDMEDIA

Sentimentality, the Re-make, and the Original

Written by Sebastian Frye Friday, 25 May 2007 05:55

The film re-make is often the worst offender of nostalgia. The sequel ranks up there with it, but the re-make usually signals an attempt by a corporation to stay afloat in a creative drought. The classical; example of this is the 1973 remake of Lost Horizon. The 1937 film, directed by Frank Capra starring Ronald Colman, Jane Wyatt and Sam Jaffe, tells the story of a group of travelers who find a utopian society in the Himalaya mountains, based upon the James Hilton novel of the same name. Its Streamline Moderne sets along with Capra's direction give this movie a somewhat dark tone. In 1973 it was remade as a musical; however, it was a notorious critical and commercial failure. It was simply a collection of corny melodramatic scenes, endless philosophy lectures and silly musicial numbers.

Modern examples are numerous. Stanley Donen's Charade is fine tribute to the master Hitchcock, as good as Hitchcock himself would have directed. It is full of Hitchcock's style and typical suspense. Many Hitchcock lovers may enjoy it. The 2002 remake The Truth about Charlie, directed by Jonathan Demme, comes in a distant second. Although Demme kept the original story and concept his execution is far from being reminiscent of a great Hitchcock production. Another example is the 1956 production of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers which is an excellent criticism of McCarthy's era as well as a damn good horror flick. Philip Kaufman's 1978 version is also good. He skillfully mixes horror and black comedy. The third version however is a bit lame, and we'll see have to wait and see how the upcoming fourth version turns out.

The lack of a good idea is what normally causes the major studios to turn to some hit from the past within it's own archive. That is how the initial idea of the remake is born. The reasons to do a remake can be numerous. An argument can be made that a remake is rooted in artistic intentions in correcting the lame interpretation of a good idea. However when the motivation is purely commercial in nature – as in most cases - as a plan to repeat the success of the original, the audience is exploited.

What about the use of sentimentality and nostalgia in other areas of art. In the fashion industry one pertinent example is the 1990's return of bell-bottom jeans. The jeans are a symbol to millions of a period in time when hope was abundant and paradise was just around the corner: the late 1960's and the early 1970's. Then in the 1990's, until the 2000's, they were re-introduced and gained in popularity, albeit in a much altered form. The pants themselves took on a 'sexier' appeal, renamed the “boot-cut” or “flare” jean, and were worn by young teenagers and adolescents.

The question which strikes me is, why all of a sudden a whole new generation was taking the bell bottom and stripping it of its symbolic power. No longer was the jean an homage to a time when peace was on people's minds, instead it was being worn as a trend. The jean wasn't improved at all. In the 90's all it ended being was an ineffective design for a pant devorced from any social meaning.

A notable fashion statement, on the other hand is the wild “cut-and-paste” style which many people are adopting. The style disregards one individual aesthetic and instead adopts every form of clothing from any period of time or culture. Next to a gap shirt someone will be wearing fur lined boots, a white leather mini-skirt, a hand-knitted inuit designed scarf, a pair of nylon stockings, tortoise shelled sun-glasses, and be strung with pearl necklaces and plastic beads. It is a good example of unsentimental fashion choices. It adopts everything and in doing so is both accepting of all possibilities and rejecting of mass stereotyping.

The final form which often uses the re-make as a creative endevour is music. However in music a failure is often at the fault of the artist and not at the decision to re-make it in the first place. What does come into question though is the pertinence to re-create these apparant classics. In music the recording is the immortal document of the moment, to relive a moment because of your admiration for it is essentially a nostalgic purpose. The album is Pussy Cats by Harry Nilsson, covered song-for-song in 2006 by The Walkmen. Pussy Cats, is famous for no particularily good reason other than the singer Harry Nilsson rupturing his vocal chords and refusing to tell producer John Lennon. What results is a less than pleasing serving of 5 original songs and 5 “cover” songs. Now, to be fair the remake was originally intended as joke by the Walkmen. It eventually grew into a highly anticipated full album promoted by the record label. In this case the album should have remained an “in” joke, released as a limited item for enthusiasts of the band.

A more successful release, in my opinion, is the all “covers” album We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions released in 2006 by Bruce Springsteen; it is one of artisic homage to Sprinfgsteen's folk roots and at the same time being a social commentary. All 13 songs on the album are folk songs once made famous by the inimitable Pete Seeger. Springsteen uses a hand picked band of professional musicians to produce an album which sounds like a family gathering – an extremely musical family that is, playing because they believe in what they are singing. In this case Springsteen develops each song in a way that one could never imagine them otherwise. They become part of the canon of songs that can stand alongside any original performances available, either by Seeger or by others. The re-interpretation of “We Shall Overcome” clearly contains political and social importance relevant to the day, making the endevour to cover these songs not only an homage to their historical significance but also to make them as relevant today as they were 40 years ago. The artistic merits remains in the recording of these “covers” too, they become another landmark in the Springsteen catalogue and widen his scope musically instead of narrowing it.

What we as consumers require is the ability to discrimenate the good from the bad; to realize when studios and labels are compensating for their lack of originality by producing a re-hashed original. Sentimentality and nostalgia cloud our judgement and allow our critical filters to by bypassed by what at times can only de decribed as “crap”. Advertising and promotion should never convince us, simply by advertising and promotion, that the remake contains any enlightenment which isn't already available in the original. We make our artistic choices based on who we are and the time we live not simply on our memories.