reelreflections

[reelreflections]

Funny Games- A Second Chance for a New Audience

Haneke's reapproach to the work that had already been completed.

When it comes to recreating a film, many are quick to label it as lazy, but in this case, it's coming from the same director…

So now what?

Director Michael Haneke released his Austrian magnum opus Funny Games in the year 1997, but when faced with a lack of audience, he decided to take it into his own hands. And his answer was to remake the same exact film shot-for-shot with an American cast ten years later. The motive was simple- reaching an American audience would bring the film the attention that it had deserved.

Funny Games specifically follows a family of three as they're off to visit their vacation home, only to be met by two callous young men. What begins with a simple favor spirals into a series of sadistic "games," induced by the two men, ultimately traumatizing the family and putting them through a series of tasks to push their morality. As disturbing as the narrative reaches, when recreated for a Western audience, consumers still had the same hunger to view the exploration of violence and uneasiness of Haneke's work.

The Approach-

When approached at the Cannes Film Festival by film producer Chris Cohen regarding an English remake of the film, it came with no hesitation to Haneke to take on the project all over again. After the initial 1997 release, Haneke was well aware that his work didn't reach as big of an audience as he had aimed for. The lack of success from the initial release didn't even pertain to a language difference but rather to mass aversions to the use of subtitles. Regardless of the language, there has always been a hunger for violence to be fed to audiences, so Haneke was set to revisit his prior work that had already been completed. So what better to do than to make a shot-for-shot remake for the English-speaking audience, essentially playing it off as a critique of the ignorance that most Americans hold when approached with foreign films? 

Holding only a two-minute difference in runtime, Haneke was able to complete the English-speaking rendition of a film that he had already created 10 years ago. Now casting actors like Noami Watts and Tim Roth and reigning back in the appeal of disturbing violence, it was inevitable that this film was on its path to the vast audiences it was aiming for in the first place. 

When asked about his process and approach to his recreation, Haneke claimed that it was harder the second time around than originally. Though given a chance to go back and tweak any of the issues he may have found from the first time around, it was imperative to him that he still stood by the first film, regardless of how badly he wanted to fix some of his prior errors. There was no desire from Haneke to question any sense of authority when it came to taking on this "new" project.

Haneke described the process as "incredibly tough and laborious", simply due to the process of relocating sets and translating the Austrian script into one that would make sense to an English-speaking audience. Under eight weeks of filming and many hours put into post-production, Michael Haneke was finally able to produce a project he once already had. 

The Result-

Of course, when recreating a film shot-to-shot there are very minimal differences unless, of course, you care how many times Ann pounds out her steaks (4 times in the US version rather than 3!). What really set the movie on a different path was the performances coming from an entirely new cast. The strongest aid to the 2007 rendition was no doubt the English perspectives and their fresh approach to these twisted characters. 

If any change was implemented into the script, it was simply due to language differences, so the source material was not any different than what they were aiming to imitate. What held best was the performances that made microscopic tweaks which led to their performances standing on their own, ultimately creating a new film while imitating the source. 

As for audience reactions, many bit the hand that fed them the thirst for violence that the media had conditioned them to starve for. Mixed reactions flooded in after the 2007 release, some not even understanding the point made by recreating the movie in the first place. For those who originally loved the 1997 picture, many were met with satisfaction. Funny enough the 2007 rendition earned a 53% on Rotten Tomatoes, whereas the original had earned 73%.

Plenty of the audience who decided to watch the film back-to-back were quick to call it redundant, but I suppose that's what you'll get when you watch a shot-for-shot replica. With nothing else to analyze other than some of the crisper shots due to 2000's tech, it left some audiences at a loss. 

This further pushes the question- Do shot-for-shot remakes hold a point in Hollywood? 

Many remakes like Psycho (1998) and The Lion King (2019) inherently tanked when hitting theaters, so it's not uncommon for projects such as these to flop. I've come to conclude that Funny Games' (2007) semi-success came from the fact that its original creator still had full creative control (even when replicating it from an already successful go). With Haneke's ability to mask his film all over again with even more violence being craved, he was bound to gain more eyes upon his work regardless if they were positive reactions or not.

Though some may have disagreed with the whole approach to reproduction, Funny Games just ended up growing a bigger cult following- maybe not better reviews- but a bigger following. Which ultimately was what Haneke had reached for. It's hard to distinguish this project as a success or not, specifically because of the immense mixed reviews. But if Haneke's goal was to reach a bigger audience, he sure indeed did do that.

The bigger audience reached with familiar faces and a reintroduction of violence was exactly what Haneke had intended when revisiting this project.

So, maybe it was all just his extension of a morbid joke.

"Funny Games Is a Disturbing and Relentless Experience That Exists in Two Versions." MovieWeb, movieweb.com.

"Funny Games: Michael Haneke Interview." Cinema.com, cinema.com.

Leighton, John. "Funny Games Remake: The Strange Remake Experiment of Michael Haneke." Bloody Disgusting, bloody-disgusting.com.

"Why the Remake of Funny Games Beats the Original." Wicked Horror, wickedhorror.com.

"Funny Games U.S.: Are Close Remakes Pointless?" Just A Tad Blog, justatad.wordpress.com.

[reelreflections]

Old Boy- From the Top to a Flop

Where did it all go wrong when deciding to retell an already 'perfect' story?

!SPOILER WARNINGS!

Drawing the line between remake and reinterpretation.

God knows why the already cult classic film ‘Old’ Boy’ (directed by Park Chan-Wook, 2003) would ever need a reboot, specifically taken on by Spike Lee, but here alas I am writing this article, releasing a whole ten years after the original, 2013's Old Boy definitely holds an interesting take stemming from the blueprint. When Lee was asked about his approach to this project he claimed that he "wasn't scared", and what had originally pulled him to the idea was the story and the visuals that Chan-Wook was able to bring to life the first time around.

It's a pretty gray area when deciding if this is a remake or a reimagination, many even claiming that it was just simply "based on" its predecessor. But when we put the two films side by side, it's obvious the influence this holds, specifically recreating some frames shot-for-shot. Though many claim that Lee's take on the film is indeed an interpretation, it's difficult to see that when it follows the same plot and format as Chan-Wook's.

Though these two films revolve around the same story, they couldn't be any more different.

The Vast Variance

It's only fitting that I reveal the stories behind both films so we can dissect the contrasts. There's so much to cover, so let's touch on what's important….SPOILER WARNINGS!

Chan-Wook's take on Old Boy was originally inspired by the manga under the same name, taking on the main theme: revenge. Within the 2003 take, we follow Oh Dae-Su a drunken man and deadbeat father as he is being bailed from jail, soon to be mysteriously kidnapped and imprisoned for the next 15 years. Held over by the company of television and at the same dinner every single day, Dae-Su is then suddenly released back into society. With no whereabouts of who his captor was and their reasoning behind the imprisonment, Dae-Su set off on an expedition of conspiracy to seek out his imprisoners and give them their due vengeance.

Oh! He also makes efforts to find his daughter who he later finds out is his "lady friend" he's made during his travels.

To speed things up, we hit the end of the movie in which we find out that the man who had originally kidnapped Dae-Su was an old school friend, Woo-jin, in which Dae-Su had spread a lie about him and how he had sexual relations with his own sister, ultimately just leading her to commit suicide. So, in true revenge fashion, it was only appropriate for Woo-jin to hold Dae-Su captive for 15 years and then subconsciously set him up with his daughter to turn the original rumor back on him!

So with that, Dae-Su is left with the revenge being turned back on him and the heavy knowledge that he's been hooking up with his own daughter the entire time… yikes…

So, with that all out of the way, we are left with a so-called adaption of this incredibly complex and horrifying psychological thriller. After the super slow pacing and more than enough filler, we are met with Joe Doucett played by Josh Brolin, this being Lee's adaptation of Dae-su's character. The two men aren't too different from each other, both being drunkard assholes and weak fathers, except Joe this time seems to hold more morality when it comes to his parental role.

This time around, our main character is kidnapped under even more mysterious circumstances, only to wake up in a similar hotel-esque solitary confinement. Doucett soon realizes through a news report that his wife has been killed and his daughter adopted by another family. Once released after 20 years rather than 15, Joe is set on the same course of revenge. In similarity, Joe also comes across a love interest, which shares the exact same fate as Dae-su's daughter. As the film is brought to an end, Joe finds his captor, a stereotypical evil British man who had locked Doucett away for the same reasonings as the original.

With the same plot and endings pulled from each film, the debate on calling Spike Lee's rendition an adaptation rather than a remake is quite tricky.

Where It All Went Wrong

So why exactly is this "remake" so poorly held against its original?

First off, the Westernization of the original South Korean film is overtly sickly. Not only was the location of the film changed to be set in The United States, but each of the character's names was also reworked to fit a Westernized framework. The entire appeal of the film was also converted into fit more into a grungy, blockbuster action genre other than in the psychological thriller category.

What arguably went the most wrong with this remake is that it lost the original magic it held to begin with. For a story following a man in mysterious isolation for 20 years, you would think that the film would focus on his loneliness and the aftermath of this traumatic event, though we only get one scene barely encapsulating the dreaded sense of loneliness that is present originally. The lack of response coming from Joe to these huge plot points really disconnected him from the entire storyline overall. Maybe those extra five years rewrote Joe/Dae-su into a completely new character?

Some of the biggest appeal originating from Chan-wook's take was the stylization and choreography, specifically in the iconic hallway fight scene.

With the original being so closely inspired by the Old Boy manga, it was likely a quick translation of action that was implemented in the fight scenes. Due to Lee's version being a rendition of something that was already inspired by another source, it's likely that his edition didn't pull from the manga as much. With that, lots of the historical and cultural themes presented in the manga were likely not passed down, leading the film to lose its original magic and inherently flop.

Lee's take ended up being exceedingly inconsistent with the jumping of styles and even some obvious continuity errors that unimmersed viewers. Some audiences even claimed that the remake looked as if a multitude of directors had worked on it, hence the constant changes in colors and lights. The vast difference between each films really disappointed the followers of the original in a sense of it's lack of "whimsy" the second time around.

I confidently would consider this film a remake rather than a rendition, simply due to the story just being shifted to pertain to another audience instead of allowing the story to take a new approach on the nightmarish possibilities the world of Old Boy had originally created.

Screen Rant. (n.d.). Oldboy: The differences between the 2003 and 2013 films. Retrieved from https://screenrant.com/oldboy-movie-2003-2013-original-remake-differences-changes/

Dead Talk News. (2023, August 31). Oldboy: Park Chan-wook’s revenge tale through Spike Lee’s lens. Retrieved from https://deadtalknews.com/2023/08/31/old-boy-park-chan-wooks-spike-lee/

Fandor. (n.d.). Why Oldboy is a masterpiece. [YouTube video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G54C85rPjJo&ab_channel=Fandor

Reviewer. (n.d.). Review of Oldboy (2003). [YouTube video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVsPPfCHEh8&pp=ygUNI3Jldmlld29sZGJveQ%3D%3D

Unknown Creator. (n.d.). Oldboy ending explained. [YouTube video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7-_eCowDjs

[reelreflections]

Suspiria- Translating Terror For a Western Audience

Pulling back the curtains at Berlin's Markos Dance Academy in two different periods.

!SPOLER WARNINGS!

What fraction of a film must be accounted for when trying to remake it?

Dario Argento 1977's masterpiece Suspiria, was truly one of its first, implementing an untraditional aesthetic to horror films. But when it comes to 41 years later and it's Luca Guadagnino's turn to put a new spin on it, it couldn't be more different than the original. With the casting of some of today's most popular scream queens and a completely different approach to visuals, a new Suspiria was born (2018).

Contrast of Covens-

In each Suspria (both 1977 and 2018), we follow Suzy an American dancer as she travels overseas to join the prestigious Markos Dance Academy in Berlin, Germany, also referred to as the "Tanz Akademie" in the predecessor. As Suzy's studying progresses a sinister element of the school begins to unravel as several students are being mysteriously murdered. Each of the headmistresses and masters seems not to pay much mind, allowing much more disturbing themes to arrive. It is soon to be revealed that the women behind this school are made up of a coven of witches, thirsty for a sacrifice that would keep their headmistress, Helena Markos, alive.

The original 1977 rendition stems from the book "Suspiria de Profundis" written by Thomas De Quince, pulling many themes of opium hallucinations, hence the psychedelic-esque lighting the movie is quite known for. This vivid technicolor nightmare was no doubt the most iconic element of the original, alongside the thrilling rock-inspired score done by the Irish band Goblin. If it wasn't for the thrilling storytelling, the visuals themselves would carry the entire movie, being able to hold the viewers in a complete trance during the complete hour and thirty-eight-minute runtime.

Now, Luca Guadagnino's take on Suspiria isn't too far off plot-wise, but the aesthetics are found to be quite to opposite of what made the original iconic in the first place. Specifically, nearly every scene is lit with low lighting and complemented with bleak colors, leaving some of the brightest colors just to be found in Suzy's (Dakota Johnson) striking red hair. As for the vital element of music, Thom Yorke of Radiohead was the one behind it all. Though quite another iconic musical take, something still didn't necessarily click with mass audiences. Many also claim that the acting the second time around had great improvement compared to the first. This most likely being a nod to the fact that the 1977 version was shot in French and then dubbed over in English, which may leave an unsatisfying element to some audiences due to the unmatched audio.

The 2018 rendition holds a vast amount of differences, leading many to question if it's a remake or more of an homage to the original. Though the basic elements of the plot are still present, everything else has been thrown completely out of the window. Luca's intentions of not directly recreating the original imminently shows when the subplots come into play. Specifically, his version touches a lot more on historical elements of Germany, whereas the original stayed confined within the school and not venturing out too far from it. Guadagnino's take also features a lot more dance pieces. One of the most iconic routines includes the character Olga as her body begins to contort and snap, mostly contributing to the more gory take of this film.

!TW GORE!

With this new "art-house" inspired take came the biggest difference of them all other than the aesthetics; violence and gore. This time around, the witches are now depicted in a gory and scarier presence. Most notably, Tilda Swinton as Madame Markos is presented as a decrepit old woman at the end of the film, illuminating a more visually disturbing side to the story. Justifying the addition of body horror was the fact that the witches this time around were more in focus rather than a motive to the dancers.

Interesting Interpretations-

With drastic differences between each film, it's left audiences with many mixed reactions. Dario Argento stated himself regarding the reboot: “It did not excite me, it betrayed the spirit of the original film: there is no fear, there is no music. The film has not satisfied me so much.” The original landed 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, while the successor unfortunately came in at 66%.

The team of A-list actors such as Dakota Johnson, Mia Goth, and Tilda Swinton definitely pulled in new audiences, allowing more and more people to explore the horror genre, but it can only lead me to think how many of these viewers are aware that it's a remake of another film. After vast research, many articles talked about Guadagnino's version as an option for a younger audience, but that may seem like a lazy reason to not just watch the original.

As stated at the top of this article, I've been left with the question- What fraction of a film must be accounted for when trying to remake it? So..

It's definitely a possibility to consider Guadagnino's rendition as a film that was inspired by the original, rather than a remake due to the vast differences in aesthetics and paths that the plot takes. Though both are drastically different, I can't really say that one is better than the other, considering they are indeed two different takes on the same plot.

This time around I can't say that anything was necessarily lost in translation when remaking an Italian movie for a Western audience, simply because of the reworking of the entire story. If a formula is taken just to be completely reworked, then it just simply is not what it started out as.

Rhody Cigar. Suspiria (1977) vs. Suspiria (2018). Published October 22, 2020. Available at: https://rhodycigar.com/2020/10/22/suspiria-1977-vs-suspiria-2018/.

Peace and Love and Veggies. Suspiria: Original vs. Remake. Published August 24, 2023. Available at: https://peaceandloveandveggies.com/2023/08/24/suspiria-original-vs-remake/.

Wright, Adam. Suspiria Original vs. Remake – Film Analysis. Available on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCRMUieOqm8.