We Can Remake it For You Wholesale

I was watching that Sylvester Stallone remake of Get Carter (2000) the other day and aside from marvelling that twenty three years have passed since its release, I was once again wondering about the logic of producing such films.  This version of Get Carter, like many modern(ish) remakes falls into the category of being an OK film if you can see past the fact that it is meant to be a remake of an iconic film and judge it on its own merits, instead.  The trouble is that this is difficult to do, as not only does it have the same title, same character names and basic plot, but even uses the distinctive theme tune from the original.  Technically, of course, it could be claimed simply to be a new interpretation of the source material - the novel 'Jack's Return Home' by Ted Lewis - given a contemporary US setting, but the aforementioned factors, particularly the use of the original film's title rather than the book's title, mitigate against it.  The same problem afflicts other remakes which present themselves as a reinterpretation of the source material, yet try to retain elements of the previous adaptation, (the second Total Recall, which, like Get Carter, is a decent enough film in its own right, but is weighed down by recycling that title - the source story was Philip K Dick's 'We Can Remember it For You Wholesale' - and various characters from its predecessor).  As soon as you do that, you invite comparisons which, if the film you are remaking is, like the 1971 Get Carter, considered a definitive example of its genre.

Obviously, I understand the commercial logic of these sorts of remakes: to trade on the name and reputation of the original - it is the same logic that drives the production of identikit sequels to box office hits.  Audiences like the familiar, the logic goes.  The further the new film, (be it remake or sequel), varies from the original, the greater the danger that audiences will be alienated.  Which is doubtless why the Get Carter remake replicates not just stretches of dialogue, but also entire sequences from the original, (the opening train journey montage, for instance).  Unfortunately, what it can't replicate is the essence of the 1971 version, replacing its working class gangster grittiness with a glossy look, softening the violence and giving its lead character a redemptive arc, instead of the nihilistic inevitability of the original's ending.  But at least it is still recognisably Get Carter, in contrast with that other remake of a British classic crime caper starring Michael Caine, The Italian Job, which simply retains the title, the idea of using Minis in a heist in Italy and a character called Bridger.  In its defence, it could at least be argued that it is a proper 'reimagining' of the original's concept, rather than an attempt to replicate it in a different setting.  

Which brings us to the question of what exactly is the purpose of a remake in the first place.  Back in the day, their selling point was that they added something the original couldn't offer - in the thirties that meant sound, in the forties and fifties it meant colour.  After that, the added value might be wide screen, 3-D or perhaps an ability to take advantage of changes in censorship regulations or moral standards, meaning that the new version could be more 'forthright', perhaps in terms of language, perhaps in terms of nudity, sex and/or violence.  Or, it might just be that the original didn't represent a satisfactory treatment of the source material.  (Sadly, this no longer seems to be a consideration, as studious seem to focus their energies remaking good films these days, presumably because they hope they can replicate the success of the original).

The trouble is that when films made from the seventies onwards are remade, there really isn't much that can be added in terms of new value or innovation.  Remakes of things like Night of the Living Dead or Texas Chainsaw Massacre, for instance, have to try and trade on the fact that make up effects have improved since the originals were made, so that the new films are gorier and more 'realistic.  Yet they are never as satisfying as the originals, which not only had a spark of originality about them, but also ingenuity in the way in which they made them so effective despite the makers not having access to those new special effects technologies.  The alternative is simply to remake the concept behind the original, so that you end up with the in-name-only remake, (like Roger Vadim's US remake of his own And God Created Woman).  Which leaves you wondering what the point of obtaining the rights of the original were, (aside from being able to trade on an already familiar title).  But we live in an age when just about every major studio release seems to be a remake or a sequel, the result of a dearth of originality and a lack of commercial confidence in new ideas, so I fear that we are eventually going to see just about every film, good, bad or mediocre that ever turned a buck at the box office remade in one way or another.  Brace yourselves.

(As a footnote, it should be noted that Get Carter actually had an earlier remake as the 1972 Blaxploitation film Hitman.  Like the Stallone film, this relocates the action to the US, but retains most of the plot and characters, suitably adapted to the new milieu.  Unlike the Stallone film, it succeeds in creating a distinct identity of its own, establishing a style and tone somehow suited to the new setting.  The change of title also helps it feel as if it is a reinterpretation of the source material with a distinct identity of its own).