The Remake: the Plague of Hollywood

I have a recurring nightmare about film industry big wigs, their hammy buttocks sunk deep into leather chairs arrayed around a mahogany table, brainstorming new and crass methods with which to get unsuspecting moviegoers into the theaters and to pad their already-bloated bank accounts. Yes, it would be nice to think that all of today's Hollywood trash spontaneously generates -- just how people used to believe maggots magically sprang from rotting meat. Unfortunately, the scientific truth is that the human mind (or lack of it) is responsible for every millimeter of celluloid that passes before our peepers.

One of these dubious methods is the remake. This usually senseless exercise in self-indulgence is almost always a thinly veiled scam to make money, stroke directors' egos, "add a modern perspective to an old classic," or resuscitate a washed-up actor whose career is probably better off dead.

Most of the films being remade are just fine in their original form. Indeed, many of them are classics that should never be violated. Here are three examples that immediately leap to mind:

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956/1978): This landmark sci-fi film is still engaging today. It's the story of a town whose inhabitants are being replaced by lethargic clones grown in large pods that arrived on Earth after drifting through space for eons. A few people manage to remain human, resist the takeover and struggle to escape to warn the rest of the nation. (Many interpreted the original release as a poignant statement against McCarthyism.) The remake, with Donald Sutherland and Leonard Nimoy (and Jeff Goldblum in one of his first roles), has decent special effects and a few new twists, but fizzles toward the end. There is very little of the frustration, anguish and disbelief suffered by the leading man in the original.

The Blob (1958/1988): In his first starring role, Steve McQueen plays, appropriately, Steve, an uppity teenager trying to save his town from an extraterrestrial mass of man-eating gelatin. Though this is a far cry from being a great movie, it is a campy classic that's a lot of fun to watch, a B movie extraordinaire. In the '88 version, Kevin Dillon plays McQueen's modern counterpart -- film's stereotypical hooligan-turned-hero-against-all-odds. Admittedly humorous and visually exciting (or nauseating, depending on your constitution), the remake was unnecessary, other than to be a showcase for the latest special effects being done out there in L.A. In no way did it improve upon its predecessor.

Lord of the Flies (British, 1963/U.S., 1990): The first adaptation of William Golding's novel about a group of English schoolboys shipwrecked on an uncharted island is a unique, gripping film. The crux of the story involves the tensions that cleave the boys into groups, one good, one evil. The remake updates the tale with American kids who have been raised on TV and Top 40, a revisionist approach that completely decimates both the context and impact of the original.

Now don't get me wrong. I watch remakes and in some cases even enjoy them. At best they are entertaining; at least they make me appreciate the original work all that much more. But how goes the old saying? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Obviously, the powers that be out in Hollywood are choosing not to adhere to this simple yet extremely logical credo. At this rate, we'll see remakes of "sacred" films such as Hitchcock's �Psycho� and Capra's �It's A Wonderful Life.� If ya can't colorize it or follow it with a sequel...

Watch remakes, yes, but always return to the "parent film" for a better treatment.