Don’t Let Him In!

Both Infernal Affairs and The Departed are great films in themselves, and both make their respective settings (Hong Kong, Boston) seem entirely integral. Scorsese's The Departed is for me a textbook counterexample to the conventional claim that remakes of 'foreign' films never work.

The traffic, of course, can go in all kinds of directions: the French-language The Beat That My Heart Skipped is probably better than the American independent Fingers that it reimagines. Takashi Miike made anarchic Japanese musical The Happiness of the Katakuris out of Kim Ji-Woon's Korean black comedy The Quiet Family (both are well worth seeing), and there has been a complex cross-cultural exchange between Japanese chanbara, American oaters, spaghettis westerns and (latterly) noodle easterns.

There is also that weird phenomenon of non-American directors remaking their own native films for English-speaking audiences (The Vanishing, Nightwatch, The Grudge, Funny Games, etc.).

Written by Anton Bitel on July 3rd, 2009 at 11:08

I've wanted to see Infernal Affairs for ages. The Departed is a weird one; I loved it when I frist saw it and bought the DVD instantly but the more I watch it the more I realise that although it's good, it's not that great. Don't know why.

I think non-American directors remake their own films because a) they don't want anyone else touching it and b) it'll open them and their foreign work to a new audience, although I don't see the point of doing it shot for shot.

Written by Lim Salt on July 3rd, 2009 at 11:24

Funny Games and Funny Games US.

Both astonishing pieces of film making from the master Haneke.

He always wanted to make it in the US as it is their violently obsessed media culture that he so viciously satirises.

Written by Banjo on July 3rd, 2009 at 11:46

Funny Games and Funny Games US.

Both astonishing pieces of film making from the master Haneke.

He always wanted to make it in the US as it is their violently obsessed media culture that he so viciously satirises.

Written by Banjo on July 3rd, 2009 at 11:46

Interestingly, Haneke's 'self-remake' was a massive flop, and helped, tragically, to bring down Tartan (who produced it). I like both films (after all, they are nearly identical, so if you like one you inevitably end up liking the other), but I *still* fail to see the point of Funny Games US. Did Haneke really imagine that precisely the sort of viewer who cannot countenance watching a 'foreign' film is somehow going to be provoked into a state of anxious self-examination by a remake? Haneke's satire may be (indeed, is) sharp, but its particular bite is strictly for a knowing, self-aware, critical audience – i.e. the kind of audience that is less likely in the first place to be much perturbed by subtitles. For many others, either version of Funny Games can be (and indeed has been) regarded as 'just another slasher'. It is, I think we would agree, more than that – but then, it is not alone amongst slashers for subverting the very generic frame that it formally adopts (cf. Scream, Carver, The Last Horror Show, to name a few).

Written by Anton Bitel on July 3rd, 2009 at 12:26

Of course, I meant The Last Horror MOVIE. Should have added Man Bites Dog, and of course Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon. All these films foreground our complicity in the violence shown on screen – but then again, so do lots of gialli…

Written by Anton Bitel on July 3rd, 2009 at 12:36

The Yanks saw what he tried to do, and were less than pleased…

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/arts/14iht-flik...

Written by Lim Salt on July 3rd, 2009 at 12:40

It really depends on what your 'point' of a film is, and who takes the blame for a film not working. In most cases the film maker can't be blamed for the relative success or failure of their film. The distributors asses the films they have on their slate and decide how wide they will go, how to market, poster design, trailer etc,etc. This doesn't mean the the distribs are to blame for a films success or failure, either. Almost ever film that is released is a gamble in some way and no matter how much time and effort is put into releasing a film, everyone can be screwed over by a sunny weekend or a reviewers bad mood. Tartan where a great label and although they obviously took a gamble on Funny Games it wasn't entirely to blame for their demise.
To me, Hanake makes films that are never audience friendly. Out of all of his work Funny Games has to be the least audience friendly film he's done. In his breaking of the fourth wall and directly implicating the audience in the horrors that unfold, Hanake is out rightly challenging the notion of voyeurism.
I think there is much more going on than subverting slasher genre pics and most certainly wouldn't put Funny Games in the same league as Scream, Carver et al. As a comparable I'd be tempted to go for Peeping Tom.

On another remake point – Interesting article on the guardian about the possible Old Boy remake from Speilberg and Will Smith….

Written by Banjo on July 3rd, 2009 at 12:43

Lim, I think the A.O. Scott article to which you linked offers a particularly insightful analysis of the film and its workings (even for those who might disagree with Scott's ultimate evaluation).

Banjo, of course I don't think it is, in any simple way, Haneke's fault that the remake flopped (although I do question his wisdom in making it). What exactly was the 'point' of this remake (and it is the shot-for-shot remake only, not the original, that I mean here)? One can discuss at length Haneke's "breaking of the fourth wall and directly implicating the audience in the horrors that unfold", but these are in fact characteristics of the original Funny Games (and, indeed, of the other films I listed, and Peeping Tom too, and any film with a self-conscious sensibility). What does the remake have to add? The same scenes, the same lines, just delivered by a different cast in a different language. The point? A (failed, as it turns out) cash-in? An arrogant sort of narcissism? An oversubtle dramatisation of (some) Americans' failure to engage with foreign films? Haneke having nothing better to do? Or what? If the film had been less similar to the original, it would be easier to understand why it needed to exist.

Also, describing a film as "never audience friendly" depends entirely upon how you define your audience. After all, horror fans tend to *love* films that confront viewers with the darker side of humanity (or indeed of viewing) – but I thought this was the precisley the audience (or at least its American chapter) that Haneke's film was designed to educate in the 'error' of their ways. If Funny Games (and I mean either version now) made its real, principal audience (the arthouse intelligentsia) squirm uncomfortably in their seats at the terrible things we humans can do to each other as, for and through entertainment, perhaps that audience was the one in fact receiving a lesson in the strange, stressful and sadomasochistic experience of watching a horror film. It is something few fans of horror need to be taught…

Written by Anton Bitel on July 3rd, 2009 at 13:53

Although there are a few examples of a decent remake, in general it's quite obvious they are lazy ways to make money. Most the themes will get dropped for the mainstream audience (the Oldboy remake dropping the whole incest stuff being a prime example) and they are just rushed out by people who have no real interest in the source. However, I'm sure alot of the hate is naive fanboys. People who just instantly assume the film will be shit because it's not the original. They will complain if too much is changed, but also complain when it is exactly the same (I know people who have said Funny Games US is shit despite loving the original?!).

What personally gets me though is in this article how Matt Reeves claims he had such a personal attraction to the movie. I don't see how someone can love something so much and decide to make their own version rather than just respecting it as the beautiful piece of work it already is. This whole thing reminds me of an article in Empire a few months back where they had interviews with loads of famous directors and one question they were each asked was what film they wish they had directed. Most of them came out with their favourite films, most of which were classics, and I believe Danny Boyle even claimed he wish he had directed LTROI. The only answer I could agree with was Hayao Miyazaki's 'None'. People need to accept that there is a difference to loving a film and making your own version of it. I'm sure none of the directors interviewed can just sit back and watch their own films over and over again and would never enjoy any of the movies they answered with anywhere near as much as they already do if they had (re)made them.

Written by doug1482 on July 3rd, 2009 at 15:42

Is Steven Speilberg still planning on remaking Old Boy with Will Smith? Thats bound to be a winner! Could be worth it just for the sheer pleasure of watching Will Smith cut out his own tounge.

Written by Minderbender on July 6th, 2009 at 15:50

I'm sure I've read somewhere this is dead. Not 100% though.
Most importantly Akira has recently been announced dead, I would have killed myself if they remade that. I'm just hoping they don't touch Evangelion (probably my fav piece of entertainment ever).

Written by doug1482 on July 6th, 2009 at 16:27

Well well, another announcement that has me shouting at my screen. I just don’t get it. I am all for remakes of older films, making a great script more relevant to our times and allowing younger audiences to enjoy the same feelings our parents would have felt. I also am for remakes, or trbutes, of foreign films: just think of how awesome Spaghetti Westerns are, and how they wouldn’t exist without Kurosawa and his friends.

BUT! What is the point of remaking a film that has just come out, is an amazing little film and has the potential to still go far even in the ’subtitle-averse’ US?? Sure, there’s a small chance that people will watch the Departed and then go see Infernal Affairs, but there’s also a big risk that they will never discover the original gem that is Let The Right One In.

Written by Giulio on July 7th, 2009 at 18:07

(Cue sharpening of knives). I found the Dawn Of The Dead remake one of the most entertaining film experiences of my adult life that didn't, in any way, damage the credibility of the original…

Written by mattg on July 9th, 2009 at 15:40

um, though, they're obviously from the same shores, the original felt more euro-centric

Written by mattg on July 9th, 2009 at 15:43

Speaking of heresies, I've never much liked the original Last House on the Left, and loved the recent remake (even if the former haled from the good and pure land of Indie – and is supposedly one of the seminal flicks from the 'Golden Age of Horror' – while the latter comes from the much maligned planet Hollywood).

Written by Anton Bitel on July 9th, 2009 at 20:03

interesting that the Departed is mentioned in the first reply, caught it on Film4 last week – braved it for about half an hour before allowing myself a respite from what has to be one of the most significant botched attempt at a remake, no matter what Matt Reeves film does wrong it wont do as much wrong as the Departed did (editing, script, and most importantly the bloody casting)
whilst i am by no means a fan of remakes i'm actually interesting in LTROI's redo, i was very impressed by Cloverfield afterall and there is enough scope for a very different story to come out of the book, much was lost after all. That said i doubt anyone involved in Hollywood is going to want to be too faithful to the book

Written by richCie on July 10th, 2009 at 18:07

The Departed was lots of fun, but it didn't really make much sense (local gangster picks up policeman from graduation and no one asks any questions. eh?). I think of it as a massive schlong contest. Jack and Mark have got the biggest, that's why they're always talking about them/whipping out dildoes. Poor Matt can't keep up, hence his impotence…

Dignam: Blow me, all right? But not literally, though. Unfortunately, there's no promotion involved for you.
Colin Sullivan: Fucking prick.

Costello: 'Don't disappoint me on this or some other guy will be putting their fat cock up little Miss Freud's ass'

Ellerby: Marriage is an important part of getting ahead: lets people know you're not a homo; married guy seems more stable; people see the ring, they think at least somebody can stand the son of a bitch; ladies see the ring, they know immediately you must have some cash or your cock must work.

I rest my case

Written by mattg on July 11th, 2009 at 11:10

Nice – but isn't the 'schlong contest' a key component (or at least key metaphor) of pretty much all films about male hierarchies (from Branded to Kill to Top Gun to Wall Street, and everything in between)? Scorsese just foregrounds the essential…

I never really thought of The Departed as being realistic in any straightforward way. It's more a baroque moral opera that happens to be set in a contemporary and recognisably real world (much like the original) – and it is both films' ethical (and spiritual) concerns that give them such depth. In any case, I know of no police force that makes (or indeed could afford to make) a habit of tracing the movements of its cadets. Sure, picking Colin up from graduation is brazen, but that's Costello all over – and there are good reasons, as we subsequently learn, why he is (and, more importantly, why he feels) so untouchable.

Written by Anton Bitel on July 12th, 2009 at 10:27

Personally, I think that if Reeves was that moved by the film, then why doesn't he simply do his part to see that this fresh film is well-publicized in America?

This is exactly the type of film that could potentially change an American film-goer's mind in terms of not been keen on seeing a sub-titled film.

Oh, now I remember. Hollywood has run out of ideas so I suppose they do need to take what they can get from elsewhere.

The re-make won't be getting my money.

Written by Deirdre on July 17th, 2009 at 13:33

Exactly, I mean I dragged my dad to see this at the cinema cause I wanted to see it on the big screen (had only seen a download previously) and he loved it. Yet I couldn't tell him it was Swedish and subbed or he wouldn't have gone to see it.
I don't get how someone can claim to love it yet risk ruining it.

Written by doug1482 on July 17th, 2009 at 14:25