Making a remake

Over the weekend I watched two, perhaps surprisingly interlinked films.

One was Romeo + Juliet; the other was the Great Gatsby.

The coincidental connection was not realised at the time; however the director of Romeo + Juliet – Baz Lurhmann – is directing the remake of the Great Gatsby.

But why remake the Great Gatsby?

The reason for certain remakes is sometimes obvious. The ‘original’ adaptation of the story deviated from the novel upon which it is based; or the film itself has dated badly. Maybe it is done just to put the director’s own particular ‘translation’ on the story; or – particularly for American audiences – the original was in a foreign language and neither dubbing nor subtitles would have been suitable for the common man who goes to watch it.

For example, Ring. The original Japanese version is brilliant, however the American audience struggled with the cultural setting and the subtitles, therefore it only reached a very cult audience. So it got remade and made millions. My problem with the American version (aside from my snobbish “oh but the original is always better” attitude) is that they changed the ending. Quite critically. Quite why the director/scriptwriter though that he was entitled to do so is anyone’s guess; but it spoilt it.

Sometimes the updating is done because of improvements in the quality of film. Black and white films, or those from the grainy, earlier days of celluloid are particularly susceptible to this, though these days people are more inclined to favour ‘special edition’ restorations.

But otherwise it is the director applying their own particular take on the story – focusing on things which the original may have glossed-over, enhancing a relationship to take the story away from a pure action movie or such. Indeed, Romeo + Juliet is one of the latest remakes in a long history of adaptations of Shakespeare’s play.

But what about the Great Gatsby? Well, I wait with enhanced anticipation to see what treatment it is given. However, the novel was set in the opulence of the jazz-smothered ‘20s and the original film similarly. As such the film doesn’t really ‘date’ in the same way as if it were set in the present or the future. And, in fact, the lack of ‘high definition’ to the grain of the film actually accentuates the hazy summer that frames the events, giving it a misty-eyed reminiscence. They haven’t (or at least shouldn’t) be translating the story to a modern-day setting for the new version, replacing the jazz-oozing phonograph with a hip-hop download. The original didn’t deviate from the book to any great degree, so there is no ‘rectification’ of the ending required to put right. It isn’t as though they are filming it in 3-D to take advantage of technological developments; or that any of the original actors were so poor as to detract from the perfection of the original. The original was so good I can think of absolutely no justification behind a remake.

Maybe it is just that Baz thinks he can do something radically different, or that – having been made in 1974 – he figures it is about time to refresh it, and our memories, re-engage people back to the book. Maybe the Fitzgerald family are a bit short on cash and need the royalties, licence fees and profit share.

But, of course, it’s not just films that are remade. Whilst we in Britain are happy watching the American versions of Modern Family or the Big Bang Theory, the Americans seem unable to watch anyone else’s originals, preferring instead to remake the likes of The Office, The Killing and Queer as Folk.

One has to wonder why. Or, perhaps, why we in Britain don’t – why we are happy with American imports. We do buy in some formats, but mostly quiz or game shows, where we need to engage with the people, and which don’t cost phenomenal amounts to remake. I understand the cultural thing – that an American office is different, even simply down to the layout, let alone names of things, of people, of places, cultural references, even country-wide ‘in’ jokes. And the remakes end up going off on a tangent. Take Queer as Folk – in the UK this ran to one full series and a two-part finale. In America it ran to five series, diverging from the UK storyline after the first series.

But there are oddities. Wilfred, for example, followed the first series closely, though remade with Elijah Wood in one of the main roles. The other main role, though – that of Wilfred – was played by Jason Gadd: the Australian who played the same role in the Australian original version. Whilst researching for this I found out that they did the same with Kath & Kim.

Cost is obviously one thing. In the UK the stations get less to spend, so are therefore happy to buy-in an export rather than spend more money both acquiring the rights and then rewriting and filming. American networks generally have a lot more money to spend.

Don’t get me wrong, we export things successfully. We sent the Americans Piers Morgan, Anne Robinson and even Jeremy Kyle. Perhaps not maxing out our cultural superiority (or snobbishness) but they were adopted readily by the Americans, so it can’t be a simple xenophobia. And most of the programmes that America remakes it does so because of the popularity of the original on BBC America, and not just by ex-pats.

Not living in America I don’t know whether it is a scepticism of things foreign which drives the remakes; and whether that scepticism is held by the public thereby driving the network; or by the network not risking prime-timing it and so minimising the audience that would naturally take a risk. Which is the cause and which is the effect?

Anyhow, I wait for a Greater Gatsby.