I would not normally like to write such a reactionary piece, I know that because I have not seen, nor will I see, the film in question: Nine, that my point will be considered void by many people. I might be making assumptions about the film, and I may be proved wrong, however this argument goes beyond the film which caused this debate. While remakes are rife in the industry and have been for a long time, I only want to speak up now because they are doing something I thought would never happen, Hollywood is remaking my favourite film: 8½.
I wonder why there is a need to remake a film, this is a film already loved by so many, it is a film Martin Scorsese calls in his documentary My Voyage to Italy, “the purest expression of love for the cinema that I know of.” There is no denying that 8½ is an exceptional film, it’s rated at number two on the BFI’s directors’ favourite films. Why does anyone need to remake a film which is already considered one of the best films ever made? Is it really possible to surpass it? It does not need to be remade when the story exists, in cinema, in its purest form, the way it was intended. Nobody needs an inferior copy. It is possible it is just an homage, after all, Nine is a musical. But why make such an obvious homage, it’s not as though 8½ and Fellini isn’t referenced extensively enough in cinema as it is. Think about Peter Greenaway’s 8½ Women, or directors such as Terry Gilliam and David Lynch who adore Fellini’s films and are strongly influenced by him.
I see most films as an expression of an artist. When someone makes a film, they have a vision, a specific way of telling a story. It’s not fumbled together, it’s an intricate plan, possibly a powerful tool for expression. With any film created by an artist, why remake it? Why change the art, ruin it, disrespect it? I know it is for money, but that does not justify it. Look at 8½. It’s not just a film, I see it as Fellini himself. It is not merely an expression or his art, of a story, it is an expression of himself in the truest form. 8½ loses its charm when it’s not about the man who created it and the creation of itself, when he’s not looking inside himself and showing something personal and passionate. It’s not just remaking 8½, it’s destroying the man behind it, the most important figure in the film, the key that makes it work. Could anyone else have made 8½, the answer is no. But it was made, it does not need to be changed, and it does not need musical numbers.
Obviously Nine does not appear very true to the original. It’s hard to know if that turns Nine into a complete work of its own. But much like Gilliam’s Twelve Monkeys it seems worlds away from La Jetee, Twelve Monkeys has destroyed the main point of the film, merely borrowing elements from the story. It is hardly a remake, but it is also not as intelligent or as interesting as La Jetee which is considerably more profound. I wonder why people do make inferior copies. Even though it’s hard to know if the copy will be better or not, but as it loses its original vision, it starts to lose its purpose. Did we really want to see Michael Bay remake Hitchcock’s The Birds?! Could that ever have been better? (Even though The Birds is not an original story I am presuming Bay was planning it as a remake of the film, not the story) Van Sant’s Psycho is an exact copy, but what is the point of that? We still have the original, why not watch that instead. Why not just sign your name over Picaso’s instead? Or photocopy the painting. Or attempt to paint it yourself. You know it’s not your work.
If I am so against people recreating art, putting an idea into their own unique vision, turning the work into something else, their own, then what is my take on turning a novel into a film, something most directors do? I respect novels as an art, but a different art. I still see the original art and idea ruined or merely interpreted, but it is turning one art into a completely different art. Turning something already in cinema into another piece of cinema is much more frivolous. Part of the art of cinema is the use of the cinematic techniques which don’t exist in novels, the visual nature, the Mise-en-scène, the colour, the sound, editing, so many elements make cinema art, and so many elements exist in a novel which cannot be expressed in film. Turning a novel into a film is an art in itself by using the language or cinema to replace the language used in a novel. It is this disruption of the original use of cinematic language which I find so disagreeable in the remakes of films. I would disagree with another novelist rewriting someone else’s novel, making it their own, just changing the words. Most of the time, fiction into films, the fiction is the more impressive piece of work. Although One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is a popular film, it lacks all the elements that makes the novel great. Maybe this is why sometimes it’s best when directors chose to make films based on trashy fiction, turning it into something much more their own, not afraid to turn it into a new work of art. There is greater scope for making something your own when turning a novel into a film as apposed to recreating an already existing film.
You also have the quandary of two films having remade the same book, Solaris being the most interesting example to come to mind (as there are always so many remakes of great classics like War & Peace, Pride and Prejudice, The Great Gatsby etc). I do think it’s a shame cinema gets filled up with the same stories retold again and again, competing to be the better adaptation, or recreating itself for a new generation. However, at least there is still the ability for an artist to put an interesting stamp on the original work without defacing it. It’s about how they interpret the novel and how they communicate with their own use of cinematic language.
My least sympathetic approach to remakes is that remakes of films have to exist because the original is in black and white, silent, or in a foreign language, because the modern day American isn’t supposed to be able to handle such alien cinema. They need it to be remade, dumbed down, and filled with recognizable stars. I hate the idea that so many people don’t watch films because they are dated, and surely remakes only encourages the masses to steer away from classic cinema, instead of encouraging people to seek out the original. Some people will seek out the original after enjoying the remake, but why not seek it out before, why wait until there are remakes before you look back.
There is one thing I like most in cinema. An artist at work, an original vision, an expression of something personal. Remakes lose that edge. They’re not interesting. And they don’t even need to exist. Remaking a film appears to be a sure way to make a failure of a film, lost amongst the midst of all the original ideas still floating around. Some people do prefer remakes of certain films. But surely, when you are making a remake, you are in competition with the original. You will be compared to the original. To make a film that will instantly be compared with 8½… it’s suicide. Can Rob Marshall beat Federico Fellini?
Of course, this is all rhetorical.
Nine is a remake of a theatrical remake of 8½, quite a mouthful. It’s set to be released in December.
