3 Off My Head - How To Make A Remake Work

.

When we took a look at one of the more disturbing (and therefore delightful) deaths in John Carpenter's 1982 film The Thing yesterday I got to thinking think about how here, amid these sad forlorn imagination-deprived remake-soaked days of oblivion we call now, it's amazing to note just how right John Carpenter did by the word "remake" back in '82. Way righter than it usually gets, you know? If you're not aware, The Thing is a remake of Howard Hawks' 1951 The Thing From Another World, itself a decent enough Cold War parable of its time (that kinda bored me silly).

So I thought I'd take a look at some reasons (three, actually) why Carpenter's film (as well as a few other successful remakes) worked so well, as a sort-of How To guide for those filmmakers out there thinking about doing something similar. It's learnin' time, y'all!

1 - Kurt Russell - Bad ass. Having Kurt Russell in your movie in 1982 was just guaranteed bad ass. 100%, A+ guarantee. But beyond that fact, it's the casting, stupid! The news yesterday that Katie Holmes was cast in the remake of Don't Be Afraid of the Dark was met with groans, while the casting of, say, Timothy Olyphant as the lead in the remake of George Romero's The Crazies is insta-yeehaw. That's because one is cool while the other is a dead-eyed abomination, and I think we know which is which. But look at other examples: Sarah Polley in the Dawn of the Dead remake? Genius! Brittany Snow in Prom Night? Zzzzzzz. Robert DeNiro in Cape Fear? Bingo! Katie "I have never heard your name before in my entire life" Cassidy in Black Christmas? Against The Ghost of Margo Kidder? Are you fucking kidding me?

But beyond the film's lead The Thing is filled with terrific actors showing off their stuff. Keith David, Richard Dysart, Richard Masur... Wilford fuckin' Brimley, man! Good casting is an obvious boon to any project, but apparently it needs to be pointed out that Chad Michael fucking Murray should not be head-lining a film most closely formerly associated with Vincent Price, so that's what I'm doing.


The more you know, yo.

2 - Special Effects - This is sort of the "duh" answer too but it's obviousness hardly subtracts from its value. The special effects in The Thing are considered by many to be the pinnacle of the sort of hands-on practical special effects of the 1980s, and they still retain most of their horror effectiveness. The "Spider-Head" sequence, as its come to be known, is still a jaw-dropping thing to watch for both its inventiveness and the sheer Uncanny effect it still produces. Things are not supposed to happen the way they happen here, you know? Just the fact that the head is upside-down! It's amazing for its wrongness. The point is, it's not a large man lumbering around as the threat like it was in the original.


It's a dog splitting open and a head turning into a giant mouth and other various multi-tentacled horrors... Carpenter took a story that beyond its relatively simple story was just begging to be a showcase for special-effects since its germination and he threw all 1982's best at it and made it a classic. So if you're looking for a property to remake, filmmakers, look at films whose ideas can finally be caught up with by where special effects are now.

3 - Theme - This one's the most important from my perspective. If there's a good enough idea at the heart of the story that can be updated to fit into a new time, then the film can make for a good remake. So very simple, you'd think! The tale at the heart of The Thing is about isolation and the paranoia that it breeds, and every age needs its paranoia parables. It's also why vampires will never go anywhere - the myth at the heart of their story is too rich and can be spun off into a million different directions. And it's why a film like Invasion of the Body Snatchers can be remade every fifteen years or so and find something new to say. (Although I'm still a little confused by what Oliver Hirschbiegel's 2007 version was saying, but it sure was neat-o when the aliens barfed into the coffee pots!)

But since Body Snatchers has been the most successful series to my eye of accomplishing what I'm talking about here, give or take some Nicole Kimdan brooding, let's look at that series' films. 1956's Invasion of the Body Snatchers was, much like The Thing From Outer Space (which makes sense since these stories can each be traced back to John W. Campbell's 1938 short story "Who Goes There?"), a Cold War tale about not being able to trust the person standing right in front of you. They might look the same, but they're really a Commie Alien! Eeek! Phillip Kaufman's wonderful 1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers on the other hand was all about the post-Manson-era fears of hippie-ish counter-culture feel-good brainwashing. The story got transferred to San Francisco, they put flowers in their hair and Spock spouted late 70s psycho-babble, and everybody getting naked in the bushes was an alien, man! Downer! The underrated 1993 version Body Snatchers directed by Abel Ferrara transports the tale to a military base and goes for the jugular of the army mind-set of conformity above all else, and features a wonderfully creepy performance by Meg Tilly as the step-mother you can't trust... because she's totally an alien, dude! And then like I said I don't really know what The Invasion was going after. Except for that coffee-pot barfing scene I don't remember that much about the film at all, honestly.

But my point remains that one of the most vital componants of a successful remake is the germ of an idea at the story's center has something to say or can be twisted to say something new about The World We Live In Now. Without that what's the point? As much as I love Cronenberg's Videodrome, after rewatching it the other week I really have no idea what a remake could accomplish or say about our world today that the original isn't still saying. As for movies like the original Prom Night and its slasher-ilk, as much as I love them they didn't have anything really to say besides "Hack! Stab! Slash!" in the first place. Is their supposed "name recognition" with the tweens of today really so astoundingly worthy that you can't just siphon these stories into their own new container?

I don't know why I'm flinging rhetorical questions like this at the villainous Hollywood Executives that exist in my mind, but I am. I am! Damn you, Suits! I have things to say! Liiisten toooo meeeeee!

Especially you, Ron Moore & Co. responsible for the third iteration of The Thing coming to a screen near us all some day soon supposedly. Until you do right by The Thing everything you even think about is gonna crumble!
.