« Can the Georgia Senate... | Main | Spellbound »
February 17, 2004
Remaking Global Cinema
Back in film theory mode (some Ring spoilers ahead): I've been thinking about the concept of the remake lately for reasons that are somewhat complicated (although they are more than loosely connected to some writing I've been doing on The Ring). As many readers likely know, Dreamworks' 2002 version of The Ring is a remake of the Japanese horror film hit, Ringu, and as many critics have complained, Dreamworks bought the US distribution rights to the Japanese original in order to suppress its release in the States until after they had completed their version of the film.
A similar relationship exists between the Spanish film, Abre los Ojos, and Cameron Crowe's stylish remake, Vanilla Sky, although Ojos was released before Crowe completed his version of the story. In both cases, the fact of remaking the film has been seen as a lack of originality, implying that Hollywood simply steals the ideas of international cinema for its own gain. I'm intrigued by this notion of originality and the "aura" (to use Benjamin's overused, but valuable, term) of the precursor film, especially in light of The Ring's explicit treatment of a secret videotape that presents itself as a window into a child's unconscious mind.
While doing some lazy Google-style research, I did come across two academic essays that might frame some of the issues I want to raise: Steven Jay Schneider's "World Horror Cinema" (PDF) and Leonardo Quaresima's "Loving Texts Two at a Time," (the link has suddenly disappeared).
Note: Another example would be Christopher Nolan's recent remake of the Norwegian film, Insomnia.
Posted by chuck at February 17, 2004 2:45 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.wordherders.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fpl/1481
Comments
Interesting post.
Upon reading this, my first thought is that audiences must know of the original work in order to see the "remake" as a copy. Thus, for academics, film reviewers, and others "in the know," the remake does not have the "aura" of the original film. But I wonder how many general audience members even knew of the original films, especially since the studios sometimes, as indicated, go out of their way to ensure that audiences don't know of the films.
This raises some questions for me. How important is the notion of original and copy to audience reception of a film? Don't they function more as categories for reviewers and academics to locate the works and value them? "That is a failed copy" or "What an interesting remake of the original."
Or, if audiences are aware of the original at all, doesn't originality become a way for an audience to make sense or meaning out of the film? "Oh, it's a remake of a Japanese film. That's why it's so strange."
Also, doesn't this raise interesting questions about the intersection of "aura" and film - a medium predicated on multiple copies of a lost original that was fake to begin with. In that light, do remakes function as a means of creating "aura." It is only when Ringu is copied as The Ring that the original becomes the "original."
Finally, more specific to the films you mention, why do you think the fact that The Ring was a remake was, even with the rights to the Japanese film being bought, more widely know than the fact that Vanilla Sky or Insomnia were also remakes? I have the sense, but could be wrong, that more general audience members know and knew that The Ring was a remake, but not the other films. Was this fact part of the promotional campaign for The Ring?
Sorry for the long comment. I have not read much on remakes in general and so may be asking questions that have already been answered or dispensed with. I also understand that I am taking the issue afield from film theory proper into questions of audience reception, but hope you don't mind.
Posted by: tim at February 18, 2004 11:03 AM
Tim, thanks for all of the good questions. I actually really appreciate longer comments like this one. I think you're absolutely right that "Ringu" only received its status as original or auratic after the fact (I'm tempted to make a connection to the Freudian concept of dferred action, but I'll save that for now).
I don't know if I could gauge whether audiences were more aware of "The Ring" being a remake. I know that "Insomnia" at least was fairly clearly billed as a remake, at least in publicity articles. I do think that the paper I'm writing relies heavily on audience issues, especially given that "The Ring" is explicitly *about* watching horror films. Further, as you suggest, the status of "The Ring" as a "copy" relies, in some sense, on the audience knowing that there is an original, something that Dreamworks clearly tried to suppress.
Posted by: chuck at February 18, 2004 11:33 AM