I for one believe the right, directors,writer, actors, could update, and produce a new "Casablanca," that technically is equal, or superior. After all these were human beings........but it wouldn't be "CASABLANCA."
If that's not clear, I'll give a somewhat related example. There are certain Carole King songs I love so much, that I don't care who comes along with a better voice, or more lavish production, it just isn't the same.
Booman, from a purely technical perspective, it would be possible to replicate, say, The Mona Lisa, or The Cistine Chaple, or The Movies of Charlie Chaplin ... but what would be the point?
timber
I'm probably repeating myself, but "Casablanca" is one of those films we call a classic and one of the reasons is because it is frozen in time and space. The black-and-white, the musical score, the actors who approximate the age they would be at that time in history among other factors. There's been recreation of historical times that have the right ambience like Woody Allen in "Radio Days," Stanley Kubrick in "Barry Lyndon," and recently Martin Scorces in "Gangs of New York." James Cameron went to incredible lengths to make "Titanic" seem like it was in a real time and place -- he succeeded on one level of techincal excellence but you still knew this was a recreation of the event and I wasn't "lost" in an atmosphere of being in another time. Ultimately, timberlandko and others on this thread have reiterated the same thing -- why do it? I don't believe it could be done and would be virtually a burnt offering. I tried to watch the color remake of "Psycho," but it was failing in so many areas, the color being the worst. That was an effort to follow the former film with complete faithfulness and it fell on its face. Someone mentioned "Havana" as a half-hearted attempt to bring back the magic of "Casablanca." It was a second rate film by a very good director.
You two dare ask what the point. we're talking hollywood here. Besides ego, there are million$ of other reasons.
If you'll read my last two missives closely, you'll see we're on the same page. I say they could do it. I probably wouldn't go near it. Just like the remake of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," for all I know it may be the best or worst movie ever made, I never gave it the dignity of seeing it. I saw no point. Ditto for "Psycho". Are you feeling me fellas'?
Paulene Kael liked the remake of "Body Snatchers," but I couldn't get into it. The horror of first finding one of the pods was so indelibly stamped onto my brain that it became pointless in color. Otherwise, it isn't a bad movie by any means and carries the story forward to the pods making it into a big city. I liked the concept that the pods started out taking over in an unsuspecting, unsophisticated small town which was more chilling as a parallel to the communists taking over (a metaphor that has become attached to that film). The ensemble acting in the original film was excellent and wasn't as apparant in the remake.
That applies to "Casablanca" where ensemble interaction of the characters become so important to how the story was carried forward. Hard to hit gold a second time.
Few "Remakes" surpass their progenitors ... off the top of my head, I can think of none. In fact, few sequals substantively advance the original work, though there are exceptions of which I am aware. But, Boorman, I'll grant your point that Hollywood measures points in terms of consecutive zeros between Dollar Sign and Decimal Point.
timber
Tried to watch the terrible remake of "King Kong" not long ago on cable -- even worse than I had imagined it. The giant snake was all we got of all the wonderful dinosaurs that were dynamation in the original and again, the original film is frozen in time with its great Max Steiner score. They couldn't come close on the forbodding mystery of approaching the island and discovering the natives nor the suspense of tracking down Kong. Jessican Lange's funny take on sexual tension with the giant ape somehow brought to mind that his "tool" would be larger than Jessica! Okay, we are milking this thread but I'm skipping a week because of Christmas for the next part of the Ebert saga.
Okay, "King Kong" is an exception for me. The original was dated but good when I first saw it. The remake was more contemporary for me, and taking it in that different, sexual direction was like an improvement, and that's a movie that's supposed to be in color. And last ,but certainly not least, Fay Wray is nice, but Jessica Lange is really ho....er.. a gifted actress. :wink:
just found this. Casablanca my absolutely favorite movie. i actually went out and bought the vhs version myself, for me. only time i've ever done that.
Pueo,
...Of all the topics, in all the forums, on the world wide web, how did you end up here?
It really doesn't matter how he wound up here. Besides, this could be the start of a beautiful freindship. And of course, in any event, we'll always have Paris.
timber
After the day we recently had on the screenname topic, it's obvious we have no comPUNctions about this sort of thing Tim.
Pueo and Timber in some long lost romance? Hope the genders are compatible to the movie or one of them is a cross dresser!
Flaw?.......To paraphrase James Brown, "Say it loud..I'm crazy and proud".
...Oh, and how appropo that GW should show up at this time.
Well at least I don't consider cross-dressing as a character flaw -- just someone's different idea of fun.
Its all blatham's fault ... he got me thinking about gingham on some other bomb of a thread.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1786&highlight=
timber
Ah, but Ilsa wasn't a country girl so the gingham will never do.
That is, unless you're thinking you should play Bogart as a cross-dresser.
