For today's film entry, I'm going to
try something different. Taking a page out of the book of Doug
Walker, I'm going to try my hand at an Old Vs. New (the difference
being that his are funny and this will suck. Not to me, but by
comparison, oh Lord, mine will suck), in which I will compare a film
with its remake, and see if once again, the original triumphs or if
the new takes the potential of the old and utilises it better. Unlike
Doug's, I won't be doing mine on a point-by-point contest, and I'm
sure there will be no jokes, but I still want to try a comparison and
see how it works. Also, the remake was a movie we didn't get until
this year (straight to DVD no less), so that will edge me one closer
to my goal of fifty films.
The film(s) in question? Straw Dogs,
first directed in 1971 by Sam Peckinpah, with the second adaptation
(it's based on the book The Siege Of Trencher's Farm by Gordon
Williams and no, I haven't read it yet) being done by Rod Lurie in
2011 (but like I said, since we only got it early this year, I count
it as a 2012 release).
David Sumner (Dustin Hoffman in 71,
James Marsden in 11) and his wife Amy (Susan George in 71, Kate
Bosworth in 11) move away (to Cornwall from America in 71, to
Mississippi from LA in 11) and run afoul of the locals, namely Amy's
ex-boyfriend Charlie Venner (Del Henney in 71, Alexander Skarsgard in
11). What follows is an escalating campaign of torment towards the
couple, especially David, culminating in a vicious showdown in their own home.
I have to say, I didn't expect what the
film presented me with. What I thought would happen was that we'd see
a timid, shy man constantly bullied by thugs who keep beating him up,
before he just snaps and brutally murders a whole bunch of people. As
it turns out... he's quite calm, in both movies. And nearly everyone
is a jerk. It's almost a case of dark against dark, as opposed to
pure good vs. pure evil.
I would have thought a change in
location would have been detrimental to the remake but surprisingly,
it's not remarkably different.
One thing the remake does differently,
however, is make the locals less arseholish. They seem a lot less
antagonistic to David, like they actually give a damn about him. Yet
David acts like he's kind of above them. OK... in the original, they
clearly don't like David, and David's just too timid to actually try
anything with them. So, even though we're supposed to be on David's
side (at first), the other guys don't seem all that villainous, bar
one, played by James Woods, who plays a guy named Coach (by-the-by,
he was damn good in this movie. But then, he's James Woods, I expect
nothing less).
Which is actually a bad thing for the
remake to do. I mean, if we're supposed to want David and Amy to be
safe and escape harm, you might want to make them more relatable to
us, instead of acting like they're better than everyone around them,
simply because they were living in LA.
Also, both movies have a rape scene
which adds to the gravitas of the situation (I have no idea why I
just said that. I mean, rape is serious in anything, why shouldn't it
be here?) but the remake's just edges out in being more
uncomfortable, due to how obsessive Charlie is. So, the remake
actually does a better job with how dark the scene is. But it's
uncomfortable for more than one reason, especially in the original.
Besides the history between Charlie and Amy, it's not like a standard
rape scene in which Amy is flailing and screaming, begging for it to
end. Rather, half way through, she goes quiet, but doesn't look too
upset. And I'm stopping that from going further because I'm sure that
will cause an uproar, with accusations of me saying it's not rape.
Except that it IS, especially when one of Charlie's friends decides
to do the same.
So, when it comes down to it, the
original wins out, because of a critical flaw in the remake, which
doesn't work if you take it on its own merits or compare it to the
original: the guys don't seem all that bad towards David in the
remake, and he seems like kind of a dick. It's bad compared to the
original because we already know they're the “bad guys”, so we're
prejudiced against them right from the get-go, even though they've
done no wrong. On its own merits, the rape and trouble-making comes
out of left field because it's not built up well enough.
Action-wise, both will deliver good
bang for your buck. Clever use of hot oil and a bear-trap net them
bonus points, and the remake slight edges out due to the deranged
performance from Woods.
You won't lose out with either version
but if you have to pick one, go with the original.
So, the 1971 version gets a 4/5 and the
remake a 3/5.
No comments:
Post a Comment