KUROSAWA Remakes: they aren't all bad...

The news that Chris Rock is re-writing Akira Kurosawa's 'High and Low' (one of my favourite movies of all-time) for Mike Nichols to direct, has made me think about remakes. Usually, and probably rightly, remakes are dismissed as rubbish before they have even been released. There is this idea that they are terrible movies by default: that no movie should ever be remade at all. I wish to refute that logic here and now, looking specifically at remakes of Kurosawa films, which generally seem to be quite good...

Remade at the hands of John Sturges and starring Steve McQueen and Yul Brynner (among others), Kurosawa's 'The Seven Samurai' (1954) became 'The Magnificent Seven' in 1960.





Kurosawa would again see one of his finest Samurai pictures turned into a western, when 'Yojimbo' (1961) was unofficially (but blatantly) remade by Sergio Leone a few years later as 'A Fistful of Dollars' in 1964. Some scenes are shot-for-shot reproductions of those from the earlier movie, with the long "three coffins" tracking shot through the town virtually identical in both. Clint Eastwood has also admitted that he heavily based his depiction of the "the man with no name" on Toshiro Mifune's.





It is often said that Kurosawa's 'The Hidden Fortress' (1958) was the main source of inspiration for George Lucas' first 'Star Wars' film in 1977. Lucas has said that the two comedy-relief peasants from the Japanese film were the direct inspiration for R2-D2 and C3P0, as he liked the fact the narrative seemed to be told from the point of view of the lowliest characters. There is also a Princess in peril who the band of heroes must rescue and add to that Toshiro Mifune as 'the General', who is very much a model for Han Solo (an antagonistic rouge with a good heart who wins the Princess with whom he argues - although Lucas tried to cast Mifune as Obi-Wan Kenobi). From a technical point of view, Lucas also borrowed Kurosawa's use of screen wipes and the horse chase sequence seems to have been an inspiration for the speeder bike sequence in the later 'Star Wars' sequel: 'Return of the Jedi' (1983). Lucas' love of Kurosawa movies was made even clearer in 1980, when he and Francis Ford Coppola helped the Japanese master fund his epic 'Kagemusha'.





Of course, there have been some less good ones too...

In 1996 'Last Man Standing', starring Bruce Willis, was a direct remake of 'Yojimbo' which fared rather less well than Leone's:



Many films have been inspired by Kurosawa's 1950 film 'Rashomon', with the so-called 'Rashomon effect' being when the same story is told from multiple, changing points of view, shedding new light on an event. However, one film, 1964's 'The Outrage'
(starring Paul Newman as a Mexican bandit, no less)...



Here is how all that should have looked:

Obsessed With Film Feature: The Best in Film Music...

Just a quick post to say that I've compiled a feature for OWF, which sees the site's staff of writer's telling us their personal favourite film scores and composers.

Go and check it out and leave a comment telling us your own choices!

Robin Hood at the Movies...

Just a quick post here. After reviewing Ridley Scott's latest version of the Robin Hood legend, I have put up a compilation of videos showing the various cinematic depictions of the English folklore hero in action.

Douglas Fairbanks in 'Robin Hood' (1922)

Fairbanks seems to have set the model for many future screen representations of Robin Hood, with a not too dissimilar costume from that Fylnn would later wear in the 30's. He is super-agile (famously doing his own stunts) and a bit of a prankster: other traits that would define the hero for the best part of the 20th Century.



Errol Fylnn in 'The Adventures of Robin Hood' (1938)

The first Australian to play the outlaw, Flynn clearly keeps a lot of the traits of the Fairbanks hero, albeit with the additional charisma generated by his voice in this talking picture. This film, produced and directed by the same team that would later give us 'Casablanca' (Michael Curtiz and Hal B. Wallis), also boasted some of the earliest (and best) technicolor photography which is shown off in the courtly pageantry of it all. As with the earlier portrayal, Robin Hood is a swashbuckling rouge with a heart of gold. The film also features Claude Rains as Prince John, which you can't really argue with, can you?



The film also inspired a number of Loony Toons animated parodies directed by Chuck Jones, including the 1939 musical short 'Robin Hood Makes Good' and the more famous 'Rabbit Hood' (below) from 1949 which sees Buggs Bunny in the staring role and features stock footage of Errol Flynn (nine years later Daffy Duck would earn the honour, appearing in 'Robin Hood Daffy').



Richard Todd in 'The Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men' (1952)

Disney made a fairly poor live-action movie in 1952, starring Richard Todd (the man originally cast as Bond in 'Dr. No') as a more masculine, often shirtless, hero. However, the movie is (as the below clips shows) fairly derivative of the Flynn version above. This version of the tale, shot in the same dull and dreary way typical of all Disney movies from the 40s to the 70s ('Song of the South' to 'Pete's Dragon' all look like this). It would be the last major big-screen 'Hood' for twenty years... until Disney told the story again with an anthropomorphised Fox...



A Cartoon Fox (voiced by Brian Bedford) in 'Walt Disney's Robin Hood' (1973)

Some have found a sort of racism in this animated version, directed by Wolfgang Reitherman. The "bad" animals are all African (elephants, rinos, lions, snakes etc), whilst all the "good" animals are woodland creatures (rabbits, bears, roosters, mice, foxes etc). However, it is far more likely that Reitherman was simply recasting the familiar characters of his 1967 film 'The Jungle Book'. Baloo the bear is clearly the model for Little John (both are voiced by Phil Harris), whilst the Prince John lion and his snake advisor are clearly that film's bad guys: Shere Kahn and Kaa. The result is a re-telling of the myth which is derivative both of older Disney films and of the Fairbanks/Flynn movies, as it retreads many of the same plot points. The clip below shows Robin Hood and Little John fall from a log into some water, in a clear visual nod to both the previous versions seen in the above clip. Here Robin Hood is agile, fast and cunning, with great wit and grace as well as skill, much like the Fairbanks/Flynn portrayals. He is also dressed similarly to those men.



John Cleese in 'Time Bandits' (1981)

Far and away my favourite depiction of Robin Hood is the parody performed by John Cleese in Terry Gilliam's fantasy film 'Time Bandits'. In terms of dress he is clearly inspired by the now established cinematic image of the hero, however Cleese plays on his noble origins as "Robin of Loxley" and turns him into a condescending royal. Brilliantly funny.



Kevin Costner in 'Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves' (1991)

Perhaps the closest thing to Scott's latest adaptation of the tale is this early 90s blockbuster which starred Kevin Costner as the titular prince, who boasted one of the film's many 90s heart-throb haircuts (also see Christian Slater). This film, whilst still fairly light-hearted (famously boasting an OTT performance by Alan Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham) this version clearly tried to take the story a little more "seriously", with a similar acknowledgement of the crusades and an attempt at making medieval England look gritty rather than looking like a colourful renaissance faire. It's probably most famous for the Bryan Adam's track that stayed at number one in the UK pop charts for weeks and weeks and weeks...



Cary Elwes in 'Robin Hood: Men in Tights' (1993)

Mel Brooks satirised the whole thing, borrowing elements from every version, with Cary Elwes in the title role of 'Robin Hood: Men in Tights'. This broad farce is hit-and-miss (somewhere better than 'Spaceballs' and worse than 'The History of the World: Part One'), but Elwes has the charm and charisma of the Fairbanks/Flynn-era portrayal and the film lampoons that film's most famous moments, such as the stick fight on the log and the banquet sequence. At other times it is more oviously taking the piss out of the Costner movie (such as Robin's arrival in England, the over-the-top arrow stunts or when he declares: "unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent").



Russell Crowe in 'Robin Hood' (2010)

I have nothing left to say about this origin story, other than what I said in my review. Crowe's Hood is more gruff, more macho and less inclined to laugh than previous portrayals. He wears less flashy, more practical clothes than Flynn and co too. Some of the scenes are almost stolen directly from the Costner film, as Crowe makes a similar speech to rouse people to his cause and with the grimy looking misse-en-scene (plus they both ditched the hat in favour of looking "hard").



Anyway... those are the major cinematic versions of Robin Hood (I know, I missed out the Frazer 1912 version, but I couldn't find a clip). Hope you enjoyed them.

'Robin Hood' review: Irredeemably terrible, overlong nonsense...

Many Robin Hood films have been made over years from the sublime (1938’s ‘The Adventures of Robin Hood’ staring Errol Flynn) to the ridiculous (Mel Brooks’ 1993 comedy ‘Robin Hood: Men in Tights’ in which the role fell to Cary Elwes). Adaptations of the story have seen Robin turned into an anthropomorphised fox (Disney’s 1973 animated version) and, more disturbingly, into Kevin Costner (1991’s ‘Prince of Thieves’). All of these versions of the legend, however flawed, attempted to turn the story into something fun and good-natured, with its hero cast as something of a quick-witted and sprightly rouge. Ridley Scott’s new version of the tale (named err… ‘Robin Hood’), some may be pleased to know, doesn’t re-tread the old ground and submit to this formula, with Scott managing to avoid any of the above.

Yes, ‘Robin Hood 2010’ (as I shall refer to it) is the opposite of fun and its hero is the opposite of sprightly. The "good-natured" part is also glaringly absent, as Russell Crowe's Robin Hood does almost nothing for the poor and robs precious little from the rich, as he mumbles in a generic “Northern” accent throughout the most turgid, bum-numbingly boring two hours and twenty minutes of recent memory.

Here Scott and his writers (‘LA Confidential’ and ‘Mystic River’ scribe Brian Helgeland, along with two of the intellectual heavyweights that brought us ‘Kung Fu Panda’) attempt to do for Robin Hood what Christopher Nolan did (with much better results) for Batman. This, we are told from the off, is the beginning of the legend and the film ends similarly to ‘Batman Begins’: with Hood established and ready for even greater adventures. The key difference, however, is that this film is tumour-inducingly dull from start to finish.

To begin with, Crowe has less charisma than a hellish lovechild of Gerard Butler and Shia LaBeouf. He grunts and mumbles his way through the film, never really raising a smile, flattening any line which might be humorous (and indeed, despite such able writers, we are never treated to ‘Kung Fu Panda’ level hilarity here) as he marauds the English country side looking like a huge, bearded potato on horseback. Flynn might not have played a Hood mired in psychological concerns (“who was my father!?” etc etc), but he was watchable and charming, bringing the character to life in your imagination. Children could (and did) aspire to be Flynn’s Robin Hood, swinging on chandeliers and besting his enemies with his wit as well as his arrows. I can not conceivably imagine anybody growing up wanting to mumble there way through Sherwood Forest as Russell Crowe.



Ok, so maybe that’s the point here: this Robin Hood is not for kids. It’s an adult version, with a tough, wilful Maid Marian played by Cate Blanchett (far from the courtly and mannered presence of, say, Olivia de Havilland) and a rugged “manly” hero in Crowe. Yes, I can see that Crowe is more convincingly a man who could have fought in the Crusades than Flynn or Costner or Elwes ever were. But is that an excuse for boring me with his mumbling presence? To paraphrase Benjmin Franklin: those who would give up essential entertainment to purchase a little temporary realism, deserve neither entertainment or realism.

Scott shoots the film in a bland, uninspired (if technically competant) way: the action sequences are coherent (if uninterestingly choreographed). Though the flashy, high-octane close-ups of people pulling bow-strings and the sped-up helicopter shots of the countryside are just plain absurd in this context. When we see French soldiers they are usually making stereotypically “French” noises in a Pythonesque fashion. I always expected them to mutter “feche la vache” at a key moment and turn the tide of battle in their favour by launching a cow onto the field. Throw into the mix a laugh-out-loud medieval version of the D-Day landing, with the French arriving on an English beach in World War II landing craft (complete with obviously derivative ‘Saving Private Ryan’ shots of arrows hitting soldiers in the water) and you have yourself a contender for “worst film of the year”.

But as obviously, inherently, breathtakingly silly the action sequences are (undercutting the “realism” that necessitated beefy Mr. Crowe in the first instance), I would have found myself far more entertained if the film had been an hour shorter and comprised solely of these scenes (the opening assault on a castle; the liberation of a village; the battle on the beach). Instead we are treated to a litany of awkward scenes that feature Crowe and Blanchett romancing (phwoar!). And when we aren’t being presented with that tantalising prospect, we have a load of historically inaccurate, xenophobic, right-wing gibberish to listen to.



The best thing I can say about this version of the story is that it takes a rather dim view of the crusades compared with other versions which tend to valorise King Richard the Lionheart (this is perhaps unsurprising from Scott, who directed ‘Kingdom of Heaven’). Similarly the church is shown as the wealthy and corrupt organisation it was at that time. Prince John (Oscar Isaac, who is probably the best thing in the film) is allowed to make some good points about his brother’s crusade, even as he sides with the perennially evil Mark Strong. But this revisionist look at the legend is a step in the right direction which is undermined by the extreme crap-ness of the rest of the production.

My brother (Chris Beames) summed it up best when after seeing the film he wrote the following as his Facebook status: “If you’re thinking of going to see Robin Hood. Then I think you should. Because at least that way it is fair.” Don’t worry; I am not yet angry enough at the human race to wish the same upon you.

I will say this: if you really, really liked ‘Gladiator’ (and you actually enjoyed the above trailer), then maybe you’ll want to see Crowe doing his Maximus bit in the woods of England. If, like me, you didn’t even like that film very much (though ‘Gladiator’ is a classic compared with this), then there is nothing for you here whatsoever.

'Robin Hood' is out now and is rated '12a' by the BBFC.

'Lebanon' review and interview with Sam Maoz at OWF now!

Samuel Maoz's tough, award winning Israeli war film, 'Lebanon', has now been reviewed over at Obsessed With Film by yours truly. I was also lucky enough to interview Mr. Maoz back in late April and that too is now available to read on the site. There is also (and sorry if it's 'Lebanon' overkill over at OWF right now!) a podcast which covers the movie, with me and Jon also discussing 'Life During Wartime'.

Interested in 'Lebanon'? Here is the trailer:



'Lebanon' is out tomorrow (14th May) and is rated '15' by the BBFC.

'Life During Wartime' review: Honest, devastating, non-judgemental black comedy…

‘Life During Wartime’ is Todd Solondz sequel to 1998’s ‘Happiness’, albeit a sequel with a completely different cast of actors. Solondz makes some unusual but ingenious casting switches too, as he replaces the white Phillip Seymour Hoffman with the black Michael K. Williams, the genius who played Omar in HBO’s ‘The Wire’. Paul Reubens comes in for Jon Lovitz, whilst Allison Janney replaces Cynthia Stevenson. These are clever choices on the part of Solondz, as the film doesn’t feel like a ‘Happiness’ B-team picture, with smaller stars, but rather it feels as though he has chosen to make some interesting changes. Even though the actors have changed completely, the characters somehow remain the same in terms of mannerisms. It’s very cleverly done.

‘Life During Wartime’ reminded me of the Coen Brother’s ‘A Serious Man’ in it’s portrayal of suburban life, with a dash of Woody Allen whenever we meet Jane Adams’ character (Joy), with her east-coast intellectual neurosis. In terms of form, I always enjoy when a director employs a still camera with very composed, stylised shots and this is exactly what we get from Solondz. It is also beautiful to look at in terms of the cinematography; ‘Life During Wartime’ (Edward Lachman) is almost totally distinct from ‘Happiness’ (Maryse Alberti) with a brighter, less dowdy colour palette, which in its own way actually heightens the darkness of the film by contrasting with it. The difference between the look of the two films is clear and especially evident if you compare scenes set on the same locations.

All the performances are good, with Ciaran Hinds able to bring a kind of quiet dignity, as well as a potentially dangerous edge, to his role as the convicted paedophile father, whose past crimes cast a shadow over much of the movie. His unbearably tense and fraught meeting with his (now grown-up) son, Billy (Chris Marquette) is able to convey so many emotions, all of them complicated, some of them contradictory. As in ‘Happiness’, Solondz is able to make Bill a rounded character and not just a figure primed for reactionary moralising and self-righteous indignation. ‘Life During Wartime’ is (like many of my favourite films) deeply humanistic and also offers no easy answers to complicated problems. Solondz doesn’t judge his characters and we don’t either. We are just forced to bare complicit witness the tragedy of their lives.

By far the best reason to see ‘Life During Wartime’ (aside from the performances, the drama and the directorial precision) is for the riotous black comedy. As with Chris Morris’ ‘Four Lions’, some may squirm uncomfortably in their chairs, but I personally found it struck the right note throughout. Solondz never pulls back, never flinches. We are always taken right to the dark core of his chosen subject matter and we laugh along the way. It is often said that if you don’t laugh, you’ll cry – that laughter is the best medicine. In Solondz case this is true, as he examines difficult social problems which, without his wonderfully comic writing, might prove too much to bear.

‘Life During Wartime’ is an excellent film of the very highest calibre. If you can find it still playing, a few weeks into its UK run, then go off and see it immediately. Maybe in a double-bill with ‘Four Lions’, if you can take your comedy without being patronised or cuddled. You owe it to yourself to see both of these films.

'Life During Wartime' came out a few weeks ago and if you can still find it, it is rated '15' by the BBFC.

Reversing my position, plus a new article, an interview and reviews at OWF

I have some new stuff up at Obsessed With Film as of today: a full interview with Lucy Bailey and Andrew Thompson (directors of the documentary 'Mugabe and the White African'), a review of the 'Caligula' Blu-ray release and a review of the documentary 'One Night in Turin', which is screening for one night only across the nation (11th May). Aside from this I also have a load of news stories up on the site and, of course, the podcast.

Speaking of which, Jon and I recorded no less than two new episodes the other night (Jon is going away for a week and we needed one in the bag for then). The first covers 'Life During Wartime' (which I still need to review for this blog since seeing it weeks back) and 'Lebanon', whilst the second was about 'Iron Man 2', 'The Avengers' and a nice Romanian film called 'The Happiest Girl in the World' (which I'll write a review for nearer the time of release).

Anyway, now to the bit about "reversing my position": I wrote this in my review of Chris Morris' excellent 'Four Lions':

"Where the film differs from the rest of the Morris oeuvre is that his work usually combines incisive satire of both form and content. The way things are said is always as rich and funny as what is being said. However, in ‘Four Lions’... this formal and generic parody is absent... stylistically there is none of the directorial wit and experimentation seen in Morris’ series ‘Jam’... there is a sizable portion of what makes Morris pioneering and unique that is clearly missing."

The more I have thought about that since I have begun to change my mind. I saw the film again last night and it confirmed that I was probably wrong about the lack of satire of the form of film itself. (Potential spoilers ahead) I think that actually Morris is playing with the structure of movies and the way in which they can manipulate audiences to sympathise with potentially nasty characters.

I a lot of films you follow a gangster, a bank robber or some other kind of violent criminal (or even violent anti-hero) and the film is constructed in a way which makes you identify with that protagonist. When the police almost catch the crook you get nervous. If the movie was about the police, however, you'd anxiously want them to best the crook.

In 'Four Lions' Morris sticks to a conventional structure where Omar (Riz Ahmed) faces a crisis of confidence just prior to the films third act. In typical movie style he is given a pep-talk by his wife and young son, who persuade him he should, in fact, destroy himself. It's a dark and disturbing scene and the more I think about it the more I think that Morris knows exactly what he is doing by combining that sort of scene with this sort of character. He is playing with convention and structure and highlighting, almost, the dangerous power of film to manipulate an audience. The home-life scenes with Omar are quite sweet and sometimes a little cheesy, but I now think this is part of the satire.

Of both form AND content.

Anyway, that's how I feel about it now.

On a side note, I saw Bogdanovich's 'The Last Picture Show' yesterday and it was amazing from start to finish. Here is the trailer... for no real reason.