 |
| "Which one am I, good or bad? Go awwn, have a guess." |
Remake: Dress the monsters down or even leave out the transition from cute 'n' furry to demonic 'n' reptilian so that you never know which one has turned or not. Keep the monstered ones cute and beguiling. Kind of a mix of Aliens and a plague of Tickle Me Elmos. Joon-Ho Bong probably doesn't want to do this kind of movie after The Host so you're going to ask him nicely. VERY NICELY.
 |
| "Some people will do anything to get out of a third act" |
Give this to David Cronenberg to extract and discard all the deus ex machina and replace it with a more severe examination of the forces that are in the structure like the alien finding a home and the tenant alienated from her home. That kind o' thing.
 |
| "We'll they'll dig us." |
Well, they do cast it well. James McAvoy as the young idealist plummeting under the dictator's glamour and Forest Whittaker as big daddy Idi himself make for a fine pair of complimentary performances. But the film doesn't seem to udnerstand that having established these archetypes there is no further need to feed them. Indeed, which such a primary coloured canvas we should be seeing nuance and moments of disturbing ethics. We get glimpses of the latter but they are too easily swamped by the writers' resort to violence and shock which has a decreasing power by the scene.
Result Armin = bad. Young doctor = redeemable. For that last one to work we have to forgive Young Doctor all of his trembling compliance once we see a tiny act of redemption followed by an act of self-preservation. Oh , that's ok, more atrocities form Hitler 2 will cover that up. If only that had been a comment on how completely fear can manipulate us. It's lost in clumsiness.
Remake as a faux documentary. Interviews interspersed with what little would have been filmable and then show some of Idi's home movies (mocked up will do). Give it to Lars von Trier. Then watch him at Cannes.
 |
| "Now wasn't Ah lahk this in Wahld at Harrrrt?" |
Strangle all the cuteness of this one at birth and focus on some of the serious issues that are obscured by it on screen (like Duvall's creepy ease with the notion of sterilising Rose) and emphasise the menace the small town community feels from her refulgent sexuality (ie don't have her "creatin' a heatwave" by walking down Main Street to a raunchy ragtime version of Dixie). Allow this to be scary and we'll be so grateful for any morsel of warmth it will never feel fulsome.
Let's go against type and give this to Kathryn Bigelow. We all know she can direct men. Let's see her get inside their nervous systems without a shot fired.
Maybe dislike is a bit strong but, agreed with last king of Scotland and House of sand and fog, which both, although have qualities and are worth a watch; are too heavy handed with the plot and ultimately a bit disappointing (Kingsley is always fantastic though). I have to take issue with Gremlins however, it’s the cutesy and comical tone that elevates it above the norm and is fantastically judged. Similar films of the 'little monster' ilk (Kritters, Puppet master etc) all suffer under their prevalence of horror and violence. Gremlins whilst having horror elements, retains a charm and it is tremendous fun watching the little pests wreak havoc in as many different ways as possible (allowing for the anti-consumerist under tones to shine though - The perfect dark Christmas movie haha!) It can be argued whether it’s essentially a horror film however - probably more a dark comedy. The sequel is a lot of fun too – where the horror aspect is pretty much completely removed – Beware Peter! it even goes as far as to review Gremlins 1 half way through, where an unsuspecting film critic labels it a terrible movie – the gremlins then tie and gag him with 16mm film stock haha!
ReplyDelete-Ewan
Thanks for your thoughts, Ewen. I welcome contrary opinions here as they can enrich the blog. I'm unrepentant on Gremlins. I hate it as a symptom of the malaise that turned 80s mainstream cinema into the big flavourless blancmange that it was (largely through folk like John Landis and anyone like Joe Dante who made extra Stephen Spielberg films by proxy like Gremlins). I hate the clumsy telescoped gags and leaden attempts at social satire and I hate cuteness in any form on screen as I find it more indulgent that the longest held take of a kerosene lamp that Tarkovsky or Bela Tarr might want us to live through. Cuteness is far more indulgent because it always masks a lack of inspiration with an easy shallow distraction. I acknowledge that it isn't trying to be a straight up horror movie but think it would be far more effective if it had.
ReplyDeleteFair enough I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I found the cuteness, fun, and the use of comedy all effective devices in this instance. The sincerity of gremlins does shine through - and the social satire, though fairly generic, is not overplayed (certainly by the standards of mainstream films these days)- more, its cleverly used to service the story - the gremlin carolers choir always makes me smile! It's all personal opinion I guess in the end- admittedly I do look at it with the tainted view of nostalgia, having watched it in my youth. For me John Landis is a genius though, I never tire of watching his films- there are always so joyful! American Werewolf in London is one of the greatest films ever made. e
ReplyDeleteEwen, I think we've found an area of our circles in the venn diagram that will NEVER overlap. I will say this one last thing about Gremlins, though: it was quite obviously meant to be a comedy but the only time I laughed was the story of Santa up the chimney. Then I learned it was an old urban myth. So the only joke I cared about in the movie was not original.
ReplyDeleteI won't watch John Landis films now as I stuggled to get through most of his 70s and 80s input, hoping that I'd find something worthwhile. Never did, not enough to warrant a revisit at any rate. I find his work so try-hard that it is a constant irritation. This puzzles me as there are very few people I'd rather listen to about film and its history than the always articulate, witty and thought provoking John Landis. I just think the movies he makes are bullshit.
It's rightly said that there is no disputing tastes. Again, a note of dissent can only enrich this here bloggin'. For which, thanks
PJ