»

[Pu the Owl]

Yes, finally good ol' Marty gets a well deserved award! His career is made of amazing movies, but in the latest years I was honestly pissed to see him miss the Oscar every single time, often to less deserving opponents. Ok, Oscars are not synonym of quality and excellency, but... Anyway, we finally could see him get the prize. I wonder if he'll collect more in the future, now that he got this one and the evil spell seems broken...


PS: I still don't understand why lately he cosplays as Woody Allen's father though

[Faile]

Yes! Finally!

Al Gore got one too, which is rather ace. After having the presidency stolen from you, it's probably rather appreciated.

[Pu the Owl]

Originally Posted by Faile

After having the presidency stolen from you, it's probably rather appreciated.

Ah ah! Yes! You can steal votes, but you can't steal class!

[merylsilverburg]

Although I think it's great that he finally won an Oscar, I can't help but feel like he won it for the wrong film. I haven't seen all of his films but he probably should've received it for his earlier works. This leads me to believe the Academy was thinking "Hmm, I think we've screwed over the guy long enough...so what the hell, let's give it to him this year!" And no, I haven't seen "The Departed" and I don't know if I want to.

Oh and btw, did anyone hear the female announcer saying that "Infernal Affairs" was from Japan? All I have to say is:

Morons.

Originally Posted by Panuru

PS: I still don't understand why lately he cosplays as Woody Allen's father though

LOL! That's what I thought too!

[Pu the Owl]

I don't know about the "wrong" movie. Personally, I liked it. Maybe I liked The Aviator a little more, but that's because I am like that towards action/thriller movies in general, they have not the same lasting appeal as movies with some more introspection, with a few exceptions. Still, this movie was good. Haven't watched Clint Eastwood's movie, but among the others nominees I think The Departed had all the rights to win. Hope this won't stop Marty from making excellent movies in the future. I don't like directors who take the Oscar as a "turning point" in their careers. But I'm sure this is not the case.

About the fact Infernal Affairs is considered and perceived as "Japanese" by the greatest part of Western, in particular American, audience. Shame on them! Such mistake is to be taken more seriously. It's a rather serious evidence of ignorance. That's one of the main reasons I refused to watch Memoirs of a Geisha: all those Chinese and Malaysian actresses to be taken as Japanese, and in typical Japanese roles, because of some superficial facial features... just absurd!

[merylsilverburg]

I never seen "The Aviator" either (only because I cannot stand DiCaprio) but I felt that would be a better choice as an Oscar win for Best Director than "The Departed" (which also has DiCaprio *sigh*). I guess my major gripe with the film, which may or may not have to do with directing, is that "The Departed" was a really Americanized remake of "Infernal Affairs." The original was subtle, the remake is all flashy. I was also a bit bugged that the film won for Best Screenplay too...from what I've read, a lot of scenes from the remake were scene-to-scene from the original. I don't know if it's true or not but that doesn't make me too pleased.

Originally Posted by Panuru

About the fact Infernal Affairs is considered and perceived as "Japanese" by the greatest part of Western, in particular American, audience. Shame on them! Such mistake is to be taken more seriously. It's a rather serious evidence of ignorance. That's one of the main reasons I refused to watch Memoirs of a Geisha: all those Chinese and Malaysian actresses to be taken as Japanese, and in typical Japanese roles, because of some superficial facial features... just absurd!

You know when I heard the announcement, all I can think of is what Ken Watanabe and his companion and Rinko Kikuchi were thinking. I mean, I felt embarrassed for them. And to some Westerner's credit, I do believe that a good portion does know that the film is from Hong Kong and not Japan. But I felt it was most stupid that the Academy, with all their claims that this year's Academy is the most "international," they made an error on a very simple thing.

[Pu the Owl]

Yes, the movie won also for the screenplay, and it wasn't the "original screenplay" award that it won. Considering a screenplay is not only dialogue but also contains much more information, which can't be reduced to the few lines spoken by actors, I suppose enough credit was given to the original authors as well-informed people perfectly know that award meant the material was already available in other forms and from other sources.

I think the movies have different approach, focuses and style, also when it comes to scenes that may look like simple translations from a version to the other. They also use violence and dialogues in a different way, even when lines are more or less the same. I disagree with the opinion the remake is "flashy". In fact, it isn't very flashy IMO. Especially for being an Hollywood movie. I actually find the original to be "flashier" than the remake, but "flashy" in this case doesn't have anything to do with subtleness. To not mention the fact many Hong Kong movies are equivalent to Hollywood productions and are made exactly to be perceived as flashy, in their own way and according to the Asian taste. This said, it doesn't mean one movie has to be considered worse and the other better. I think when you have remakes from Asian to Western, the gap is so huge you should not make real comparisons.

[merylsilverburg]

Originally Posted by Panuru

Yes, the movie won also for the screenplay, and it wasn't the "original screenplay"

Ah, you're right, that's my mistake, sorry about that.

Originally Posted by Panuru

I think the movies have different approach, focuses and style, also when it comes to scenes that may look like simple translations from a version to the other. They also use violence and dialogues in a different way, even when lines are more or less the same. I disagree with the opinion the remake is "flashy". In fact, it isn't very flashy IMO. Especially for being an Hollywood movie. I actually find the original to be "flashier" than the remake, but "flashy" in this case doesn't have anything to do with subtleness.

Well then I guess the scene-to-scene comments I read elsewhere were from bitter fans because I was only not happy when I thought the remake displayed exact same scenes and dialogue. Also, I might've been misleading when I used flashy: I didn't mean regarding the visuals or sets because the improved look is a given when it comes to remakes. But what I really meant by flashy was over-dramatized (I believe I mentioned this somewhere in another thread). To me, it seemed the improvements on the film made this remake (and the feel) seem much more overdramatic than the subtleness that, in my eyes, I saw in the original; but this may not be the case. And yes I know: I don't have the right to accuse the film of such things since I didn't see it. But I will watch it (bearing through DiCaprio) just so I can see for myself whether the film is good or bad or how it compares.

Originally Posted by Panuru

This said, it doesn't mean one movie has to be considered worse and the other better. I think when you have remakes from Asian to Western, the gap is so huge you should not make real comparisons.

I know you are also one of those people who dislike remakes for the sake that they always turn out pretty awful, especially Asian remakes; but I don't know if you compare the remake with the original then rate it or if you judge the remake based on its sole form. But, sadly, I can't excuse my own methods: I do compare. An example would be "Ringu." Now again, I didn't see the remake but just from trailers and clips, "The Ring" seemed too focused on visuals which lost the feel/build-up of the original (others may disagree). Now if I were to judge the remake alone, I'd still say that it's pretty bad because of the overly descriptive visuals, the actors (not a Naomi Watts fan), and just the overall unbelievable feeling.

With all this, I'm not saying that all remakes are bad...if the remake is better then I'm perfectly okay with it; even if it copies certain scenes from the original or change certain things...unless it's really drastic and uncalled for.

I'm sorry for straying off the original topic, I didn't mean to.

[Pu the Owl]

First of all I want to say you are right about many things, and that more than once I've agreed with you in this and other threads regarding this matter.

Remakes are often just an excuse to make money without much effort. Somebody buys the rights of the movie and plans to save a lot of time and money that would be otherwise spent in the creative process that comes before the movie itself. Most of the times these movies are directed by "professionals", persons who know very well how movies work, but that are completely inept when it comes to creativity and invention, taste and coherence. They are often supported by other good technicians for things as writing, cinematography etc. In brief, you have a staff composed by persons who know their work very well, but that are the nothing more than craftsmen doing it for, well, a salary. They add nothing to their source, and as a matter of facts they just "adapt" it to the taste of their audience, which is usually supposed to be lower and less educated or refined than the one of the original audience - otherwise there would be no need for a remake as they see it. These are the remakes I usually accuse of being a complete waste of time and/or offensive towards the original creation.

I think the question is different is when a good director chooses to film a remake. First of all because a good director will choose to direct something which is usually a continuum with his general production and artistic views. Then because we will also have a person actually adding something, like it or not, to the original. For example, I am a big fan of Kurosawa and his movies. But I wouldn't dare to say The Magnificent Seven is not a masterpiece of the Western genre because it is a remake of Kurosawa's Shichinin no Samurai. Same goes for Sergio Leone's Per Un Pugno di Dollari: I wouldn't call it a stupid movie because it's a remake of Yojimbo. I was kinda bewildered reading Leone didn't give credit to Kurosawa at first when his movie was released, and I was also annoyed. But couldn't force myself to not like the movie itself for this reason. I have to say I prefer Kurosawa's originals in both cases I mentioned, but I still think the remakes are excellent movies and should be watched without necessarily having the originals in mind and making comparisons. Of course, they take away a lot from Kurosawa's works, but at the same time they add a lot to their sources. What is lost is successfully replaced with something else. What they don't add, they change to fit their needs. If one says they aren't good, he is probably a very ignorant or very arrogant person, or both.

With that I only want to say a good director never "literally" films a remake because he doesn't need to, unless he's so desperate to need money at all costs - but if economical needs are dominant in a director's mind forcing him to make a movie in a way he doesn't like at all or that is just insincere compared to the rest of his production, then maybe he's not that good. A good director that is not a mere professional gives another perspective and another interpretation of the same story, even of the same scene, even with same identical script, just using other languages that are peculiar of the cinematic experience, and in this case a comparison is always unfair both towards the original and towards the remake. Maybe it's a wrong way of putting it, but I suppose that's how I see it.

[merylsilverburg]

I know it may seem like from my earlier posts that I came off as one of those people who go around shouting "Rip offs! Travesty! Argggh!" but trust me, I do understand what you're saying and I do agree with you (that was rather shameful on Leone's part though for not giving Kurosawa credit...but wasn't there a legal case that settled it?).

It's not like I don't judge the remake as a whole: if I happen to see the original and the remake, I will assess for each why I like or do not like it. And as I've said before, if the remake is good well then it's good! But if I happen to disagree with the remake then I can't say I like it...but that doesn't mean I won't give it merit as a film alone (but only if it's good on its own). I can give a good example: "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." I was a bit irritated when I heard about the remake (and the fact that just because it has Depp, all these silly people will invariably say it's great and can do no wrong ). But I went to see it and it was actually pretty good. I like Burton's addition of Wonka's childhood, Wonka's meeting of the Oompas Loompas, the extremely colorful look of the factory, and other things. As a film alone, hey yes, I'll watch it and I do; because the film has its own unique personality to it. But still, I prefer the original (which actually had a kid who could, um, act? ). And when I compared the two films, the original still had more soul to it (despite it not being accurate to the book) and that's why I like it more. I hope I explained myself a bit more clearly now.

[Pu the Owl]

Originally Posted by merylsilverburg

that was rather shameful on Leone's part though for not giving Kurosawa credit...but wasn't there a legal case that settled it?

Yes, but the fact he tried getting away with it, maybe thinking it was easy since Japanese movies at that time were not so popular outside Asian countries, that is very shameful and irritating even after law settled it. I doubt anybody would try anything like this with some Hollywood classic

BTW, I too prefer the first Wonka movie. The new one lacks that scary aura the first one has. Also, though I think Depp is an ok actor, I feel the madness of Gene Wilder was more appropriate. And this brings up another reason I often dislike remakes taken from older movies: they try to give a "modern" view at all costs and force everything in that direction, while most of the time the concept of "modernity" isn't the key of revisiting something.

[Faile]

What do you think of the Bogart Maltese Falcon against the earlier two(?) 'original' films? It's an interesting case study as I believe it to be a remake that fully surpasses the original attempts to film it. But I'd be interested in your opinion!

[Hylas]

Originally Posted by Faile

What do you think of the Bogart Maltese Falcon against the earlier two(?) 'original' films? It's an interesting case study as I believe it to be a remake that fully surpasses the original attempts to film it. But I'd be interested in your opinion!

Since father is hardcore fan of everything Bogart, I had the DVD at home for ages, but decided to watch that cool movie only a few weeks ago. Is it a remake too? I didn't know! What are the other movies called? Have you read the book? I think the movie is better than the book itself. I just don't get hardboiled novels

[Pu the Owl]

Sorry for the late reply, but mother was hospitalized and I had no time.

I'm not sure about two movies before the one directed by Huston. I only know of one, which I think lacks the impact and coherence of the more recent classic. Maybe I know the other under another name, but I don't remember to have watched it. I also admit I am a bit partial because I love Bogey, and it happened more than once that even in some average movie he made the difference in my eyes