Remakes Done Right- 'The Fly'

Welcome to the third installment of my 'Remakes Done Right' series where I look at some of the better remakes in the world of horror cinema. First I looked at Werner Herzog's chilling re-vamp (pun intended) of Nosferatu, then two weeks ago I delved into Fede Alvarez' gore filled Evil Dead remake/reboot, what have you. I didn't get a chance to do a post last week, but this week I will continue the series by looking at what is quite possibly the greatest remake of all time. A film about grizzly transformations, dangerous experiments, and deep down, love, David Cronenberg's The Fly. Based on the classic 50's sci-fi film of the same name, which in turn was based on a short story by French writer George Langelaan, Cronenberg's The Fly differs greatly from its source material and only maintains the same basic premise. However, despite diverging so drastically from the original, Cronenberg's film ultimately surpasses it and creates a much more thought-provoking, emotionally gripping, and vomit-inducing film, keeping in tone with the many other darker sci-fi films of the 80's.

The Original

Based on George Langelaan's short story of the same name, the original The Fly follows a grieving widow names Helen (Patricia Owens) who recounts the bizarre tale of her husbands death. Her husband Andre (David Hedison) had invented a transportation machine that he proceeded to test on himself, however, after a fly made its way into the machine, Andre emerges as a grotesque human/fly hybrid. The Fly is an essential 50's science fiction film, incorporating ideas of teleportation and transformation, it's a classic tale of a well-meaning experiment gone wrong. Andre is not a bad guy, he is an ambitious scientist who dreams of inventing a machine that could teleport people from one place to another. Ultimately his ambition gets the better of him and he winds up having the head and claw of a fly. Truly the highlight of this film is Hedison's performance as the fly monster itself, relying more on movement than dialogue, he provides some pathos to the conflicted creature while giving himself this very insect-like presence with his twitching movements. Patricia Owens also gives a powerful performance as Helen while Vincent Price, despite his minor role, is memorable as Andre's brother Francois. Of course, the real punch line comes at the end in a twist that I will not spoil, but needless to say poor Andre doesn't get a happy ending.

The Remake

In the early 80's, producer Stuart Cornfield and screenwriter Charles Edward Pogue began to work on a remake of The Fly, altering the original story to focus on the more gradual transformation of the lead character. After a number of rewrites and original director Robert Bierman dropping out due to a family tragedy, David Cronenberg came aboard as director along with rewriting the script while retaining elements from Pogue's original one. Cronenberg had already become an established filmmaker at the time, known for his outlandish horror films such as Shivers and Videodrome, however The Fly would arguably become his greatest film yet. Jeff Goldblum was cast in the lead role of Seth Brundle, the ill-fated scientist, while Geena Davis starred as journalist, Veronica. After its release in 1986, the film gained critical acclaim for its performances, its special effects, and its underlying themes of illness and death. Most notable of all, the film gave us the iconic quote, 'be afraid, be very afraid'.

What it Does Right

Like many of David Cronenberg's horror films, The Fly contains some outstanding special effects. Throughout the film we see the gradual transformation of Seth Brundle from man to fly thingy, and the final result is a sight to behold. Chris Walas, the man who brought the Gremlins to life, managed to create this gradually grotesque transformation, beginning with subtle mutations before culminating in a bizarre creature christened 'Brundlefly'. It's safe to say this version of The Fly is a lot more disgusting than its predecessor, not that it's a bad thing, in fact it's one of the films greatest assets, it's just not for the faint-hearted. Fingernails fall off, skin deteriorates, and there is vomit galore in this film, Brundle's transformation is certainly not a swift one. Cronenberg has stated that this gradual transformation throughout the film is a metaphor for illness or ageing, something gradual that we all experience. As the film tends to follow Veronica for the most part, we are forced to watch with her as her lover gradually deteriorates into the disgusting Brundlefly. This gives the film a powerful sense of emotional depth despite the gruesome imagery, it's an interesting juxtaposition that works extremely well here. As well as Brundlefly, Walas thought up some other memorable monstrosities including the maggot baby from Veronica's dream and the fabled babbon-cat that was reduced to a deleted scene.

I've mentioned the films strong emotional heart, the foundations of which lie within Cronenberg and Pogue's script, however this sense of emotion is truly brought to life by Goldblum and Davis' performances. Goldblum gives more than just a phenomenal performance, he gives a number of phenomenal performances, each one for a different stage of his transformation. Beginning as an ambitious scientist, gradually becoming more cocky during the middle phase of his transformation, before becoming utterly insane by the latter stage. Goldblum is sensational to watch from start to finish, but it would be cruel to overlook the performance of Geena Davis who takes on the role of Veronica, a budding journalist who covers Brundle's experiment. While Brundle undergoes a drastic physical transformation throughout, Veronica goes through her own internal transformation and must step up to the plate and attempt to save Seth from himself. It is a powerful, very human performance that matches Goldblum's in a much more subtle way. To top it all off, hearing her utter those historic lines is incredibly chilling still to this day. Davis and Goldblum were the perfect choices for the leading roles in The Fly and stand out as some of the greatest casting choices in horror cinema.

Usually when a remake diverges so drastically from the original it doesn't go too well, look at Halloween II for example I mean what the ass was that? It was a bold choice for Pogue and Cronenberg to weave a very different tale from the same premise, but it turned out to be a gamble worth taking. During the time between the original The Fly and the remake, science fiction had changed immensely, it was a much darker genre that had the advancements of modern technology on its side. In order for the film to appeal to contemporary audiences and keep in tone with the increasingly popular sci-fi genre, the story had to undergo a drastic transformation. Pogue and Cronenberg's new screenplay allowed this to happen and accommodated the latter's distinctive directorial style. The cheesy sci-fi tale of the 50's had become a thought-provoking body horror similar to the previous films of Cronenberg, presenting a brand new tale while retaining the same premise of the original. It kept enough elements from the original to make it The Fly, but changed enough to make it something more fresh and original. While this is a remake at heart, this is very much a Cronenberg film, and a damn fine one at that.

The Fly takes a number of risks that don't often work with remakes, it has a completely different plot, different characters, and has a wildly different tone. However, these differences are some of the films strongest assets and are what allow it to surpass the original. It is a more updated tale for contemporary audiences with a strong emotional core and special effects that are as intricate as they are disgusting. The original The Fly is one of the few films that I'll admit was begging to be remade, and with the many advances in technology and special effects by the 80's there was no better time to do so. Surpassing the original and furthering the growing career of David Cronenberg, The Fly is without a doubt a remake done right.

Remakes Done Right- 'Evil Dead'

So last week I started a five-part series on remakes, specifically ones that manage to somehow live up to or surpass the original. Last weeks film was Nosferatu the Vampyre, the 1979 remake of F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu. This week, I'll be looking at something a bit more recent which may come as a bit of a surprise considering how poor a lot of remakes in the past decade have been. Whether you liked it or not, it's fair to say that Evil Dead is a lot better in comparison to a lot of modern remakes, managing to honour the original film without soiling its good name. Gloomy, visceral, and full of gore, Evil Dead managed to reinvent the story of the original without knocking it out of the canon, and while it may have lacked the signature slapstick humour that made the original trilogy so distinctive, it was still a real treat for diehard Evil Dead fans and newcomers alike.
Needless to say, there are spoilers ahead if you haven't seen Evil Dead.

The Original

The Evil Dead was a 1981 horror film written and directed by Sam Raimi, and starring Bruce Campbell as Ash Williams. Based on Raimi's original short film Within the Woods, the film follows five college friends on vacation in an old cabin, who become terrorised by demonic forces after reading from the mysterious book of the dead. Raimi and Campbell were childhood friends who had been making films together for years, but The Evil Dead would be their first feature-length theatrical film, the first of many at that. It was a very low-budget production, with crew members resorting to makeshift equipment in order to shoot certain scenes. In order to shoot the POV scenes for the demonic entity, the cameras were fixed to pieces of wood and given to camera operators who would then sprint around the woods to give that shaky-cam effect. 

Despite the cast and crew having little experience, the final result was a gruesome and gut-wrenching piece of independent horror cinema that gained immense acclaim from the likes of horror maestro Stephen King. It was followed up by two more humorous sequels, Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness, which were both equally popular among horror fans who praised its mix of dark imagery and slapstick comedy. The Evil Dead trilogy had become a cult sensation.

The Remake

In 2011, 30 years after the release of The Evil Dead, it was announced that a remake was in the works and that it would be produced by both Raimi and Campbell. Uruguayan filmmaker Fede Alvarez co-wrote the script along with Rodo Sayagues, with Alvarez attatched to direct as well. Instead of beginning the entire Evil Dead story over again, as remakes usually do, Alvarez would take a slightly different route with this one. This was not an updated version of the original story but instead saw a new group of teenagers arriving at the same cabin, years after the events of the original. In certain ways, Evil Dead is technically a continuation of the original, but because it follows the same general formula of the original and incorporates a number of common tropes from the franchise, it is considered a remake. Jane Levy was cast in the lead role of Mia, with Shiloh Fernandez, Lou Taylor Pucci, Jessica Lucas and Elizabeth Blackmore as Mia's friends. 

While it was criticised for its pitch-black tone, omitting the cartoonish humour that made the original trilogy so iconic, Evil Dead was generally well-received by fans and critics alike, with particular praise towards its use of practical effects. It was dark, it was fun, and at times it was genuinely scary, the more updated practical effects were highly effective in comparison to the now dated effects in the original. It also had a surprise post-credits scene for Ash fans everywhere.

What it Done Right

First of all, the fact that Alvarez decided to place the film within the same canon of the original trilogy was a very clever move. It shows that the filmmaker is not only a fan of the original films, but also that he has a high level of respect for them as to not erase them from the canon altogether with his remake. From the cabin itself, to more subtle Easter eggs such as Raimi's Oldsmobile Delta 88, there are a number of references to the original that help to establish this film within the same universe. Bruce Campbell himself even appears in a cameo role after the credits as Ash, delivering his signature catchphrase 'groovy' to the audience. Speaking of Ash Williams, Evil Dead never attempts to do a re-hash of that character, Mia is her own character with her own personality, she is much more vulnerable due to her struggle with addiction. At no point does she ever try to be Ash, a wise decision due to how iconic a character he is. Although I must say, the chainsaw-hand scene was a nice throwback to our boomstick-totting hero from the original trilogy.

One of the films finest features is its extensive use of practical effects, with minimal CGI used to touch up some of the sequences in post-production. Practical effects were such a huge part of the original Evil Dead, so to remake that film and jam it with CGI would just be plain disrespectful. Not only that, but practical effects just look much finer when it comes to gore, it makes the more violent sequences look much more natural, which in turn is way more effective for the audience. Limbs are torn off, faces are slashed, and then there's the infamous tongue-splitting scene that was particularly unsetlling. While the original film was packed full of bloody violence, the limited budget leaves the effects looking somewhat dated by today's standards. This film had a much bigger budget however, allowing for more polished and realistic practical effects. The scene where Mia's arm gets stuck under the fallen truck and she is forced to pull off the rest of her arm still makes me squeam when I watch it. This film has by far some of the best uses of practical effects in modern horror cinema.

While the film does follow the same general formula as the original Evil Dead, Alvarez throws us some curve balls every now and then so as to make things less predictable. First of all Mia, the protagonist, the character who we are told to root for right from the start, is the first character to become possessed. While Ash Williams experienced his fair share of possession in the sequels to The Evil Dead, the choice to make Mia the first host for the deadites was a bold one at that. However, it works. The fact that she spends a lot of the film possessed makes things a little less predictable and there are times when we begin to wonder if it will be her brother David (Fernandez) who walks away as the lone survivor. Sure, it's obvious from the start that Lucas and Blackmore's characters are gonners, but the way Mia's character is handled here is very clever and gives us the sense that nobody is safe here. I mentioned earlier Mia's drug addiction, this is a big part of the story as it acts as the gangs motivation to visit the cabin in the first place. Their reason for heading to the cabin in the first place is to provide an intervention for Mia and help her in her struggle against addiction, it's not just some holiday in the woods, these characters have genuine motivation for staying in this old cabin. Now one could read further into this and take the literal demons in this film as metaphors for Mia's personal demons, but that's an analysis for another day.

Call it a remake, a reboot, or a continuation, Evil Dead may lack some of the qualities that made the original trilogy so iconic, however, it is by no means a bad film. It shows a high level of respect for Raimi's films, keeping itself within their canon while never referencing them too explicitly. The story may remain close to that of the original, but Fede Alvarez does enough to surprise the audience every now and then, even hardcore Evil Dead fans. With its gloomy visuals, striking practical effects and a wonderful performance from Jane Levy, Evil Dead sticks close to the formula of the original and includes enough subtle references to honour it appropriately. However, Fede Alvarez brings enough of his own material to the table to establish this as quite a different film from Raimi's trilogy which allows it to stand out on by itself. That is why Evil Dead is a remake done right. 

Remakes Done Right- 'Nosferatu the Vampyre'

Recently there has been news of a remake of Suspiria on the horizon, 40 years after the original we will be seeing a new version hit the screens. The original Suspiria is one of my all time favourite horror films, so naturally when I first heard news of the remake, I wasn't too happy. Personally I'm not the biggest fan of remakes, a lot of the time they lack the spirit and the originality of their source material, generally doing nothing for the franchise and eventually fading off into obscurity. However, having said that I do not agree with the common misconception that 'all remakes are bad'. While there are some truly awful remakes like Rob Zombies Halloween films and that terrible House of Wax remake with Paris Hilton, there are some that manage to live up to the original and, on rare occasions, even surpass it. In this series of 5 posts I will be looking at those remakes that are actually quite good and do the original films justice. And to start it all off, I'll be looking at one of my all time favourite remakes: Nosferatu the Vampyre.

The Original

What makes this film interesting is the fact that the original is actually an adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula. However, as director F.W. Murnau could not obtain the rights to Stoker's novel, he was forced to change certain aspects of the story such as character names, locations and the appearance of the Count in order to set his film apart from it. The final result was a true masterpiece of German expressionist cinema, memorable for its haunting visuals and Max Shreck's performance as the horrific Count Orlock. Nosferatu has since become an iconic piece of cinema and is often considered one of the most influential horror films of the silent era. While it was met with initial controversy by some who felt that Murnau ripped off Stoker's novel, it's safe to say that time has been kind to Nosferatu and it is now thought to be one of the greatest horror films of all time. 

Since the films release in 1922, there have been countless 'official' adaptations of Stoker's novels, starring the likes of Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee, and Udo Kier in the titular role. However, despite this, Count Orlok managed to stand alone as his own character, his tall, rat-like appearance contrasting Dracula's usually charming demeanor. Because of this, people generally don't associate Orlok with Dracula and tend to regard them as two separate characters. It became clear that Nosferatu had become iconic in its own right, gaining praise and admiration from numerous filmmakers, one of which was Werner Herzog.

The Remake

By the time Werner Herzog decided to adapt Dracula to the big screen himself, the character had come into the public domain, which meant that there were no complications with rights. While Herzog took advantage of this to use the character names from the book, he opted against making what would have been another in a long line of Dracula movies. Instead, he decided to pay homage to Murnau's Nosferatu, which he felt was one of the greatest films to ever come out of his native Germany. The film was eventually released in 1979, with Herzog shooting both an English language and German language version simultaneously while using the same cast. It starred Bruno Ganz as Johnathan Harker, Isabelle Adjani as Lucy Harker (Mina in the novel), and Klaus Kinski as the sinister Count Dracula. However, this version was Dracula in name alone, as his bald head, sharp nails and rat-like fangs gave him the appearance of Count Orlok. This was not just another Dracula adaptation, it was Nosferatu the Vampyre, a film that would act as a remake and tribute to Murnau's masterpiece.

What it Does Right

First of all, Herzog manages to create this consistently eerie atmosphere throughout. About 20 minutes in there is a sequence that sees Johnathan make his way to Dracula's castle, passing through gloomy forests and rural landscapes in the process. Throughout this scene, there is this constant feeling that Harker is being watched, that someone is following him. The way in which Herzog shot the scene, accompanied by the chilling score from Popol Vuh creates this unsettling sense of paranoia for the duration of the sequence, leaving us in anticipation for what happens next. While nothing scary actually does happen, it is that atmosphere created by Herzog that makes the sequence so chilling. It is very much like the original film in this sense, creating an unnerving atmosphere of tension through imagery and lingering shots instead of attempting to do anything explicit. Another scene from the film that really stands out in terms of atmosphere, is when Lucy wanders around the rat-infested town of Wismar. The townspeople, who have become infected with the plague brought by rats, make merry in order to savour the time they have left. One group of people sit at a long table, eating a feast while the horde of rats scramble about at their feet. It's a scene that really makes your skin crawl, the image of all these rats crawling over each other juxtaposed with the merryment of the villagers was something that I found highly unsettling. Again, it's not explicitly scary, but subtly manages to get under your skin.

Much like the original film, one of the most unsettling aspects of Nosferatu the Vampyre is the Count himself, this time portrayed by Klaus Kinski. Baring resemblance to Max Shreck's Count Orlok, this version of Dracula is a pale white man with a bald head and rat like features. Kinski's mere presence onscreen is enough to chill viewers to the bone, delivering his dialogue slowly and articulately, making almost every line memorable. While this version of Dracula is terrifying to look at and brings that chilling presence with him to all of his scenes, he is different to previous portrayals of the Count. Kinski's version is much more sympathetic, portraying him as a creature plagued with loneliness and despair. He is still a monster, but at the same time he longs for something more, for companionship. Kinski is fantastic at bringing to life this side of the Count, often appearing worn out and sorrowful. He manages to bring another layer of depth to the character while maintaining that sinister demeanor that makes him so iconic.

However, the one thing that I feel makes this one of the better remakes is its profound respect for the original. Herzog is clearly a fan of Murnau's Nosferatu and he makes that clear in this film by paying homage to it numerous times. The most obvious is Kinski's appearance, created by makeup artist Reiko Kruk, he is clearly meant to resemble Count Orlok. Herzog could have went with the stereotypical, tall, dark and handsome image of Dracula, but instead he decided to recreate the grotesque image of Orlok. However, there are some more subtle references to the original film, particularly in the framing. Some of the shots from Nosferatu the Vampyre are almost identical to those in the original, one example is that image of the Count standing on the deck of the ship, the mast in the background. Another comes towards the end of the film, where the Count attempts to feed on Lucy once and for all. That shot of Kinski looming over Isabelle Adjani's neck is almost identical to the one of Shreck and Greta Schroder in the original, another one of the films most iconic images. It is clear that Herzog paid an immense amount of detail to the films framing in order to recreate some of the most iconic moments from the original, displaying how much love and respect he had for it.

This, I feel, is what makes Nosferatu the Vampyre a remake done right, its respect for the original. This film does not attempt to surpass Murnau's film, nor does it attempt to follow it step by step, instead it acts as a tribute that allows Herzog to express his sheer admiration for the original. Not only does it manage to recreate some of the imagery from the original, but it has its own gloomy visuals and distinctively eerie atmosphere to grant it its own identity. It's a film that I feel many modern remakes could learn from, not only that, but one that horror filmmakers everywhere can learn from as well. Herzog proves with Nosferatu the Vampyre that sometimes it is possible to successfully reinvent a classic.