I am not happy. There is soon to be a remake of a classic movie, Robert Wise’s The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). You know the one – scary guy from outer space (with scary robot, Gort) appears to tell the world of the dire consequences to befall them if they don’t stop being nasty to each other. Klaatu (for it is he, Michael Rennie) warns the people of Earth that if all wars do not cease pretty damn quick and everyone starts to get on, the Earth will be destroyed. Faced with that sort of threat, the good people of our pretty blue planet get with the programme and all is well. Hooray!
It was cited by some at the time of making as a metaphor for the ongoing Cold War and the ramping-up of the arms race and all that mid-20th century Mutually Assured Destruction everyone was so het up about. A fair point, but for me it was a cool alien movie with a message about morality, very much like the old pulp sci-fi comics. Whatever it was or wasn’t, it didn’t need remaking, as far as this film-lover is concerned. Naturally, Hollywood usually hangs on my every word, but this time they can’t have got the email.
It’s not just that it is being remade, but that Scott Derrickson (director of such classics as The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) and Hellraiser: Inferno (2000)) is remaking it with Keanu Reeves. The same Keanu Reeves who hasn’t made a good film since Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure (1989). What’s that? The Matrix (1999), you say? I don’t think so – over-hyped, SFX-sodden trash masquerading as serious sci-fi. If anyone could act in that, it was Lawrence Fishburne. Anyway, back to my point. It’s not only being remade with Keanu, either. Oh no. Not content with remaking a classic movie using an actor who is so-so at best in a lead role, they have changed the ‘message’ a little too. Honestly, it’s like someone taking one of your favourite childhood teddy bears, ripping off its head and super-gluing a potato on instead.
“What’s the beef Colin?” I hear you ask. Well, the message Klaatu is sent billions of kilometres across space to deliver is…drum roll…stop global warming! Yes, you read that right. Global warming. So, if, like, we don’t look after our planet, it’ll like, die and stuff? Bingo, Earth people – oh, and if you don’t do something about it ASAP, we’re going to explode your planet into lots of tiny bits. Please – someone tell me I read this on April Fool’s Day. I can kind of see the point that in order to foster peace and harmony across the vast expanse of space, an alien superpower may take it upon itself to be the ones killing in the name of peace. What I don’t get is why they would give a shit about the ice caps melting. Why could they possibly have a problem with that? A tiny blue speck, orbiting a minor star, which hangs out in the western spiral arm of the Milky Way. Oh no! The temperature’s gone up a bit – quick, Klaatu, get over there and tell them to stop burning fossil fuels!
Now, don’t get me wrong, I believe that global warming is a very real problem, and one which ultimately will affect everyone alive, but don’t tell me that Keanu is the one to save us all in what is bound to be a complete dog’s dinner of a movie. What’s that noise? Oh, it’s the sound of that environmental bandwagon being jumped on. Klaatu barada whatever…
And Picturenose reviews the remake here. Enjoy.
I’m definitely with you on this one, Colin. Unnecessary remakes are one thing, but this not only tampers with a classic, it also decides to add the further insult of including the lamentable Mr Reeves.
The original movie, directed by Robert Wise and starring Michael Rennie and Patrica Neal, is rightly held up as an enduring classic example of 1950s sci-fi. Crucial to its success is the context in which it was made – it tapped into serveral contemporary themes that had been hitherto taboo, and so presented an intriguing examination of America at a vital juntion in history. Korea, Senator Joseph McCarthy, the arms race and the nascent civil-rights movement were all bubbling away under the film, which has a surprisingly political take on society. A dangerous move, back then.
Take, for example, the inclusion of Sam Jaffe’s mathematics professor. Clearly made-up to resemble Einstein, he is a key ally in Klaatu’s endeavours. In real life, Einstein had recently been cited by Congress as a “foreign-born agitator” and was subject to increasing slurs concerning his political affiliations. Make no mistake, including a fictional version of Einstein was edgy stuff.
Or, take Klaatu’s attempts to bring world leaders together, with clear echoes of a similar Soviet-backed peace conference held in the real world, which was boycotted by US leaders (although supported by several key US writers such as Lillian Hellman and Dashiel Hammet). When a senior American figure in the movie makes oblique references to the war-like tendencies of some unnamed enemy (read: the Soviet Union) Klaatu dismisses these internal squabbles, but his plans for peace are scuppered not by the Russians, but by the US. Art imitating life.
Finally, it is also a film about Christ (much like the vastly inferior ET (1982)). Klaatu dies, only to be resurected, takes the Earth name of Mr Carpenter, goes out among the people, and finds faith returned by a small child, another ally. He is a celestial guardian angel, as it were, with Gort as his St Paul, and while divine intervention might not find such favour these days, mixed with the other sentiments expressed in the film, it presents much food for thought. I’m guessing this modern version will not trouble our consciences quite so much, nor be as fondly regarded 57 years from now.
Also, the original was the first film to use a theremin on the soundtrack. Groovy.
Many thanks for that trenchant analysis, CD. For my own part, I remember first watching the original on one of BBC2′s Friday tea-time sci-fi seasons back in the day (when the BBC was a public service broadcaster, I mean). Edgy, suspenseful, and a good/bad robot in Gort that is still an iconic image. ‘We mean you no harm’…would that Hollywood had similar sentiments towards its own heritage.
For Picturenose readers’ further ‘edification’, here is part of a recent interview that Reeves gave to MTV:
MTV: The first The Day the Earth Stood Still was very much an allegory. Is there as much of a commentary in this one?
Reeves: Yeah. Absolutely. The first one was born out of the Cold War and nuclear détente. Klaatu [the protagonist in the film] came and was saying: “Cease and desist with your violence. If you can’t do it yourselves, we’re going to do it.” That was the film of that day. The version I was just working on, instead of being man against man, it’s more about man against nature. My Klaatu says, “If the Earth dies, you die. If you die, the Earth survives. I’m a friend to the Earth.”
MTV: Sounds like Al Gore will be a fan.
Reeves: Well, it’s trying to reach beyond the idea of environmentalism. It’s dealing with not just the consequences of what we’re doing, but who we are as a species.
Hmmm.
CD – I did not know that it was the first use of a Theremin. Groovy indeed.
We could probably spend all day discussing films that should not be messed with:
Deliverance (hasn’t)
Psycho (has)
Police Academy 7 (hasn’t, and never should be)
Citizen Kane (not yet, just waiting for Tom Cruise, I expect)
For me, I missed the political and/or religious significance of the film – but then, I was around 10 years old and loved my sci-fi. Whilst I fully appreciate the significance of the undertow and the not-so-hidden subversion in it, I loved it for what it was – a film about cool, scary aliens.
Looking back, I can see that the message delivered in blinking lights in all the crappy sci-fi mags I used to read was “Russkies bad, free world good”, but at the same time delivering the opposite “war is bad” message. A confusing time for a youngster. TDTESS fits in with that part of my life, my childish wonder at silver aliens and saucer-shaped spacecraft. Even if I’d grown up without the capacity to understand that films were sometimes not just about what’s on the screen, I would not have liked to have seen this remade – by anyone.
Aside from the fact it’s going to suck something rotten, I could probably have put up with it better if they’d stayed on-message. Sadly, war is on the way out as a fashionable subject now that the WASPs have stopped killing each other and concentrated their efforts on
killing for oilthe war on terror.My hot tip for 2009? Steve Guttenberg in the remake of Das Boot (1981). You heard it here first.
Indeed, we could talk all day about films not to be messed with.
Incidently, my favourite Burt Reynolds movie, Robert Aldrich’s The Longest Yard (AKA The Mean Machine (1974)), has been remade twice, once starring Vinnie Jones, the other with Adam Sandler. Wrong, and wrong.
My favourite Hitchcock movie, The 39 Steps (1935), has also been remade twice, once (virtually shot-for-shot by Ralph Thomas) in 1959 starring Kenneth More, the other with Robert Powell by Don Sharp in 1978. Wrong, and kind of good. (There’s a 2009 remake on the way too, set to be directed by, of all people, Robert Towne – James)
And while we are on the subject, The Day The Earth Stood Still is quite the antithesis of another of Picturenose’s recently mentioned films, Don Seigel’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956); a very right-wing movie, unlike Wise’s picture.
For those interested in such things, the king of left-wing sci-fi was the great Jack Arnold, of Creature from the Black Lagoon (1959) (2008 remake on the way – J), It Came from Outer Space (1953), and The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957) fame (Guess what? 2008 remake on the way – J). Always worth a look.
PS: Reading those comments by Keanu Reeves left me thinking of the tagline to one great sci-fi/horror movie, that was in itself a remake: ‘Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid’.
Hear, hear, CD – except I’m in complete disagreement with you concerning Burt Reynolds’ best, as everyone knows it was Deliverance (1972)…
The Incredible Shrinking Man? That scared the bejaysus out of me when I was a kid! I went to bed and stretched myself out to make sure I hadn’t shrunk for about a month after seeing it. Well, I was about 8 years old…
James, I’m afraid I can’t agree on the Burt Reynolds thing.
While Deliverance is indeed a classic, the whole socio-political edge behind The Longest Yard gives it the edge.
Take, for example, the fact that director Robert Aldrich’s cousin was Nelson Rockefeller, someone for whom Aldrich had no political or personal time. When Rockefeller was govenor of New York, he ordered the shooting of 11 striking inmates at Attica prison after they had surrendered. Enraged, Aldrich instructed Eddie Albert (who plays the prison governor in the film) to play the part à la Richard Nixon, which he does, quite slyly.
That, and also that Aldrich repaeats the same trick he managed with his earlier The Dirty Dozen (1967), by urging us to root for a bunch of murderers and rapists, against the establishment. Some feat, and one that ultimately demands we examine our own consciences.
CD, I quite understand your argument. I suppose that, as much as your favourite Burt film comes down to personal affection as much as cogent argument, so does mine – Deliverance is simply one of the finest action films ever made, but it also manages to include social commentary with, quite frankly, knee-trembling horror and fear. But I accept the thrust of your point. (Film reference, film fans!)
On another equally important point, welcome to the longest Picturenose discussion to date, beating our Withnail & I and Open Water entries by…one! And counting, natch…
Just to nudge things into double figures, then!
Top Five Burt Reynolds Movies:
1. The Longest Yard (1974)
2. Hustle (1975)
3. Deliverance (1972)
4. Boogie Nights (1997)
5. Shamus (1973)
Guilty Pleasure: Smokey and the Bandit (1977)
Burt Film I Still Desperately Want To See: Breaking In (1989)
Best Burt Career Move: Not doing Smokey and the Bandit 3 (1983)
Worst Burt Career Move: The 1980s
Haven’t we strayed a bit from the original point which was, I believe, to do with outer space or somesuch?
‘…much like the vastly inferior ET (1982)’
?!
I beg to differ sir!
I think that the two movies are largely incommensurable. Sure, an alien befriends a child in both and one can read religious metaphors into the death and resurrection of the alien – more so TDTESS, imo. But other than that the two films very different focus. As an evocation of loneliness within a broken home, childhood wonder and friendship, ET: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) is unmatched – even by the current hit Son of Rambow (2007). I wonder when as spellbinding and iconic an image as Elliot and ET cycling by the full moon will be captured on film again?
Without wanting to become a pariah may I remind people of TDTESS‘s wooden acting, stilted script and tritely simplistic message – which hardly can be said to get to grips with the nuances of the cold war; nor for that matter the debate concerning nuclear weapons. Seigel’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) is a far more subtle and edgy film and far more successful in conveying a sense of unease and doom. TDTESS is a decent B-movie of its time. Next to The Sound of Music (1965), The Andromeda Strain (1971) and The Haunting (1963), however, the film is very much Robert Wise-lite.
That said, Theremins are indeed groovy.
I may be accused of being devil’s advocate here, and trying to artificially inflate the comments here on Picturenose, but I really didn’t like ET all that much. Not because it was an intrinsically bad movie, just that I found it mawkish and insubstantial. Naturally, I can see the subtext of alienation (pun sort-of intended) and loneliness, and who could fail to see the shoehorned-in religious metaphors of death, rebirth and ascension?
Comparing the alien to Christ is a double-edged sword – would we have all been so keen to ooh and ahh at him if he were six metres tall, had three rows of razor sharp teeth and a dietary preference for cute, fluffy creatures? Probably not. Obviously, ET was based on the friendly, benevolent God and not the apocalyptic reaper of men favoured by some religions.
It’s the cutesy, anthropomorphic approach that I have a problem with mostly. That and the oh-so-obvious ‘will he die or won’t he’ angle I saw coming straight away. It was just too nice. Kids have a basic honesty and will like whom they want to without fear of reprisal or vilification. Making the alien ‘lovable’ nullifies any point the film may have been trying to make in the religious arena.
I found it to be, overall, a self-indulgent, off-the-shelf Christmas blockbuster. That isn’t to say I hated it, just that I don’t think it’s as good as, say, seemingly everyone else in existence did.
I have no doubt there will be at least one response to this, so let me just get this out of the way first: I have no sense of child-like wonder, and have a heart of stone. There, saved you the trouble. That said, we do at least all agree on the Theremin.
Hate mail to the usual address, please.
In my defence, I was not directly drawing a comparison between TDTESS and ET, I was just making a personal observation that, on a dramatic and thematic level, ET left me cold.
The image of Elliot and ET silhouetted against the full moon, for example, far from being spellbinding, was simply a cynical excuse for a bit of visual showing off from Mr Spielberg (‘I know – why don’t we suddenly introduce the concept that this alien can make things levitate. That’ll look good.’) It’s an image that he’s been exploiting ever since, with his Amblin production company logo.
I do take the point that TDTESS is somewhat dated now, but it is important to note that its ‘message’ is not about the Cold War, just as Siegel’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers isn’t.
Instead, they both attack long-held establishment beliefs, one from the left, the other from the right. Neither are subtle, but in genre films that can be okay. The danger is trying to ascribe modern attitudes to old films. Both were pretty radical in their day, neither are now.
Colin:
How dare you disagree with me! I am a customer!
Obviously, if you don’t like the movie, then you don’t like it. It’s a free country, and you are perfectly within your rights to be as wrong as you like.
I will say that you can push the religious angle too far. Personally, I don’t read much religion into ET at all. Much less so than TDTESS, with its explicit and somewhat tiresome moralising.
I think that ET remains a film about friendship and loss – despite the fact ET lives. the ending is tremendously bitter-sweet. ET is saved but the two friends have to part forever. In my opinion, then, ET is of the noble tradition of fairy tales in which children are gently put through a trial of life.
CD:
“The image of Elliot and ET silhouetted against the full moon, for example, far from being spellbinding was simply a cynical excuse for a bit of visual showing off from Mr Spielberg.”
The trouble is that I think showing off visually is precisely what good directors ought to do. Imagine, for example, witnessing the amazing crane shot in Alien (1979) where the fossilized crew member of the ancient ship is revealed and complaining that Ridley Scott was just showing off.
I think that Spielberg is a victim of his own success. The fact that audiences love his movies so much often makes the critics hate them.
Chris: I aim to please.
I’m not knocking Spielberg’s success, nor am I citing it as a reason for putting him down. The man has a prodigious talent. He couldn’t have made films as diverse as The Color Purple (1985), Munich (2005) or the Indy films et al without talent, and it’s fair to say I love a lot of what he does.
I am nearly always flamed for saying I didn’t think ET was much to shout about, but it’s true. It’s very dear to the hearts of the people who like it, and any knock is tantamount to saying ‘Elvis was crap’ or ‘I thought Gandhi was an over-rated slaphead’.
As I mentioned before, I don’t hate it, I just don’t think it’s the epitome of cinema people hold it up to be. I like a film to move me, make me think or entertain me – unfortunately, ET only partially delivered on the last count. Having been a young boy myself doesn’t seem to have equipped me to feel empathy with a pathetic (I use the word in its correct form) alien.
‘Gentlemen, gentlemen, you can’t fight in here – this is the War Room!’
Nice thread, chaps – after having spent hours editing your messages, I’ll deliver my verdict, then you can all rest easy knowing that you’ve got the facts.
Concerning ET, I have to say that I am completely with Chris on this one, and would add that I believe that the performances from Henry Thomas as Elliott, Robert MacNaughton as Michael and Drew Barrymore as Gertie are among the finest ever in mainstream cinema by children, revealing a dysfunctional family with its own very real problems, which I believe is one of the very reasons why the film simply is not ‘mawkish’.
As far as TDTESS is concerned, I obviously agree, despite conceding the point made by CD and Chris that the film is dated, with Colin’s original argument, namely that we’ll have about as much use for a remake with Keanu Reeves as a cat does for pyjamas.
And to bring the conversation full circle? My research has led to the discovery that another Robert Wise film, the brilliant The Andromeda Strain (one of the non Wise-lite films to which Chris referred), has also been remade, this time as a mini-series, out this year. Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do…
Oh, and by the way, there are two ‘l’s in Elliot, and I don’t like Theremins. Hah!
Yes you do. You do like Theremins – everyone does.
While we’re on the subject – Robert Wise’s The Haunting (1963) is one of the worst films ever made. There, I’ve said it. Of course, it doesn’t have a Theremin in it. If it did, it would be a lot better…
Good. That’s settled then. I was right and everyone else was wrong except when they submitted to my superior argument.
By the way, congratulations to the board mods. This is the only message board I’ve visited where your posts get sub-edited. Brilliant!
Thank you, thank you my dear Chris. There’s only one board mod – and that would be me. Colin’s still learning how to write and edit, you see…
And by the way Chris – ‘thats’? Shortened form of ‘that is’? Without an apostrophe? I’ll wait a little while before I correct it, just so that EVERYONE can see your crass error…
Yeh, well – I cudn’t even spell “journalist” a year ago – now i are wun
I’ve even stopped running my finger along the sentence and mouthing the words when I read, too.
The pedantry of James knows no bounds!
Jeeeez! No one uses apostrophe’s these days its’ like sooo 2007.
‘
This conversation (with attempts at humour left intact in an unfathomably generous gesture from Mod Numero Uno) is now closed. I thank you.