During my visit to the movie theatre over the weekend, I was presented, as per usual, with a series of trailers for upcoming films. One of which, entitled ‘Red Riding Hood’ I found to be quite interesting as it was a remake of the traditional children’s story "Little Red Riding Hood". This particular adaptation was not an exact replication of the original, however borrowed a number of recognizable themes and characters. Although primarily based around a love triangle between a young woman (Amanda Seyfried) and two men, the film also incorporates the traditional character of the wolf, and the several key props (red cape and picnic basket) that anybody who read the story would be instantly familiar with. I started to think about this concept of ‘borrowing’, and concluded that this, as well all other film adaptations, could be considered remixes. Whether the director chooses to stay true to the original text (original text meaning a story, a poem, another film, a real life event etc.), or use the general idea as a platform for a new concept entirely (for example ‘Red Riding Hood’), he/she is creating a remix of someone else’s work.
Just as any other remix (whether it be a song, a fan fiction video, etc.), the viewer walks into the film adaptation with preconceived ideas and judgments based on their opinion of the original work. For example, if someone had never seen the story prior to watching ‘Red Riding Hood’, they would interpret it much differently than someone who had childhood memories of reading Little Red Riding Hood. Despite these differing opinions, the director of the film adaptation is creating a NEW meaning from an old text. Rather than sticking with the original ‘girl walks to grandma’s house and encounters a wolf’ storyline, the director recreates meaning by incorporating a love story, by giving the setting a historical context, and also by creating new themes and characters entirely. The debate over which one is better – an original or its ‘remix’ – is up to the individual viewer.
Here is a link to the trailer for those of you that are interested in watching! Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM8V3cHdSC4
You raise an interesting point - I certainly think the guise of staying true to the spirit of a text while still "offering something new" is how Hollywood justifies most of their remakes to the general public as more than gratuitous money-grabs. The question is really how much is raised by way of these simplistic changes or tweaks in same vein as the hidden or previously unexplored meanings attempting to be extracted by a remix: does adding a love story component to Little Red Riding Hood really do much to the original narrative? Maybe elucidating the original's 'loss of innocence' themes by incorporating a 'teen romance' element? Or is it just a superficial change playing into current ideological trends for the sake of making money? Can the ideological intent of remix really be seen in a big budget, corporatized moviemaking context? Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteYou also use the term 'historical context', which I thought was interesting, because Hollywood's main justification for remakes or adaptations these days generally tends to be more along the lines of playing into contemporary themes and times (we're supposed to want to see the new Gulliver's Travels to see how the old story plays out in a contemporary setting, with a very 'modern' star, Jack Black). In this way, doing a new version of Little Red Riding Hood while still setting it in the past does suggest more of a remix practice of reexamining and recontextualizing the past, or things that are 'already known' (I alluded to this element of remix in my last blog post). So which makes it more of a remix: reworking the past, or translating the past into present? What do people think?
I don't really see movie remakes like this as a form of remix. Though the film is a reworking of the ideas of an old folk-tale, I don't think it will bring forth new ideas. It is, like Kevin said, making superficial changes to accomodate contemporary ideas of story and entertainment. this is similar to the Walt Disney films that take old fairy tales and turn them into musicals and make them 'appropriate' for children.
ReplyDeleteI also find the idea of historical context interesting. Hollywood films tend to show us a setting that seems historical, yet it still shows many contemporary elements such as language and ideas of social interaction.
This article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/collected-wisdom/would-you-have-understood-the-kings-speech/article1886933/
talks about how the language used on the TV show The Tudors would not have been understood by the historical figures who are being portrayed on screen. In the same way, if we used old English in movies, the people viewing it would not understand.
This is a translation of the past into the present, like Kevin said, to make the ideas of the past understandable to the people of the present.
I think of movies like Red Riding Hood and the Disney movies of my youth as more of a translation, rather than remix.