Ten Deep 3.25.09: Special Breakdowns Edition #2

Posted by Lucas Huddleston on 03.25.2009

This week, 411's Lucas Huddleston offers up something different from the usual once more, delivering a character breakdown on Indiana Jones, and thoughts on the current state of the 'remake' fad. Just click on the darn link.

Hello, and welcome to Ten Deep: Week 25! Of course, as promised, lets get into a few comments from last week's The Adaptations of Alan Moore column…

First off, allow me to extend a very gracious ‘Thanks' to everyone, including fellow 411 writers Ben Piper and Todd Vote, for their good words about last week's work. Honestly, the best thing anyone can tell me is that they thought my stuff was a good read, and those words coming from other writers makes me feel good. So thanks, everyone. Though, obviously, I still suck (and have always sucked) at proof-reading my work, as I still managed to work in quite a few typos (such as misplaced words, words repeated, and the like). I think my problem is that, as I look over it before I post it, I tend to read through it rather quickly, and, since I already know what the article contains and what I wrote, my eyes and brain just skim over the errors without making note of them. I'll have to work up a new system of proof-reading my material…perhaps by editing each paragraph individually as I finish them.

Speaking of paragraphs, guest, Chaz, and marky all took issue with my rather large paragraphs, which is a more than valid complaint to make, especially when it comes to my work. The problem isn't stemmed from my lack of noticing the massive blocks of text; in fact, when I previewed the article shortly before I posted it, I did indeed notice how large quite a few of them were…but I opted not to split them up. Why? Well, as I said it's all a very conscious decision on my part, and it has to do with how I personally view paragraphs – what they are, and what they should do or convey. I'll explain as best as I can. You see, take a piece of work; naturally, the larger body of work has one theme that is encased within it, or deals with one particular subject. Obviously, this larger body's structure consists of multiple smaller bodies of work that push the theme/subject along through the work. In my mind, I believe that those smaller bodies – the paragraphs – should likewise contain a singular theme/subject within them, something that, while adding to the main overall point of the larger piece of work, should also be singular enough to essentially separate each paragraph from another…allow them to stand alone, basically. For example, one of the larger paragraphs from last week's column was the very first paragraph I wrote for my write-up on the Watchmen film. In that first paragraph, I went on a rather lengthy explanation as to the work that initially ignited my love and immense admiration for epic stories, and that was the theme/subject for that particular paragraph. In the next paragraph, I explained why I love epic stories…one subject contained within one single paragraph, flows into the next paragraph that deals with something different, all tied together by a single strand. That's my reasoning for it…but it's still detrimental, perhaps a bit restrictive and rudimentary, and I recognize that. You should see some of the paragraphs that I wrote for my Fantasy novel that I've never finished; in writing that, it wasn't uncommon for me to have a paragraph run on for a page-and-a-half, if not two pages. I'll work on it, as I know it's hard on the eyes…but I can't make any promises as to its rectification. Old habits and all that.

The Former C.W.D.U had a question that he'd like an answer to, and I'll post it here…

While in university I was told, when it comes to literature and by-proxy, film, that there are no 'unique' ideas out there. This school of thought believes there are 3 'main' types of stories:
-birth,
-love,
-death,
upon which all other stories are derived from. (Again, there could be others that I am forgetting) For example, any particular episode of House can revolve around any of the main 3. A Halloween episode of a sitcom revolves around ghosts = death. A kid with a tooth ache going to the dentists traverses the theme of birth = life = growing up.

Personally, I think this narrows the field down a little too much and strives to put work into specific categories. However, there is something to be said about its simplicity.

I thought it was an interesting question, but before I could answer, M:-X posted his own answer…

There are more than those three, although a lot of those have fallen out of favor in modern times (modern times being anything after ancient Greece & Rome).

Honestly anything like that is just subjective categorization. It's something humans are really good at, finding new ways to put labels on things. Check out "Theme and Strategy" by Ronald Tobias.

These days though, almost all ELEMENTS of ANYTHING have been done somewhere else before, and we've evolved our storytelling to the point where it's about how different aspects/elements are mixed and matched rather than the aspects themselves being unique.

That's pretty much along the lines that I was thinking, honestly. When I read your question, the very first thing that popped into my head was how it seemed to be another way to categorize something, even to the point that the categories become so large that they seem to envelop multiple themes/ideas/concepts under one large banner or umbrella, even if any similarities between the themes/ideas/concepts are passable at best. For some reason, it's in human nature to label things, to categorize them to the point of insanity, if only, perhaps, to find familiarity between works for our own sake. For example, take the genre (or category) of Fantasy. Fantasy has a veritable plethora of sub-genres (more categories) that spindle out from beneath the broader category of ‘Fantasy', some categories even encroaching into other genres, such as Horror, or Science Fiction. So, naturally, Fantasy, Horror, and Science Fiction are all three placed into another, larger category called ‘Speculative Fiction', which, of course, falls under another broader, more generalized category, and so on and so forth. And, really, in the human mind, the categories or themes of ‘birth', ‘life/love', and ‘death' are pretty much the ‘be all, end all', so to speak, because the extent of our thoughts can't penetrate those three themes as summing up the base of our existence, or at least how our minds perceive existence to be…hmm, I'm the verge of a deep thought there, but I'd probably be better served to dwell on that one for a few more days. At any rate, hope you found a good answer somewhere within my ramblings!

Post stated that he like Tolkien's work up until the point that he began to focus more on Middle-Earth and less on telling one particular story. See, I'm the opposite; I came to love Tolkien's work even MORE after he turned more of his focus towards presenting the world in excruciating detail.

Hawkeye pointed out something that I've overlooked until last week, where the main character as an opium addict was transferred from The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen to From Hell. Now, I knew that, under Connery's insistence, the LoE film dropped the ‘Quartemain as an opium addict' angle…but it really hadn't ever occurred to me that that particular aspect had carried over to Johnny Depp's character of Aberline in From Hell. Well done, and thanks for pointing that out.

Thomas Tremberger pointed out that V for Vendetta drew not only from dystopian fiction, but also from The Count of Monte Cristo. It's true; I just got too caught up in relating the ties between the dystopian society depicted in the film to the American political landscape of a few years ago. That bit of oversight was my fault.

And finally, Furey pointed out that the DVD release of Tales from the Black Freighter and Under the Hood could pad out the world of the Watchmen film to the extent that I wished to be. I'm hoping that it will, and I'm actually eagerly awaiting the release of the ‘Ultimate Edition', or whatever it's called, where not only are those two features spliced into the theatrical version of the film, but the deleted scenes are included as well. I'm hoping that it'll do what it should do, namely present the world of the film as being even more epic. At the very least, I believe that it still holds true that this Watchmen film is undoubtedly the best Watchmen film we could hope for…even if it doesn't quite live up to the source material.

This week I've decided to change things up a bit like I did a few weeks ago, and this column is again devoted to breakdowns and what-not, though I'm extending myself a bit past breaking down characters and breaking down themes or ideas by giving my rambling thoughts on the current state of film where remakes seem to be ‘taking over', so to speak, particularly in the realms of Horror. The main reason I do so is for the simple reason that I have been thinking on such things quite a bit of late. It's kind of a shorter column this week, but after last week's monster, I'm sure you'll forgive me. But first, let's do a character breakdown on a well-known entity...

Indiana Jones

As a preface before I start here, it's worth mentioning that for the purposes of this breakdown for the Indiana Jones character, I will be drawing exclusively from the films, as I'm not at all familiar with any novelizations that deal with the character or his past, nor with the live-action television series that aired a decade ago, The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles.

By now, it seems obvious enough that when George Lucas dreamed up the character of Indiana Jones, he was undoubtedly inspired by not only the serial television shows of his childhood, but also by various heroes from pulp fiction. I, however, can't help but think that Jones shares just as much similarities with the modern-day superhero archetype as the character does with the pulp heroes of yesteryear, particularly through Jones' use of a ‘secret identity', or a dual identity, at the very least…and yes, while I do indeed realize that there are indeed pulp heroes that also made use of secret identities, there are many more that didn't (Conan, for example), and the ‘secret identity' aspect has become a much larger staple in the realms of comic book superheroes. But wait, what's that? Let's back up a moment there…Indiana Jones utilizing a secondary identity? I would, of course, argue that he does indeed make use of one, though we, as the audience, aren't shown much of it…and what's even more intriguing is to contemplate the question of ‘why'. But first, the ‘what' of it all, the secret/dual/secondary identity aspect for Indiana Jones, what purpose does it serve and where does it reside in the grand scheme of Indy's life…though answering where it LITERALLY resides is an easy enough question to answer. It resides in the classroom.

In each of the films, with the exception of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, the audience is given a fairly brief glimpse into Dr. Jones' true professional life – his life as a university professor of archaeology. And it is indeed a good thing that those few peeks into Dr. Jones' classroom are indeed rather brief, because, quite frankly, these scenes nearly present said class as being languishly boring…and that boredom honestly seems to stem almost directly from its instructor, meaning Dr. Indiana Jones, or, rather, Dr. Henry Jones, Jr. When we place the personality and mannerisms of Dr. Jones the teacher in contrast to the personality and mannerisms of Dr. Jones the adventurer, the differences between the two sides of the same man are somewhat striking…just as how the differences between Clark Kent and Superman, or Bruce Wayne and Batman, are as different as night and day, apples and oranges. While within the physically restricting confines of the classroom, Dr. Jones comes across as being somewhat mousey, a man that doesn't exactly appear to be brimming with self-confidence, or even exuding that much an extent of a physical presence; on the other hand, supreme self-confidence and a strong physical presence are indeed hallmarks of Dr. Jones' personality when he's OUTSIDE of the classroom…or, should I say, hallmarks of the Indiana Jones personality. I'd imagine that if one of is students was to discover that their teacher Dr. Jones, with his goofy-looking bow-tie and wide-brimmed glasses, dressed up in leather jackets and fedoras and whipped the hell out of Nazis with a bullwhip on weekends…well, I'm sure just the thought of such a thing would seem more than absurd to those students that sit in on his lectures. So what would drive a man to do such a thing? Obviously, perhaps the first thing that would pop into one's head is the notion that Indiana Jones undoubtedly hates his day-job, that the entire time that he's teaching, his mind is elsewhere, thinking about adventure. There may indeed be some truth to that, though I seriously find the idea that Dr. Jones hates his job to be in the wrong; when you think about it, nearly all aspects of his life deal with archaeology in one form or another, which would beg the question that, for a man that lives and breaths archaeology, why would he hate a job where he essentially is enabled to ‘spread the gospel', as it were? However, with that being said, while I don't believe that Indy hates being a teacher, I DO believe that he does indeed long to be out in the field, to get his hands dirty…and that he would undeniably rather do that exclusively, if it weren't for one single, yet powerful detail in Indiana Jones' life – his father. For you see, I believe that the duality of Dr. Jones' character stems from the wants of two different desires that clash against one another: the desire to be the man that Indiana Jones wants to be; and the desire to be the man that Indiana Jones' FATHER wants him to be.

All things considered, we're only given a rather limited look into the relationship between father and son, especially when it comes to the relationship's more formative years, speaking of Indiana Jones' childhood – both of which are the epicenter for the film Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, which is perhaps the most important film when it comes to the character of Indiana Jones. In the prologue to that particular film, we are clearly shown the exact moment that the duality of the Indy character is molded, and the man that a young Indiana Jones would go on to create himself in image of…or, at least, HALF of the Jones image. In said prologue, we are shown what is undoubtedly a young Indy's first true adventure, as he comes across some thieves that steal an ancient artifact during a boy scout expedition; Indy steals said artifact back from the thieves, and though he eventually gets caught by one of them and is forced to give the artifact back to their hands, Indy's future personality is set, as he discovers the whip and the fedora. As it pertains to that fedora, which is arguably the most notable cosmetic feature for the character, it's interesting to note that the man that gave that particular hat to Indy was also a scruffy-looking adventurer garbed in a leather jacket…which causes one to contemplate on this: did Indiana Jones base the man that HE wanted to be on that same thief that he attempted to steal that artifact from? I certainly believe so, as I believe that when Indy looked at the man, he did indeed see a thief with no respect for History…but at the same time, he seen a man that was strong in his convictions and tenacity, and willing to get what he wanted to no end, a man with no restrictions, even though he was on the wrong side of morality. Indiana Jones, unfortunately, DID have certain restrictions, placed upon him by his father.

When Indiana returned home from his first escapade with danger, he rushed into his father's study to tell him what had happened…only to be silenced by his father, and ordered to count backwards from a certain number in Latin. You see, both Indy and his father are essentially cut from the same cloth, as both have an abundance of love for historical artifacts and the hunting of them; however, while Indy's father spent years of his life searching for the Holy Grail, one wonders how much of that searching was physically done, rather than merely searched for through research and contemplation before making the first move? Dr. Jones, Sr. was indeed captured by the Nazis while searching for the Grail, yet I've often wondered how much time was spent on the hunt for the object as opposed to the time that he spent researching the thing. In essence, Jones, Sr. preached intelligence and wisdom and the systematical thinking over any certain strong and impulsive action…and action made out of raw emotion, basically. Perhaps his father even preached about reaching for realistic dreams first, and only going after that which is presumably unattainable after ‘life' has gotten out of the way. Now, that's not to mean that Indiana hates his father; on the contrary, I believe that Indy reveres his father, as showcased by the way in which the adult Junior acts in the presence of his father, as he's a bit more reserved when his father is around. However, what Indy wants for Indy and what his dad wants for Indy are two wholly separate things. And that's where the split between the two aspects of Indiana's personality come in: the professor aspect of the man adheres to what his father deems as true actions for a man, actions spent in quiet contemplation, propped up by intelligence and well-traveled thoughts; and the adventurer personality, based on a criminal, and on the one man that Indiana had a brush against that stood as being the exact opposite of his father.

...

Now, here's my thoughts on the 'remake' situation. Careful, it might verge a bit on the rambling side of things...

EXPLORING THE RECENT REMAKE FAD

Now then, as anyone who's read my stuff for a while now should know, I'm probably one of the few apologists for remakes/reboots of films in general. While there are those that find the idea of a remake to be particularly vile and disheartening, I've always been one to defend the concept of a remake…and pretty much for the sole reason that remakes are indeed a part of the film industry, and have ALWAYS been a part of the medium since the early, infantile days of film. Take, for example, the film The Wizard of Oz, based on L. Frank Baum's popular book from the turn of the 20th Century. The particular version of that film that has been burned into most people's minds is the undeniable 1939 classic, starring Judy Garland and featuring all types of songs, sets, character designs, and dialogue that has, in today's world, become exceedingly iconic, and perhaps even moreso with each passing generation; however, by now, most people should indeed realize that the iconic 1939 version of the film was NOT the first version of The Wizard of Oz committed to film, as there was a Wizard of Oz film crafted in 1910, then another in 1925 (and that's not counting the more recent Muppets version…if indeed that version ‘counts'). Or, consider the many film adaptations for Gaston Leroux' The Phantom of the Opera, of which that particular film has essentially been remade numerous times since the first version in 1916 up to the most recent version released in 2004, in both American cinema and foreign markets – almost a hundred years of remakes on that particular subject. Or consider the many film takes on Dracula, or Frankenstein. Of course, I'm sure that some would take issue with noting those films as being ‘remakes', since they're all based on a source material that originated in a literary form. I, however, DON'T take issue with that notion, as, despite being based on novels, it remains to stand as a more than valid point, in my opinion: a film was made, then it was made again, and again, and so on and so forth. After all, Alfred Hitchcock's classic Psycho was based on a novel written by Robert Bloch…and I'm sure that, despite its literary origins, most people would still consider Gus Van Zant's 1998 version to be a remake (and yes, I know that the film stands as a scene-for-scene duplicate of Hitchcock's version, but I hope you get the gist of what it is that I'm insinuating here). And so it is that, considering that I myself haven't any standing problems with the many versions of The Phantom of the Opera, Dracula, or Frankenstein that have been pumped out in a celluloid format since the dawning of the silent era in motion pictures, I can hardly claim to take affront to a remake for Halloween being made nearly thirty years after the original was created, and the same applies to Friday the 13th, My Bloody Valentine, or even Nightmare on Elm Street or Hellraiser (which you should remember from my Horror lists in October that Hellraiser stands as being my favorite Horror film of all time).

However, even though I feel personally inclined to defend the nature of the remake, I've begun to notice a rather disturbing trend in how remakes are being approached as of late, particularly in regards to Horror-film remakes, and that disturbing trend is this: a rather good Horror film is created, usually foreign or independent (or both), and before said film is given the time to properly find an audience for itself outside of relative obscurity, a studio (usually American) will green-light a remake to be made in LESS THAN A YEAR after said film has been completed. Now, I'm no money man, but logic would dictate that buying the rights to these original films so that they could be distributed and/or promoted on American soil would be much more cheap and cost-effective than remaking the films and THEN paying distribution and promotion costs…so, again, logic would dictate that money or cost isn't an issue here, especially when one considers that the last remake of a Japanese Horror film that made excellent money in theaters was The Grudge. So what IS the issue here, or, even still, what exactly is the line of thinking when it comes to the studios green-lighting a project to remake a film that was only just created and released within the previous year? So, let's explore the possibilities, shall we, starting with the one possibility that seems to be the most popular amongst the majority of people, if internet message boards can be considered as an accurate judge (or the majority of people, for that matter)…

American Cinema's General Lack of Creativity

Obviously, it seems that popular opinion seems to dictate that THIS is the reason as to the recent flood of remakes in general, not just the remakes that are hurriedly crafted hot on the heels of the original's release (or, at the very least, within three years of the original). I, on the other hand, absolutely refuse to give this reason any validity at all, and for this very reason: if the creative minds in America have essentially thought up all they can, their minds having done all that they can do, and there's no more interesting stories to tell…well, how depressing is THAT? What's more is that, regardless of how depressing a thought such as there being no imaginations left in America, what such a thing implies is also, in my opinion, quite preposterous, as it's absurd to place any kind of limitations of the extent of the human imagination. What's more, while I would readily admit that remakes can indeed be viewed as being essentially a detour around something creative, one would still have to consider that there are indeed still creative minds at work in independent Horror films, films that are quite so readily in the spotlight. So, as far as I'm concerned, the statement that American cinema has basically ‘tapped' into the extent of its creativity doesn't hold much water, if only because I don't believe that to be even remotely possible. Instead, I'd be inclined to believe that they do it not because the mind-tank in America has run out of ideas, but because foreign films stand as being…

Fully Formulated Concepts That Can Be Successfully Presented to a New Audience

This stands as making much more sense to me than brushing off American cinema has having no new ideas left. However, that can be easily construed by this thought, as this reasoning, in a way, presents itself as being a token towards the LAZINESS of American cinema…which I'd whole-heartedly agree with. In essence, by picking and choosing from successfully crafted foreign films that haven't had much mainstream exposure to American audiences, studios are basically gaining an idea that's already proven, and, what's more, they can take said idea and potentially fix anything that didn't work in the original context of the film…which I believe that The Ring was indeed an enhancement over the original Ringu, maybe even The Grudge was better in some ways than the original, but we all know that that line of thinking has since ceased to carry much weight, as lately a majority of the remakes were rendered into little more than shadows of what the films originally were. However, such a task as remaking a film for a new audience isn't truly ALL bad, as, of course, there can be both negative AND positive connotations to such a task.

As for perhaps the main positive aspect for recreating a film shortly after its original incarnation, in some cases, such as that of the Spanish Horror film [REC] as opposed to its American remake Quarantine, a bigger budget, more technically sound version of the film CAN effectively raise the film to being something more, as well as allowing the film to be much more easily embraced by the mass movie-going public, as no doubt films with an exceedingly low-budget such as [REC] can turn away some viewers that aren't used to watching low-budget films…and what's more, the remake can be more than effective in raising awareness of that original foreign/independent Horror film (or just film in general) for those that wouldn't have otherwise knew of its existence. However, as for the negative, in most cases those original films are indeed superior films in their own right, and the need for an immediate remake seems far from warranted; case in point, the film Let the Right One In, which was just released last year (and released on DVD in the States a week or two ago), a film which many claim to be one of the absolute greatest vampire films of all-time, and a film that works on many levels…and, of course, shortly after the film was released, it was announced that the film would see the ubiquitous American big-budget remake, which potentially COULD indeed hamper the superior film in its need to find the larger audience. All in all, I believe that the negatives clearly outweigh the negatives here, especially when one considers that money is no object…so why not just release the original to the mass audience? That leads into a far more insulting thought…

American Cinema's Xenophobic Tendencies

I don't know how many times I've read someone on the internet claiming that they can't stand sub-titled films, and prefer movies where the dialogue has been dubbed, no matter the quality. I've often wondered if film studios have done their research over the ‘net, and have come to the conclusion that most Americans just simply don't like to read text while they're watching a film. I'd also assume that the studios also feel the same way about dubbed films as most people do, being that they're usually conveyed as being an unintentional joke due to words and mouths not synching up properly. But I also believe that most aspects of American culture suffer from xenophobia, or fear of that which is essentially foreign to us. If you think about it, I'm sure you might see what I'm saying; we often read about how much money an American film made overseas, but how much money do foreign films make over here? That's not exactly something that's talked about too much, though we know that the rare foreign film does indeed make at least SOME decent money in the States, when it's allowed to be brought over here in its original capacity. Perhaps the heads of studios believe that an American audience simply won't pay to see a foreign film, starring people that don't look like us or speak like us…which, of course, should be a preposterous thought, but also one that I'm sure most people wouldn't be too surprised to hear if it was indeed the truth. I can understand if they believe that American's won't pick up on the sometimes subtle references to Japanese culture or religion that no doubt lurks within their Horror films, but I'm sure a few that are enlightened on the subject would, and if others didn't…well, would it matter, really, as long as the film entertains them? An interesting proposition, and one that I believe goes hand in hand with the true reason why…

Money

By ‘money', I don't mean the SPENDING of money, as it's already well known that money isn't really an option to film studios; they'll spend whatever, whenever if they think it's worth it. No, what I mean by ‘money' is that the remake trend is all about the MAKING of money, turning a profit. Going by that, well, that'd explain several of the above mentioned situations: it ties into the xenophobic reasons, as I'm sure that studios wouldn't bank a profit on foreign stars, language, concepts, or themes; it ties into the reasoning behind presenting a particular product to a new audience, an audience unfamiliar with the work, and a potentially untapped audience that would be willing to spend money on something that's undoubtedly different. As for a lack of creativity or laziness, that probably also ties into the more recent remake fad's dealings with money; remakes have already proven to make money, and since money is all that matters to those that DO have money (such as film studios), why even try to present them as anything more than what they are? [REC] and Let the Right One In were immediately successful, garnering all kinds of critical and commercial acclaim…overseas. Why wait in attempting to reap in that same kind of success here? In the end, money rules all, and is the first and last word on the lips of those that deal in it.

Until that day that there is exactly ZERO profit made from remakes, there will continue to be films remade and released to a new audience. But by that same token, if you have a problem with it, watch the original. I myself bought Let the Right One In just last week…the remake will have to wait.

Well, that does it for this week. Hope you liked it, and hey, maybe it even made you think a little bit. That's always a plus. See you next time!