Make (Directed by George Romero, 1973):
.jpg)
Remake (Directed by Breck Eisner, 2010):
.jpg)
These are two movies made in vastly different eras and on disparate scales. The big budget of the remake enables the film to incorporate plenty of action sequences and special effects, whereas the more modest original is often forced to rely on exposition-laced dialogue to forward its story. Timothy Olyphant (of Deadwood fame) and Radha Mitchell star in the 2010 version, but the 1973 version is populated by virtual unknowns. Such lack of recognizable faces actually reinforces the realism of the original--the sense that the water supply of Anytown, U.S.A. could be tainted by a military-developed toxin that transforms people into homicidal maniacs. Unfortunately, the players employed by Romero are unknown for a reason--their performances are inexpert at best. For instance, Lane Carroll, who plays Judy, is one naturally beautiful woman, but she couldn't out-act a third grader in a school play.
The two films are also set in different parts of the country--Evans City, Pennsylvania (1973 version) and Ogden Marsh, Iowa (2010 version). Romero delves into the woods, while Eisner depicts a more open, rural milieu (but he quickly gothicizes his Iowa, demonstrating that it is no Field of Dreams: the film opens with a high-school baseball game interrupted by a gun-toting crazy who shambles onto the outfield grass).
Romero, unsurprisingly, makes a much stronger political statement in his film. The specter of Vietnam loomed large in 1973, as did a spirit of distrust of the American government. Accordingly, Romero's film is stocked with bureaucratic buffoons and intransigent yet incompetent military men. The remake just doesn't convey the same metaphorical/allegorical significance (even in a world of the H1N1 virus and post-Katrina FEMA infamy).
The eponymous nutcases of the 1973 version lack the quasi-zombie look of their 2010 counterparts; whether this renders them more or less frightful is open to debate. The respective films, though, do an equally admirable job of dramatizing the paranoia of the main characters, who fret about contracting the crazy plague and losing their grip on self-possession.
Eisner's film presents some terrifically horrific scenes, including one involving the best use of a pitchfork in the entire history of cinema. At times, though, the action seems a bit contrived--for example, the car-wash scene, which plays out like a ride through an amusement park funhouse.
Romero, too, arranges some unforgettable moments, such as when a harmless-seeming grandmother figure lashes out crazily with her darning needle. The film also features an utterly disturbing incest scene, as an infected father can no longer inhibit his desires for his daughter.
My major issue with the remake is that I was disappointed by the very end of the movie. Eisner chooses to conclude on a cliched just-when-you-thought-it-was-over note (as the heroes at last reach the presumed safety of a city that has in fact already been contaminated by the toxin). A much more intriguing dilemma could have been addressed: whether the heroes should risk their own freedom/well-being by blowing the whistle on the government's heinous acts (which culminate with the nuking of an American town), or whether they should keep their awful knowledge to themselves so they can attempt to rebuild their lives elsewhere.
Still, this did not detract from my overall enjoyment of what I would deem the best film of American Gothic horror to hit theaters in years. 2010's The Crazies chillingly illustrates the thin line between civilization and chaos, between good neighbor and dangerous adversary. So, sorry Romero purists, I'm going to have to side heavily here with Eisner's updated version:
Make: 2
\
\
\
Remake: 8
How about you? Have you seen either (or both) of these movies? Share your thoughts/reactions in the comments section below.
No comments:
Post a Comment