In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« Ask FlickChick
Ask FlickChick: Real-life Body Snatchers, Remakes, Stephen King and More
Ask FlickChick: Yes, there is a real "body-snatching psychosis, why Hollywood loves remakes, why critics hate Stephen King and more...
Question: I just saw the new Nicole Kidman movie Invasion with my girlfriend and she insists there's a real disease where people think their friends and family have been replaced by duplicates. That sounds crazy to me — I think there have just been so many versions of Invasion of the Body Snatchers that people think it's a real thing. What do you think? — Erik
FlickChick: Amazingly enough, there is a real psychological disorder called Capgras Syndrome whose sufferers are convinced that their loved ones are no longer their loved ones, just like the characters in the four adaptations to date of Jack Finney's allegorical science-fiction novel Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The delusion is named for French psychiatrist Jean Marie Joseph Capgras, who first described it in 1923. It remains something of a mystery and can take several forms: Sometimes people don't recognize their own reflections, others think that their pets or possessions have been mysteriously, inexplicably replaced.
I've never been able to find any evidence that Finney was aware that Capgras Syndrome had a name, but he describes it flawlessly in his book, the metaphorical underpinnings of which are flexible enough to support a variety of readings. And while The Invasion (2007) really is a disaster, the 1956 and 1978versions of Invasion of the Body Snatchers are both terrific movies, and Abel Ferrara's 1994 Body Snatchers is a solid enough variation on a theme.
On a vaguely related note (truth is stranger than fiction), researchers have just discovered that moray eels have a second interior set of jaws that jut out of the eels' throats when they feed. Sound familiar? Think Alien (1979) and its sequels. H.R. Giger, the Swiss artist who designed the alien, sounded just about as surprised as felt when a journalist called him for a comment. "The double teeth came when I did my first drawings," he told the New York Times. "[Director] Ridley Scott told me to make it so that it could move. I hadn’t studied any animal. My instructions were that it should be somehow frightening and horrible, and I did my best."
Question: Is it just because I'm 57 years old or is it just that this generation of movie makers has no imagination? Why does every movie, TV show and game have to be "retooled" for a new generation? I'm sick of reruns and refuse to go to the movies anymore. My library card is getting a workout though! — Marge
FlickChick: Nope. It's not just you, Marge. I, too, am sick to death of remakes, do-overs, reimaginings, knockoffs, spin-offs and rip-offs. It's not that "Hollywood" — which I'm using rather imprecisely as a synonym for the American entertainment industry — is bereft of ideas. Most writers, directors and producers don't sit around dreaming of being the visionary responsible for a big-screen remake of cornpone series The Dukes of Hazzard. But they all want to work, so if they have to make The Dukes of Hazzard to pay the mortgage and stay on the industry radar so that maybe one day they can make that movie they've been dreaming about for years, they make The Dukes of Hazzard.
The movie industry has changed enormously in the last 35 years: I'm not going to wallow in the "Jaws and/or Star Wars ruined the motion picture industry" rant, but the one-two punch of their stupendous successes — a pair of cheesy B movies writ large, glossy and irresistible — changed the way studio executives thought about their business.
For most of the medium's history, studio heads sought to spread the risk around: Every year they assembled a large slate of diverse titles — different genres, different lengths, different budgets — and figured the hits would make up for the misses. They were also fine with the idea that popular pictures would pay for prestige movies that lent a little class to the bread-and-butter Westerns, romances and horror pictures.
Post Star Wars and Jaws, executives started looking for the big score, happy to spend a lot of money on the one picture that was going to make a mega-load of money.
The more money studios were planning to pour into one picture, the less studio executives were inclined to mess around. They made a concerted effort to wrest creative control away from unpredictable filmmakers and discover formulas that worked every time. Focus groups took on ever-increasing importance, asking people what they wanted to see and what they thought of what they had just seen. Would you be interested in seeing a movie about this subject? With that established star? This hot up-and-comer? Would you be more interested if the main character were a woman? A talking dog? How about if we made it funny/scary/set on Mars? And the thing about remakes is that they have a high preexisting factor. You may not have watched Starkey and Hutch, but you know it was a cop show and for a while people talked about it constantly. And so, the conclusion goes, if you're looking to go to the movies and you have a choice between a Starsky and Hutch movie and some other picture you don't know anything whatsoever about, you're going to lean towards the devil you know. And that, in a nutshell, is why we're going to be seeing everything from a live-action Speed Racer movie to a feature film remake of the classic PBS miniseries I, Claudius.
Question: I was watching TV Guide Network and saw a review and clip of a movie with a young man — possibly Keanu Reeves — who had a moderate brain injury and befriended another man (Jeff Daniels?) who was blind. It looked like a great movie, but I missed the name. Can you help me? — Sandy
FlickChick: That would have been a great little movie called The Lookout (2007) — the young man is former 3rd Rock from the Sun star Joseph Gordon-Leavitt rather than Keanu Reeves, but you're right about the other actor — it's Jeff Daniels, in fine form.
Question: I'm always amused when I see comments like yours about the "generally dismal history" of Stephen King movie adaptations. Guess you've never heard of Stand By Me, The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, Misery, The Shining and Carrie. I believe all of these (and several others) were successful — both with critics and at the box office. Why is it that King's successes are so often overlooked? (Or maybe the better question is why does he get the blame for the clunkers, while the directors and actors get the credit for the good ones?) — Jack
FlickChick: First, yes I have heard of all the titles you mentioned: They're six of the more than 100 movies (theatrical, made-for-TV, direct to video/DVD) based on Stephen King stories and they're good. Most of the others range from OK to awful, hence "generally dismal."
Second, I won't presume to speak for other critics, but I think Stephen King is a terrible writer. He has great ideas and he pounds most of them into the ground with the sheer weight of careless storytelling, clichéd characters, tone-deaf language, excessive subplots and lazy reliance on brand names to establish atmosphere and ambience. When people say King's writing is "cinematic," what they're really saying is that you sure as hell don't read him for the writing. He writes too much and, especially at this point in his career, gets edited too little.
Good filmmakers — Brian De Palma, Stanley Kubrick, Frank Darabont et al — keep the good parts of King's plotting and bring their own imaginations in to replace the junk they throw away. Good actors find layers and subtleties in broadly written characters. Bad filmmakers just slog around in the mire. Hence, filmmakers get credit for the good movies and King takes the rap for the rest.
The odd thing is that King is an astute judge of other people's work — I read his column in Entertainment Weekly regularly. But he can't seem to turn that same discerning eye on himself.
Send your movie questions to FlickChick.
See Maitland McDonagh and Ken Fox review this week's new flicks on the Movie Talk vodcast.
Hear Maitland on the weekly podcast TV Guide Talk.
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2007 7:04 PM
|
It's so funny that you mentioned that about Stephen King. I was just expressing an almost identical opinion to someone this past weekend. I also read him in Entertainment Weekly and have always been amazed at his ability to analyze other peoples work. It amazes me that he can't use that talent to improve his work.
As for the adaptations of his work, for me Stephen King's name is a big red flag for anything on TV or in the theaters. There were those rare exceptions, but for the most part you can't go wrong avoiding the King. (It's the same feeling I have about those scary Burger King commercials)
|
|
Sep 12, 2007 7:26 PM
|
|
I agree wih you about Stephen King; I've never found his work interesting at all, but I really enjoy reading his column in EW.
|
|
Sep 12, 2007 10:55 PM
|
Great column, Maitland. I learned so much. One of the most fascinating things is the tidbit about Alien, H.R. Giger and Moray Eels. Since I consider Alien one of the best, if not the best monster sci-fi picture, I love the trivia about it.
The question on remakes reminds me why I like indie's and foreign films more and more. We find they have a more original story. We've been particularly enamored with Irish movies lately. It might be the wonderful Cillian Murphy. Bitter Harvest was such a great movie, IMO.
I've been recommending The Lookout all over the place. I didn't know if I wanted to watch it, but came here to see what you and Ken had to say and went to Rotten Tomatoes, saw the glowing praise and thought I'd give it a try. It's my favorite movie so far this summer and I'm so glad I saw it. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is absolutely brilliant in the movie. I think Jeff Daniels is always brilliant. He's such a pro, every nuance of his performance is planned and well executed.
I like some of Stephen King's characters and stories, such as Salem's Lot or The Green Mile. Others leave me cold such as Pet Cemetery or It. I actually prefer Tom Tryon's stories - although he was not as prolific and his books were often made into mini-series rather than movies. His character development was superb and to me that makes all the difference. I especially loved Harvest Home and The Other. I guess I'll have to start reading King's EW column.
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 1:33 AM
|
I'm another one in agreement re King. I didn't read Carrie until a decade after the movie version. I had always assumed King was responsible for that beautifully constructed plot, and it was surprising to find the book such a jumbled mess. On the other hand, Danse Macabre (a non-fiction book about the horror genre) is a good read - the only King volume I actually kept after finishing.
Capgras' Syndrome: the best literary rendition of this is The Beautiful Stranger, one of Shirley Jackson's short-story masterpieces.
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 9:41 AM
|
|
mirakle -- I don't know that Shirley Jackson story, but I'm going to acquaint myself with it ASAP!
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 10:50 AM
|
|
OK I've been trying to bite my tongue but... Maitland, I wanna see your Halloween review!! (pout, pout, kick the dirt)
|
|
Sep 13, 2007 4:13 PM
|
|
Well, I'm a day late but I can't let the Stephen King hating go without a response. He's my favorite author when I just want to be purely creeped out and entertained. I get completely lost in most of his books and he is one of the few authors that can make me actually "see" the scene he's describing. I also think his character development is fantastic. I feel like I really get to know the characters in his books. I agree he could use some better editing on some occasions, but no one scares me as reliably as King does. I always feel the criticism of King is a little elitist. As if liking his books means your a bit of an intellectual lightweight. Sorry, but I find him extremely entertaining and I love the way he writes. My favorites are The Stand, The Dark Half and The Talisman.
|
|
Sep 14, 2007 12:39 PM
|
dolphinwmn - I heartily endorse your enjoyment of King and don't consider you or people like you intellectual lightweights. But you brought up the dreaded "elitist" and consequently have pushed a button: we all know not to name-call here.
Yeah, I finished school years ago (with an English major) and still love to read the kinds of books that were assigned to me there. Doesn't make me a snob, or incapable of enjoying popular fiction, or automatically critical of those who do (I enjoy it too). Nabokov (whoops - there I go) said one should read with the base of the spine - go for what produces the tingle. If you get it from King and I get it from Edith Wharton, then good for both of us.
What's important is that we're both reading what we like.
|
|
Sep 14, 2007 1:37 PM
|
Maitland,
Great write up on Stephen King movies, but I'm still waiting with anticipation for your review of Rob Zombie's Halloween. As a huge fan of the original I was greatly disappointed, but I always find your thoughts on horror films to be original and fascinating. What did you think?
|
|
Sep 14, 2007 1:51 PM
|
|
I could only hope for a portion of King's literary success. Dolphinwmn - you certainly aren't alone. He was on the best seller list many times for a reason.
|
|
Sep 14, 2007 5:24 PM
|
McDonagh lost all credibility when she included Kubrick in her list of directors who have "improved" on Kings work. Not only is Kubrick's The Shining a horrible adaptation of Kings book, it is one of the worst movies ever made. Forget the book. On it's own it's really bad.
Only a Kubrick fanatic could possibly think otherwise. If that movie had been directed by anybody else, critics like McDonagh would see if for what it is: a boring, dumb, poorly cast, poorly paced, poorly acted, poorly written, excuse for a "horror" movie.
It was fun seeing it in the theater in 1980. It got a lot of laughs. Of course a Kubrick fanatic will always say that's what Kubrick intended. Right.
|
|
Sep 21, 2007 12:19 AM
|
|
|
