criterionforum.org

Ben Wheatley to direct a new adaptation of Rebecca starring Lily James and Armie Hammer

Not that he's exactly a forum fave, but I'm guessing this will generate some... discussion, to put it politely.

Whenever I see announcements like this, I'm always reminded of Soderbergh on remakes: "Why are you always remaking the famous movies? Why aren’t you looking back into your catalog and finding some sort of programmer that was made fifty years ago that has a really good idea in it, that if you put some fresh talent on it, it could be really great."

https://www.filmcomment.com/blog/steven ... a-address/

Omensetter wrote: Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:15 am Whenever I see announcements like this, I'm always reminded of Soderbergh on remakes: "Why are you always remaking the famous movies? Why aren’t you looking back into your catalog and finding some sort of programmer that was made fifty years ago that has a really good idea in it, that if you put some fresh talent on it, it could be really great."

https://www.filmcomment.com/blog/steven ... a-address/

Totally agree with his argument itself, but that's from the man who remade Solaris...

Well, to be fair, Soderbergh was adapting a book, not remaking a movie. So is Wheatley, for that matter.

Anyone who ever watched Rebecca and thought it could be bettered is too stupid for me to waste any more energy on than this sentence

Does it need to be bettered in this retelling though? Couldn't it merely be different?

Agreed, knives - I'm not sure if the aim of many remakes is to improve upon the original product - it's just to take your own stab at it, modernize and reinterpret it. I have absolutely zero doubt this will be much worse than Hitch's, but there's no way Wheatley doesn't agree with that too

Why is that a defense of this movie's existence?

It seems like people only ever get up in arms about remakes if they fly a flag for the original film. I've been guilty of it too, but this is far from the first repeat adaptation of a beloved work that's been made, why not do this one in particular?

Sorry, I was unclear: I was addressing why would a director not thinking the film he makes would be the best thing he could do be a defense for that film or filmmaker? I would respect this film more if he was a cretin who thought Hitchcock sucked, because the end result might actually be interesting to see how that plays out (in theory). But if as you say he would agree his film would be worse than Hitchcock's, how can that possibly inspire any confidence or optimism?

Because being worse than Hitchcock is like being worse than Shakespeare: expected and still providing enough leeway to make a great film, let alone a good one.

Remakes also, for better or for worse expose a new generation to stories previously told. Independent of how I feel about Wheatley each and every one of us knows that this film will likely be the first exposure to this story for some of it's viewers.

Presumably this will be Wheatley doing the best he can do. It will just also likely not measure up to Hitchcock because of the obvious and because Wheatley has a completely different sensibility. It likely won't try to be like Hitchcock. Also sometimes it is just a pleasant expression of authorship to see multiple versions of the same story.

I don't really love Wheatley, but he is different enough to make his take on Rebecca worthwhile imo. Plus, from what I understand, there's enough in De Maurier's novel that Hitchcock couldn't film due to censorship that this could be interesting to see.

I'm probably alone in this, but I like the James/Hammer casting as well. Neither are Joan Fontaine or Laurence Olivier to be sure, but no one could even try to be as good as either.

My gut reaction to this had me lining up with the harbingers of doom initially but then that gave way to remembering my disbelief at hearing that Andrea Arnold was doing Wuthering Heights. I had imagined a mangled chav version to complete a trilogy of Red Road and Fish Tank, which I have absolutely no time for. However to say I was surprised and even delighted with the result is an understatement. I doubt whether she will ever reach such heights again (pun intended) but I have more faith in Wheatley in pulling something interesting out the bag.

At least it won't be bound by the strictures of the Breen Office/Production Code, forcing a change in the plot, which change has always felt just plain fake and forced to me. I'm fine with revisiting great works and bringing them to life again. Without remakes, we'd lose Huston's MALTESE FALCON. Will anything good come of it? Well, we'll see won't we. Mr. Wheatley's participation doesn't make me optimistic. And the pretty but rather dull Mr. Hammer, too. A lot will depend on whoever is cast as Mrs. Danvers. Here's hoping it's not one of the Three Inevitables -- Streep, Smith or Dench.

Tilda Swinton for Mrs Danvers!

Now, Tilda Swinton in the Olivier role, that might have been something

I thought Swinton was playing late career Olivier in Suspiria.

This and Gerwig's Little Women will make a great double feature of "just... why, guys? Why?"

Good choice too, to be fair.

I thought she retired?

knives wrote: Fri May 10, 2019 2:58 am I thought she retired?

That's 2014. She changed her mind and already made her appearances in Darkest Hour and Tomb Raider among others, saying "it turns out I like making films."

My biggest reservation about this isn’t Wheatley directing, the fact that it follows in Hitchcock’s footsteps or the cast, it’s Jane Goldman adapting the novel. I’ve hated almost every movie she wrote, most of all her previous attempt at adapting a gothic novel, The Woman in Black.

There already have been two adaptations Rebecca for British TV, one with Anna Massey as Mrs Danvers and one with Diana Rigg in the role, both perfectly watchable.