Friday, June 6, 2008

No Fair Lady

Nuh uh. No way, sorry Columbia Pictures, that dog don't hunt. Behold the source of my disappointment and frustration here. Moriarty of AICN raised a good point the other day. What's supposed to happen in twenty years when the well is dry and every movie in existence has been remade? Remakes of remakes? How will a public raised on a generation of slushy retreads react to (wonder of wonders) an ORIGINAL idea? It's especially frustrating when a studio thinks they can or should touch a fairly established film classic. What the hell is wrong with the original My Fair Lady? And yes before the rain and thunder comes down on me in the comments I am aware that y Fair Lady is itself a re-telling of Pygmalion (which itself takes cues from Ovid's Metamorphosis) HOWEVER it should be noted that something entirely different was done with the material, it was musical-ized. When one compares the two works one is not looking at a carbon copy. There already exists a perfect film telling of My Fair Lady which works with audiences of any age or generation. George Cukor's clear, direct presentation combined with Lerner and Lowe's lush score and Edith Head's gorgeous costumes present a singular experience. If one is going to remake a film why not pick a film that wasn't particularly good to begin with (Ocean's Eleven) or re-contextualize it (The Thing) or pick one that is obscure to modern audiences (3:10 to Yuma). But remaking My Fair Lady with Kiera Knightley? Really? Surely there must be a good, NEW script out there?
To paraphrase Professor Henry Higgins:

Why can't the studios leave well enough alone
Another wretched remake making audiences groan
Why not a new idea to make the coffers full
Instead of this endless remake bull-

No comments: