Hero, the remake of the 1983 blockbuster of the same name, has just opened—the pre-release buzz was not nice, and neither are the reviews. The question asked is: why was this remake made at all?
So what is a remake? Is it just a film based on the same story as an earlier one? Or something that takes only the basic core and fashions a new film around it, contemporizing it and adding and subtracting elements as per inspiration, but more commonly, trends?
Should we call a remake a remake only if it has the same name along with the identical plot? Like Don or the recent Hero? Or also take those films that borrow a strong basic idea, like Bol Bachchan taking a leaf out of Gol Maal, or Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag being taken from Sholay?
Down the decades, so many films have taken part- or whole inspiration from classics, like Dil Tera Aashiq from Professor, Shreemaan Aashique from Shagird, Dulhan Banoo Main Teri from Ram Teri Ganga Maili, Yeh Majhdhaar from Sangam, Hum Tumpe Marte Hain from Dev Anand's Hum Dono, Karma from Sholay and Uttar Dakshin from Trishul. The cleverly done Karma escaped notice, the rest flopped and were forgotten!
Or should we only term a film a remake when official rights are taken from the producers? Perhaps it's a mix of all these.
And should we include Devdas, Parineeta, Heer Ranjha, Umrao Jaan et al that are interpretations from varied filmmakers of literary works or real-life chronicles? We think not! Why? This is one category we will not consider as remakes, for they are all based on the original sources and not on the older films.
However, most remakes—of any hue—are obviously indicative of two simultaneous qualities in a filmmaker: the desire for maximum gains from a minimum effort—in short, a craving for Mammon as well as creative penury. Unlike sequels where the craving for big money is accompanied by the need to rack the brains for the perfect plotline, remakes generally show a lack of perception, are always compared to the originals, and have less intrinsic merits.
The sad part is that most young filmmakers consider their version to be their personal tribute and lack the talent and judgment to pick the best from the older movie and jettison the not-so-good. The new parts added also often do not make sense. In short, the changes either dilute the impact, or ruin the spirit and intensity and get us nothing in return. The overwhelming majority of the new films flop, and the music in the new movies suck, for there was barely an older film in which the songs were not cult numbers.
So what is a remake? Is it just a film based on the same story as an earlier one? Or something that takes only the basic core and fashions a new film around it, contemporizing it and adding and subtracting elements as per inspiration, but more commonly, trends?
Should we call a remake a remake only if it has the same name along with the identical plot? Like Don or the recent Hero? Or also take those films that borrow a strong basic idea, like Bol Bachchan taking a leaf out of Gol Maal, or Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag being taken from Sholay?
Down the decades, so many films have taken part- or whole inspiration from classics, like Dil Tera Aashiq from Professor, Shreemaan Aashique from Shagird, Dulhan Banoo Main Teri from Ram Teri Ganga Maili, Yeh Majhdhaar from Sangam, Hum Tumpe Marte Hain from Dev Anand's Hum Dono, Karma from Sholay and Uttar Dakshin from Trishul. The cleverly done Karma escaped notice, the rest flopped and were forgotten!
Or should we only term a film a remake when official rights are taken from the producers? Perhaps it's a mix of all these.
And should we include Devdas, Parineeta, Heer Ranjha, Umrao Jaan et al that are interpretations from varied filmmakers of literary works or real-life chronicles? We think not! Why? This is one category we will not consider as remakes, for they are all based on the original sources and not on the older films.
However, most remakes—of any hue—are obviously indicative of two simultaneous qualities in a filmmaker: the desire for maximum gains from a minimum effort—in short, a craving for Mammon as well as creative penury. Unlike sequels where the craving for big money is accompanied by the need to rack the brains for the perfect plotline, remakes generally show a lack of perception, are always compared to the originals, and have less intrinsic merits.
The sad part is that most young filmmakers consider their version to be their personal tribute and lack the talent and judgment to pick the best from the older movie and jettison the not-so-good. The new parts added also often do not make sense. In short, the changes either dilute the impact, or ruin the spirit and intensity and get us nothing in return. The overwhelming majority of the new films flop, and the music in the new movies suck, for there was barely an older film in which the songs were not cult numbers.
bollywoodhungama.com
No comments:
Post a Comment