flipp525 wrote:There’s a certain “boomer-esque” idealogy that nothing can be done well that was done before or, specifically, done during a certain age group’s “halcyon days.”
Honestly, I hadn't thought of it that way, but it's possible you're on to something. I recently became familiar with a psychological term (maybe danfrank would be familiar with it) called the Reminiscence Bump -- it suggests we have more vivid memories of things that occurred between ages 10 and 30 than from any other periods of our lives, and specifically the years between 16 and 25 tend to be where our favorite books/music/movies come from. I can certainly say that many of my most ecstatic art experiences come from that era -- The Graduate, Midnight Cowboy, Company, Cabaret, Sometimes a Great Notion (the novel), One Hundred Years of Solitude; I always assumed this was because it was such a fertile period in the culture, but maybe it's just my age group.
(Saturday Night Live was better in the first five years, though -- that's non-negotiable.)
So, yeah, I wouldn't care to see a remake of Midnight Cowboy, even with the best actors imaginable. But I think I'm just uninterested in remakes of any kind, even of those that pre-date me by years/decades. Ben-Hur was before my conscious movie-going time, but I still found the idea of re-doing it ridiculous (most critics and audiences agreed). I just can't work it up to care about someone's rehash of material I've already seen. As I've noted here, I even lost my enthusiasm for Zadie Smith's On Beauty about halfway through, when I realized it was using Howards End's plot; I had some of the same response to Kurosawa's Ran, as well. Perhaps because I'm a writer, picking up and riding the rhythms of a narrative are a great part of the pleasure I take in art. When I know where things are going -- because of familiarity with an earlier version -- I have nothing to do but observe the changes on the margins, which is a lesser experience. It's of course possible an artist can take a fresh enough approach to engage me despite some acquaintance with the material -- Gerwig's Little Women was an astonishing re-invention, and Minghella's The Talented Mr. Ripley had significant enough deviation from Purple Noon that I was taken away by it. On the other hand, the Coens' True Grit, while admirable enough as a piece of craft, left me cold, because I didn't see anything new enough in the construction to draw me in.
(There's always going to be a personal "how it hits you" element to this gestalt. I couldn't imagine being unexcited about Fosse's Cabaret, but I remember reading one critic -- I believe in Life Magazine -- moaning that this Sally Bowles character had been stalking him what seemed his entire life, and he'd had enough of her. And, if he'd read Berlin Stories, seen I Am a Camera on stage and screen, and Cabaret on stage, maybe for him it was true.)
I'm obviously going to see this West Side Story, but, though people are highlighting that Kushner has re-written parts of it, no one seems to be suggesting he's truly re-conceived it -- and there's nothing in the trailer to lead me to believe it's any more than a very good movie version of the same story. This may be enough for some people, but I'm always looking for something newer and more creative. So, I remain skeptical of it, and for sure can't work up enthusiasm for its being judged maybe the year's best film.
flipp525 wrote:What is your take on stage revivals? I know the medium’s different but, for example, Follies purists who claim that the original 1971 Broadway version is untouchable would have missed out on the stunning 2018 National Theater production if they were insisting things stay frozen in amber.
This is a somewhat different issue, because, unlike movies, famous stage productions (till the recent trend of recording them for the Lincoln Center library) exist only in the memories of those who've seen them, so it's absurd to take a position they shouldn't be revived. But those who have seen earlier productions have every right to think they'd prefer to spend their time/money on something newer. I saw a Rex Harrison/Rosemary Harris production of Heartbreak House in the 80s that I cherish -- but I can envision a theatre veteran many years my senior thinking, that damn thing's 65 years old, and they're still trotting it out?
And I do think Broadway has come to rely way too heavily on bringing back the old war horses. It seems we never go more than a few years without another Death of a Salesman/Virginia Woolf/Raisin in the Sun (or, on the musical side, The King and I/Gypsy/Fiddler on the Roof). Broadway is already overloaded with Disney transfers and shows that will apparently never close; it's hard for me to work up the slightest excitement over another show I saw long ago being resurrected one more time.