ONE, TWO, THREE — REMAKE!
Since cinematography blessed the world community with its appearance, millions of movies have been ingeniously and disastrously screened, and thousands of them have been perpetually remade, allowing the audience curse or worship the directors.
The tendency of remaking the films, that once caught the fancy of moviegoers, has been thriving over the last few decades, and it does not seem to decay. There are several reasons why numerous filmmakers are zealous to revive old classics, ranging from a desperate lack of creativity to an audacious ambition to do better. However, being reasonable enough, I believe that it is the grasping desire to have a tremendously enormous box-office success that drives such ‘passionate’ directors.
The policy of Disney exemplifies the trend. In recent years, the studio has ramped up its live-action remakes, luring the exhilarated audiences to invigorate their childhood reminiscences and, thus, making billions of dollars at the box office. However, I am positively cool with such remakes because once in a while I relish watching an appealing live-action and CGI version of an animated cartoon I was enamored of as a wide-eyed child.
A few years ago, I watched a remake of one of the most charmingly iconic animated movies ‘Cinderella.’ Disney released the original production in 1950, and since then has been continuously rebooting it. Its 2015 version (that I watched) is believed to be the most engrossing live-action adaptation, winning popular and critical acclaim.
Deftly directed by Kenneth Branagh, the non-musical remake features ravishing Lily James and alluring Richard Madden in the lead. Working hand in hand with his witty screenwriter Chris Weitz, Mr. Branagh enlivened the beloved animation with a few striking innovations.
Firstly, the duo changed the name of the unfortunate girl. In the original version, the main character’s name is Cinderella. In Branagh’s production, the girl is only mocked as Cinderella by her wicked step-sisters because she has a cinder on her face from mending the fire. Her real name here is Ella. Surprisingly, I find the change ingenious because it makes the character close to the audience since she has a simple human name, not as awkwardly sophisticated as Cinderella.
Secondly, the way Prince Charming is brought into the story is different. Originally, Cinderella does not have a chance to meet him until the very moment she arrives at the marvelous ball. In the recent movie, the captivated audience is given a better introduction to Prince Charming, known to his nearest and dearest as Kit. The characters inadvertently meet in the woods, and right after saying good-bye both Ella and Kit cannot stop thinking about each other.
Moreover, another plot modification takes place with the admirable couple. The prince holds a gorgeous royal ball so that Ella can attend it, and they can inevitably see each other again. However, initially, the King arranges the royal ball for his beloved son to find a graceful princess to marry.
These changes were blissfully embraced by the moved audiences because they have enhanced the movie, making it more touching and true-to-life. Thus, in the end, remakes may be rather appealing, even though most of them are commercially driven.
