|
Call this one a pre-emptive strike if you like.
I've just watched the trailer for Red Dragon (the unfortunate Hollywood remake of Michael Mann's
classic, and first installment of the Thomas Harris/Hannibal series) and witnessed (undoubted
acting fetherweight) Ed Norton & Sir Tony Hopkins play out the original Will Petersen/Brian Cox
scene where we are first introduced to Hannibal the Cannibal. Word for word they played it out, just
minus the feeling. Norton would've blown over in a draft he was so cardboard & Hopkins just
grinned that bankrolling grin, frozen to the spot, hands clenched at his sides as if he had the
trots & one sharp movement would spill the goods.
This is the trailer's attention grabber & drown me in a good chianti, it's utter
diahorrea. It brings to mind a satirical HW-ized version of a story - kinda like the end of
Get Shorty where we are left guffawing at the utter stupidity of it - well, get ready to guffaw.
The stellar cast includes Ralph Fiennes as the (suddenly) tattooed, bodybuilding Red Dragon (a long, long way from Mann's
timid & reserved voyeur fleshed out creepily by Tom Noonan), Philip Seymour Hoffman waddles in to
fill the shoes of Mann regular Stephen Lang while - on cue - Harvey Keitel's name on the credits must
mean he's to play Dennis Farina's character(!?). What the trailer reveals is not a tread for tread remake
of Mann's genuinely disturbing, genuinely moving, jaw dropping, eye opening, armchair grabbing nouveau
classic serial killer thriller but a camp Carry On embarrassment with all the intelligence & grace of the
original siphoned out of it.
This is HW blashemy. There are certain unwritten rules to remakes. If you are going to remake a
film, it has to be better than the original - invoking the rule of only remaking stuff that was shit
the first time around (ie. Crononebourg: The Fly, Mann: Heat) - if this is not possible, then at least
make it different (ie. Resevoir Dogs). NEVER remake what
is still being praised & debated by film scholars, crtics & fans today. NEVER remake anything
under 50 years old UNLESS it exists in relative obscurity OR is foreign (ie. Insomnia - and chances
are the original will still be better). NEVER ever remake a cult or classic film. Attempting, in fact,
having the gall to remake something like Manhunter, which was not only incredibly original in itself
but achieved cult status almost immediately & remains critically active, is just plain & utter
stupidity (or more accurately a CASH-IN).
Manhunter would be in most people's top 10/20 films of all time (& I'm talking people who know/are
passionate about movies/films) & is, to put it simply, something you just don't remake.
My first assignment at Uni was to choose a film you like & describe/explain how it fitted the
classical HW system of cinema in terms of mise-en-scene, cinematography, etc. I chose Manhunter. Now,
a smarter person would've chose something more rigid & aligned to said system. Something Hitchcockian
in short. I did not, knowing that I would lose marks but you see, I fucking love Manhunter. I wanted
people to address how good it really was. I wanted people to see this film. I scored not bad, a B, which
I think was more due to my obvious passion for this film & cinema in general because Manhunter was
second generation new HW cinema (following Scorsese, De Palma, Spielberg, Lucas, Coppola et al).
Manhunter's ultra-postmodern originality was a result of Mann's grounding in Miami Vice (I got an A
for that essay) & the psychological basis of the story introduced a relatively new, paranoid understanding
to the detective genre. Graham was a return to the flawed hero largely forgotten during the 80's & it's
treatment of Lektor, essentially the devil portrayed as an intellectually superior, faintly
simmering anti-hero/harbinger of good bathed in the purity of his bright white jail cell was groundbreaking.
His lack of foreboding & excess of sanity was absolutely terrifying, something Hopkins tried (& failed)
to bring to his Lector in the resultant mess-become-classic Silence of the Lambs, a film vastly inferior
to Manhunter it must be said (what with Foster's overinsistent annoying Southern twang & a lacklustre
direction). When Manhunter ended & the symptomatic turtles were saved Lecktor remained. Silence's Lector, though free, lurked (or rather larked) camply around a danger to no one. The only
terrifying thing about Hopkins' Lector was that they gave him a dreadful sequel.
Manhunter cannot be remade & all the talent in HW couldn't improve on the original. Will the
Norton/Hopkins confrontation be on par with Foster's little lost red riding hood? Could either
ever hope to match the battle of wits between Petersen & Cox? Will Fiennes outcreep Noonan? Will
we empathize with Norton the way we did Petersen? Will Red Dragon provoke the same intensity, provide the
same great mood or match Dante Spinotti's sublime cinematography on Manhunter? I doubt it somehow.
Hannibal was a disappointing sequel to a disappointing sequel. Red Dragon is destined to stick in
the same rut, it's only real hope is to improve on Hannibal.
RATING:
(c)Limer 2002
***
Well, I'm not one to say I told you so but...hang on, yes I am.
Red Dragon is the most truly appalling, decently made, film I've ever seen. It is a film
without a soul. Five minutes in you can tell they haven't bothered with a new script, instead watched
the original, sampled the best bits & filled the gaps with smug, crowd-pleasing filler.
Yet even this blatant plagiarism fails to save the movie. Red Dragon is a movie too much of a hurry.
When Harve passes the photos to Ed at the beginning, our hero snatches at them like a petulant child;
no time to think, make a decision or emote - just get on with it! In the original, Graham
is angry, confused yet ultimately compelled to accept them. In the remake,
there's no time to waste on empathy or analysis or even 3 dimensional characters. You half expect Ed
Norton to shake his head at Keitel & call him a wanker. The chilling depths of loneliness & despair
Petersen's character explored in the original are exchanged for shock value flashbacks. Everything
is spectacle - which is ironically the point - but such erudition is wasted on Ratner. Of course he
attepmts to offset this blatant superficiality (like all shallow HW productions) by utilising high
art - in this case William Blake. The Blake fixation is, again, intellectually compelling, but
Ratner largely ignores the deeper connotations of the Tooth Fairy's obsession with Blake's painting
(reminiscent of Mishima's Temple of the Golden Pavilion) & the reference ultimately serves to compound
the dumber & dumber superficiality.
We, the audience, were at least treated as semi-literates by Michael Mann, given scope to peel
back the layers and explore for ourselves - which film as scopophilia is all about.
Ratner, however, treats us as dumbies, leaving nothing for the imagination (exemplified by Norton's
blundering dialogue & the (new) tapes of his victims where the subtle scocophilia that aroused Mann's killer
is exchanged for couple's hinting at sex &
revealing bikini's (cue lean-in for maximum breast exposure). Which brings me to another disturbing
point: does this make anyone with tattoos who drives a van, lives alone, is employed in a visual
medium, digs art with an oedipal complex a paranoid mass murderer? The degree of blatant stereotyping
employed in Red Dragon reveals America's blinkered paranoia about anything or anyone who doesn't
conform or is 'not like us.' Something saddening, backward & propagandist to witness in this modern multiculturalist
age. Is it coincidence that the two nutcases are played by foreign actors? While Mann's hero weeped
with compassion for the Tooth Fairy, empathizing with the pain that drove him to murder, Ratner's
hero cop is distinctly Reaganite (or more accurately Bushite) & the Tooth Fairy is just another sicko
to be blown away - a somewhat surreal contradiction considering the film's celebration of everybody's favourite
serial killer...
Sigh, Norton is too boyish, Hopkins' Lector stinks of Hannibal's malaise & the distinct lack of
female involvement betrays the later films' dependency. Graham's relationship with his wife & child
(& hence his motivation) is totally unconvincing & pushed aside for a bit o' homoerotic buddy bonding
with Lector (scoff at unintentional hilarity as Lector jokes what he would give to get Graham on
his couch!). Fiennes is the only one emerging unscathed from the whole palaver, doing the best of a
bad job & giving the impression he's acting in a different movie altogether (& to be fair,
probably deserves one). The conclusion leaves us under no illusions that this is pure HW farce: at
the height of his insanity/becoming, Fiennes' deranged lunatic suddenly develops enough sense to
supply that all important multi-climax while Graham's wife keeps killing in the family & Ratner goes
for the big bucks with a tacky, tacked-on nod to Silence of the Lambs certain to make even the
most cynical smile (though through cringed lips).
Worst of all, we aren't even treated to the whole life-affirming/natural selection turtle metaphor
that completed the original's classical HW revolution...
|
Red Dragon (Cinema: October 2002)
Red Dragon: Postmortem aka Dumber & Dumber; Limer 29/10/02