Over the last few years, cinemas have been dominated by reboots, remakes, and re-imaginings. From Planet of the Apes to Robocop, King Kong to Jurassic Park.
Most recently, the all-female Ghostbusters garnered a lot of attention and criticism with one of the most poorly received trailers in YouTube history. There were three camps:
- Those who criticized it because it wasn’t funny.
- Those who criticized it because it was another remake of a beloved property
- Those who criticized because it starred women.
Since that trailer I’ve seen the film and it is ok; not great, but not bad either. The reason for that has nothing to do with the women. They are very funny—but were just not given enough to work with.
Reboots and remakes are a chance for movie studios to see a better return, with less investment.
|
The reboot didn’t use the female characters to their full potential; don’t even get me started on the men. I could spend this article criticizing the use of men in Ghostbusters, as it seems everyone with a Y chromosome is an idiot, coward or asshole—but that feels pretty self-explanatory. Instead, I want to talk about the function of a reboot.
Reboots and remakes are primarily done for one reason: cash. If you see a property or franchise you recognize, with an actor or actress you like, you are more likely to see it.
For example, the marketing for the 2014 Godzilla movie, portraying a battle royale, Heisenberg (Bryan Cranston) vs the King of the Kaiju himself. Having just come off the glow of Breaking Bad, I was ecstatic to see the film on opening night, only to find … well, those of you who saw the film know what I mean. Basically, reboots and remakes are a chance for movie studios to see a better return, with less investment. That’s why most reboots, I feel, are lackluster and don’t usually add much to the mythos and beauty of that world—though sometimes you can get a good one.
But—reboots and remakes do offer us an amazing opportunity to assess our cultural representation of men. An example of a strong reboot is Independence Day: Resurgence (2016) as it revisits characters from the original 1996 film as well as introducing newer characters, who were mostly males. The cavalier, patriotic idealism of the original film and characters is replaced by a more aged stoicism… and bum and pee jokes. Quite a few of those actually. Will Smith’s brash yet charming arrogance from the original is replaced with a son anxious to live up to his father’s example.
Partly, this is director Roland Emerich’s style of ensemble disaster filmmaking ( the idealism and stoicism, not the bum and pee jokes!) as seen in films like 2012 or The Day After Tomorrow. But I believe a bigger part of it is the change in masculine roles in the last 20 years. While the film retains it’s light-hearted, 90’s-esque tone, the characters’ journeys reflect issues of trying to be the best and filling your idol’s shoes that are reflected in a lot of Millennial culture.
Let’s take another one: Man of Steel. The 2013 reboot, after the 2006 remake, of the 1978 All-American hero made by Warner Bros. His original silver screen debut in 1978 saw him campy and fun; however this take had a much more brooding, darker tone, major monikers of Director, Zach Snyder. The original film is a basic origin story: we meet our hero when he is young, see him grow to understand his powers, eventually becoming the protector of the world we know and love. Man of Steel does this as well but focuses on a conflict of identity where Kal-el struggles to balance the ideologies of his two fathers: Jor-El and Jonathan Kent. One inspires him to protect, the other implores him to hide. One encourages idealism in him to be the hero the world needs, the other asks that he consider letting bus loads of kids die (only consider, never tells him to let them die!).
(SPOILER ALERT)
In the end, Kal-El does what many considered the unthinkable for Superman; he kills the film’s main antagonist, snapping his neck with his bare, manly hands.
(END OF SPOILER ALERT)
While some may say that this was another example of male brute force solving a problem, when you look at the act in context, you see the more layered male psyche this represents. After spending years tackling with his identity he is forced to make a choice and decides to take action that, while drastic, he felt was necessary. To me, that says that the “right” decisions are not always clear and not without consequence. Man of Steel, whilst being a more divisive film than the original,was still willing to explore the themes of identity, responsibility and the moral gray area for young men. It embraces its main demographic and attempted to tell a more complex story to set it apart from the rest of the Superhero genre.
We determine masculinity at any given point in our history by what cultural norms we prescribe onto those who identify as men.
|
Superhero movies are at an all-time high, with the market not quite oversaturated, as directors find clever ways to play with the genre. Like Ant-Man (2015), which cleverly merged a superhero origin story with a heist movie, conducted with the backdrop of a loving father wanting to do right by his daughter. However, the majority of Superhero/comic book movies mostly perpetuate the idea that man must use force and power to defeat a form of evil. Man must be strong, unyielding and be the hero! It’s the very staple of the genre, as eloquently outlined in writings like Joseph Campbell’s The Heroes Journey. I’ll be talking more about masculinity and cooperation in superhero movies in another article. Nevertheless, the point stands that while in some reboots we appear to be evolving the role of the man, as more introspective and emotional, we still see these male stereotypes override those journeys.
While it is a growing concern in reboots, remakes appear to be excelling in representation. Take the recent live-action remake of Cinderella as a prime example of positive development. In the original animated feature, we follow a Prince with little screen time as he sees a woman who is ravishingly beautiful and instantly falls in love. We learn more about the Prince through his father and servant talking about him, than actually seeing him in the film. When he loses her, he uses all of his power and force to get her back.
However, in the 2015 version, we meet the Prince long before the infamous ballroom scene. His relationship with Cinderella is given time to develop and we see him as gentle, caring and charming. We also see his fears, his insecurities, and imperfections after the loss of his father. Now, I understand that the original was made in 1950, where exploring the psyche of non-protagonist characters wasn’t necessary for good storytelling. But we can’t ignore the picture this paints for coming-of-age men, especially as a kid’s movie. This remake says to young boys that they don’t need to know all the answers or use just power and force to get what they want; that relationships take time to develop and whether you are a Prince or naive, you are allowed to struggle.
Of course, I’ve only used examples to illicit my point, but I do think we can gain a lot from comparing the roles of men in remakes and originals. I encourage you to please do the same with some of your favorite movies in the comments section below. If this article does anything, I hope it inspires comparison and discussion on what we are seeing and what we want to see.
We determine masculinity at any given point in our history by what cultural norms we prescribe onto those who identify as men. Some of these films allow us the opportunity to look at where we’ve been, where we are now and look on our progress with pride. Whereas others show us the work that still needs to be done.
—
Sam is an International artist based in the UK. Being a passionate film and theatre buff, Sam is always keen to debate and discuss Millennials, Masculinity and social psychology of the West. He also really likes pizza. Follow him on Twitter.
◊♦◊
Photo:Flickr/Peter Pham
It reminds me of the remake of “It’s a Wonderful Life” which was “It happen One Christmas. Major. Not sure if anyone even remembers it. FLOP.
Mad Max Fury Road comes to mind. Few would argue it is a complete change of direction form the originals with the addition of Furiosa ( Charlize Theron). Whilst Max (Tom Hardy) still embodies the ‘road warrior’ badass from the original, he all of a sudden isn’t the only hero in the film and quite often takes a back seat to Furiosa with her determination, toughness, and just all round ass-kicking ability. I feel for the first time in a long time Furiosa is a female character in a classic action movie remake who the audience genuinely believes is as… Read more »
Ahh yes Mad Max! I completely forgot about it! And yes, some great points you’ve made about Max and his relationship to Furiosa. You’re right about it not being a complete change in direction, which I think is primarily because Fury Road had the same director as all the previous Mad Max films, George Miller. So there is no new director trying to make a new version stand out from the original quadrilogy. Miller’s very raw, practical directing style combined with more modern film making techniques allows him to do things he could have only dreamed of in the 80s.… Read more »