Is nothing sacred? Remaking Casablanca.

[emigran]

Or even better, as a Busby Berkeley musical in 1933 --

Rick -- Dick Powell
Ilsa -- Ruby Keeler
Victor -- George Brent
Renault -- Warren William
Sam -- Allen Jenkins
Fararri - Guy Kibbee
Ugarte -- Frank McHugh
Strasser -- Ned Sparks

Now yer talkin...!!

 

[emigran]

Some remakes genuinely *are* better than the "originals." "The Maltese Falcon" was filmed three times by Warner Bros. over ten years -- the same property, three times in ten years. They could get away with that then because once a feature faded into the oblivion of the small-town third-run houses, it was gone. There was no television, there was no home video, and non-theatrical 16mm screenings were rigidly controlled. So remaking the same story three times in ten years wasn't as ridiculous as it sounds today -- the audience that saw the first version in 1931, or the second version in 1936, had quite likely forgotten all about them by 1941.

The 1931 Maltese Falcon isn't a bad picture. Ricardo Cortez looks more like Hammett's description of Sam Spade than anyone else whoever played the part, and being pre-code it gets away with more than it would later on. The 1936 version, retitled "Satan Met A Lady," is played for laughs, is very different from the original, and Warren William and Bette Davis aren't half bad. But the 1941 Bogart version is THE MALTESE FALCON, as though these earlier versions never existed. And while there might have conceivably have been Ricardo Cortez or Warren William fans complaining about Bogart muscling in on their favorites' territory, I doubt it.

As far as re-casting exercises go, this thread has gotten me thinking that you could recast *any* picture, or *any* historical event using only actors from the 1930s Warner Bros. stock company.

World War II

Franklin D. Roosevelt -- Warner Baxter
Adolf Hitler -- Warren William
Josef Stalin -- Eugene Pallette
Winston Churchill -- Guy Kibbee
Eleanor Roosevelt -- Aline MacMahon
Neville Chamberlain -- Franklin Pangborn

Watergate

Richard M. Nixon -- Warren William
H. R. Haldeman -- Frank McHugh
John Ehrlichman -- Allen Jenkins
John Dean -- Hugh Herbert
Rosemary Woods -- Joan Blondell
Margaret Mitchell -- Aline MacMahon
G. Gordon Liddy -- Ned Sparks
Bob Woodward -- Lee Tracy
Carl Bernstein -- Charles Lane
Sen. Sam Ervin -- Guy Kibbee


The Current Election

Donald Trump -- James Cagney
Hillary Clinton -- Claire Dodd
Bernie Sanders -- Guy Kibbee
Megyn Fox -- Joan Blondell
Ted Cruz -- Ned Sparks
Mario Rubio -- Frank McHugh
John Kasich -- Clarence Nordstrom
Jeb Bush -- Hugh Herbert

Perfect...

 

[emigran]

Everyone's gone creatively bonkers...
IF they do make it I'd love to see it...
Hey they're re-doing Ben-Hur as well...imagine the effects in the chariot race...

 

[LizzieMaine]

Ben Hur remade by the 1930s Warner stock company:

Judah Ben-Hur -- Dick Powell
Messala -- Lyle Talbot
Esther -- Joan Blondell
Miriam -- Aline MacMahon
Tizrah -- Glenda Farrell
Simondes -- Allen Jenkins
Balthasar -- Frank McHugh
Sheik Iridem -- Hugh Herbert
Quintus Arrius -- Ned Sparks
Pontius Pilate -- Guy Kibbee
Tiberius Caesar -- Warren William
Jesus -- Paul Muni (uncredited)

 

[Fading Fast]

...Jesus -- Paul Muni (uncredited)

Nice touch / very funny

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Not only that but among the extras in Ben Hur were Clark Gable, Gary Cooper, Myrna Loy, Carole Lombard and Janet Gaynor -- all unknowns.

 

[Edward]

⇧ Cagney would nail Trump so well. Just watched him in "Yankee Doodle Dandy," which is not my type of movie at all, but he is so freakin' talented that I enjoyed it despite all the musical, stylized half-realism that just doesn't work for me.

Let's be careful (not aimed specifically at this post) with our references to contemporary politics, given house rules.... But yes, it would be interesting to see someone take on Trump as an acting role. It's very easy to do an exagerated parody of someone who is such a big character, but it would be quite the acting challenge to rein that in and actually give a 'true to life' portrayal, I think. Much the same as playing Churchill, in that regard - or any other Big Name Personality From History with that larger than life feel to them.

 

[Fading Fast]

Let's be careful (not aimed specifically at this post) with our references to contemporary politics, given house rules.... But yes, it would be interesting to see someone take on Trump as an acting role. It's very easy to do an exagerated parody of someone who is such a big character, but it would be quite the acting challenge to rein that in and actually give a 'true to life' portrayal, I think. Much the same as playing Churchill, in that regard - or any other Big Name Personality From History with that larger than life feel to them.

There's so much film of the "real" Churchill out there, that I find I don't really like (and really dislike) most of those who play him. I remember liking one several years ago, I think it was "The Gathering Storm" or something like that, but even then, still didn't truly get him right. I feel the same with Hitchcock - he was on camera so much, that those playing him fail to live up to him.

As to Cagney playing Trump, I agree with the risk of exaggeration, but Cagney, IMHO, knew when to pull it in / when not to parody. But I'm bias as I am a big fan of Cagney.

 

[Edward]

There's so much film of the "real" Churchill out there, that I find I don't really like (and really dislike) most of those who play him. I remember liking one several years ago, I think it was "The Gathering Storm" or something like that, but even then, still didn't truly get him right. I feel the same with Hitchcock - he was on camera so much, that those playing him fail to live up to him.

Yes, there's loads of film of the man who was Churchill, but I'd argue that the vast majority of it is propaganda designed to make him look good.... I don't think we're necessarily any closer to the man himself for it.... Churchill, of course, very jealously protected his image, as did his wife, even after his death: one of the best painting portraits of Churchill, for instance, was Graham Sutherland's 1954 portrait, painted to mark Churchill's eightieth birthday. It only exists in a photograph today, as his wife had it destroyed after he died in an attempt to prevent history remembering that Churhill was ever older and frail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland's_Portrait_of_Winston_Churchill

The best Churchill I've seen was Brendan Gleeson in 2009's Into The Storm. It's Churchill on holiday in France after the war, looking back on the war, and essentially it's a treatise on how he was able to be a successful wartime leader, but lose the election once peace returned. It's supposed to be a sequel to The Gathering Storm, I believe. Worth seeking out. Of all the portrayals of Churchill I've seen, this is the most human, the most convincing. Of course, Gleeson is one of the most gifted character actors ever to grace the screen, which helps a lot (although lesser-known, his take on Michael Collins was superior to the better-known one by Liam Neeson; indeed, anyone with any interest in Ireland's revolutionary period should track down The Treaty, it's an outstanding piece of historical drama all round, perfectly cast and not a note wrong nor a single change made to historical fact for dramatic purposes).

Regarding Hitchcock, though, I found Anthnoy Hopkins wholly convincing; Toby Jones also, though of course with Hitchcock there's a lot more speculation, I think, than tends to be the case with WC.

As to Cagney playing Trump, I agree with the risk of exaggeration, but Cagney, IMHO, knew when to pull it in / when not to parody. But I'm bias as I am a big fan of Cagney.

Sure, I think Cagny could do a fine job - I meant those comments more generally as to the challenge of the part rather than any judgment on Cagney as a performer. Brendan Gleeson would be another good one here, or Tim Roth.

Interestingly, I heard yesterday that the BBC are going to do a new dramatisation of the John Christie murders, previously the subject of 10 Rillington Place (1971) starring Richard Attenborough as Christie and John Hurt as Timothy Evans. They've cast Tim Roth as Christie this time. I'm looking forward to seeing that. Christie was a monster, certainly, albeit a fascinating one.

 

[Harp]

The best Churchill I've seen was Brendan Gleeson in 2009's Into The Storm. It's Churchill on holiday in France after the war, looking back on the war, and essentially it's a treatise on how he was able to be a successful wartime leader, but lose the election once peace returned. It's supposed to be a sequel to The Gathering Storm, I believe. Worth seeking out. Of all the portrayals of Churchill I've seen, this is the most human, the most convincing. Of course, Gleeson is one of the most gifted character actors ever to grace the screen, which helps a lot (although lesser-known, his take on Michael Collins was superior to the better-known one by Liam Neeson; indeed, anyone with any interest in Ireland's revolutionary period should track down The Treaty, it's an outstanding piece of historical drama all round, perfectly cast and not a note wrong nor a single change made to historical fact for dramatic purposes).

I missed Into The Storm so will list it now. Thanks for the tip. I was disappointed by LN's Collins; only fair and far off the mark. Ditto list Treaty-and very interested in viewing equally fascinating Dev's portrayal.

 

[LizzieMaine]

As to Cagney playing Trump, I agree with the risk of exaggeration, but Cagney, IMHO, knew when to pull it in / when not to parody. But I'm bias as I am a big fan of Cagney.

There's a Cagney picture from 1934 called "Jimmy The Gent," where he impressed me as playing a type of character who could be described as rather Trump-like in the way he projects and carries himself. Plus he's got a really bizarre haircut.

 

[Fading Fast]

There's a Cagney picture from 1934 called "Jimmy The Gent," where he impressed me as playing a type of character who could be described as rather Trump-like in the way he projects and carries himself. Plus he's got a really bizarre haircut.

I'll keep an eye out for it as I'm still in the middle innings of my Cagney "education," as, for some reason, he didn't hit my radar until I saw him years ago in "One, Two, Three." Sure, I knew some of his earlier gangster movies, but for whatever reason, he didn't make an impression on me until "One, Two, Three -" but after blowing me away with his performance in that movie, I've been watching more and more of his movies as they come up.

Even as a fan of old movies and many old musicals, I did not enjoy "Yankee Doodle Dandy -" the half-realism, half this-feels-like-a-stage-play-not-a-movie is just not a style I enjoy, but he was so darn good it in, that I watched it anyway. I also have an eye out for "The Time of Your Life," I caught ten minutes of it walking out the door one day and really want to see the full movie as I was impressed with the little I saw.

And this relates to "Casablanca" in no one that I can tell.

 

[Harp]

And this relates to "Casablanca" in no one that I can tell.

The last night Rick and Ilsa spend together. Their airport farewell. Ingrid Bergman. Her beauty captivates. And the heartbreak of moral truth. Love this film.

 

[MikeKardec]

It's only semi likely this remake idea is real or will come to fruition. The film is not announced on IMDB, Feig is, I suspect (I hope), um ... unlikely. Generally there's better than a 30 to 1 development to production ratio in Hollywood and period pieces (even classic remakes) are not beloved. That said, you could gather a cast quickly and easily because of the historic aspects of the original.

An update, al la Sidney Pollack's Havana, might make some sense given the world as it is ... it would only work, in my opinion, if it simply drew inspiration from the original. But seriously, you're not going to see Hollywood, one of the most secretly most racist places in the country, burning its most classic remake on a bunch of middle easterners. It would be fascinating to see that version, however!

The less likely prospect of a true, period set, remake opens the door to some interesting material. Warners did a lot of "adventure" films that were essentially plays. Casablanca is the most famous of the bunch (and it also was a play). The way of controlling the cost is that we see only a "corner" of the story, what happens at Rick's, Sam Spade's part of The Maltese Falcon, a day or two out of a bigger story in To Have and Have Not. I suspect that would go over like a lead balloon with anyone younger than 40 and it doesn't take advantage of what the cinema can do these days. A remade Casablanca that spent more than a few seconds in Paris, possibly dealt with Rick's escape to Morocco and other "off screen" aspects of the original might have some potential. The original could barely get it's act together to go outdoors.

Ilsa Lund would definitely need to be rewritten to survive contemporary sensibilities. I've always felt that Rick was well rid of her; if one was fleeing the Nazis she feels to me like the kiss of death. It's the writing, not the actress, though Lauren Bacall's cool, "I think I'm sitting on someone's cigarette," comment after nearly getting machine gunned in To Have and Have Not shows you how to write a woman it would be worth escaping with.

As for me I'm waiting for "A Beautiful Friendship": Rick and Frenchy escape to join the Long Range Desert Group and attempt to kill Rommel.

 

[Harp]

Ilsa Lund would definitely need to be rewritten to survive contemporary sensibilities. I've always felt that Rick was well rid of her; if one was fleeing the Nazis she feels to me like the kiss of death.

As for me I'm waiting for "A Beautiful Friendship": Rick and Frenchy escape to join the Long Range Desert Group and attempt to kill Rommel.

A good soldier adjusts and adapts, makes the terrain work to his advantage. The hell with the war and hitching a free French garrison in Brazzaville and killing Rommel.
Rick should book seats on a plane to Eamon DeValera's neutral Ireland and settle with Ilsa in a Dublin brownstone. Red meat, hard liquor, and soft beautiful Ilsa.
But there would remain the moral dilemma of duty....

 

[Edward]

That's the likely worst of a remake: they'll screw up the perfect ending.

 

[Inkstainedwretch]

This should spin off another thread: which classic movies should be remade? My first choice would be "From Here to Eternity." The 1953 version is a certified classic: a well-written film with a fabulous cast, serious drama meant for grownups in a way few movies are today. But it was constrained by the remains of the Code and had to soft-pedal the rough stuff about the Army in order to be allowed to shoot at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. A modern remake could make it plain that Lorene is a whore working at a genuine whorehouse, that the Army was a brutal, exploitative organization that would casually crush a man who tried to stand on principle, that even the best men in it, like Sgt. Warden, had to make soul-killing compromises to get along. A miniseries would be better than a feature film to convey James Jones's huge book.

 

[Stormy]

Considering that so many people (even the younger generations) have had enough of the junk being released nowadays, Hollywood is ripe for some really good noir classic remakes. As well, there are some great novels from the era that should, could, or would have been wonderful to have seen on the big screen. I am all for an influx of period pieces finding their ways into the current film culture.

 

[Edward]

Add Breakfast at Tiffany's to that list. Make it true to the book, set it in the forties, and don't ruin it by butchering the ending in the book (as the Hepburn version did). I'd keep 'Moon River', though...

 

[Fading Fast]

Add Breakfast at Tiffany's to that list. Make it true to the book, set it in the forties, and don't ruin it by butchering the ending in the book (as the Hepburn version did). I'd keep 'Moon River', though...

Agreed on all points, but if they'd just digitally edit Mickey Rooney's part out of the original, the movie would go up a full "star" rating as it is.