First off is my gripe about remakes. It just amazes me how Hollywood is looking backwards more every year we go forward. I really can’t believe that all the screenwriters in Hollywood are that lazy or incompetent. If they are, I don’t understand how they continue to be employed when there are huge numbers of hopefuls waiting to get their chance. Dennis Dortch is one such writer (and he directs) and I can’t see why he isn’t being given a chance at a bigger budget film for a new idea.
But with that said, the execs in Hollywood have decided to butcher (as virtually every remake in the past decade or so has done) yet another good movie. And based on the past ability of Hollywood to capture none of the qualities of the original film (revisioning is the current buzzword – which should mean diarrhea for the eyes) I expect that none of the cast, writers, director or executives have bothered to watch the full film. I’m not sure what you might call the Cliff Notes version of a film, but I would expect that may be all they know of the film.
Thus I am not surprised that Faye Dunaway may have stated that
“Couldn't they at least cast a real actress?”
Honestly they can’t. Because an actress of real talent (not a pop star with lots of exposure) might actually know the original film and want to be inspired by the work of Faye Dunaway. And that just won’t fit with the concept that it can be done better today than the original.
I don’t think even Las Vegas would take odds on this film being better, or Duff being half as good as Dunaway on a day she is ill. The chances of Hilary Duff or the new film getting 1 Oscar nomination, let alone the 10 that the original earned, is right there with Bigfoot walking into Times Square and dancing a jig – if current standards of remakes are exceeded.
In fact, as I had suspected, the new film is a revisioning. It will throw out much of the original film in favor of
“…news clippings of the famous Depression-era outlaws, found in an abandoned house on her family's property.”
Well at least some attempt at research and some level of involvement in the story has been attained.
Of course Duff had to respond.
“I think that my fans that are going to go see the movie don't even know who she is." Duff went on to say, "I think it was a little unnecessary, but I might be mad if I looked like that now, too."
What fans? At least Duff was smart enough not to compare her claim to fame, Lizzie McGuire, to anything any other actress has done.
But she wasn’t smart enough to realize that Dunaway is 47 years her elder. Nor that Dunaway looks pretty damn good for her age, or that of a woman much younger. The same cannot be said of Duff.And in case Hilary Duff can’t read, nor bothered to do a Google search she has achieved all of the following:
- Best Performance in a TV Movie or Pilot - Supporting Young Actress - Young Artist Awards
- Teenager of the Year – Rolling Stone
- Favorite Female Singer - Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards
- Best Young Ensemble in a Feature Film - Young Artist Awards
Not exactly prestigious. Nor overwhelming.
Faye Dunaway on the other hand:
- Started her career on the stage at age 21. By the time she was 26 she starred in the Oscar winning movie Bonnie and Clyde (which was just her 3rd movie and she gained an Academy Award nomination for the role).
- She has been in acclaimed movies including - The Thomas Crown Affair (and the remake 21 years later), Little Big Man, The Three Musketeers, Chinatown (another Oscar nomination), The Towering Inferno, Three Days of the Condor (a favorite of mine), and Network (won the Oscar).
Simply put, Duff needs to seriously get some acting lessons and experience before she deserves to insult her betters. Especially when they are right.
No comments:
Post a Comment