Hi everyone! The purpose of this blog is to provide an analysis on story, culture and Asian representation between Asian films and their Hollywood remakes.
Authors: I. - Irene Garcia Velarde; W. - William Liao; J. - Jeney Lao; S. - Sang Quach ; D. - Daniel Flores Islas
FB•Twitter•About Us hit counter
is the whole point of this web site to like make really half-thought-out arguments for why american movies are bad even though the asian movies theyre remakes of are worse on pretty much every level. does a single person writing for this blog know anything about movies?i guess what youve proven is that asian americans are bad audiences
We're not saying that the remakes are objectively worse as result of being American, rather we are examining how these remakes fall inline with America's minimalization of the experience of Asian Americans. And yes though we may not have well-versed knowledge in film criticism, that doesn't necessarily invalidate our ability to critique these films and their cultural transition. By the way, please don't generalize all Asian Americans based on our film critique ability. If you would like to further understand where we are coming from, we suggest taking an ethnic studies course.
Hi! So I read your Old Boy post and I was curious as to why you would suggest to watch the 2013 version before the original?
Hi anon :) I suggested that because I liked the original more, but I still liked the 2013 version. I felt like some of the bad reviews were because the original was so well received, and people came into the 2013 with their own expectations. I felt that watching the 2013 without all the hype would be a better experience. But let us know what you think!
Yes, definitely watch 3 Idiots. Another "classic" that almost every Indian person loves is, Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge (I'm probably one of those 5% of Indians who don;t love this movie. I don't see the greatness of it! -_-) You can watch the early Akshay Kumar movies, because he's Bollywood's #1 action hero who does all his stunts by himself. And you'll get romance and comedy in them just as much of action! Shahrukh Khan movies for romance and a lot of sadness. Namastey London is a good movie
Hi everyone! Today we're going to talk about Oldboy, Park Chan-Wook's famously twisted masterpiece, and Spike Lee's notoriously mediocre reinterpretation.
The plot of both films remains the same: One rainy night, a man is mysteriously captured and thrown into a room for fifteen years. He struggles to keep his sanity over a decade of solitude, and almost escapes. Then one day, he is suddenly released. He immediately embarks on a quest to reunite with his daughter and answer the question that has been haunting him for decades: why was he locked up? And why was he set free?
The original film, directed by Park Chan-Wook, starred Choi Min-sik as Oh-Dae Su, a simple family man who is kidnapped on the night of his daughter's third birthday. When he is released, he meets Mi-Do (Kang Hye-Jeong) a strange young woman, who is immediately attracted to Dae-Su and decides to help him find his captor. Meanwhile, Dae-Su is contacted by a mysterious man (Yoo Ji-Tae) who claims that the secret to Dae-Su's imprisonment lies in his past...
In Spike Lee's Oldboy, Josh Brolin plays Joe Ducett, a womanizing alcoholic who is wandering around the city when he gets captured. When he is released years later, he immediately sets out to find his daughter, who has been taken hostage by his captor, Adrian Pryce (Sharlto Copely). Along the way, he runs into Marie Sebastian (Elizabeth Olsen), a nurse who finds out his story and decides to help him get back his daughter.
Even with the reinterpretation tag, the 2013 version is actually a very faithful adaptation of Park's controversial film. Despite this, the adaptation adds on some gore without reaching half of the suspense of the original, leading to a pretty flat thriller.
Hit read more to find out why, and to hear about some of the casting controversies behind Oldboy.
If you want to figure out why the 2013 Oldboy fell flat without having to watch the 2013 Oldboy, I would suggest checking out the original and reinterpreted hammer scene.
The new hammer scene, unlike the original, isn't a continuous shot and trades the haunting score for more upbeat, typical American action movie music. More importantly, in the original version, it actually looked like Dae-Su might lose. However, in true American style, Ducett beefcakes his way past waves of fighters, and the fight so clearly belongs to him from the beginning that it in the end, the whole sequence looks ridiculous.
This sort of easy, simplification of the hero continues throughout the film. While is a lot more blood in the 2013 version, but it doesn't make the film seem more brutal. Instead, the fights are too quick, and you know the superhuman Ducett can easily get out of each one. This was my main complaint with the remake: the characterization is a whole less layered, and less interesting. For Dae-Su, his imprisonment, gradual insanity, and escape is each a genuine struggle, and reinforce the importance of a recurring question of the movie: "Even if I'm a beast, don't I deserve to live?" Dae-Su's struggles and failures show how our humanity can survive even the darkest events. Ducett, meanwhile, seems to swing from caricature to caricature. While Dae-Su was introduced as a drunk man, silly, maybe annoying, but not a bad person, Ducett was shown to be violent from the start. Even in high school flashbacks, he doesn't seem like an insecure kid but an unusually cruel, 80's teen movie bully. He switches from this stereotype to the perfectly trained killer, to selfless father without a beat. It erases a lot of the heart of the film when its protagonist comes off as a one note character (or about three one-note characters) who, in the face of immense tragedy, effortlessly transforms into a superhuman revenge machine.
Additionally, the American version is more realistic, which I don't think necessarily works better for this movie. A lot of the semi-fantastic Chan-Wook touches are erased, such as the hypnosis (which is pretty central to the plot in the original) and the ant on the train. I can understand wanting to cut out some of these elements, but if a guy is locked up for decades and suddenly gets out, I've already suspended my disbelief. These moments only added to the haunting atmosphere of the film.
Th 2013 film also changed the motivation and the characterization of the main villain, which would be fine, if Sharlto Copely could carry the role. I'm usually a big fan of Copely, but I feel like his Pryce was, like Brolin's Ducett, a bit too big. He came off as a mustache twirling joke of a villain. Meanwhile, Yoo Ji-Tae's performance in the original movie was incredibly moving, especially considering the depths he had to go for this character's combination of thinly veiled wrath and warped logic to be believable.
Additionally, I have a problem with the ways that all the villainous characters are Other-ed in the American film, compared to straight white Brolin. Samuel L. Jackson makes an appearance as a sadistic thug, and Copely's Pryce is pretty heavily queer coded.
Additionally, the movie's sole Asian American character has hardly any lines. She is one of the few named (and alive) women in this movie, and is the only Asian character (I really feel like if they appreciate Asian movies, they might as well give some love to Asian American talent. You don't have to make everyone white to prove it's set in the U.S.) She's a pretty textbook dragon lady-- all she does is serve Price while in really impractical outfits for a bodyguard, and sort of threaten Ducett (although she, of course, ultimately loses to him.)
It's worth noting that Lee did make an effort to find an actress of Korean descent, Pom Klementieff, to play the Korean character, which is sadly rare in American film. Additionally, she and Lee worked together to find a suitable Korean name for the character, and came up with Haeng-Bok.
However, the flip side of this is that they didn't bother naming the Asian woman in the original script. There was some controversy over the lack of diversity and the heavy stereotypes in the casting call for the film, something that Lee responded to.
To be fair, I don't think Lee's Oldboy was as bad as the critics made it out to be. But if you're planning to watch both of them, watch the 2013 Oldboy first, then the original. But if you're only watching one, and you can deal with subtitles, I highly suggest watching the original film.
Funny because you asked if there are any Bollywood musicals. That's a bit hard to answer considering that every Bollywood movie has at least 1 song. So, its mainly up to the genre you would like to experience.
That’s even better aha. anything that’s not scary is good. I’ve heard that I should definitely watch 3 Idiots, but that’s about it.
Maine Pyar Kyun Kiya (2005, India) vs. Just Go With It (2011, U.S.)
Hey everyone, we're gonna switch it up today. Today, instead of an Asian movie and its remake, we have two remakes of the same movie, Cactus Flower.
The premise for the two movies stays the same: A doctor lies to all the women he's with that he's married so that he doesn't have to commit. However, this backfires when he meets a women he actually wants to commit to, and she would hate to find out he lied to her. So he comes up with the brilliant plan of asking his nurse to pretend to be his wife, then divorce him.
In Maine Pyaar Kyun Kiya (directed by David Dhawan), the playboy doctor, Samir, is played by Salman Khan. His kind, supportive nurse is Naina, played by Sushmita Sen, and his actress/model wife-to-be Sonia is played by Katrina Kaif.
Just Go With It, directed by Dennis Dugan, stars Adam Sandler as Dr. Daniel Maccabee as the womanizing doctor (with a hint of manpain in an attempt to justify this), Jennifer Aniston as Katherine Murphy, the plain (?!) woman whose love will make Danny a good person, and Brooklyn Decker as Palmer, the kind teacher who Danny thinks he is in love with, and who is actually a fairly developed character for this kind of movie.
Despite how similar their premises are, there are a lot of differences between these films. Some of these had to do with differences in culture. For example, in Maine Pyaar Kyun Kiya, the divorce took place in a courtroom. It surprised me that people had to go to a full court to get divorced. Additionally, a lot of the characters were shocked by the (fake) divorce, showing how uncommon divorce seems in India compared to the U.S. In fact, in Just Go With It, divorce was a common occurrence. Katherine was divorced and Palmer's parents were divorced, and both these instances were incorporated into the characters' motivations. Additionally, as Sang noted in her post, in Maine Pyaar Kyun Kiya the characters' parents were involved in their lives, while Just Go With It mentions but doesn't show the main characters' parents.
Additionally, the two movies seem to have different focuses. Maine Pyaar Kyun Kiya focuses on the comedy half of romantic comedy, and Just Go With It is a bit more romantic (only a little bit.) For example, the last shot of Just Go With It is Katherine and Danny dancing at their wedding, while the last shot of Maine Pyaar Kyun Kiya is the grandma and kids doing their comedic relief bit.
However, this interpretation of the movie (like everything) is also highly influenced by my own cultural bias. Before Maine Pyaar Kyun Kiya, I had never seen a Bollywood movie. The first time they starting singing and dancing, I was so confused. As someone who regularly sings all the parts in "One Day More" by herself, I was thrilled, but still really confused by the new genre of music and style of staging a dance number. The problem with this was that I was so preoccupied by my confusion and the spectacle, I wasn't paying attention to the fact that, just like in American musicals, the songs are meant to forward the plot. A lot of the love triangle scenes were worked out through song, when I was distracted by the synchronized dancing, which may be why I felt the romance was toned down in Maine Pyaar Kyun Kiya.
Another difference is that Maine Pyaar Kyun Kiya seems to follow Cactus Flower a lot more closely. For example, the original movie begins with Toni (the Sonia-Palmer character) attempting to commit suicide, and Maine Pyaar Kyun Kiya starts with the same sequence. This threw me off, and the film kept playing off Sonia's suicide attempts as a joke, something I found really uncomfortable. Interestingly enough, Maine Pyaar Kyun Kiya doesn't just pull from Cactus Flower, but draws on other pop culture references, as the whole plane sequence near the end was pretty much lifted from the Friends finale.
This homage to Friends showcases the fact (as this blog shows) that cultural productions cross national borders and cultures all the time. Both of the films demonstrate this to an extent as they both play with other cultures. The difference between the two is that Maine Pyaar Kyun Kiya,as far as I could tell, used it's cross cultural references as sort of shout outs, showing the wide reach of U.S. created media.
Meanwhile, Just Go With It's engagement with other cultures continues the longstanding American tradition of casual racism.
One example of this is in the setting. In Just Go With It, the characters go on vacation to Hawaii. Hawaii is presented as an exotic setting where PoC are used as background dressing and, as the characters say, anything could happen, like Jennifer Anniston marrying Adam Sandler.
Also, the few PoC in the film are interchangeable comic relief, such as the kid's nanny Rosa and the kid's other nanny whose only name is Hawaiian Rosa.
There are a couple other instances of this, but to save some of the film for you, I'll let you all watch the creepy, commodifying goodness yourselves. What did you all think of these movies? Even more importantly, do you all have any Bollywood musicals to recommend?
Hello! This is my review of American remakes and Asian versions of the two films, My Sassy Girl and The Eye. This post is a comparison of mostly differences that I saw in the Asian and American versions of these films. I am not familiar with American films as much as Asian films and this review is only based on my experiences and interpretation.
Comparing the two version of the horror film, The Eye, I think that the American version uses too much of the dark effects. The scenes of the American remake are mostly dark throughout the whole film and it is not as scarier to watch compared to the original version, where the scenes sometimes have really good lighting. You can get the feeling of watching a Hollywood movie in theater with the American remake, but is too dark to even see and feel scare of the ghost.
A really important point that I have noticed about the American and original versions of both the two films, whether in romcom or horror films, the characters in American films are very independent, while Asian films' characters are very close with at least one of the family members. In My Sassy Girl, the original version, both the father and the mother of the main actor play a role in his life, especially the mother. Therefore, the main actor is like a “mama boy” in the movie because he always get yelled at for his grades and study. On the other hand, the main actor of the U.S. version lives by himself and his parents were introduced one time only at the beginning of the film. Similarly, in The Eye, the main actress lives with her grandma and she depends on her family ever since she was blind. In the American remake, its main actress lives by herself in an apartment and her sister visited her only two times.
Overall, American films portray their characters as strong and independent, while Asian films show the family ties between the characters and their families. I think these are the kinds of image that people have of Americans and Asians as well and the reasons vary widely from the culture of living with family members to the limited and expensive charges for housing in Asia.
The Departed (2006, U.S.) vs. Infernal Affairs (2002, Hong Kong)
Organized Crime! That is the focus of both films, however, one of the films is grander in terms of crime–not saying that the crimes they portray in the film should be taken lightly but one trumps the other when being compared. Before we begin, let's take a look at the origins of the original film, which was Infernal Affairs(2002) from Hong Kong. In the U.S. the film was remade and released as The Departed(2006).
***SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT***
The similarities and differences between the two films are very apparent. The general premise of the film – having a cop go deep undercover to infiltrate a crime lord. Another similarity is the characters that are present in both films; both films have a psychiatrist (female) that the undercover cop vents to and falls for, essentially becoming the only person the undercover cop can trust, and also featuring moles for the crimelord within the police force.
The differences of the two films is of course the location and cast. In Infernal Affairs, the story takes place in Hong Kong where the police are trying to track down the triads that are drug dealing with Thai gangsters. Whereas in The Departed, the story takes place in Southern Boston, where its Police are trying to track down microprocessors that the Irish-American Mafia have stolen and plans to sell to international Chinese mobsters and a supposed government official, so they can supposedly blow up Taiwan. Although in The Departed there were a lack of "good" Asians that could have been portrayed as Police officers or other characters, the film did not leave them out completely. Instead, they are portrayed as diabolical gangsters/triad people that want to destroy whole countries.
However, even though the Chinese are portrayed as the "bad of the bad," they were represented accurately in the sense that the actors really spoke Chinese (Cantonese).
Here we can see the similarities between the two movies.
Overall both films were pretty entertaining to watch. However, I personally liked Infernal Affairs more, maybe it's because I was able to connect with it more because it was in Cantonese and I understood the whole movie without subtitles(?) Anyways, don't just take my word for it, give it a go.
Hello! This post is about the two supernatural horror films, Gin Gwai (2002) and its American remake, The Eye (2008). Overall, these two films are very meaningful and interesting! It is about a girl who has been blind since her childhood. While recovering from a corneal transplant, the young classical violinist keeps seeing ghosts and shadowy reapers. This is when she decides to resolve this mystery of why she sees those things.
I have to say that the original version is scarier than the remake. Both versions use sound effects and the American remake adds in some “boo!” while the soundtrack screams. However, I feel that the remake's scenes are too dark to even feel scared about]. Another thing is that the original version's method of audience jump scares works better because the ghost scenes run slower. It is like a way of creating suspense that makes the audience so scared that they peep at the screen. On the other hand, the remake's ghost scenes are so quick and dark that they take away from the scary elements of the film.
Looking at the way the two films tell the story, the original is a little bit more emotional because you can see the connection between the main girl to her grandma, and also the corneal donor's ties to her mother.
The good points about the Hong Kong version do not mean that the remake is not as good. The American remake has better quality scenes with well casted members as well. Its story is understandable with a little more details to the plot. I feel that these two films fit both American and Asian audiences and they are all great in their own ways.
Both of the films are good from the plot to the cast. There is only one difference of the two films near the end. However, I suggest you choose to watch one of the two only because they have very similar scenes. :]
Here is the link to watch the Hong Kong version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CDFDD4kFtI
The link for the US version might not be safe. It works fine on my MacBook, comment below if you want to know that link! :)
"Run! It's Godzilla!" said no one ever in the U.S. remake of Godzilla (2014). Watching these two films was quite fascinating. There were many aspects of the U.S. 2014 version that were changed around from the original 1954 Japanese version. In this post we are going to dive into the key differences between the two film and the symbolism behind them (note there are going to be some spoilers). However, lets begin by taking a look at the original Godzilla (1954).
***Spoiler Alert Beyond This Point***
The film was released in 1954, 2 years after the Occupation and Reconstruction of Japan. To me it seemed that the director’s main idea was to highlight the destructive force of nuclear weapons and it’s aftermath–articulating the potential dangers of nuclear weapons and their effects on living organisms(with a hint of sci-fi), primarily radiation caused by the weapons. Within the film, Godzilla was the product of radiation from U.S. nuclear weapon testing. So, basically Godzilla in this version of the film is “bad” cause he destroys Japan, which symbolizes the destruction caused “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. However, ultimately the film ends with Godzilla being destroyed by a hydrogen weapon.
In the 2014 American release, Godzilla is an ancient beast that feeds on radiation and not the product of radioactive mutation. They state that the nuclear tests during the 1950s were in fact not tests but instead attempts to kill Godzilla–which ultimately failed. On another note, the location and story line is completely different. In this version of the film, the story takes place in the Philippines, Japan, Hawai’i and then San Francisco. Also, Godzilla is not the “bad guy” but instead he is the peacekeeper. The “bad guys” in this version are these so-called MUTO (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organisms). They basically look like a hybrid of a beatle and a prey mantis which feed on radiation. In the very beginning of the film, we find out that these MUTO are parasites in a way as they are found in a giant fossil of what it seemed to be another Godzilla. The whole film builds up to the point where these monsters duke it out, destroying everything in their path.
Overall the film was a pretty good watch. However, what still bugged me was that not many Asian Americans were in the film, Ken Watanabe only had like 15 minutes of screen time here and there. Basically the whole film was about this American soldier that didn’t want to take part in dealing with the MUTO and Godzilla but was dragged in. However, the ending was great. Godzilla doesn't die! He lives on and is praised as a hero like the other Godzilla movies (the ones that he fights other kaiju (monsters)).
Although the film did not stick to the roots of the original Godzilla, it did however stay true to that the film is a Japanese film by portraying the expert as a Japanese guy.
My Sassy Girl (South Korean, 2001) vs. My Sassy Girl (US, 2008
Hi everyone, this post is a comparison between a popular South Korean movie My Sassy Girl (2001) directed by Jae-young Kwak and its American remake in 2008 by Yann Samuell. They are both romantic comedy films based on a true love story, surprisingly, a series of blog posts on the Internet by Ho-sik Kim! :D This film is about a male college student who first meets his destined lover, a sassy girl, at the train station and they fall into an ill-fated relationship after many more meetings.
The Korean version is almost twice as long and has more amusing scenes than the American version . The original version is a total success throughout East and Southeast Asia. However, the American remake of this romcom was a failure when it went directly to DVD in the U.S. and did poorly upon its theatrical release in Korea. Therefore I want to focus on the differences between these two films, likewise, looking at the reasons why the remake is not as popular as the original version among both the American and Korean audiences.
After watching the American remake, I think that the cultural differences between Korea and the U.S. make the deep and complex relationships between the protagonists and their friends, families, and co-workers in Korean romcoms indifferent to American audiences. In the original version, we can see the “mama's boy” image of Korean men's masculinity in the main actor, Gyeon-woo, because of his close relationship to his mother. This is one of the humor aspect of this romcom. Meanwhile, the main actor in the remake, Charlie, his mother plays little to no role at all with respect to Charlie' masculinity because American notion of masculinity lies in the individual itself.
Now, let's look at the main actresses of both versions on their sassy image. These girls' drunkenness leads them to meet their future mates, who rescue them from the falling into the subway tracks. The original version has many gross scenes where the unnamed The Girl burps or vomits on an old man's, including, the scene of the main actor takes a shower and etc. These scenes are not seen in the remake because I think that Director Samuell believes they are not appropriate for American audiences. Therefore the main actress in the remake, Jordan, has none of these acts of humor in her compared to her Korean counterpart.
Another important element of portraying the two main actresses' image of sassy is alcoholism. Unfortunately, in Jordan's case, it is seen as social problem and personal addiction in the U.S. while drinking in Korea is an important social lubricant. Accordingly, Jorden's drinking seems much more pathetic than The Girl, which is funnier in the Korean context.
Personally, I think the genre of Asian romcom still has a long way to go in order to reach American audiences. From what I notice, only very few Americans would find Asian methods of humor to be funny or interesting. What do you guys think about this topic of Asian humor not being able to attract American audiences? Also any comments on Asian romantic comedy dramas or movies?
P.S: If you want to see both films, watch the original version first! :))
Original version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-QDTl7-T20
US version: http://www.veoh.com/watch/v156596284hwrqpF3?h1=my+sassy+girl+(2008)
Park, Jane Chi Hyun. Remaking the Korean RomCom: A Case Study of Yeopgijeogin geunyeo and My Sassy Girl. University of Sydney. 2009. Web. 18 May 2014.
Hachiko Monogatari (1987) vs. Hachi: A Dog's Tale (2009)
Get your tissue boxes ready because these two films are tear-jerkers. The original film Hachiko Monogatari (Hachiko Story) was released in Japan on August 1st of 1987, based on a true story of a loyal dog (Hachi) and his scholarly owner. The American version, Hachi: A Dog's Tale was released in 2009. These two films truly capture and articulate the essence of loyalty and love between a dog and its owner. In this entry, I will be comparing both films by using the 1987 original Hachiko Monogatari as the base of this review.
The two films are exactly the same story, however there are major and even massive differences to accommodate each target audience. One massive difference is location. Within the American version the target audience are Americans, so the story took place in America. Therefore, Hachi is shipped from Japan to America (for unknown reasons) and ends up in a small town where he meets his master, Parker Wilson. Parker, much like the master from the original film and true story, is a scholar, who has a wife and a daughter who gets married during the time he spends with Hachi. One aspect of the American version of film that really annoyed me and that is that even though Parker's associate and friend Ken, is a Japanese person and that the story is and based off an actual Japanese story, not much of Japanese culture was depicted. There were minor moments where bits and pieces of Japanese culture was hinted, but not enough to point out that the roots were from Japan. Maybe I feel this way because I saw the original Japanese version of the film first before watching the American version. I feel like the film shouldn't have been remade. I noticed a lot of disparities with the American film and the original in terms of culture and time. For example, within the original film, the story took place around 1920-30s and it was normal for a dog to roam around, but in the American version, it is set in contemporary times which is impossible for a dog to be wondering around without a leash.
Totally possible for a dog without a leash to wonder about in 1920-30
Impossible!!! Hachi didn't even have a leash or a dogtag.
However, on another note, the film really stands out for an American film, in the sense that...*spoiler alert*... the ending stays true to the original story, meaning that Hachi dies waiting for his master. Most family films usually end with a happy ending, but not this one.
Sigaw (2004, Philippines) vs. The Echo (2008, U.S.)
The original: Marvin (Richard Gutierrez) is proud of moving into his own apartment, even though it's falling apart, the superintendent is always drunk, and his girlfriend, Pinky (Angel Locsin) hates it. The only real problem he has is the couple next door, Bert, a policeman, and Anna (Jomari Yllana and Iza Calzado.) Bert has always been violent, and is convinced that Anna is cheating on him with Jude (James Blanco), a tenant down the hall. Everyone in the building hears Bert taking out his anger on Anna and their child, every night. Still, as everyone tells Marvin, it's better not to meddle, especially if you don't want to get beat by a cop. But visions they can't explain begin to haunt Marvin and Pinky, Marvin decides it's time to face the secrets of his new apartment...
The remake: Bobby (Jesse Bradford) gets out of Rikers and moves into his mom's old East Village Apartment. However, Bobby finds that his mom mysteriously died while he was in prison, and everyone except his old girlfriend, Alyssa, (Amelia Warner) moved away. Bobby tries to put his life back together, while hearing strange noises in his apartment, constant screaming from his neighbors' (Ina Calzado and Kevin Durand) apartment, and uncovering the gristly secret behind his mother's death...
The verdict: I watched Sigaw a couple years ago, and I was both scared and impressed by what I saw as an above average ghost story. Both films benefit from director Yam Laranas's considerable gift for creating the perfect atmosphere to terrify his characters and viewers until long after the movie ends. Despite this, there a lot of changes from Sigaw to The Echo that change the storyline in confusing ways, like Marvin/Bobby's backstory, and, for a movie about domestic violence, expanded violence against women while cutting their speaking roles.
Spoilers for both movies ahead...
Lifehack: If you see rotting hands coming out of the garbage chute, especially after running away from a ghost kid in your kitchen, totally stick your hands in there.
The most obvious change from Sigaw to The Echo (other than all the yt ppl) is that Marvin/Bobby, instead of staying in the apartment to prove his independence, just got out of prison and doesn't have a lot of other options. One possible reason for this change is the switch from the Philippines to U.S. viewers. In both cases, the movie demanded that Marvin/Bobby had a reason to stay in his apartment, even when creepy stuff started going down. While the desire for independence might have been enough in both cases, both Marvin and Pinky were living with their parents, something that may be more familiar and acceptable to Filipin@ viewers versus their white counterparts.
Marvin and the world's best lit apartment.
This change also had the effect of cutting off the majority of Bobby/Marvin's support network. Everyone avoids Bobby, his mom died for reasons never fully explained, and Alyssa's constant presence ends up seeming contrived. In Sigaw, the ghosts, locked in their cycle, echoed Marvin's desire to take control of his life. Meanwhile, Bobby's new backstory brought in a bunch of new side characters to awkwardly add lines about how people need second chances.
Marvin and the world's best lit hallway.
However, more screentime for Bobby's sort-of friends leads to less screentime for the ghosts. This means less jump scares, a confusing final scene, and no emotional buildup for Iza Calzado's character.In fact, Calzado barely has any lines in The Echo. While in Sigaw you could see her attempts to escape her husband and rejoice in her eventual triumph, her and Bobby's victory in The Echo seems too simple. Additionally, while Sigaw is not nice to its women, The Echo's violence against women seems gratuitous. The scene where Pinky/ Alyssa is getting attacked by the cop's ghost is longer and more brutal, and Bobby's mom appears only to semi-explain that she was scared and/or starved to death. A part of this might be because The Echo has increased tech and funding for visual effects compared to Sigaw, but you still have to wonder why this is how they decided to use it.
Bobby and his nice boss
The movie also changes the ghosts' motivation. If they want to punish the people in their apartment building rather than simply to get someone to help them, their attacks on Bobby's girlfriend and boss make no sense. This might be another case where the Americanization of Sigaw ruins it. It seems like the writer decided that since this was an Asian horror movie, and all Asians are the same, they could just re-use the ghost mythology of The Grudge (if you step into the house, you get killed) and get it over with.
Director Yam Laranas and the brilliantly talented and criminally underused Iza Calzado
If you're a fan of horror and logic, check out Sigaw or Laranas's other hit, The Road.
To start off, I just want to talk about Ringu (1998), The Ring (2002), Chakushin Ari (2003), and One Missed Call (2008). Don’t you all think that all of these have something in common? They all consist of technology having the power to kill. The films Ringu and The Ring uses a cursed videotape to kill people in 7 days, while Chakushin Ari and One Missed Call uses cell phones to kill (the messages come from themselves in the future, where the time is when they die). I thought this was pretty interesting how these movies made technology as a resource for ghosts, demons, the supernatural, etc. to exert their revenge and anger through. Fear of technology can be applied here.
There’s another film that uses technology to kill people - Kairo (2001). Just like Ringu and Chakushin Ari, Kairo has been remade into Pulse (2006), an American remake. In these two plots, the main threat is technology. Ghosts can invade the living world from the Internet, and mostly any other types of technology where communication is possible (such as television and cell phones.) The message that these films want to convey is that technology can be so absorbing that you’d be sucked into it - literally. The only way to escape is to going into a ‘safe zone’, where there is no internet connection, television, and cell phones available.
Like the first four movies I’ve mentioned, there are some differences between Kairo and Pulse. One of the obvious differences is the acting. In Kairo, most of the actors’ reactions to surprising or terrifying sights were not as dramatic or expressive as those in Pulse. Besides that, the plot is pretty much the same. Could this be because the sociocultural differences between Japan and America? Also, as a lot of people have noticed about these films, is that Kairo seems to be more open to interpretation as to how the ghosts are hacking their way through technology whereas the ghosts in Pulse are traceable.
From Kairo (2001) - I think I would be pretty freaked out if I saw this.
From Pulse (2006) - She sums up my expression nicely if I thought I saw that.
Can you see more cultural differences between Kairo and Pulse? What do you think of these 6 movies I’ve mentioned using technology to kill, and to instill the fear of technology upon the characters within these films?
Hi again! This time, it’s going to be about One Missed Call (2008) and Chakushin Ari (2003). One Missed Call is an American remake of Chakushin Ari. These two have similar plots, where the protagonist and her close friends are affected by a chilling phone call. This phone call was made by themselves in the future, and shows the exact time of their deaths.
A quote from Andrew Klavan - a screenwriter and novelist: “While the concept of the ‘One Missed call’ extends beyond language and cultural barriers, the original film assumes that its audience is aware of Japanese urban legends and other culturally specific supernatural traditions, which few Americans are familiar with.”
Klavan’s quote can be seen as an example of how different these two films are. If you’d like to read more, visit http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/movies/OneMissedCallMovie-OneMissedCallTrailer-EdwardBurns.php.
Anyways…
There are two scenes within these two films that I’d like to talk about specifically: the scene about the televised exorcism. In Chakushin Ari, a girl named Natsumi has received the phone call of death, and was approached by a television producer to go on his show to have an exorcism performed live. Natsumi agrees, thinking that she might be saved. However, as the minutes and seconds tick down, everyone ignores her mostly. Her death is projected on the side of a building in Tokyo, yet thousands just walk by without doing anything. Natsumi overhears some panelists who talk about her fate casually. She cries, but no one comforts her and try to help her. A Buddhist priest prays over her, but it doesn’t change how she feels. Natsumi thinks “I’m completely on my own.” She dies alone in front of millions of viewers. The director and his crew does nothing to help her - they only broadcasted her death.
In One Missed Call, there’s a similar scene to this, but the exorcism of a girl named Taylor takes place within a church. The church has been converted into a television studio and is surrounded with candles and statues to set the mood. An Evangelical Christian minister attempts to exorcise Taylor’s cell phone on television. Here, her death didn’t seem as lonely because far less people are surrounding her. The scene mostly concentrates on the minister screaming loudly at the cell phone, but that does not prevent the death of Taylor.
Natsumi and Taylor both tried to have a televised exorcism, but the message the scene conveys is different. While they were both killed by technology, the scene with Taylor was more about the failure of Evangelical Christianity and popular media.
What do you think? Have a different opinion? Share here!
So hey all! Right now, I just want to talk about The Ring (2002) and Ringu(1998). As most of you know, I’m sure, that The Ring was made in America and Ringu was made in Japan. Have you watched them both yet? If so, have you seen the cultural differences between the two? I don’t want to go too much into the plot, so I’ll just give a very short brief summary of them both. The film Ringu was based on a novel that Koji Suzuki had wrote, and The Ring was an American remake of Ringu. Both of these films depict the story of a girl who’s dealing with a cursed videotape. This videotape curses anyone who watches it by killing them in seven days unless they duplicate the videotape and make someone else watch it.
Anyways, while these two have similar plots, there sure are some cultural differences in how they depict some people. In Ringu, Reiko Asakawa, the protagonist, investigates the death of her niece by talking to a group of students who knew her, and what they know about her death. These girls were just your regular schoolgirls, with them dressed in school uniforms and such. When approached by Asakawa, they were mostly quiet and shy, and told Asakawa about the cursed video.
In The Ring, Rachel Keller is the protagonist of the film and like Asakawa, investigates the death of her niece. When investigating her death by asking the students at school, these students weren’t exactly complying as the Japanese students from Ringu. Keller found these students smoking cigarettes near their deceased friend’s house and mostly ignored Keller as she approached them. Keller then pulled out a cigarette and smoked it, as if she needs to prove to them that she isn’t boring or old. She told them how she used to get high with a friend, but alas, these American students didn’t offer much information to her.
These two scenes show us the differing cultures between Japan and America. It’s important to be respectful to people who are older than you and in higher position in Japanese culture, so the schoolgirls, although they don’t want tell Asakawa about the cursed videotape, felt that it’d be disrespectful to not tell her anything about it. The scene depicted by the American female students depict a totally different scene where they’re most cold to Keller.
What do you think about this? Have you seen any more cultural differences within these two movies? Think I’m wrong? Share your thoughts!
