Film Remakes
When the original ‘Old Boy’ came out in 2003, it met with critical acclaim almost instantaneously (and for good reason). Not only was it a dense meditation on the nature of revenge, but it was also a giddily kinetic action movie. Expertly directed by Park Chan Wook, CNN has named it as one of the best Asian films ever made. Even notoriously finicky film critic Roger Ebert heaped praise on the movie, calling it a “powerful film… because of the depths of the human heart which it strips bare”.
Exactly a decade later, acclaimed American director Spike Lee released a remake of ‘Old Boy’. Unsurprisingly, the movie was ravaged by critics (myself included), who saw the movie as a cheap and soulless remake. One of my favourite movie critics, Bob “Moviebob” Chipman famously asserted that “you can make a film out of almost anything”, and this hold true for remakes as well. However, a good remake needs to understand two essential truths in order to succeed:
1. The remake needs a voice of its own.
2. The remake needs to understand the context in which it is situated.
Sadly, the ‘Old Boy’ remake failed to grasp these two things, and failed miserably as a result. This was the inspiration of my haiku, encapsulated by me saying that the movie lacked both “Soul” and “Seoul”.
Remakes need a voice of their own
Not many are aware of this, but the original ‘Old Boy’ was part of a larger whole. It was the second film in a trilogy that would eventually be called Park Chan Wook’s “Vengeance Trilogy”. While the three films could easily stand as separate films in their own right, the thematic thread that ties them all together makes for an interesting study on the multi-faceted nature of revenge. Viewers are left with questions like “What is revenge?” and “Is revenge ever justified?”
In a sense, the original ‘Old Boy’ had an unfair advantage, because it was located within the context of a larger trilogy, which gave it the freedom to explore specific aspects of the revenge motif. Unfortunately, the new film stands on its own, crippling it right from the beginning. It did not have the time nor the space to explore everything that it needed to do, instead opting to sacrifice a large bulk of the screen time to generic action set pieces.
In addition, the stomach-churning reveal in the final act of the original ‘Old Boy’ has already been known to most movie viewers for at least a decade, which again disadvantages Spike Lee. Much like how ‘The Sixth Sense’ cannot hold up for more than one viewing, the remake of ‘Old Boy’ tries to pour new wine into an old wineskins. There is simply no incentive for viewers of the original to watch the remake. Even if they did, the reveal in the film’s third act no longer holds as much shock value as watching the original. The “updated” ending became piecemeal at best.
Seen in this light, the remake of ‘Old Boy’ can thus be read as a mercenary attempt by Hollywood to cash in on an unknown Asian film that proved to be successful in a hope to replicate its success in a Western market. Beyond financial reasons, it has little reason to exist – a soulless and empty movie.
Remakes need to understand context
As alluded to in the Haiku, the ‘Old Boy’ remake lacked “Seoul”, shorthand for saying that it does not understand its new context. One glaring example of this is in the iconic hammer fight sequence of the original, where Oh Dae-Su dispatches a whole gang of bat and club wielding thugs with a hammer. As a way of paying homage to the original, Spike Lee has actor Josh Brolin wield a hammer in an almost shot-for-shot copy of the hammer fight (As a side note, the entire film feels like a frame-for-frame retake).
Here is a case where context needs to be considered. In the original, it makes complete sense for the thugs to be armed with bats and clubs, given how restrictive the gun laws are in South Korea. However, the same does not hold true in America, where guns and assault rifles would no doubt be easier to procure. Shouldn’t the henchmen be all armed with pistols and rifles, given that a large bulk of the film is situated squarely in an American urban space? The audience is asked to take this in good faith, and this becomes problematic, as American sensibilities clearly conflict with the movie’s Korean roots.
At the end of the day, the failure of the remake can perhaps be summarised in one word – laziness. The 2013 ‘Old Boy’ fails to understand that even remakes need to work hard to stay relevant, and should try to add something new to the original whenever possible. As a person who cares passionately about movies, I am glad that the movie failed. It assures me that new viewers cannot be won over by old tricks.
And to Spike Lee, I simply say: “try harder, old chap”.
words by: Leon Choo