Okay well I think the most interesting thing about this film (besides Vincent D'Onofrio's performance because good LORD does that guy chew the scenery and oh how I enjoy it) is its choices in casting and representation within the storytelling in contrast to the original. I think at this point the remake focuses its shifting of material more on the 1960 film of the same name than the inspiration for that film, Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. But it still manages to interestingly throw one of every kind of rogue you might imagine roaming around the dying Wild West at the end of the 19th century. I appreciate that it called itself out for its obvious attempt to show the diversity of the west and I also appreciate its (sometimes ham-fisted) attempts to have all these different factions interact with each other, spouting their life philosophies and conflicting world views at each other. Does it have the artful elegance of Kurosawa or the charming bonhomie of John Sturges' to work with? Not really. But it has kind of a dumb earnestness that is entertaining.
There are changes here and there to who dies and who lives, how each player gets pulled into the action, but I think the biggest and most interesting change is the setting. The 1960 film is set in a Mexican town just south of the border, where the long arm of the American law cannot help the Mexican farmers being terrorized by a local Mexican extortionist gangster. When our heroes arrive, the women are hidden for the [implicit] fear of rape and kid-napping. The samurai/cowboys are ultimately betrayed by a cowardly member of the village. The remake sidesteps the problematic questions of white/American paternalism towards Mexico, although the 1960 film did include one Mexican man in the gang of seven. If I had to guess the motivation for moving the setting to a valley somewhere in the American west, and changing the villain to a greedy businessman from California, I would guess having a final showdown of heroic, mostly noble and self-sacrificing predominantly white guys versus rapacious, greedy Mexican gangsters might not play too well today. Although they changed around the makeup of the group enough that maybe it wouldn't have been an issue? Who knows. They probably went with the safer storytelling choice, less chance of making something offensive.
I feel like the cast is doing their best here and they do get some exceptional performances (again, Vincent D'Onofrio, but also Ethan Hawke is great as the PTSD-ridden shell of his former Confederate general self as is Lee Byung-hun as his companion and sort of nursemaid). So let's take a look at this cast.
Matthew Goode who I had a bad feeling was not going to make it to the end of the pre-credits sequence (I was right) and a very beautiful Jennifer Lawrence-type character. I would say she fulfills the Strong Women of the West quota.
Denzel is pretty Denzel in this. I confess I do like the backstory the characters are given in this version better than in 1960, Denzel is a former Union soldier whose family of homesteaders was killed by the villain Peter Sarsgaard which definitely makes this battle a lot more personal for him.
Chris Pratt plays just slightly more grey, morally, than Star Lord. I think he's the supposed comedic relief and he has a few funny lines although honestly the whole cast gets so many quips that besides Denzel they're kind of all played for laughs at times.
The main thing the 2016 version has over the 1960 version, in my opinion, is its landscape shots which are seriously breathtaking.
This pairing is the closest the film came to recreating the camaraderie of the older version.
Interesting character, although the actor isn't given much to do except fight the villain's own hired Native American and act as sharp-shooter for the gang. The most interaction he gets is with D'Onofrio's character seeing as...
...he plays a former scalp-hunter. Woof. He chooses this kind of breathy, high-pitched voice and he fills out the role of a man who gets compared to a "bear in man costume" by another character. The pair's dynamic was interesting and I wished it was explored more.
Why does Hollywood keep trying to make this guy happen? At least he doesn't have that much of a role to be uninteresting in.
At least the remake carries on the original's penchant for carefully posed group shots where everyone can be seen. Although this is one of the less artful of those shots.
Cowboys and manhood and noble heroism and stuff. Yay!
No comments:
Post a Comment