by Brian Kesler
There are three major differences between the original 'Footloose,' and the 'Footloose' that escaped from some tin can somewhere and started leashing itself on the moviegoers of the world last weekend.
#1: Less screen time for the adults
Much of the film has the same basic story arc as the original, almost scene for scene. However, their are key sequences missing. Those scenes belong to the adults, played, in the original, by the incomparable Diane Wiest and John Lithgow. Sequences of the two in bed making sense of parenting, sequences involving the censorship of books, including a vital book burning scene, all missing. The original film had a sense of weight and importance attributed to these two actors. Wiest plays the hell out of any part she does, and Vi is no exception. Every movement of her eye lid has a purpose. Andie MacDowell, on the other hand, is lost, flustered, without focus or subtlety. You can't help but compare Dennis Quaid to John Lithgow, and I don't have to tell you which star shines brighter. Again, Quaid does nothing but speak lines. He doesn't seem invested in the role. He doesn't seem like an actual minister. He doesn't seem internally discordant, or haunted by the loss of a child. He seems like an actor bullshitting his way through his dialogue. One thing to say about the new film is that there are some adult characters with sanity, investing in the kids' fight for freedom, something deeply flawed regarding the original.
#2: Charisma
Kenny Wormald has the same dialogue and staging as Kevin Bacon. None of the charisma. Bacon was earnest. Honest. It is said that an actor should play every moment as if its the most important situation in the world. Life or death. In a city hall sequence regarding the legalization of public dancing, Bacon is flustered, nervous, excited, thrilled, frightened, hesitant, resolute. An actor can't play one emotion at a time. They must embody a slew of emotional variety. Bacon stutters and struggles and sweats to get the words out, but is determined to win his case, and forces himself to spit it out and do something important. Wormald, on the other hand, plays one emotion. Serenity. It's almost annoying to watch him play such a pivotal and emotional scene with a calm smirk and a steady pace of speech. He doesn't seem passionate, or involved. It's as though he'd had this moment memorized by heart from birth and was simply reciting for the 20th or 30th time. The entire cast can have the same said about them.
#3: Backstory
Backstory should be handled as such. Ariel's brother and his friends died in a car accident coming home from a party, which sparked the town to ban public dancing and other lewd behaviors. That's what we understand in the original. In this new film, we actually get to see all of that backstory right before our very eyes! So what? It adds no value to the film. In fact, it detracts from it. The best place to start a story is in the middle. Can you imagine seeing Travis Bickle in his previous job before taxi driving? 'Star Wars' begins as the rebels are escaping from steeling the Empire's secret plans. Do we really need to see them stealing it? No. The dramatic involvement is greater if we are thrown into the action as it is happening. Fritz Lang's 'M' begins after the murderer has already committed several horrific crimes, 'Gone with the Wind' opens as Scarlett O'Hara finds out Ashley is marrying Melanie and not her. And so on and so forth. It is a waste of ten minutes of celluloid.
In fact, the film is a waste of 113 minutes of celluloid. Or videotape, as the trend goes these days. It's not needed! The original is there, it's a fact, it exists, it is. No matter how many times you remake it, the original doesn't go away. Ever. Stop these tedious projects, Hollywood, I implore you. Find an original story idea. Hell! Take inspiration from 'Footloose' and mold it into an entirely new story and new film and pass it off as an original idea. That's what best-selling novelists do. Why can't you at least do that?
No comments:
Post a Comment