They don’t remake ‘em like that anymore!

Posted by Richard Harland Smith on September 10, 2009

HolmesInMovieVault-444pxW Within the blognoscenti it’s fashionable to poo-poo any announcement from Hollywood that a classic film – or even a sub-classic – is going to be remade. I’ll admit I’ve done my fair share of poo-poo-ing in the past and will probably continue to poo-poo in the future. Most of the remakes I’ve derided sight-unseen (Rob Zombie’s HALLOWEEN, Tim Burton’s PLANET OF THE APES, THE WICKER MAN, MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3D, THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123) have turned out to be the stinkers I pegged them as but occasionally a remake comes along that reimagines the original in exciting ways (Hammer’s HORROR OF DRACULA, Philip Kaufman’s INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS) or perhaps even exhibits a greater fidelity to the source materials (John Carpenter’s THE THING). These occasions are to be celebrated. Of course, remakes are nothing new. Back before Hollywood could count on DVD sales and rentals as a sort of cinematic afterlife for their properties, producers routinely dusted off scripts that were in many cases less than a decade old and had another crack at them. It was an early form of recycling and nobody complained much. Such was the case with Twentieth Century Fox’s THE STREET WITH NO NAME (1948), a sequel of sorts to the studio’s early docudrama THE HOUSE ON 92ND STREET (1945). Only seven years after the film’s successful theatrical run, Fox head Darryl F. Zanuck was brainstorming a remake that would be the first Hollywood production filmed in Japan. A contract director for Fox at the time, Samuel Fuller was so excited about the prospect of shooting in Japan (then in the second decade of its postwar reconstruction) that he quit location scouting for THE STORY OF ESTHER COSTELLO (1957) to take the gig. The result was HOUSE OF BAMBOO (1955), which respun the plot particulars from Harry Kleiner’s STREET WITH NO NAME script to interesting effect.

Street001

THE STREET WITH NO NAME is a nervy “inside man” thriller that predates both Raoul Walsh’s WHITE HEAT and Anthony Mann’s BORDER INCIDENT (both 1949) by a year and points ahead to such crime classics (and sub-classics) as Ferde Grofé Jr.’s THE DAY OF THE WOLVES (1973), Kathryn Bigelow’s POINT BREAK (1991), and Quentin Tarantino’s RESERVOIR DOGS (1992), which is itself an unauthorized remake of Ringo Lam’s CITY ON FIRE (1987). In STREET, crack FBI cadet Gene Cordell (THE SNAKE PIT‘s Mark Stevens, above) is sent fresh from the target ranges of Quantico to infiltrate the shadow syndicate of crime boss Alec Stiles (Richard Widmark). To do so, he makes himself known around the pool halls and boxing gyms of an unnamed West Coast city, picking fights, acting punk and ingratiating himself into the gang. The film is rich in noir shadows and characterizations that could have come right out of a 30s gangster picture from Warner Brothers. It was old fashioned in 1948, a year in which the crime film adapted flavorings of the documentary – Jules Dassin’s THE NAKED CITY and Alfred L. Werker’s HE WALKED BY NIGHT, to say nothing of Henry Hathaway’s THE HOUSE ON 92ND STREET. Nonetheless, the production works a charm, even as its high contrast morality skirts noir ambiguity to make a clean delineation between good and evil.

HOB001

For HOUSE OF BAMBOO, Sam Fuller plays his cards close to his vest, not divulging straight away that disgraced G.I. and ex-con Eddie Spannier (Robert Stack, above center, in a role for which Gary Cooper was considered) is in reality US Military Intelligence op Eddie Kenner. To make matters even messier, Fuller shot Stack hoofing it around the pachinko parlors of Tokyo without letting the local citizenry know that a movie was being filmed. When Fuller commanded Stack to be attacked by an angry mob, he didn’t bother to let his unpaid extras know that Stack was acting… and the mob nearly killed the actor right there in front of the hidden cameras. Stack was none too thrilled by the turn of events but Fuller was in his glory. Yet despite his penchant for “tabloid cinema” and such trademarks as firing off a pistol to signal the start of a take, what distinguishes HOUSE OF BAMBOO as a Sam Fuller film is its subtlety, its beauty and sense of calm and quiet. The film was his second in Technicolor and widescreen, which afforded it a lush, opulent look that masks a medium-level budget. Fuller is deferential to the Japanese and takes great pains to tease out the local color and beauty, to honor ethnic traditions, and to show America’s former Axis enemy in a favorable light. He doesn’t seem half as interested in his Occidental characters. Even when his true identity is revealed, Stack’s inside man remains something of a cipher, even though he is allowed a love story here that was not in evidence in the original. Comparisons between THE STREET WITH NO NAME and HOUSE OF BAMBOO are more interesting then, on the question of villainy.

Street003

For Alec Stiles, a germaphobe control freak (“Who sneezed?!” he barks at his gang as they prepare to pull a big heist), Richard Widmark carried over a note of grinning ferality from his introductory turn as Tommy Udo in KISS OF DEATH (1947). Trusting his ability to menace with persuasive minimalism, the actor offsets his threat factor with some goofy behavioral tics, gnawing on an apple and giving Mark Stevens a big, horsey grin. Even saddled with some comic idiosyncrasies (in addition to the aforementioned, a nostril inhaler), Stiles is trouble. He’s a loose canon, a ticking time bomb. We fear his moments of jocularity as much as we do his mood swings into rage and paranoia.

HOB002

Given the equivalent role in HOUSE OF BAMBOO, Robert Ryan plays it cool, ice to Richard Widmark’s wildfire. (Ryan even gets to douse an unconscious Stack with ice cubes at one point, as if to drive home the point.) Affecting a bemused half smile, Ryan’s calculating Sandy Dawson is etched in sympathy with some of the actor’s best characterizations (ACT OF VIOLENCE‘s vengeful Joe Parkson, THE NAKED SPUR‘s patient Ben Vendergroat and BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK‘s mock folksy Reno Smith) but there’s something extra here. In his autobiography A THIRD FACE: MY TALE OF WRITING, FIGHTING AND FILMMAKING, Fuller wrote of his bid to add a flavoring of homoeroticism to the working relationship of Eddie Spannier/Kenner and Sandy Dawson:

“I moved the entire shebang to Tokyo, added stuff about Japanese contemporary life, threw in some sexual exploitation and interracial romance, and then, for some unexpected pizzas, wrote a violent love scene between two hardened criminals… Zanuck loved it, even the homoerotic scene with the two gangsters, which at the time was very daring.”

What’s interesting, though, is that element is plainly evident in THE STREET WITH NO NAME…

Street002

… in which Alec Stiles gets positively girly about bringing the new guy into his gang, even giving him a roll of bank notes for a new wardrobe. Stiles clearly prefers the company of men to that of his wife (boldly played by Barbara Lawrence, in Jules Dassin’s THIEVES’ HIGHWAY the following year), whom he later suspects of foiling a big job. While Stiles only bitch slaps the innocent Judy for her presumed infidelity, Sandy grabs his rod…

HOB003

… and gives it to the suspected turncoat but good. This wrathful explosion is not so interesting in and of itself (apart from its flashpoint ferocity) but Sandy’s postmortem tenderness is what sells the scene. Cradling the limp head of his dead comrade-in-arms (who had earlier expressed jealousy at Sandy’s deferential treatment of Eddie), Sandy speaks softly, with love and affection. It’s a beautifully perverse concretizing of what had been alluded to (however baldly) in THE STREET WITH NO NAME. The outre touch is typical of Fuller and wonderfully characteristic of the ways in which a good remake can not only offer an alternative reading on an existing work of art but exist as a stand-alone statement. I still can’t decide which film I like better… and I suspect I never will. I encourage you to watch THE STREET WITH NO NAME and HOUSE OF BAMBOO and draw your own conclusions. See how William Keighley and Samuel Fuller took different tacks to flesh out their heroes and villains and how both filmmakers employed vastly different aesthetics to define a common constellation of deception, betrayal and complicated codes of honor and masculinity. Seeing these films back to back restores one’s faith in the system… a little.

Meanwhile, I cannot believe they remade THE BAD LIEUTENANT!

5 Comments |

submit

5 Responses They don’t remake ‘em like that anymore!

Posted By Tom K : September 10, 2009 10:49 pm

Thanks for posting this – I can’t wait to watch these.

Tom

Posted By myidolspencer : September 11, 2009 6:45 am

Terrific jazz to quote *”The Chairman of the Board: Francis Albert Sinatra” & though on this section I’ve almost always stuck with (SUSIE!) A grand gal by the way folks & I hope it’s ok to tell others here, she’s also a schoolteacher! & in this era, it’s “outrageously’ among thee most undervalued & underpaid of jobs. Not to mention the most self giving as well!

As for this article-(never was crazy of computer lingo myself, such as “post’ “thread” & such)

Though I agree for the most part, by large actually. Given I also go to between (36 & 60 new releases in a theatre annually, since 1982. Started at only age 17 & with each passing yr there are less and less 4 star releases?) On that note, most by now likely know the AMPAS has come up with the “asinine idea” of again having 10 BP nominees this yr!? The first year since 1943, the yr the legendary *”Casablanca” took the biggie. & given 08 was weaker than the previous yr & so-on-(domino effect) so-far, 09 has actually been even flatter, despite it still being a record yr at the $B.O.$
Point being, I see almost all of these re-makes & only a handful were as good or better-(matter of opinion) than the original.
2007′s “3;10 to Yuma” with 1 of our finest living actors’ in *R. Crowe, to this viewer was as good, if not slightly superior to the ’57 version. Which I just rewatched again a couple nights ago. & this “article’ mostly seemed pointed at that rarest film genre of film ‘noir. Something that it appears they cannot duplicate though, at least nowhere as strongly.
*Coen Bros. did a terrific homage though with 2001′s “The Man Who Wasn’t There” & 1995′s remake of “Kiss of Death” was as good in my view, due to again the villian-(this time out played greatly by a pumped-up *Nicolas Cage) Though Widmark’s take on-it-(& his sole *OSCAR shot by the way) is legendary! It’s mostly Victor Mature that’s it’s weakest link. The (still) vastly underrated: Robert Ryan-(l909-73) seems to personafy this genre in himself. His 1 & only shot at *”The Golden Boy” being ’47′s “Crossfire” (P.S. For fans also check-out his superb work in “Billy Budd” “0dds Against Tomorrow” & of course “The Set-Up”) It goes without saying, given *”The Great: Spencer Tracy” is my #1 Idol. I know every gesture and line ahead of time in “Bad Day at Black Rock”-(TRIVIA: William Conrad, another “Tracy-devotee” once made an entire episode of tv’s “Cannon” as an homage) Also saw this summer’s “Taking of Pelham 1 2 3″ (barely **1/2-out of 4) & have always rated the ’74 version another underrated gem, especially in Robert Shaw’s cool as a cucumber villian. Just the opposite of what Travolta put on film, unfortunately) There are many fans of ’82′s “The Thing” (**1/2) & in EW magazine legendary writer: Stephen King being among them. But I stick with Hawks’ version myself.-(despite him not helming it, it’s his trademark stuff all-over it) As for 01′s strangely lacking in humor-(considering Tim Burton made-it?) “Planet of the Apes” It’s best defense being an amazing turn by Tim Roth! At least *Tarentino-(though obnoxious as….on-screen) admits to ripping-off this & that. Just saw “Inglourious Basterds” & as with most of his 8-to 9 previous flix, has it’s detractors. Though at times has some powerhouse moments! (P.S. watch for actor Christoph Waltz to have his name called on nomination day Feb. 2nd, 2010)
“R. Dogs” of course a take-off on a couple of the past (“The Killing” “Asphalt Jungle” & others)
Westerns & film ‘noir, the former especially, are a genre entirely N. American-(I know “The Third Man”-(probably among the best in any genre ever, is from the U.K. Matter of fact it’s own BFI-(British Film Institute)voted-it in 1999 as #1 of all-time!)
& “Night and the City”-(another kinda’ rehashed well in ’92)
were not.
Though the still-fading into the sun “WESTERN”-(despite them trying to rekindle ‘em, the $$$ was not there when they came out, sadly! “Assassination of Jesse James” (2007) (only made $4m.) But “3;10 to Yuma” did well though at $55m.
“Appaloosa” (08) (only $20m.)-(There are a few more coming though)
At least tv still tries to keep it alive.
It’s still the sole film genre this country owns!
Thanks

Posted By myidolspencer : September 11, 2009 6:52 am

Something very importan to this ection! It took awhile but you also need an “EDIT BUTTON” here as well

Please consider

(P.S. You’ve no idea how many more all-around re-makes are coming though.)

It’s ‘ridiculous’ to say the least

Posted By Robert Kawasaki : December 11, 2009 10:26 pm

Sam Fuller was an effective artist. He always had remained in his oun way, and every film of his possesses distinct flair. They are rough, tough, self consciously romantic, and brutely beautiful. These elements are quite ovbious in his notable films like THE BARON OF ARIZONA, THE STEEL HELMET, FIXED BAYONETS!, PICKUP ON SOUTH STREET, FORTY GUNS, THE CRIMSON KIMONO, UNDERWORLD U.S.A., SHOCK CORRIDOR, THE NAKED KISS and THE BIG RED ONE.

Something is missing here. Yes, great HOUSE OF BAMBOO is missing. Now, I want to talk about it. Unfortunately, HOUSE OF BAMBOO is arguably Fuller’s most underrated work. Some observers pointed out that the film lacks pure inexpensive beauty which was the hallmark to Fuller. Some thought the film has a terrible script with illogical structure. Where is the Yakuza? And how the gang are able to operate gambling places in Tokyo without knowing a single word of Japanese except ICHIBAN?
Well, in my opinion, who cares! It is just a movie!

Despite their claims, HOUSE still remains as a great film. A cinemascope photography of Joe MacDonald is absolutely stunning and beautiful, the timing of story telling is quite efficient, the setting of each scene is quite creative, and entanglement of an interesting cast is enjoyable to watch. Use of actual location of Japan is effectively done, and becouse of these elements, the film possesses rare distinctive quality such no other film had ever achieved.

You must not forget there are so many positive voices about the film.

“Many year later, when Fuller had become a cult figure, this film could come in for fair share of recognition.”
-James Robert Parish, “THE TOUGH GUYS”

“A remake of STREET WITH NO NAME, this -one of Fuller’s finest films- was shot in Cinamascope in Japan, with wealth of colorful locat details that reflect the director’s enthusiasm for the country.”
-A.Ballinger & D.Graydon, “THE ROUGH GUIDE TO FILM NOIR”

“A well made cops-and- robbers story filmed in Tokyo. It is enhanced by the petal-like beauty of the scenery…..”
-Time

“In this one, the dynamic locale is post-World War II Tokyo, and the excellent use that is made of it by Director Samuel Fuller adds considerably to an entertaining film.”
-Bosley Crowther, “THE NEW YORK TIMES”

“His(Fuller’s) visual schema represents the societal fractures through a series of deep-focus, Noh-theatrical tableaus, a succession of silhouettes, screens, and stylized color photography that melds the heady insanity of a Douglas Sirk melodrama (see, as an especial point of comparison, Sirk’s 1956 Korea-set war film Battle Hymn) with the philosophical inquiry of the best noirs.” -Keith Uhlich, “SLANT”

“Amid Fuller’s usual flair for weird melodrama, even non-fans of his work will appreciate the exceptional use of actual Japanese locations, as production took place years before the country’s massive economic boom. The CinemaScope photography is first-rate, and Fuller’s style embraces a fascinating mix of superb action – namely the film’s amazing rooftop confrontation at the end – and a docu-drama feel via the use of extant markets, shops, gambling halls, city streets, and waterfronts.”
-Mark R. Hasan, “KQEK DVD REVIEW”

“An involving hard-boiled thriller in its own right, House of Bamboo is also a fascinating barometer of western attitudes to Japan in the post-war years, and one whose plot and characters are neither as fanciful nor out-of-date as some have suggested.”
-Slarek, “DVD OUTSIDER”

“The passion for form in the picture, for dynamic, changing compositions, and for the unique way in which Japanese interiors can have paper walls that instanly rip apart to reveal fresh shapes – all thise things are Samuel Fuller, and Fuller alone, and they are his greedy eye for the marvels of form that arise whenever different races try to live together.
Years ahead of his time, when it looked like miscegeneation more than friction and misunderstanding, Fuller was attracted to interracial stories” -David Thomson, “HAVE YOU SEEN?”

Thus, HOUSE OF BAMBOO is arguably Samuel Fuller’s most controversial work as well as one of his best films.

Posted By TCM's Classic Movie Blog : May 24, 2010 1:51 pm

[...] Since being dumbfounded by that bit of news, I have been pondering the idea of remakes, re-workings, and re-visualizations. What about the remakes from the Golden Age makes the strategy seem less offensive? Did reviewers back in the day notice when a film was a remake of an older movie, and if so, did they complain about it? Is it possible for a remake in the contemporary era to be worthwhile? If so, how can a viewer predict if a remake is worth catching or if it should be avoided? [For another perspective on remakes, see fellow Morlock rhsmith’s “They Don’t Remake ‘em Like That Anymore" by clicking here.] [...]

MovieMorlocks.com is the official blog for TCM. No topic is too obscure or niche to be excluded from our film discussions. And we welcome your comments on our blogs and bloggers.