Wednesday, April 16, 2008

by Ari

Here's an interesting topic: remaking classic, landmark animated films. Is it necessary? This year two defining Japanese animated films have been bought by American studios for live remakes. Earlier this year it was Akira, and now Steven Spielberg has taken a personal interest in Mamoru Oshii's seminal sci-fi thriller, Ghost in the Shell.

What exactly is the purpose of this? I can't quite pinpoint the exact thing that disturbs me about the idea, but it's definitely not sitting well with me. American remakes won't take anything away from the actual films, but I wonder why anyone would really feel the need to do this. It's not like adapting a tv show into a feature film ala Speed Racer, and it's not just a simple remake like Soderbergh and Ocean's 11 or Scorsese and Cape Fear. Spielberg told Variety, ""It's a genre that has arrived, and we enthusiastically welcome it to DreamWorks."

I assume he means that the appeal of Japanese filmmaking has arrived, especially Japanese filmmaking of a particular style. I can understand that. Movies like The Matrix and Kill Bill have brought that influence to mass audiences. But there's something about remaking singular artistic achievements that irritates me a bit. You have to draw a line somewhere, or else who knows what will happen in the future. The Ghost in the Shell remake will never improve on the brilliance of Oshii's film or its remarkable sequel (see below). Same with Akira. Same goes for the inevitable remake of any of Miyazaki's classics. Why touch the work of an artist unlike any other?