Mr. Deeds Goes to Town vs Mr. Deeds - The Match-Up

While neither of these two movies would make it onto my short list of the greatest movies of all time, one at least, gets designated as a "movie that tickled me" and one gets forgotten real quick. Hmmm, I wonder which is which?

There aren't many story differences in the two movies, up to a point they are pretty much the same. Towards the end of both movies Mr. Deeds makes a plea, to those that would listen, to follow their hearts and to act on what is right not what is popular. How they arrive at this point really is not that important, it's the message.

One of the main differences in the two is the time period, obviously. Mr. Deeds Goes to Town was a depression era film. That had a large bearing on the story it told. When Mr. Deeds realizes the responsibility he now had in the acquisition of this fortune, he sets out to make changes and not just minor ones. After being involved in a nearly violent exchange with a desperate out of work farmer, Mr. Deeds realizes that something has to be done about the joblessness. He proposes a plan that will give farms to nearly fifty thousand americans. A plan that is not appreciated by the people around him that want a piece of his pie. In the re-make, Adam Sandler's Deeds, is also concerned with the workers. It this story it is much more simplified, however. His intention is simply to keep the current workers of his uncle's company employed by stopping a proposed dissolving of the company. While it is nice to see that the plight of the worker is kept for the re-make, you can see just how much affairs of it's time affected the focus of the original. There was a crisis in our country and it was at the heart of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town. Given the state of our economy in recent time, if the new version had been made just a few years ago, instead of 2002, perhaps it would have had a similar focus.

While the original was a comedy, it didn't rely on it's jokes to carry it. It was about more than just the odd Mr. Deeds. This is one of the issues with the remake. It's mostly a comedy based on Adam Sandler's version of Mr. Deeds, than anything else. In my particular case it was filled with jokes that were not really funny. And when that is your focus, there's a problem. I'm not going to nit-pick the jokes in detail, comedy is a subjective thing and this was not good in my opinion. It was either a case of poor writing or the actors not being inspired.

Overall, the remake does hit all the points it would want to hit in retelling the original. It's lighthearted, funny (not for me, but it was for most I suppose) and has a good message about how we should treat each other. That's why I don't want to bash the modern version of Mr. Deeds, it had good intentions. So, which one was better? For me, with it's more heartfelt message and easy approach to the comedy, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town is the more enjoyable film. And should it have been remade? This is a case where i would say, no. The original is very good and worth watching. However, given people's tendency to avoid black and white films and our need to see contemporary actors in our films, I understand the need to remake it. While the remake doesn't quite have the emotional impact of the original, it still has a good message at it's core and I don't see any reason to deny that to modern viewers.

Mr. Deeds - The Mini-Review

Well, where do I begin? To be honest I was prepared to hate this movie. I haven't liked much of Adam Sandler's work since Happy Gilmore and this was more of the same. And while I didn't hate this movie, it's not good either. I think I would have liked it a lot less if I hadn't seen the orignal first. Let me explain.

Just like the original, Mr. Deeds begins with the quaint town of Mandrake Falls. There, Longfellow Deeds lives a basic but happy life, in this case running a pizza restaurant. He is visited by some big city lawyers. His uncle has died unexpectedly, making Deeds (which he is referred to in this version) the sole heir to the empire his uncle has built. Like the the original movie before it, Deeds goes to the big city to see just what this all means, where he gets wrapped up in the petty motivations of everyone around him.

They stick pretty close to the original in this version, straying only occasionally to set up silly (and unfunny) comic moments. In the end, they forego an "insanity hearing" for Deeds in favor of a much more believable stock holder meeting, where a vote must be made, yes or no, to dissolve the business in the name of making a profit. In this case, Deeds argues more the value of dreams and the concept of happiness without money-grubbing than the benefit of being different. Even with these changes new scene is still admirable in it's intended message.

Mr. Deeds doesn't work for a number of reasons. It did have good intentions, you can see they have a love for the original, some of the original's best scenes are left intact here. But one of the major reasons it fails is that it decided to be a pure comedy. A comedy that isn't funny. This version lacks the heart that was present in the original and tries to fill that void with a large volume of jokes that never really pan out. Maybe the gags looked good on the page but didn't translate to the screen.

Can you blame the actors? Partially, while there were a plenty of good actors in this film, many of them seemed to be phoning this one in. The real reason has to be the writing, however.

Like I said, Mr. Deeds gets credit for the attempt but the recipe used to create the film just didn't work. I've argued that Adam Sandler has had free reign in his film to his detriment. This movie was populated by actors (and some characters) from the Adam Sandler "universe", and they just didn't get it done here. With a different cast and some funnier jokes, this could have been a much better.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town - The Mini-Review

O.K., so it's not the most realistic movie I've seen. The characters are a bit cartoony but Mr. Deeds Goes to Town accomplishes what it's trying to do. At least it did for me.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town opens with our titular character, Longfellow Deeds, receiving guests from the "big town." This group of lawyers have some surprising news for him; his uncle, who he barely knew has died, leaving Mr. Deeds the sole heir to his $20 million empire. Reluctantly, Mr. Deeds heads to the "Big City" to see where this ride takes him.

There he meets, not by accident, Babe Bennett. A fast talking tabloid journalist. Who, unknown to Mr. Deeds, has been given the assignment to get close to him for the purpose of getting juicy newspaper stories. Of course, Babe's motives are purely business at first but she can't help but fall in love with Mr. Deeds, the closer she gets to him. There are parties that want Mr. Deeds' fortune and will do everything they can to separate him from it. This leads to a silly (did this stuff actually happen back then) and quite public, sanity hearing. You see, the lawyers handling the estate of Mr. Deeds uncle have been trying all along to take it from him, and if they can just convince the public that the sweet and simple Mr. Deeds is crazy, they will get what they want.

This courtroom scene tries to put across some admirable concepts, Mr. Deeds argues that being kind and caring are traits that should be aspired to and being different is a good thing not something to be ashamed of. I appreciated the sentiment here but I don't think the writing was quite up to the job. It ended up being just a bit unbelievable.

I underestimated how much I was going to like Mr. Deeds Goes to Town. It looked simple and sappy, but that's why I liked it. It definitely seemed to be a movie of it's time. In his films, Capra (Director) was able to walk that line of over-the-top sentiment, as opposed to some modern directors that have tried to duplicate the skill but rarely succeed. It's a sweet, goofy movie but don't let it fool you, it has something to say.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town vs Mr. Deeds - The Introductions

Next up we have Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, starring Gary Cooper and Mr. Deeds starring a favorite of our time, Adam Sandler. Let's see the details.

Longfellow Deeds is a simple man from a simple but charming town. When a rich uncle dies, Mr. Deeds is left in charge of his empire and $20 million dollars.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027996/

Longfellow Deeds, known to his friends simply as "Deeds", is living a simple but happy life until he finds out an uncle he barely knew has made him a billionaire.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280590/

An Interview for the cause

Recently, as part of the process of looking at the subject of movie re-makes and apparent worth (or non-worth), I did a little interview with a friend and fellow movie enthusiast. I'm going to post it here, we're at the halfway point in the viewing so it's seems appropriate.

The air is not quite as warm as it will be in another month, but you can feel the heat is coming. School is done for another year and we don’t have to think about that unpleasantness for a while. It is the third week of June, 1977 and there is a particular young man having a birthday this week. Along with gifts and cake, he will be treated to a movie. His choice, it is his birthday after all. There is a sci-fi movie that he has seen ads for, it looks really decent, maybe that one would be good? “My parents took me to the Oakbrook Theater to see Star Wars. I remember it clearly. We sat in the balcony, first row, and I was leaning as far forward as I could go, with my hands under my chin. I was completely blown away by the very first image. Still the best openings to a movie, ever. Talk about an impact.”

When I asked Mark Sievers, a friend and a former Blockbuster Video manager, about his earliest movie memories, he was not short on details. Like many people of his age, Star Wars had a great affect on him. It always seems a given, that when a person makes movies part of their work, they must be a fan. I wanted to get an idea how deep that impact ran.

“Well, growing up in Downers Grove, I had the Tivoli [a historic Illinois theater, that played second run films] right down the street. I practically lived there. I spent many Sunday afternoons seeing whatever was playing, I think that really helped me develop a wide taste in movies.” Afternoons spent absorbing whatever movie was playing helped him turn a pastime into lifelong love. He did admit that, over the years, his taste in movies changed somewhat with his personality, “I did like horror movies when I was younger but not so much now. I don’t know. They just aren’t scary any more; the real world is scary. I don’t need to escape to a scary movie when the real world is scary enough.”

It’s obvious that horror movies do not interest him now, what about the movies that still get a response out of him? I asked him what the last movie was that affected him is some significant way. Without much hesitation, “the most recent one that comes to mind is The Blind Side. That’s the one where the well-off family tries to do what they can for the kid that is basically homeless. It really got me choked up at times. The idea that there are people out there that would do that, go out of their way like that, it would be so easy to mind your own business. Most people would these days. The movie really worked for me.” Not as recent but even more loved, was one of his favorite movies; “Rudy. One of my top movies. This one got me emotional at times, too. It was just really inspirational. I know it’s a movie, and not pure fact but it is a movie that can push your buttons, and it doesn’t feel forced. I guess I see a trend here. I seem to like movies based on real events.”

I was starting to get a feel for where Mark was coming from as a movie fan and was wondering what he would think of a re-make of Rudy. “Hmmm, no. I wouldn’t want to see that. Maybe in thirty years. I don’t know. I just can’t see any reason to do it. But that’s a problem I have with Hollywood anyway, they like to do remakes instead of coming up with new ideas.”

As a follow up, I asked what he thought of movies as a whole today. Are they better or worse than he remembers them growing up? “Worse. Well, we just were talking about all the remakes. It’s obvious that movies are a business first. Just a way to make money. You really have to look at the smaller releases to see someone attempting to make something that is artistic.” He went on to say, “there are exceptions, Up was a huge movie and it was more than just a summer blockbuster. It had real heart. But really, it’s supply and demand. If we demand these monster summer movies Hollywood will keep supplying them, even if they are terrible.”

“To be fair, it’s not all Hollywood’s fault. A re-make is a good financial risk. You take a proven thing and try to repackage it. It’s too bad though.” In Mark’s opinion, this is a necessary evil for the movie business, but this gets away from the idea of movies as art. If there is nothing new brought to the film to make the movie more relatable to modern audiences other than a recasting of actors, then there is really no point in re-doing it. Rudy was well acted, had an adequate budget and did not rely on computer-generated special effects. Maybe it would be best to leave a movie like that alone.

An experience like seeing Star Wars for the first time is only possible from the perspective of a child. A child can see with fresh eyes and without bias. Almost everything is new to a child. I’ve often wondered if the day that I’m having might color the mindset I have going into a movie. It seems like that day in June was a special one for Mark. We bring much with us to the theater when we sit down to watch a movie. There are some basic things that are consistent with great movies, however. In trying to get down to the essence of what constitutes a great movie, Mark had this thought, “A movie needs three things to be good in my opinion: an original story, a good script and believable characters.” Based on these criteria it seems like a re-make is lacking the first component. Without that first component a well-executed Hollywood remake could, perhaps be entertaining, but try as it might it could never be original.

Sabrina vs Sabrina - The Match-Up

In a perfect world you could combine the best aspects of two films and create one master version. Hollywood has been trying to do this for a long time and they would have even more money in the bank if they could just find a way. I wish they could have found a way to do it in the case of Sabrina, independently they had aspects that I really liked, but let me down in other areas.

On the surface the films are the same, with only minor updates to the situations and plot to accomodate the more modern timeframe. None of these changes seem to negatively impact the film. You also may have your personal preferences for the actors involved, given my age, I gravitated to the modern version, but that's just me. In both films we get very solid acting, and the actors individually bring something to the parts.

There are a number of minor differences in the versions. The biggest one and the one that matters the most is the more contemporary treatment (in the 1995 remake) of the character, Sabrina. In the original she seemed to be a "thing", to be either possessed or not, by the lead male characters. We are shown a short segment in which Sabrina spends time in Paris attending culinary school. Growing as a person we assume, accumulating various life experiences in order to become an adult. However, upon her return home, all she seems to have learned is how to be more attractive to the opposite sex. Now, this is the point where I'm wondering if I'm having a generational disconnect. Is this type of character just indicative of the role that some women had at the time? I'm not sure, I would need to get opinions from various people of that era to be sure. What I know is, from a modern perspective, it makes for a extremely two-dimensional female lead character. We don't really understand why she is madly in love with David. And it only take a few days for her to forget about him and fall for his older brother.

In the 1995 re-make we are given more character development for Sabrina. Instead of culinary school, Sabrina is a fashion photographer's assistant. Through some efficiently constructed scenes, we see Sabrina getting a crash course on life and even manages to earn the respect of her co-workers. This isn't to say Sabrina returns home in this version, ready to take on the world, but you get the sense that events are not beyond her ability to follow. This is a pretty complicated difference in the two movies, but it is at the root of why they are so different to me.

Both Sabrina's have things to offer. The original, though a little dated in it's characterizations, has a warmth and charm that the remake could not achieve. The 1995 version was able to ground the characters in a bit more reality but came off as a by-the-numbers "Rom-com." Which one did I like more? I'd have to go with the 1995 version. I see the significance of the original, but the 1995 re-make edges out the original by a slight margin. Was it worth re-making? This is another case (like the comparison of Infernal Affairs and The Departed) where I'm going to say that it's a push. The re-make isn't really a huge improvement, but the modernizing of the female archetype makes it worth the effort.

Sabrina (1995) - The Mini-Review

I wasn't really looking forward to watching the 1995 re-make of Sabrina, the original was just not my cup of tea. I don't want to mislead you though, I'm not preparing to say I loved it, that would be lying. But there was more to sink my teeth into in this version and that's a good thing.

There are not many changes in the re-make of Sabrina, it's surprisingly faithful, but with a longer runtime and the conventions of modern filmmaking, we get better defined characters, with more understandable actions.

I'll say this right now, I rarely dislike watching Harrison Ford, so I have a bias there. If Harrison Ford appeared in the original Sabrina I might have liked it more, although, he would have be about ten years old, I think. Greg Kinnear does a nice job also, even if his role did seem a little scaled back. Julia Ormond is stunning and manages to bring more depth to the shallow character of Sabrina. That is thanks, in part, to the more fleshed out character moments. We still are not really sure why such a prize like Sabrina would pine away for David Larrabee, but this version does make Sabrina look a little more sensible. Along with the lead actors we get a very capable group of fine character actors, to round out the cast.

For the most part my sentiments for the previous version apply here as well, it is a pretty exact remake. Sabrina is a goofy little romance movie, that owes much to the genre films that came before it. It doesn't do much new but what it's doing is handled as well as you can expect.

To say I liked this newer Sabrina sounds like more of an endorsement than it really is. We are still talking about a romance here, and I have a hard time enjoying this type of movie. With the attempts to give more depth to the characters and explain why they are doing the things they are doing, I give Sydney Pollak (director, along with the writers of course) some credit. It ends up being rooted a bit more in reality, which is a positive for me (but a negative for others.) As a trade off, however, it seems to lose much of the charm of the original. Not a perfect deal but it worked for me in this case.

Sabrina (1954) - The Mini-Review

After watching the exceptional Rear Window, I was more than exited to watch another 1950's era film. Sabrina didn't have quite the same effect on me. To be specific, I didn't like it much. I tried to go into this with an open mind, Sabrina was a romance, and I generally avoid them like the plague. I will try to keep that fact in mind as I breakdown my thoughts about the film.

Let's start with the good, there is plenty of good here. The movie did deliver on it's promise of comedy. There were a good number of gags in the movie, from David's champagne glasses incident to the reoccurring theme of Linus putting his newfound miracle plastic through it's paces. There were some genuine laughs to be had here. I was also, quite amused (from the perspective of an older generation) by the fact that Linus was a bit of a tech guy. To establish just how devoted Linus is to his business, there is a scene in his limo in which he conducts the morning's tasks from the backseat. I didn't realize that car phones were even technically possible in 1954. I went and did some research, it looks like they amounted to glorified radios, but modern cell phones are just more glorified radios, I suppose.

If I didn't enjoy this movie, I in no way blame the performers. Everyone involved was on point. Humphrey Bogart was funnier than I ever saw him, William Holden was goofy in the right way and I can see why Audrey Hepburn was a darling of her time. The supporting cast was strong as well, serving up memorable characters even with minor rolls. Some of note are Larrabee the elder (who gets to deliver the enjoyable call back to the glass problem from earlier in the film), the rest of the staff of the house (which included, as it turns out, the actress that would later play Ms. Hathaway in the Beverly Hillbillies) and Linus's secretary. The movie didn't work for me on a more basic level, but it had mostly to do with the genre of the film.

I see Sabrina as a fairytale. I am pretty sure that's the point. Here is where I have a problem, it's just not a type of story I want to see made into a movie. Fairytales are designed to be simple tales. That doesn't allow for very good character development or complex motivations. I'm going to go into some detail about the characters and they way they act, when I compare the two Sabrina's, but more on that later. I can, however, see why people appreciate this movie. I think much of their love comes from either having seen Sabrina when it was new or having an affection for the genre that it is part of. Being in neither camp, it was hard for me to love but not hard to see why others loved it.