Why the Total Recall remake doesn’t work (an author’s perspective).
Hey guys (those of you who are still around). Sorry I
haven’t been on here much recently.
A couple of nights ago I wound up watching the 2012 Total
Recall remake. I remember seeing it when it first came out and not thinking
much of it back them. I mean how can you do Total Recall without Mars? That was
the best bit! That and the nose tracker… you people know what I mean.
Anyways, watching it again I still don’t think much of it.
(They replaced Mars with Australia – not that I have anything against
Australia) I did however start to think about why I don’t rate it.
It’s got some great actors. It’s actually rather well shot
and edited. The action choreography is really well done – Both Bekensale and
Biel prove that if you want to do good looking fight/action sequences get
dancers (and that you should never pick a fight with a ballerina, they’re hard
core).
Remember this is just my opinion – To look at where it went
wrong, I want to start with what went right. The one story scene that stands
out as being subjectively better than the original. In the remake Quade’s
friend and work college confronts Quade/Hauser (Farrel) with the suggestion
that all this is a dream and he’s still in the Recall generated fantasy. (Analogous
to the scene in the original where Hauser (Arny) is confronted by the recall
rep with the same notion)
In the original by the time this scene comes around we (the
audience) are so invested in the Mars story that we brush this off as a trick.
However in the remake (due to its position within the story, along with other factors
I’ll talk about in a minute), we’re not as invested in Houser-super-spy and it’s
personification in Melina (Biel), and going back to the (at that point in the
film) much better developed notion of Quade and Lori (Beckensale) is somewhat
appealing. From an emotional standpoint the audience is much more willing to believe
that it could be all in his head.
There-in lies the main issue with the film.
The Melina and the “resistance” never feels particularly
well developed, or as engaging as Lori, Cohagen and the “bad guys.” Leading
viewers to either, root for the bad guys (like me), because Lori may be psycho
but that’s more character development than the resistance got. Or just not
engaging with the movie at all.
That being said, Cohagen felt a somewhat two dimensional
(and here’s the writing lesson – if that’s what you tune in for), his
motivations for wanting to take over “the colony.” Yes we’re told that they
need the extra living space. But don’t ever get any sort of insight into why he
believes this is a good idea (and yes you could argue that this point carries
over into the original where Cohagen is just power hungry.) What I’d have liked
to have seen is some notion that he genuinely believes this is for the
betterment of mankind, or the only way to save the “empire” or some such. It
would give the character added dimension and even make the viewers sympathise
with him.
And therein lies the writing lesson – Every villain is the
hero of their own story.
Or, to (mis)quote the Rolling Stones – “Sympathy for the [villain]”
Your villain, or antagonist, needs to more than just a foil
for your hero, more than something for him to overcome. They need to be
characters in their own right, with their own hopes and dreams (be they of
global annihilation). People aren’t, generally speaking, proactively evil. They
don’t wake up and think “I’m going to murder puppies!” There’s has to be a
rational (or realistic) reason for him to hate puppies. Maybe his parents were
killed by dogs. (Just to be clear, I like dogs! Way more than cats – they’re up
to something!)
Anyway this post is going on far too long.
See you guys later.
Comments
Post a Comment