(Re)Make (Non)Sense.

A US remake of a French film makes great economic sense. For the US film industry.

The box office of foreign or, more accurately, foreign language films is marginal in the US. This stronghold on its home market funds the US film industry world-wide supremacy.

US films domestic box office finances the Studios international distribution arms : self-distributing their films around the global village, the Major Companies control their destinies and dominate the world market.

US companies have no interest in breeding competition on their own soil. Foreign and particularly French cinema is restricted to the chic ghetto of art-house fare.

Due to their wider commercial appeal, mainstream foreign language films are kept off limits : US audiences supposedly do not stand dubbed versions ; this is the US « cultural exception », trumpeted by the local film industry like a truism : never challenged, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

By remaking a foreign film, the US film industry appropriates its success, exploits it on its domestic market, then exports it to the world as its own product : a high profit business of clever repackaging, thriving on thinly veiled protectionism.

For foreign filmmakers, licensing remake rights to their films is seen as a lesser evil : they earn an indirect entry into the US market and fees fatter than through a hypothetical distribution deal where expenses and distributor’s share of income customarily eat up all revenues ; their ego is satisfied that Hollywood turn to them for inspiration.

As remake rights are acquired, so are the North American distribution rights to the original film. They shall never be exploited, but the producer of the remake may sit reassured that no US audience shall view the original film and that his own production shall not risk an unfavourable comparison.

Reassurance is no guarantee against the occasional, « Buddy, buddy » style, misstep : a film so bad the domestic audience need no comparison with the original movie to stay away.

The remake industry nevertheless remains a great long term business model for the US film sector, a wonderfully myopic one for its foreign providers

Creatively, remakes are weird animals : they come in various shapes, sizes and colours.

Some look like costly dubbed versions of the original movie : « My father, the hero » (1993) is the no surprise remake of ... « Mon père, le héros » (1991) ; Gérard Depardieu stars in both versions ; sense of Gallic « déjà vu » speaking English could have been stronger : Francis Veber, « L’emmerdeur »’s screenwriter, was to direct.

The job eventually went to Steve Miner. A sensible choice : the recipe is the same, the main ingredient -Depardieu- too, it is up to the US cook to concoct a dressing palatable for the global audience. Nothing too spicy, something sweet and aseptic, like for any product aiming at world-wide appeal.

Such remakes fall somewhere between the translation of a novel and local versions of video games ; the original French film is not unlike raw milk cheese : refused entry in the US for sanitary reasons, it is remade and marketed in pasteurised version by local producers.

A « R-Restricted : under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian » rated original film thus becomes a « PG-Parental guidance suggested » or « G-General audiences » movie with highly increased box office expectations. « L’emmerdeur »’s very French title -pain in the ass, shit stirrer- is elegantly watered down to « Buddy, buddy ».

The feeling that a successful remake is only a matter of dressing can mislead the original filmmakers into producing their own remake without outside help.

Smash French hit « Les visiteurs » (1992) about time travelling medieval knight and his servant prompted Gaumont to go ahead with its own English language remake : « Just visiting » (Les visiteurs en Amérique - 2001).

Jean Reno and Christian Clavier are back in their leading roles ; Jean-Marie Poiré bows out, but is replaced in the director’s chair by another French Jean-Marie : Gaubert. Film is shot in Chicago with a US supporting cast : Christina Applegate, Malcolm McDowell...

Original film was at times remotely funny, remake is not. Its « language, crude humour and violence » netted the movie a « PG-13 » rating, when it truly deserved an ICAA warning : French prejudices about the US and US prejudices about France add up to make « Just visiting » Improper for Consumption by Any Audience.

By contrast, some remakes appear to share little, if anything, with their model : which uninformed viewer would recognise Chris Marker’s « La jetée » (1963 - 29 minutes) behind Terry Gilliam’s « Twelve Monkeys » (1995 - 130 minutes) ?

The original film seems a distant source of inspiration, the acquisition of the remake rights a bad case of legal paranoia and an expensive -or cheap, considering the film global budget- way to add cultural « cachet » to a high profile risky Hollywood production.

Somewhere between these extremes, a new stage production of a play or any new interpretation of a work of classical music look like the better creative analogies to most remakes.

They nevertheless underestimate the film director’s role : he is the movie’s legal author ; the director of a play or the conductor of the orchestra performing a composer’s work have no such status.

The recording of a new arrangement of a musical score may move us a bit closer to what a remake truly is, but these analogies are valid for their very shortcomings : the remake concept negates by itself the director’s position as the undisputed author of a film.

More than the film, its script is often the decisive factor behind a remake : Francis Veber’s was probably the driving force behind Billy Wilder’s decision to remake « L’emmerdeur ».

As to Molinaro’s direction, Brel’s and Ventura’s acting, Wilder more than likely thought that he, Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau would easily surpass them. He was badly wrong.