Film Pairing — Autophilia, And When Remakes Are Justified

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard folks lament the remake of a good film. “Can’t they leave well enough alone?” They are remaking The Thin Man for example and that seems to have insulted a number of people. It is one of my favorite films and yet I don’t think one displaces another. Sometimes it is one film honoring another. Of course, as a writer, I wish they would make a first movie out of one of my books rather than a second or third out of someone else’s work. But I just recently saw Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. A few months ago I rented the PBS series from Netflix and thoroughly enjoyed it. Alec Guinness for heaven’s sake. Six parts. Fantastic. And yet there is a new version with Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, John Hurt, and Benedict Cumberbatch (the modern Sherlock). It is brilliant. The cinematography is masterful. The editing is immaculate. The acting is the best possible. The new movie doesn’t cancel the impact of the PBS series. However, it is extraordinary and worthwhile all on its own.

I say all of this to come to lesser dramas to be sure, but two that will make an entertaining, escapist evening. Unlike the LeCarré-inspired pieces that require you pay careful attention, these two films require only that you relax and have fun. You will not be intellectually challenged. If, in fact, you are not prepared for a little silliness or are unwilling to abandon any craving for reality-based drama, you might want to skip both these films. The first is The Italian Job, the British version made in 1969. The second is The Italian Job, the American remake, made in 2003.

The silliness is vastly more present in the original, British version of The Italian Job. If you have doubts about the purposeful absurdity of this heist movie, think of the casting: Michael Caine, Benny Hill, Rossano Brazzi and Noël Coward. Anyone who thinks this is going to be a gritty, noir-inspired film needs to…well…do something about his or her own unrealistic expectations. The real stars of this film and even more so for its remake are the automobiles. Great cars. Great chases. American audiences most likely received their first glimpse of Mini-Coopers when they took center stage as part of the ingenious robbery of ill-gotten gold in the Italian town of Turin. Fun, suspense, action and a travelogue.

For the American version we move initially to Venice for a clever plot to steal a safe. A canal-bound chase (we’ve seen them in James Bond films and in the recent mildly entertaining The Tourist). But the gondola-spilling is only a mild tease. The high-profile cast is perfect for this more muscular film. Mark Wahlberg, Jason Statham, Mos Def, Edward Norton play significant roles. So do Donald Sutherland, Charlize Theron and, for comic relief, Seth Green. When our favorite criminals are betrayed, we witness the careful planning and brilliantly choreographed execution in, however, the less glamorous setting of L.A. The new and improved version of the Mini-Cooper is given a starring role (word is that sales of the baby Beamers went up by 22 percent. Talk about product placement). The addition of Theron and the revenge factor provide a dimension the original didn’t have. Also, entering the age of special effects, the cinematography renders this version much more visually exciting.

There has been discussion of a third film, a sequel to the American version called The Brazilian Job. But a search for information about the film suggested I was actually snipe hunting.

For drinks, let’s think Italian. Something light and not too serious. How about turning up the heat and pretending you’re in sunny Italy. Pop the cork on a chilled bottle of Prosecco.

Film Pairing — The Lighter Side of Espionage

Espionage. What a rich source of mystery and intrigue. I remember reading and then watching The Spy Who Came in from the Cold by John le Carré. There was the riveting Gorky Park by Martin Cruz Smith. And of course, Ian Fleming’s James Bond. I read every book by Fleming and have seen nearly every film. The movies seemed to take on the character of the actors who played Bond. Sean Connery played Bond seriously, with the driest of humor. Roger Moore came at it a little more tongue in cheek — he was in on the joke — maybe adding a bit of wonderful British silliness. And Pierce Brosnan walked a line somewhere in between as the screenplays became more about special effects and were more preposterous. The new guy, Daniel Craig is great, perhaps bringing Bond more gravitas than Connery.

On the other hand, “preposterous” isn’t always a bad thing. In 1958, former real-life secret agent Graham Greene wrote Our Man in Havana, which poked fun at the inefficiencies of his country’s intelligence operation. In 1959, he wrote the screenplay, which was set not long before the fall of Fulgenico Batista’s Cuba and Fidel Castro’s successful takeover. The movie, in black and white, captures corrupt, pre-revolutionary Cuba and has an all-star cast — Alec Guinness, Noél Coward, Burl Ives, Maureen O’Hara, Ralph Richardson, and Ernie Kovacs.

Guinness plays an unassuming character who sells vacuum cleaners for a living. He is in need of money to support his daughter, over whom he dotes, and is convinced to act as a spy for the British so she can have a first-class education. His spy mentor is an ineffectual, but stubborn dandy played by Coward. In order to meet his new employer’s expectations, the vacuum cleaner salesman finds it helpful to make up stories about threats to Britain to prove his worth, which in turn inflates his income. Seems harmless enough. But, of course, it isn’t.

The Tailor of Panama (2001) is based on a novel by John le Carré. The parallels between the novelists, the books — and the subsequent movies are strikingly similar, yet expected. John le Carré, who wrote the Tailor of Panama, made no secret that his novel was inspired (probably a little more than “inspired”) by Greene’s. Like Greene, he also co-wrote the screenplay for the film based on his own book. Also, like Greene, he spent part of his life as a secret agent (MI5). The movie, which changes the scenery slightly — though still in a hot, tropical climate — also changes the times. We move to the post Panama Canal turnover for this film, but the politics in the era of Manuel Noriega are still iffy. Obviously Western powers are interested in knowing what’s going on and are willing to pay dearly for information, however made-up it might be.

In this case a tailor is recruited to provide the local spying. Geoffrey Rush plays the Guinness role. Brosnan, who might have taken smugness to an entirely unparalleled level, gave a far more heavy-handed interpretation than Coward’s light and subtle (by comparison anyway) portrayal of corruption. Jamie Lee Curtis and Brendan Gleeson also star.

What these two comedies have in common, besides the Graham Greene novel as inspiration, is that its silly believability stems not so much from “it could happen,” to “how many times this sort of thing has happened.” The British and Americans have fumbled foreign affairs for centuries. The West has installed and removed dictators, supported and withdrawn support for insurgents and undertaken regime changes, invasions and denials. We have, in a way that mirrors the Greene tale, believed a local agent’s contention that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction with a photo of an ice cream truck as proof. How many times have our (and our British cousins) interference made a mess of things? Chile anyone? Then there was that nice fellow, the Shah of Iran!

In the spirit of the two movies: Daiquiris all around! And I’ll begin the first draft of Our Good Humor Man in Bagdad.