What is a remake?

According to the dictionary -

“v. / rēˈmāk; ˈrē-/ (past and past part. -made ) [tr.] make (something) again or differently: the bed would be more comfortable if it were remade. • n. / ˈrēˌmāk/ a movie or piece of music that has been filmed or recorded again and rereleased.” (Definition from encyclopaedia.com)

In short, a remake is something that has been made in the past and is being made again. In the film context a remake would be making an already existing film. Remakes are a type of adaptation and this could be done in a number of ways. “A remake is a kind of reading or rereading of the original.” (eds. Horton & McDougal, 1998)

Different authors have different models and concepts about the types of remakes. In his book ‘Film remakes’, Verevis (2006), mentions 4 main types of remakes; re-adaptation, updates, homage and true remakes.

Re-adaptation: This type of remakes does not give importance to earlier adaptations based on the original; instead, it is readapted as faithfully to the original as possible. For example the film versions of the 1964 Roald Dahl novel Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971) and Charlie and The Chocolate Factory (2005)

Update: Update is in a sense the opposite of re-adaptations. Re-adaptations try to keep alive the quintessence alive, while on the other hand an update is a blatantly revised version of the original adaptation. For example, Othello was remade in Bollywood – Omkara (2006) as an Indian version of the film; i.e. how Othello’s story would be in a town in India.

Homage: Homage in its literal sense is to give special honour to a film publically. It is similar to readaptation; readaptations lead the audience to the original literary work; the homage pays tribute to the previous film version. For example: Down with Love (2003) was homage to the 1959’s quirky Pillow Talk

True remake: “While the homage renounces any claim to be better than its original, the true remake ‘deal[s] with the contradictory claims of all remakes – that they are just like their originals only better – [by combining] a focus on a cinematic original with an accommodating stance which seeks to make the original relevant by updating it’, e.g., Bob Rafelson’s 1981 remake of The Postman Always Rings Twice (Tay Garnett, 1946), and Lawrence Kasdan’s Body Heat (1981) as a remake of Double Indemnity (Billy Wilder, 1944).” (Verevis, 2004 p. 94)

Forrest & Koos (2002) in their book Dead ringers: The remake in theory and practice have specified and defined a few types of remakes. They have mentioned homage, true remakes and readaptations. They have merged the two categories readaptation and update to only readaptation.

Let us now have a look at the main argument of this essay – What is the point in a remake? Before I begin the argument and my views on remakes I would like to elucidate that I am not against remakes; I have some much-loved movies that are not original i.e. are remakes of previous movies like Casino Royale (2006) and Italian Job (2003).