BEFORE: Peter Dinklage carries over from "My Dinner with Hervé", and he was also in the 2010 version of "Death at a Funeral", which I watched just 12 movies ago. So why not put the two versions of the same film together, with Dinklage carrying over? Ah, that WAS the original plan, but then Mother's Day got in the way. Sure, I could have flipped this part of the chain over, kept the Dinklage chain (Linklage?) going right after May 1, but then I don't think "Otherhood" would have landed in the right place - anyway, the 2007 version has a link to tomorrow's film, an animated feature I've been trying to schedule in, but one that's been mostly difficult to link to.
(There were two other films with Dinklage I could have dropped in here, and I'm a bit curious about them - "Three Christs" and "I Think We're Alone Now". They both look intriguing, but if I included them here, even if that helped me hit Mother's Day on target, then they'd interfere with the next holidays, Memorial Day and Father's Day. One way or another, I'll try to include them later, but I just can't do that now.)
So this one sort of HAD to go at the end of the Dinklage chain, another reason to split up the original film from its remake - though I'm watching them in the wrong order, and I'm not really sure what the end result will be. I'll have to look back through years past to see if I EVER watched two versions of the same film so close together before. I don't think it will be that positive of a venture, because, well, why would you? If you've seen one version, you've seen them all, right? The same story repeated with a mostly African-American cast is still the same story, right? I guess I'll find out...
FOLLOW-UP TO: "Death at a Funeral" (2010) (Movie #3,825)
THE PLOT: Chaos ensues when a man tries to expose a dark secret regarding a recently deceased patriarch of a dysfunctional British family.
AFTER: Well, this is NOT the closest that I've watched two versions of the same film - I almost forgot about "The Borrowers", I watched two versions, released in 1997 and 2011, in January of 2020. I'd gotten some bad information from Wikipedia that suggested they shared an actress in common, Ruby Wax, and then I found out this wasn't true. The error (?) is still posted on Wiki, and according to the IMDB she's only in the 1997 version - so I had to scramble quickly to find a film that would connect the two films, and that turned out to be "Tristram Shandy", which was not a terrible film, so these things sometimes have a funny way of working out, as I always say. So I watched "The Borrowers" twice, different versions, two days apart - and there were significant differences between the two films.
That's not the case with the two versions of "Death at a Funeral", the 2010 version is nearly a shot-for-shot remake of this 2007 film, which was directed by Frank Oz. The 2010 version was directed by Neil Labute, who also directed "Lakeview Terrace", and both men are, I think, known for stage directing as well as film directing, which may explain why both versions sort of feel like they might be based on a play. Just me? Of course, the 2007 version has an all-white mostly British cast, and the 2010 version has a mostly-black American cast, but almost everything else is identical.
Umm, I think - both versions feature a funeral in the family patriarch's house, which I maintain is quite unusual. Maybe it's a British custom? For the story to work, it sort of had to be, because the family home has bedrooms, a second story, a drawing room with a bathroom, all of these things are important to the comedy bits. The 2010 version features an additional subplot about the lead couple trying to have a baby, and the wife is ovulating during the funeral, so she's practically begging her husband for sex during his father's funeral - this seems weird, insensitive and somewhat kinky, but not in a good way. If your wife wants to have sex during a family funeral, I'd start to wonder if she's gone a little crazy, because that's not a thing.
Both casts have the same characters, essentially, though they changed the names for the later version, Uncle Alfie became Uncle Russell, for example, but he's still an old man in a wheelchair who HAS to use the downstairs bathroom. And there's a similar love triangle between the guy who accidentally takes hallucinogenic drugs, who's with the niece of the deceased, and there's an ex-boyfriend who turns up at the funeral who tries to win her back. In today's British film that's Simon, Martha and Justin, but in the remake it's Oscar, Elaine and Derek. This sets up some odd contrasts, with Alan Tudyk naked on the roof in one film and James Marsden in the other, and is Luke Wilson somehow the American version of Ewen Bremner? Somehow I don't think so. Peter Dinklage is the only constant, as the unexpected guest who shows up, claiming to have had a relationship with the deceased, only he's called "Peter" in one film and "Frank" in the other. Either way, I guess that guy gets around...
At least this time I knew all the major story points that were going to happen, but that's not always a good thing - essentially, there were no surprises. I knew all the upcoming comedy bits, because both films used the same script, more or less, they probably just did a find/replace on all the names. The drugged guy imagines that he sees the coffin moving, this leads to a bit, which sets up ANOTHER bit later in the film. People rush around never really finishing conversations with each other, the Reverend keeps trying to get the service to start up again, and four men in the drawing room are tying up a dwarf. It makes sense when you see it, or rather, it makes comic sense when you see it again for the second time, which is really the first time.
I suppose I screwed up, I should have found a way to watch this version first, it might have had more comic impact that way. I was almost bored this time around, and that's just because the two versions were so similar. I'll never say that I wasted a slot, because I can learn something from any film, even a bad one, but honestly while there may have been a reason to MAKE the film twice (appealing to different markets), there's very little point in WATCHING the film twice - for your own sake, just pick the cast you think you might enjoy more, for whatever reason, and just watch that one. If you enjoy Britcoms like "Fawlty Towers", this 2007 version's probably more your style.
I (sort of) met Frank Oz on the street a couple years ago - November 2015. As you may know I have a large collection of autographed "Star Wars" 8 x 10 photos - over 120 now, but only 94 at that time. I had JUST treated myself to a birthday present, and at first I couldn't decide between Frank Oz and another actor (I forget who) but landed on Oz, because I'd never seen him signing at a convention, and who just bumps into him on the street? Just three days after the package arrived, I was walking down 40th St. in Manhattan after leaving the comic book shop, and there was a Broadway-based bookshop there, where Frank Oz had just given a lecture, and he was outside signing Yoda photos, with some enterprising person selling them from a book. (In retrospect, this kind of feels like it was sort of a set-up.) Some guy offered me the chance to get two photos signed, provided he could keep one and I could then have the other, but I didn't want to spend money on something I'd just bought. I was almost too stunned by being in the man's presence to take a photo, but somehow that's what I did, and I figured that the autograph at home, plus my candid photo of him on the sidewalk signing other photos was good enough. Later, when I came down from the thrill, I thought, why did I settle for one autographed photo, when I could have had TWO? Plus the one obtained from a personal encounter could have been more meaningful, like maybe he could have added my name, too. I'm not always thinking clearly when I'm in the presence of a "Star Wars" actor, apparently. Usually I say as little as possible to avoid sounding like a stupid fanboy, while inside I'm freaking out. (This applies only to the top-tier cast, like Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher and Natalie Portman - I've had good conversations with actors in the next level down, though.)
I've got almost all the autographs I can get now, at least from the original trilogy and the prequels. A few actors have been elusive, like James Earl Jones and Jimmy Smits - once I have some disposable income again, someday, I'll try to remedy that.
Also starring Matthew Macfadyen (last seen in "The Reckoning"), Ewen Bremner (ditto), Rupert Graves (last seen in "Emma."), Andy Nyman (last seen in "The Brother's Bloom"), Kris Marshall, Keeley Hawes (last seen in "Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story"), Daisy Donovan (last seen in "I Give It a Year"), Jane Asher (ditto), Alan Tudyk (last heard in "Aladdin" (2019)), Peter Vaughan (last seen in "The Remains of the Day"), Thomas Wheatley, Peter Egan (last seen in "The Wedding Date"), Gareth Milne.
RATING: 4 out of 10 incriminating photos
No comments:
Post a Comment