Variety reports that Steven Spielberg is about to start work on a remake of Harvey. This is a crime against humanity.
Harvey is one of my all-time favorite movies; I try to watch it every year or so, along with To Have and Have Not. It’s one of Jimmy Stewart’s best performances, as a drunkard with a giant imaginary rabbit friend. If you’ve seen it before, you should watch the following clip, which is one of the best monologues ever put to film. If you haven’t seen it before, you should watch the goddamned movie:
(“Nobody ever brings anything small into a bar” is a phenomenal line.) Part of the reason why Harvey is so exceptional is that it mixes darkness and sentimentality in a complex way that modern American movies can’t manage. And I especially don’t trust Spielberg with anything involving sentimentality. I don’t know why anybody would try to remake this movie, but Spielberg’s involvement dooms this remake from the get-go.
Yup, another crappy remake in the works for sure …
They will CGI the rabbit. Because Spielberg can.
How bout that Yellow Submarine remake?
Spielberg will doubtless cast Tom Hanks for added puke inducing sweetness.
Diabetics beware.
Cast Sam Rockwell… Place it on the moon.
“Part of the reason why Harvey is so exceptional is that it mixes darkness and sentimentality in a complex way that modern American movies can’t manage.”
Blanket statements like that are almost always useless. Harvey is, indeed, a brilliant film but being able to mix darkness and sentimentality is the hallmark of any great story.
What about Lost in Translation? American Beauty? Any of Wes Anderson’s movies (Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums)? Secretary? Up? The list goes on. All of those mix darkness and sentimentality brilliantly.
Never decry the current state of art as lacking in that sort of broad fashion. It gets us nowhere.
And yes, Spielberg should die in a fire. But that’s been obvious since he dragged Indy out of the ground.
Spielberg will make Harvey a representation of Dowd’s unresolved issues with his father.
Because Spielberg puts father-son issues in EVERY MOVIE HE’S EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN.
Gag.
Apparently they already made a remake in 1999, with Harry Anderson, Leslie Nielsen, and Swoosie Kurtz…
Why do they remake already great movies? If they can’t find original stories (which is hard to believe) they should remake interesting movies that were not done well (production/casting etc). Nothing could make me see a remake of Harvey…but if Tom Hanks is in it I will actively discourage others from seeing it as well.
Jim Carrey will give Spielberg head for the role.
I agree Tom Hanks is getting suckier.
Please don’t have Robin Williams voice the CGI rabbit.
They should cast a woman (not Meryl Streep). Some one younger – not Scarlet Johansson.
At the end, the big reveal is that the rabbit is an alien sent to ease us of our burdens.
“Nobody ever brings anything small into a bar”
I thought that was a Tom Waits line. Obviously, I need to see this movie.
The worst Jimmy Stewart remake has already happened with the Audie Murphy version of Destry Rides Again.
But y’know what? Covers and remakes don’t destroy the original. You can always just go out and rent the version of Harvey you like.
And, heck, sometimes you can’t tell. The Maltese Falcon got made twice before John Huston got a hold of the rights and cast a bunch of bizarrely unsuited actors in it — I mean, Bogart was a thug at that point and Sydney Greenstreet was a comedian.
See it first?
I am currently designing the costumes for a production of Harvey at the SeccondStory Rep in Redmond which opens October 2nd. You should come see it Paul, as it will be the last time anyone will be allowed to put on the play for a loooooong time now that Spielberg has the rights to it. And remember, Redmond is at the end of 520, not the end of the world.
We were discussing the remake at our last production meeting and we were all in agreement that it seemed like a bad idea, and that Tom Hanks would probably be cast. I don’t see how the script could be updated believably, and why just make a shot for shot remake of a film that’s pretty great as is? Maybe I’m just a fuddy duddy.
It’s not like Spielberg is trying to remake “Bye, Bye, Birdie!” or anything.
And, yes, Tom Hanks would probably be cast.
@13 Oooo! Remember the version where the Sydney Greenstreet character was a woman? I wish I could remember the title to that one. It was pretty fun.
I know they are different media (if you will), but nobody whines about plays being “re-made” every year.
Directors can inject new perspectives, you know.
PS: Please don’t take this as a defense of Speilberg, cuz it ain’t.
“The Black Bottom”? Awesome.
@18 You have a point hartiepie. I wonder why it bothers people so much, but it does. Imagine the uproar if there were a remake of Casablanca for example! Oh wait, Pam Anderson did one. It was a hoot. Very, very bad, but a hoot.
Spielberg’s highest goal is to explain every plot point very, very carefully and explicitly so that all the 8-year-olds get it without having to ask their parents.
This is old news and reportedly, Hanks has already said no and there’s rumors that Will Smith is in the running…
MY GAWD PAWLIE, DON’T U EVER SHUT UP?
YESH, WE HATE SPIELGUTS. SUX 4EVER.
YESH, OLD MOOVZ R KEWL.
YESH, REMAKEZ IZ LAM´E.
3 TINGS I KNEW, DIDN’T NEED TO HEAR CONFIRMED FROM ONE SO LAM´E AS U.
If Sam Rockwell was Dowd in it, I might actually go see it.
RLY SAD THANG IZ EVRY COCKKNOB IN S’HATTLE PROLLY LUVS SUM OLDE TYME TOM HANXKNOB OR SPIELKNOB MOOVVZ. WHERE AS TRU OGZ HATE ALL. EVERYTIN.
ALL SUXXY, ALL SUGARLY, LIKE THA BEATLES TURNED TO CELLULOOOOYYD BY A BELLY SLITTING CAULDRON WITCH. CORNY STUPE SHIT. FUCK OFF. RAD MUR TEEEERY.
@17, I think you mean Satan Met A Lady. That wasn’t just any lady, that was Bette Davis!
Hartiepie,
Plays are specifically intended to be re-made; People who’ve never read a play script would be pretty surprised at the relative lack of detail; generally (and there are exceptions, e.g. George Bernard Shaw, who was positively anal about the level of detail he included – frequently as lengthy addenda to his plays) there’s very little character description, and usually only the barest essentials in terms of set decor (and here I’m talking about the actual scripts written by the playwright themselves, as opposed to published scripts, which tend to add in a lot of description based on what was done in the initial production). Playwrights purposefully leave a lot of this vague because they recognize this gives directors and designers a wide degree of flexibility when it comes to casting actors and conceptualizing the overall production.
Cinema is simply a completely different medium in this regard; film scripts contain a higher level of technical detail by necessity, because the screenwriter has to use this in order to literally convey the story: how they envision the camera capturing the scene, how this is intended to elicit specific responses from the audience, etc., etc..
And because the finished product is the only one – for better or for worse – most people will ever see, they tend to be regarded as somewhat indelible, unlike live theatre, which by its very nature is intended to be ephemeral. As a general rule, remakes of films seldom surpass the original (Huston’s version of “The Maltese Falcon” being one of a literal handful of notable exceptions), so there’s a strong argument to be made for not doing them in the first place.
But frankly, the suits that run studios aren’t really concerned about whether or not a remake is qualitatively better or worse than the original, so long as they think it has a reasonable chance of making a profit.
@27 beautifully explained.
I couldn’t agree more. What the fuck are you THINKING of, Spielberg??
This is utter blasphemy. Not to mention seemingly highly irreverant toward Jimmy Stewart, am I wrong?
On the other hand, whatever Steven Spielberg decides to make next is going to be pus. Pus is what he does. It’ll have Jim Carrey or Wil Ferrell and probably someone completely excruciating like Renee Zellweger, so it won’t just be pus, it’ll be syphilitic pus. But there’s so much syphilitic pus oozing out of Hollywood that if I got depressed every time a travesty was committed there I’d be in a padded cell by now. Rise above it is my advice.
It was nice of Stewart to keep his performance fresh after doing it hundreds of times on Broadway. That kind of run can make an actor find something new each night, or it can lull an actor into phoning it in. Obviously, Jimmy went with the former.
One word about Spielberg’s remakes: Always. It was based on a movie he much admired but couldn’t improve upon. Maybe he wants another shot. I understand your hesitancy. But don’t be easily lured by the Spielberg backlash. He’s provided some wonderful, breath-taking moments in the dark. In fact, I’m a huge fan of a couple of his lesser films – Minority Report and Munich.
Who said, “People are willing to forgive anything except success?”
First of all, calm down. Nothing is more pathetic than “hatred” on the internet. Your post is shameful and uncalled for and late (not to mention, that nobody really cares what someone as unprofessional like you thinks). Second, this is is NOT A REMAKE but a different adaptation of the original Pulizter Prize winning novel.
Third, Spielberg knows what he’s doing. While he did not originate the project, Tom Rothman, who is the had of Fox got him to commit to the project 5 days within handling him the script. That means that this is a superb script that is sure to turn into a multi-award winning film.
There is every reason to be excited.
@27:
That was a good explanation. However, I am not sure that The Maltese Falcon even counts as a successful film remake. I am pretty sure the script for the 1941 version was just based on Hammett’s novel, without paying much heed to the earlier filmed adaptations.
A quote from escalatorville.blogspot.com:
” If that’s how you feel about cinematic legends Steven, then I guess you’ve given up all rights to complain if, 30 years from now, the world is presented with ‘Quentin Tarantino’s A Color Purple’ or ‘Schindlers List – A Spike Lee Joint’.”
ugh, spielberg is such a fucking hack!
@33:
I agree the 1941 “Falcon” probably shouldn’t be considered a remake of “Satan Met A Lady”, the 1936 version which was a very loose, comedic adaptation of Hammett’s novel. However, I do believe a strong case can be made that it IS a remake of the 1931 version, which in several aspects was even more faithful to the source material; so much so that some of those elements had to be toned down in the later version in order to avoid conflict with the Hays Office.
For one thing, both films were made by the same studio, but because Warner Bros. was prevented from re-releasing the earlier version due to its salacious content, they opted to make a new version of the film, but with the objectionable elements significantly muted. If Warners had been allowed to simply re-release the earlier film, there would have been little or no incentive for them to do the remake in the first place. Secondly, both are, with the exceptions noted above, very faithful adaptations, utilizing almost the entirety of the plot, as well as a significant portion of the dialog from the novel. Third, it’s fairly common knowledge that Huston made extensive use of the earlier screenplay when drafting his version, reworking those scenes that he knew wouldn’t pass muster from the censors. All of these, I believe justify referring to his version as a remake of the original.
I don’t necessarily have a problem with the idea of a new film based on Mary Chase’s play HARVEY. It’s just that I wish that just about anybody else was directing it.
And why is Spielberg suddenly directing this? I thought he was going to make a film about Abraham Lincoln with Liam Neeson. So what happened, did Spielberg suddenly realize that Lincoln can’t come back to life at the end?
Spielberg is an arsehole. My big brag about him is that he held an intervention for me, which was bascially a conspiracy to get me to be coerced into being the victim of a “Mercy/Honour” killing back in 1998. Thats where you agree to being murdered for humanities sake. Hey cos’ I’m a bad person… A very manipulative man . A very nice man. Lots to say and still hard to sum up. His co interventionists are arseholes therefore he is an arsehole. He is untouchable! Like a gangster…Saving Private Ryan.. 5 oscars he should return or disembowel himself with.
He bragged to Andrew Denton that Ryan made alot of money for him. I am still presonally boycotting his movies… No siree I am not putting $12 in this mans pocket. I suggest you do the same. My comments will probably be deleted because they make him look bad.. I am the extra Testicle…to Him and others and thats about all. I hate his all american smarm. and the brain washing/ occult abuse/ verbal abuse/ and other shit that went on at the intervention, which is just another way of saying “Your rights need abusing.. so lets up an at em'”. He rang me after a little rant in oct 1998..he has tellergic abilties I believe. Yes and I have no Idea what I’m talking about or dealing with. In real life his communication skills are abysmal, he is important because he is rich and very famous Very rich $3.1 billion. I guess I’m jealous. Iguess he’s greedy. Is it about self determinism or being afraid of the booger man and a brain tumour?