The Weblog

Home for the heteronomous

Impossible remakes

Of late, I’ve been thinking about the possibility of anachronistic remakes, ones that would either improve the film in question or else shed new light on a familiar actor. I’d like to lead with two, and I hope you get the idea enough to participate in the game while you’re getting a break from family:

  • Dirty Harry starring (the young) Jack Nicholson: Clint Eastwood seems to me like he’s trying to do a Jack Nicholson impression, except without the in-the-bones nihilism that would make it convincing. Every single scene, Jack Nicholson would’ve done qualitatively better — especially the part where the killer is making him run from phone booth to phone booth. Jack Nicholson’s “I sincerely don’t give a fuck but I’m going to do it anyway” would’ve been much preferable to … whatever it was Clint Eastwood was doing. By the way: what an absolutely shitty movie. This is what passes for an iconic classic?
  • Raging Bull starring Jimmy Stewart: What sums up Jimmy Stewart better than impotent rage?

November 26, 2009 - Posted by | film


  1. i confess i’ve been watching first two DVDs of Mad men, season one, next is on Monday
    so i thought what’s the problem with it that i can’t get interested in the show, no any men there whom i’d interestedly follow, couldn’t see what women in there see in Don Draper, b/c i think i dislike those manly serious dominating humorless men with classical features, but i never met them irl so i wouldn’t know, the humorless serious archetypes i’ve met so far i find just boring
    Clint Eastwood, Jack Nicholson also fall into that category i guess
    i liked Betty and Peggy though, so will see

    Comment by read | November 27, 2009

  2. the features

    Comment by read | November 27, 2009

  3. oh i could have derailed the thread however i wanted

    Comment by read | November 27, 2009

  4. I liked these ideas. nicolson doesn’t have the silent witness persona, something that eastwood does very well. even dirty harry has that depth of witness which, though actively determined in first impressions and judgment, still hovers in the background. nicholson is always involved and allows little space for witness. in chinatown, where he seems willing to be non-judgmental, because he’s seen it all, it’s not witnessing per se but rather some form of quiet resentment.

    Comment by cynic librarian | November 28, 2009

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: