|
|
||
Christmas
Miracle on 34th Street (1994)
Dorey Walker (Elizabeth Perkins), the parade organizer for Cole's Thanksgiving Day Parade, hires an unknown jolly old man (Richard Attenborough) as a replacement for their drunken Santa Claus, first for the parade, and then for the department store. The problem is, he thinks he is Santa, and as he tries to bring a bit of magic to Dorey, her daughter Susan (Mara Wilson), and to lawyer Bryan Bedford (Dylan McDermott), others are trying to have him declared insane.
Already remade three times for TV, there was no compelling reason to mess with the 1947 classic, Miracle on 34th Street yet again. But they did. I considered attempting to review this version on its own, ignoring the original, but it really isn't possible. And, I realized it isn't useful as no one should even think about seeing this who hasn't seen the first version. Watch the original, then come back and read this review. I'll write as if you have done just that.
Remakes tend to fail in one of two ways: either they are too much like the original, in which case they are unnecessary, or they are too different, in which case they lose whatever was worth remaking. This sad excuse for a movie's only success is that it manages the trick of failing both ways.
It isn't uncommon to attempt to update an older film for modern sensibilities—keep the themes and basic concepts, but make them accessible to people with a different set of experiences. It is one of the few good excuses for a remake. Don't look for anything hip or up-to-date in this work. It's 1940s schmaltz, but without the charm that made it easy to swallow the first time around.
As for the changes, not a single clever decision was made. Some, like switching "Doris" to "Dorey" and "Fred Gailey" to "Bryan Bedford" were pointless, but didn't harm anything. Others, such as "Macy's" becoming "Cole's" were outside of the filmmaker's control (Macy's wanted nothing to do with this project, though the filmmakers could still be partly blamed for adding an unnecessary subplot of the department store suffering financial problems). As for the other alterations, let's take a look:
Laughing and cheering crowds are removed from the courtroom, making it more distant.
People now shout and cheer on the street for a department store Santa, removing the sense of intimacy.
Dorey's development toward belief and love is no longer a perceivable shift based on events, but is more like psychotic jumps in personality, making her unlikable and unbelievable.
Instead of the antagonists being regular people without faith, there's an evil store owner, mafia-like underlings, and an ex-Santa who implies pedophilia, stripping the film of its theme.
The scenes showing the judge's motivation are missing, making it inexplicable that he would allow the now more ludicrous court events, such as bringing a reindeer into the court room.
The case has been shifted from being about Kris being insane for thinking he is Santa, to the question of the existence of Santa. Just what kind of a hearing is this? I could have sworn competency hearings should involve specifics about the "patient," not general metaphysical questions. In doing this, all the humor has been removed from the trial.
Kris Kringle is now more erratic, often unable to control himself. In the original, he took several foolish actions because he was hurt. In this version, he just does things, be they wild outbursts or assaults, as he furtively glances about. Hmmmm. Maybe he is crazy and should be locked away.
The climax of the film, has been changed in a bizarre way. (*The rest of this paragraph will reveal a huge spoiler, as well as one for the original, but considering the rating I gave this turkey, I say read on*) In the 1947 version, the U.S. Post office delivered letters to the court, showing that the government takes Kris to be Santa. Case dismissed. This might work with a sympathetic judge. But in this version, Kris' identity is ignored. With no "miracle" for the defense, Bryan just mouths some platitudes that wouldn't impress a judge, then makes sure the judge sees a dollar bill. Upon noticing the bill says, "In God We Trust," he rules for Kris because if the government can accept a metaphysical being like God, then we can all believe in Santa. Case dismissed.
What?! Is there any sense to that? If the Feds say one metaphysical being exists (God), then it is clear that not only do any others we dream up exist, but anyone claiming to be one of those entities is that entity. That's one hell of a legal precedent. How anyone can use the existence of a god as proof of the existence of Santa is beyond me, but how does any of this show that Kris is the guy? I'm guessing that producer/writer John Hughes wanted to make some statement about Christianity, but I can't say what that statement is supposed to be. So, God enters the film, but then fades away. If you're religious, this sounds offensive; if you're not, it comes off as inane.
There are people who can't bring themselves to watch a B&W film. Sad, but true. Sadder still is the attempt to get these people's money with swill like this. Hey, if for some reason you just can't take the silver screen, then get the colorized version of the original. Sure, the colors lack subtlety and are often bland, but you'll be far more satisfied. But the filmmakers were counting on people not doing that. The true reason the 1947 Christmas classic about belief and the disease of commercialism was remade was for money. Irony, it's a bitch.
Scale:
(see it)
(matinee)
(wait for TV)
(skip it)
(toxic)