The philadelphia story vs. High Society: just a little bit of history repeating

The other week, whilst visiting my family in Rome, I watched one of my favourite films: "Sabrina" (1954) with Audrey Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart. I couldn't help thinking how much more I preferred the 1954 version better than the remake in 1995 with Harrison Ford and Julia Ormond- probably because Audrey Hepburn and Bogart just ooze class and are on different levels from Ford and Ormond, but also I am always weary of remakes of films and songs etc and have always believed that the original is the best.  So, with the recent release of "The amazing Spiderman" (2012) so close to the Sam Raimi version with Tobey Maguire and Kristen Dunst, it got me thinking about how fast the turnover of similar, or a exact reproduction of the same film is distributed to the public. One benefit of these 'copies' (as they can be called I suppose) is that the audience get to see the different ways that various directors and producers adapt the same narrative. Who knows...maybe Andrew Garfield, the new Spiderman, embodies the role of the well known superhero much better than Tobey Maguire. I haven't seen the film and so am yet to judge.

Moving on, talking about remakes, the other week I watched the critically acclaimed "High Society" (1956). Safe to say, there could hardly be any room for error with Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Grace Kelly and Louis Armstrong as the cast members. But as the film progressed, I slowly realised that I recognised the story, almost word for word: an upper class woman, who had been previously married to a childhood friend, about to be remarried to a self-made man, and a journalist and photographer who are both trying to get-the-scoop on the wealthy socialites wedding. After some searching it came to me, "High Society" was a remake of "The Philadelphia story" (1940), another favourite, starring Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant.

"The Philadelphia story" (1940), directed by George Cukor, is based on the broadway play written by Philip Barry. Barry originally wrote the main character, the socialite Tracey Lord, for Katherine Hepburn herself and the role suits her perfectly. The film is a classic example of the screwball comedy of the 30s and 40s. The film proves once again that the Katharine Hepburn-Grant duo can not be separated on the silver screen; not even by the charming James Stewart who plays the journalist, Macaulay Collins, who also falls in love with the socialite. Stewart uses fiery poetry to try to enchant Hepburn in the scene below:

"High Society" is the musical version of Barry's play and "The Philadelphia story", directed by Charles Waters. The film incorporates the popular songs of Cole Porter, such as "Well, did you evah! (what a swell party this is)" and "Who wants to be a millionaire?"sung by the cast members. In addition, the actors endorse the elegant fashion in the same way as the characters in "The Philadelphia story", but one can see the shift in iconic style from the 40s to the 50s- not just in the fashion but also in the grandeur of the mansions. There are some critics who claim that Grace Kelly mimicks Katherine Hepburns' take on the character far too much; but Grace Kelly, coming from a high society background herself, knows very well the airs and graces of a woman with money. A scene from "High Society" is shown in the clip below. Frank Sinatra plays the same character that James Stewart played in "The Philadelphia story". Instead of poetry, Sinatra uses his voice to sing the bewitching "You're sensational" to win Kelly over:

Both scenes are well performed and directed in their own right. Watching both films, it is clear that Charles Waters took Philip Barrys' narrative and added his own touches to this fantastic love story- that has been (and still is) repeated and/or adapted in the rom-coms of today. In addition "High Society" was Grace Kellys' final film before she became the Princess of Monaco, and this also added to the films success. Both films were distributed by MGM but, unlike the two productions of "Sabrina" where I could clearly distinguish which version I preferred, it seems to be more difficult to choose a favourite between "The philadelphia story" and "High Society". Using just the two scenes above it seems to be a choice between James Stewart reciting poetry and Sinatra admiring you and calling you 'sensational'- and I can't seem to choose! With both films being alluring for different reasons it becomes clear why they were advertised as two separate films in the first place.

The commercial success of "The Philadelphia story" and "High Society" highlights why producers and directors will continue to remake films with the same narrative- and it's not only because they can take money from a new generation who might not have heard of the original story. Narratives can be restyled and refreshed by adding different musical scores, lines adjusted by new witty scripts and changing the lineup with current celebrities of the time, not to mention improved graphics with new technology. Thus who knows...maybe fans of the old Spiderman movies will also become fans of the new "The amazing Spiderman" (2012) and appreciate both films in their own right; after all, it's just a bit of history repeating. 

The mind works in twists and turns.

For a while now I have wanted to start a blog and so after several failed attempts I believe I have finally settled on a subject which I can talk about  without boring myself or you, reader. That subject is: Film. All films, well any that I can get my student hands on.  It seems like the perfect time to start a film blog as the recent 84^th Academy Awards highlighted the importance of the beginning of the film industry:  with a reminder of the brilliance of the silent film in “The Artist” (2011) and Martin Scorsese’s reference to good old George Méliès in “Hugo” (2011); with each film scooping up five Oscar’s. 

Referring to myself as a film student often gets a few sneers and usually “doesn’t that mean you just watch a shit load of films?” Well, naturally. To be able to talk about film I obviously need to watch them. But if anyone thinks that I sat through four hours of D.W Griffiths' silent film “Birth of a Nation” (1915) for my own pleasure, one would be mistaken. I do love silent film but not for four hours and not with such an obnoxious storyline. I watched it as it is a treasured piece of cinema and there is no doubt in any cinema-lovers mind how influential Griffiths was for cinema progression; the film is not a classic for  its representation of history (dear God, no) but for Griffith’s pioneering use of the modern camera and one of the first directors to introduce the use of the narrative to the cinema. 

Moving on, four years down the line and currently in the middle of writing my dissertation on Italian cinema of the 1970’s, I find myself analysing in detail and annoyingly criticising every film I watch. I’ve become a frequent viewer of old movies telling anyone who will listen about my obsession with Cary Grant (well, he is a beaut). Needless to say a typical day for me consists of watching, at least, one film. I watch films in no particular order skipping from 1930s Britain, to 1960s Italy, back to 1950s America and coming back into the present. My blog entries will be in no particular order, and I begin on a debated form of cinema, the documentary.  Documentaries have a very on/off, love/ hate relationship with modern society. The first pieces of film to grace the silver screen can be considered to be documentaries as the main aim was to film everyday occurrences, for example some of the first films of the Lumiere brothers like "L'Arrivée d'un Train a la Ciotatfrom" in 1985. Nowadays there are so many types all with the same general aims to educate, highlight, inform, and shock spectators who want to discover more about the society they live in or how society was. 

“WWII: Nuremberg Trials” or “Sud narodov” (1947) is a Soviet Russian documentary about the notorious Nazi war trials post- WWII and the criminals being brought to justice, with archive footage of  Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Josef Goebbels and Hermann Göring among others. It was directed by Roman Karmen and Yelizaveta Svilova. The film contains disturbing footage of the aftermath of the holocaust as well as the result of the trials. Having a strange fascination with this period of history it is interesting to be able to view this era and it is just as important to preserve this footage so one doesn’t forget. Film footage, like this, can be more shocking than history books as the audience is forced to see images of reality in all its brutality. In addition this film is also a Soviet propaganda piece with the narrator informing the public about the great Soviets victory over the ‘evil Germans'. Like most documentary films, it has to be viewed with a perspective of when it was released and the attitude of society it was being distributed to. Thus, it has to be taken with a pinch of salt. A look at the trials from another side, the American public, can be seen in "The Nuremberg Trials documentary" (1950) from the film archive.

I realise this isn't the lightest of subjects to begin my blog, and as Mr Fawlty would say: "don't mention the war" but, for me, these documentaries illustrate the importance of film in today's society in reflecting the past and serving as a beginning to the first of many more posts to come.