I totally agree with Chayefsky on this one. When I saw it (28 years ago), I was struck about how Ken Russell completely missed the tone required for the film. Not that I’d want to see it remade. It was a screenplay of its time and I don’t think people care about that stuff anymore.
One thing about the original “States” is that so much of its effects work is “physical” as opposed to current PC-generated effects, and in view of the story, that does give the film a scary, organic, uncomfortable feel in the transformations that newer, slicker effects most likely wouldn’t duplicate.
I don’t know how Chayefsky’s script was compared to the film, but the human drama in the film was always rather “undernourished.” and unconvincing. When I re-watched it, I would catch myself waiting for the next Big Moment, and that’s never a good sign.
Most of my favorite films that happened to be adaptations were sworn off by the writer as terrible adaptations of their work, or at least extremely unrepresentative of it. To me, this is a good thing. Fell the work and plant a seed in its shadow, using its rotting corpse as the fertilizer rather than the content.
The quality of a film tends to be dependent on the skill of the author of the film, not the skill of the author of the source material. As such, I often find it irrelevant what is being adapted as opposed to who is adapting it. I would love to see some of my favorite directors adapt some of the most terrible literature on the planet. I am absolutely certain they could create something great out of it (and, indeed, perhaps the lack of respect for the material will hinder their creative impulses less).
If you want a perfect adaptation of a book, read the book. If you want a perfect piece of cinema, look for perfect pieces of cinema. The two rarely overlap, I don’t think quality of the film tends to be very dependent on the faithfulness or quality of the adapted material, and I think the re-adaptation of a great work is as likely to produce a great film as any other method of creating a film. Perhaps less.
Yeah, as a general principle, I’m not sure respecting the wishes of the writer is a good way to make a film.
Sounds good in theory Mark, but that’s what i thought about Rollerball too. don’t get me wrong, i like the original, but figured someone could have made a better movie out of that concept. look what happened though. McTiernan’s was horrible.
I haven’t read the original script, what exactly was so different? I know I didn’t like the literal transformation into the cavemen, I really thought it cheapened the story a lot. If in the scrip it wasn’t so literal then I agree with you the script must have been better, I still enjoyed the movie’s visuals though
I liked the original Altered States. Missed the point of the screenplay? Yeah, that’s true, but so what. I thought it turned out great and as long as one just appraises the film on its own merits and not in some contextual hype from the time it was created. Chayefsky didn’t approve of Russell’s interpretation, but how would Chayefsky know how to direct a film? I thought he was a writer … Besides, why would it be surprising that Chayefsky disapproved? He was a realist, Russell not so much.
And the literal transformation was great I thought, perfectly Russell. It’s meant to be gratuitous and obvious, symbolically bashing the audience with “the point.” Was this the tone of the script? No, but would it have been better if we took out all of the “Russell moments” and replaced them with, perhaps, something a little more intellectual but cinematically boring?
Having said all that though, it would be interesting to see how another director would treat the script, one with the ability to infuse very “writerly” moments with an organic visual style.
When i read this thread i started thinking about The Shinning, where Kubrick made his own version of the film and not followed Kings wishes, in that case not following the writers wishes was a good thing. So i don´t think a remake is a good rule in general if the writer dislikes a script, some writers does not respect the director as a independent artist. So i guess i agree with Leaves here (probably one of the adaptions he was thinking of), Kubrick is clearly a greater artist then King, but i can clearly se Kings frustration destroying his pop-literature and make art of it, fuck….
-Chayefsky didn’t approve of Russell’s interpretation, but how would Chayefsky know how to direct a film? I thought he was a writer … Besides, why would it be surprising that Chayefsky disapproved? He was a realist, Russell not so much.-
Yeah, and, by the way, Arthur Penn had already left the project because of a dispute with Chayefsky. Same goes for the fx guy John Dykstra.
I think Richard Stanley should get to remake Island of Dr. Moreau
not sure who could replace Brando
For those who stated “I’d like to see the original screenplay, source material, et cetera” for “Altered States”, I should mention Paddy Chayefsky’s novel of the same title that went before the screenplay. It was an adapted screenplay of Paddy’s own book. I’ve not read it yet, but I’d love to give it a read, as little is said about Paddy’s novels. I’m under the impression his earlier written work has been largely forgotten as many of his books seem to have very few runs (maybe only a first print). So if you want an idea of Paddy’s original vision, give his book a read. Also, I know you can buy collected works of Paddy’s screenplays, although I’m not certain “Altered States” is one of them.
JOKS:
The difference between the original “Rollerball” and the terrible remake: William Harrison adapted his own story for the first version, then had an ace producer-director in Norman Jewison to exercise an extreme amount of creative control over the project (so none of the “too many chefs in the kitchen” crap that plagued the follow-up). Also, good ol’ Normy is a hockey nut. When you have a fellow who is a Canadian hockey fanatic AND has the sensitivity/restraint (needed in the quieter/storytelling parts of the film) AND the visual flair of Mister Jewison, the result of a “Rollerball” screenplay turned to film is bound to be golden.
By contrast, John McTiernan made his bread with loud, noisy, albeit rather enjoyable actioners such as “Predator” and “Die Hard”, complete with charismatic leads. But “Rollerball” is not meant to be a “Die Hard” film on skates. Johnny Boy was swimming against the tide trying to make (what is meant to be) an “intelligent futuristic” story into a loud mess with a no-charisma performer in Chris Klein and deadweight support from L.L.Cool J (and even Jean Reno appears to be sleepwalking through much of the film).
I reckon Paul Michael Glaser should’ve been given “Rollerball” after the job he did many years earlier with “The Running Man”, because that’s what a 21st century remake of “Rollerball” should’ve been like: a hybrid of sports action movie with a touch a “Network”-esque parody about corporate control and television’s unwholesome level of influence thrown into the mix. Jean Reno’s character should’ve went to a Richard Dawson type and the lead should’ve been far tougher looking than Chris Klein.
It wouldn’t have been very much like the original style-wise, but that would’ve been the whole point. You’d WANT it to have a fresh coat of paint, while maybe advancing some of the ideas about politics and society of the original. Yes, I agree, “Rollerball” was ONE remake that COULD have worked, and I was intrigued by it, until I saw the previews (terrible) and got wind of the lousy reviews (I can’t remember reading a good word about it at the time). Several years later I endured this bore-fest on DVD and indeed, it is crap.
Now the “Rollerball” legacy HAS been tainted with a lousy remake, does Hollywood atone for its sins and make a superior edition, or do they learn their lesson and never mess with the classics ever again?
I’m leaning towards the latter, because the original is still top notch and the world seems to be getting dumber, so maybe an intelligent revamp isn’t such a grand concept. Which leads me to wonder what is with the talk of remaking “Westworld” of all films.
Curious to read the book now. Found the movie quite stunning when I watched it last night with almost no preconceptions about what it was about beyond: Guy uses isolation sensory deprivation tank.
Anybody know exactly what Chayefsky’s complaints were? The film is pretty damn faithful to the book, as I remember..
Anyone have any material in which Cronenberg acknowledges ALTERED STATES? THE FLY seems pretty indebted to it…as much as it is to the original FLY script.
MARK IS SUSPENDED IN GAFFA
Is it a good idea to remake a film if the screenwriter’s wishes weren’t respected by the director the first time around, so much so, the writer decided to have his name removed from the credits in favour of a pseudonym? For example, a film like “Altered States” (directed by Ken Russell, written by Paddy Chayefsky, known as “Sidney Aaron”—his first two given names—in the credits) might make for an excellent remake—who knows what could be done with Paddy’s screenplay if directed more in accordance with his original vision? It’s been many years since I saw “Altered States”, but I’d love to give it another look and see what might have been done better. I know many people can’t stand remakes of classic films, but it seems like “Altered States” is hardly regarded as a definitive sci-fi, so is a “mishandled” film the first time around any worse than a bad remake? At least, Paddy Chayefsky thought it was a bad interpretation of his script. Which other films represent the notion of a badly handled screenplay that deserve another chance?