Is this the death of storytelling? How Remakes Are Killing Original Art

By Afrah Fatima

When the recent “Wuthering Heights” movie was announced last year, I knew one of my favourite books was going to be fumbled. The point of this blog is not to discuss that movie, because that would mean I’d have to actually watch it and sit through 2h 16m of torment (I’ve already seen/read enough online to know I would hate it); it is rather to consider current trends to do with the seeming lack of originality in creative spheres. Those with the resources to create original and insightful art are failing to do so, leaving the artistic world deprived of genuine creation. 

Art is supposed to have a shock value, without which art fails to do its job. This shock value is necessary for provoking conversation and conveying important information. The distribution of art is dependent on institutions that have the means to do so and they then become the governing bodies by monetising upon art forms.The main creative spheres are no doubt tv studios because of tv’s rise in popularity and accessibility. Movies, shows, songs, etc. have become one of the mainstream ways in which art is consumed. While books and other mediums of art still remain, they are relegated to the sidelines. Popular culture usually demands things that can be easily digested—similar to how fast fashion works; overconsumption prioritizes quantity over quality. Because of this, studios are focusing more on producing remakes, reboots, spinoffs, live actions, etc., all because these can be easily marketed to existing audiences and repeatedly produced without having to stress over characters, plot lines, etc. They fail to realise that the audience is tired of this and wants something new. 

I think part of this comes from the industry’s own fear of pouring finances into a project that may not be as successful. It is easier and more economically viable to rely on franchises rather than original work which is supposedly more risky. This fear, however, is a driving force of the industry’s stagnation. How does the “Wuthering Heights” movie come into this you may ask? Well, for starters, the original book represents an established franchise with a large fan base, making it ideal for a big-budget film adaptation. That being said, I don’t think that the movie was meant for the fans. The movie was marketed as a way to make one of the best classics “accessible” to the masses, but by doing so it ends up distorting the novel beyond any resemblance solely to profit off of shock value and hype. I am no fool to the notion that, to adapt a book into a movie, one is required to make changes to ensure it fits into the new medium. These changes often involve cutting out parts or adding new ones to make sure the narrative is presented in the best way possible. But this movie is the entire opposite of that. There is almost no resemblance to the book other than the names of the characters and the setting (that is, the gloomy, gothic atmosphere). Furthermore, it fails to add something new to the conversation that has been going on since the book was first released, and I think adaptations should do just that: add something new to the conversation that has been going on around that art. 

This is not impossible to do! The Lord of the Rings trilogy is an excellent example. While I have qualms about Tom Bombadil, the barrow wights, and Frodo’s character (assasination?), I still respect and love the movies since Peter Jackson made his changes in a way that fit the medium and added depth to the story. 

Coraline is another example where the movie (with its absolutely gorgeous stopmotion) added a character that both deepened the themes of the original story rather than diluting them. I would even go on far as to say that the animation style influenced the way that many understand  the original novella. As Henry Selick, the director of Coraline, said “stop-motion animation brings a charm, a warmth – it takes a little bit of an edge off the darkest, most troubling parts of the story, I think, and adds a little creepiness to parts that might be too sweet.” 

The reasoning above, however, cannot be true of the new fad with live action remakes, and the production of new versions of the same stories every few years. It’s not just old movies that are being made into live-action adaptations and sold on subscription services, but also the same books being churned out again and again as film adaptations. Netflix adaptations like those of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice and Persuasion contribute nothing of value to the broader creative landscape because there are multiple adaptations already present. Why not adapt a book that hasn’t been adapted yet? Or better yet, create original stories. 

The reason I keep emphasizing the need for original work is simple, though people love to treat it as controversial: instead of relying on erasing plot lines and characters—repurposing older stories to fit ‘quota’— why not create new narratives and new characters that actually represent the world we live in? 

Ultimately, I don’t think the problem is that old movies exist, but that they have become a crutch the industry abuses. Until the industry chooses to invest in genuine ideas instead of endlessly reshaping the old ones to no avail, we’ll keep getting art that feels recycled and soulless rather than impassioned and meaningful.

(The reason I brought up the “Wuthering Heights” movie was because it miserably fails even at representation and is a farce capitalizing on Emily Brontë’s genius with dishonor not only to the book but the entire literary world as well.)

[With this being my last blog post (for the year?) it felt fit to discuss a theme similar to the one I started out with. It was an absolute pleasure writing these posts and more so that you, the reader, read and liked them!]

1“Henry Selick in Conversation.” 2009. Focus Features. February 9, 2009. https://www.focusfeatures.com/article/henry_selick_in_conversation.