[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Spike Lee tipped to direct Oldboy remake

Film-maker rumoured to replace Spielberg as favourite to reprise cult South Korean thriller

•  
  Good Oldboy ... director Spike Lee. Photograph: Mike Blake/Reuters
  
  Spike Lee is tipped to direct a US remake of Park Chan-wook's Oldboy, reports Twitch.com.
  
  1. Oldboy
  2. Production year: 2003
  3. Country: Rest of the world
  4. Cert (UK): 18
  5. Runtime: 120 mins
  6. Directors: Chan-wook Park, Chanwook Park, Park Chan-wook
  7. Cast: Choi Min-sik, Hye-jeong Kang, Ji-tae Yu, Kang Hye-jeong, Min-sik Choi, Yu Ji-Tae
  8. More on this film
  
  The film-maker, who was reportedly working on a prequel to his last full-length joint, Inside Man (2006), is rumoured to replace Steven Spielberg, who was linked to the project in 2008.
  Of the two Lee may appear to be the better fit. Oldboy – a dark Korean thriller set in 80s Seoul – revolves around the mysterious abduction and 15-year imprisonment of a man. It contains graphic scenes of head-smashing, self-mutilation and live octopus gobbling – not typical subject matter for the director currently putting the finishing touches to The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn.
  Will Smith was once attached to the Spielberg version, but is unlikely to be involved on Spike's watch. In 2002 Lee publicly criticised Smith over his role as a servile golf caddy to Matt Damon in Robert Redford's The Legend of Bagger Vance, which is set in 30s Georgia. Lee labelled the film "Driving Mr Damon" and told the Boston Globe that in real life black men were being "castrated and lynched left and right". "With all that going on, why are you [expletive] trying to teach Matt Damon a golf swing?" he said.
  
  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/...-oldboy-remake

[nicfit]

Yeah, 80's Seoul, for, like, a few minutes..

Btw, remakes like this are bound to be pointless.
imo.

[chicka]

Telling the Fresh Prince to go take a look in the mirror...I always liked that Spike Lee guy even if he is a Knicks' fan.

[atsonicpark]

You know, Spike Lee has made some pretty cool films. I really like that movie about the phone sex girl, that has Tarantino in it for like 5 seconds. It's called.. Girl 8.. I think? I dunno, saw it a while back. While most of Lee's films are a bit bloated and messy and a bit pointless, this might work well for OLDBOY, which also is a bit bloated and messy and really only has a good beginning and ending.

On the other hand, no one better ever touch SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE. Classic film right there.

[chicka]

I think it's Girl 6 and it is definitely one of his better ones. He's Got Game is probably my favorite Spike Lee.

[atsonicpark]

^ Yeah, that's right. GIRL 6. Great shot at the end with the telephones raining from the sky (yeah, sorta like Sid and Nancy but fuck it).

[demonrail666]

I think he had one really great film in him, Do the Right Thing, and has sort of floundered ever since. It's like everything he had to say is in that one movie.

[atsonicpark]

Oh, Demonrail, SURELY you like "SHE HATE ME". SURELY!

[atsonicpark]

Actually, I think his best role was in the Reggie Miller/Spike Lee Pacers/Knicks Playoffs from like 15 years ago. Classic!

[demonrail666]

I quite like pretty much all of them, I just think he's a big talent whose time seems to have been and gone. Malcolm X was fine but he was clearly a bit overawed by the subject matter. I like Summer of Sam, too, even though it was a film that really only Scorsese (or at a push Abel Ferrara) should've been allowed anywhere near. I was probably a bit harsh in my initial post, I just can't stop thinking of him as being a bit of a yesterday man. Fair play to him, though, for keeping his career going.

[atsonicpark]

I mostly agree, especially the SOS thing -- I kept thinking "this seems like something Ferrara would do." It has a lot of Dangerous Game/Bad Lieutenant/etc-isms. I always found Ferrara extremely underrated. He has some stinkers but then so does....... uh... Spike Lee.

The main thing that always gets me about Spike's films is how most of them seem to end on a sour note. Anyone else ever notice this? He loves to "end" with non-endings/non-resolutions and so on, which is a trait I find interesting, in an odd sort of way... uh, anyway... so...

[note how I ended this message on a non-end. WHOA]

[demonrail666]

I can never decide with Ferrara. Have you seen his version of Invasion of the Body snatchers that he did for TV? I loved that. I get the feeling he's better when put under a bit of control - which a TV movie is more likely to impose than an indie one. He'd be great working in collaboration with someone like Scorsese, who'd provide a bit more focus while Ferrara would lend that 'edge' that I think Scorsese lost quite some time ago. It's actually a shame directors don't collaborate more, where both could help compensate for the other's shortcomings. Imagine how incredibly Eyes Wide Shut could've been had they left Kubrick to do the big visual set pieces and then brought in someone like Bertolluci to handle the scenes between Cruise and Kidman.

[atsonicpark]

good points. I mean, Ferrara has some garbage, but I think he had quite a string of effective films. He's even pretty honest about how shitty a lot of his films are. 'R X-Mas is one of the worst films ever, and I think he even knows it haha.

And I agree, I think directors should collaborate more, though I actually think "Directors" are a bit overrated, in a mainstream sense, because directing IS a big collaboration (talking Hollywood and so on here, not indie dudes who do everything themselves) and so in the end all the credit (and the blame) going towards them is usually ridiculous... I mean, you have a director, a writer, a dp, a cinematographer, a "continuity editor", actors/editors/producers/etc/etc/etc/etc/etc/test audiences and so on. In a way -- depending on the situation/director -- there already is a sense of collaboration... that also equals a loss of control. As you already know. But I figured it was worth stating..

...because Ferrara started sucking when he became -- for lack of a better word -- more mainstream. Same for Scorsese... I dunno. It's all politics.

...But yeah Ferrara's version of INVASION is solid. I think he's got some underrated shit. BLACKOUT, MS. 45, DRILLER KILLER, BAD LIEUTENANT, DANGEROUS GAME.. all great-to-classic imo. Even FEAR CITY is kinda cool in a weird way.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

good points. I mean, Ferrara has some garbage, but I think he had quite a string of effective films. He's even pretty honest about how shitty a lot of his films are. 'R X-Mas is one of the worst films ever, and I think he even knows it haha.

This might sound odd but something I respect about Ferrara is that he's not afraid to make a bad film. He just wants to keep working and will pretty much take what he can get. (He reminds me a lot of De Palma in that sense.) He's the opposite of someone like Cronrnberg, who seems evermore precious about what he does, his reputation, etc. I think you're right about Ferrara knowing a lot of what he does isn't that great but I think he simply sees that as coming with the territory, so to speak.

And I agree, I think directors should collaborate more, though I actually think "Directors" are a bit overrated, in a mainstream sense, because directing IS a big collaboration (talking Hollywood and so on here, not indie dudes who do everything themselves) and so in the end all the credit (and the blame) going towards them is usually ridiculous... I mean, you have a director, a writer, a dp, a cinematographer, a "continuity editor", actors/editors/producers/etc/etc/etc/etc/etc/test audiences and so on. In a way -- depending on the situation/director -- there already is a sense of collaboration... that also equals a loss of control. As you already know. But I figured it was worth stating.

I agree. There's an assumption that a lot of big directors leave a signature in their work that immediately identifies it as theirs. But someone like Ridley Scott can make Alien, Thelma and Louise and Gladiator, all very good bu it'st hard to see what connects them enough to make them 'Ridley Scott' films. But then you can watch any film by Hitchcock or John Waters or Tarantino or David Lynch and immediately recognise the director behind it. So while I do agree I think it has to be taken on a director by director basis. Certainly I'd say Scorsese, Ferrara and Kubrick leave pretty identifiable signatures in their films.

...because Ferrara started sucking when he became -- for lack of a better word -- more mainstream. Same for Scorsese... I dunno. It's all politics.

Scorsese crapped out cos he got old. My favourites of his are Mean Streets and Taxi Driver (clearly not that mainstream) but I wouldn't put either Goodfellas or Casino too far behind them (which clearly are).

I think we almost expect too much from directors now. Scorsese was really at the top of his game for a good 20 years, which if you think about it is about as long (albeit in a different era) as Hitchcock's most creative period - whose reputation is hardly in question. I suppose the thing is to judge them on the films they made during their peaks. Scorsese's reputation won't hinge on The Departed, any more than Hitchcock's has on The Trouble With Harry. Which I think is perfectly right.

Ferrara's version of INVASION is solid.

'Solid' is the perfect description.

[atsonicpark]

Great points, demonrail. I pretty much agree with everything you wrote.

Mmm... Taxi Driver.... so good.

[knox]

Spike Lee is awesome but I don't know about remakes.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

Mmm... Taxi Driver.... so good.

Sad but true, I once insisted on having my photo taken on the steps of the building where the final shootout takes place.

[atsonicpark]

That's not sad at all.

I have scared people when I tell them of any movie character ever, I identify with Travis more than anyone else....