It's the same, just (somewhat) different

Two films released in January — one Hindi and one Tamil, raise the question of why, exactly, filmmakers opt for remakes. For some, it is the opportunity to transpose a hit from one language to another, one cultural milieu to another, so that audiences who don't know the original language, who aren't from that culture, can enjoy the remake as a brand new film. (The problem arises when it's an unacknowledged remake, in which case, it isn't so much a remake as a rip-off, but that's a different topic altogether.)

Then there are other filmmakers, fewer in number, who commit to a remake because they connected with the original in a wholly personal way and wish to channel the source material through their strong sensibilities, as Martin Scorsese did with “Cape Fear”, burrowing beneath a fairly straightforward thriller to discover a marriage on the verge of splitting up and a pubescent daughter's sexual awakening.

But Gus Van Sant's somewhat gimmicky shot-for-shot (almost) remake of “Psycho” aside, most remakes fall in the former category, adapting the source material to local tastes. Thus, “The Italian Job”, in Abbas-Mustan's hands as “Players”, becomes a more convoluted script, with twists and turns characteristic of these directors. Plus, we have some lip-smackingly trashy embellishments — such as a villain who calls himself Spider and who honours his name by having images of the eight-legged creatures on his costumes and in his lair.

Had the film consistently stooped to this level (or risen, depending on your love for lurid trash), we may have had ourselves a decent entertainer, but the directors seem to be after some sort of classy thriller they are entirely incapable of. It's a pity because their real strengths lie in the bad-taste department, which is as valuable a skill as any in the cinema, because vulgar entertainment — at least in my book — is a very valid entertainment. (Hence the whole category of films I label as good bad movies.)

At the end of it all, you're left wondering why they bothered. Why would I watch this film when the perfectly entertaining original is at hand? And, even if we consider these adaptations as Hollywood Movies For Those Who Don't Watch Hollywood Movies, isn't that audience left with the bewildering sense of being stranded in a no man's land between a lean, mean Hollywood thriller that focusses every minute on ratcheting up the tension, and a three-hour-something Bollywood masala that simply doesn't have enough plot points to warrant this bloated running time?

Shankar's “Nanban”, a remake of the staggeringly successful “3 Idiots”, is equally long, but at least, it's stuffed with things, and it's what you'd call a typically Indian movie, tailored to a typically Indian audience. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll do everything that you won't do in today's too-cool multiplex movies. This is a single-screen movie in every sense of the term — and yet, again, I was left wondering why Shankar bothered.

To those familiar with the original, this is a shockingly faithful remake — “shocking” because major filmmakers do not usually choose to make movies where they have nothing to do, but make sure that the shots are canned and the music is recorded and the publicity is mounted. Shankar's stamp — or vision, if you want to call it that — is in a mere handful of scenes and song sequences that feature computer graphics (and he gamely makes fun of his predilection for the same).

Otherwise, you feel a first-time director could have ended up with the same product, working off the same template. It would be interesting to listen to Shankar's views about why he signed up for something where he'd have nothing to do — well, almost — but shout “action” and “cut”. Even his famed song sequences look like remakes of his own song sequences from earlier extravaganzas. I asked of this remake the question I ask of all remakes: What are you giving me that I didn't get from the original? And the answer was “nothing”.