Time Travellers and the Middle Ages

Beside Philip K. Dick (1928-82), Michael Crichton (1942-2008) is probably the science fiction author who has had more of novels turned into movies than any other. Well, he has had more full length novels adapted whereas Dick had more short stories used.

Dick had: 'Blade Runner' (1982) from 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' (1968); 'Total Recall' (1990) from short story 'We Can Remember It For You Wholesale' (1966); 'Confessions d'un Barlo' (1992) from 'Confessions of a Crap Artist' (1959); 'Screamers' (1995) from short story 'Second Variety' (1953); 'Imposter' (2001; short story 1953); 'Minority Report' (2002) from 'The Minority Report' (1991); 'Paycheck' (2003; short story 1952); 'A Scanner Darkly' (2006; novel 1977) and 'Next' (2007) from short story 'The Golden Man' (1954).

Crichton had: 'The Andromeda Strain' (1971; novel 1969); 'Dealing: Or the Berkeley-to-Boston Forty-Brick Lost-Bag Blues' (1972; novel written with his brother in 1970); 'The Carey Treatment (A Case of Need)' (1972) from 'A Case of Need' (1968) - neither of these two are science fiction, but I include them here for completeness; 'Westworld' (1973, Crichton wrote the screenplay and directed it rather than it coming from a novel); 'The Terminal Man' (1974; novel 1972); 'The First Great Train Robbery' (1979 - Crichton directed) based on his novel 'The Great Train Robbery' (1975); 'Looker' (1981 - Crichton wrote screenplay and directed); 'Runaway' (1984 - Crichton wrote screenplay and directed); 'Jurassic Park' (1993; novel 1990); 'Rising Sun' (1993; novel 1992); 'Disclosure' (1994; novel 1994 too); 'Congo' (1995; novel 1980); 'The Lost World: Jurassic Park' (1997) based on 'The Lost World' (1995); Sphere (1999; novel 1987); 'The Thirteenth Warrior' (1999) based on the novel 'Eaters of the Dead' (1976) - set in Viking times; and 'Timeline' (2003; novel 1999).

Even in contemporary-set movies such as 'Rising Sun' and 'Disclosure' Crichton included elements which were technologically cutting-edge at the time, if less extraordinary than those of 'Jurassic Park' or 'Timeline'. I am sure we will see many more of Crichton's novels made into movies in the coming years. Anyway, this forms a rather distracted introduction to this posting. The reason is that having seen the movie 'Timeline' twice I started reading the novel. Friends have said how good it is, but actually I find it incredibly frustrating for a number of reasons, and I enjoy the plot of the movie much more.

The movie cost US$80 million to make and only took US$19 million in the USA because of condemnation by critics. It is an enjoyable film about archaeologists who using quantum physics technology created by a company called ITC, pass through a wormhole back to the castle and monastery in medieval southern France that they have been excavating. It turns out that an employee of the corporation that has invented the technology has made a career there for himself and causes problems for the time travellers combined with the fact that they arrive in the middle of a battle between French and English forces forming part of the Hundred Years War.

The direction of the movie was criticised. Perhaps director Richard Donner (born 1930) was simply getting too old and should have retired. Despite a strong record, his direction in this movie is poor in allowing the dialogue to overlap and become confusing and some of the actors to seem to lack conviction in what they do. There are criticisms of the extras, I read them described as 'bored union workers', in fact most were amateurs, people who do re-enactment for a hobby and are probably not used to being extras. Maybe this was an error.


The movie suffers from miscasting. Anna Friel is inappropriate as a French noblewoman and Billy Connolly just about pulls it off as the archaeology professor, but someone with more gravitas would have done better. With better direction we could have seen the quality of acting that he delivers in 'The Last Samurai' (2003) but instead he is on default setting, not bad but not good enough. Interestingly, two of the female characters in the novel, Kramer and Gomez are replaced by male characters in the movie. It would have been a better movie if rather than playing Robert Doniger, the US head of ITC, British actor, David Thewlis had been cast in the Professor Johnston role. In addition, as some critics suggested, if Marek rather than Chris was the hero of the movie, though this ambivalence between the two leading male characters is present in the novel too.

Paul Walker who plays Chris who in the movie is the son of Professor Johnston (in the novel is just another archaeologist), is particularly criticised. He is not a good actor, but even in the novel he is supposed to be a weak character concerned with trying to get off with women, which usually fails. In the movies we (well especially US audiences) cannot tolerate such a weak person in the lead. Walker is a poor actor put into the part of a man in a position to talk the blows. In the novel he is weak, but knowledgeable. In the movie he does not even like history and it seems foolish to send him back. Frances O'Connor is another poor actor and seems suited only for playing rather brainless American women and so is miscast as the archaeologist, Kate Ericson, who is also supposed to be a very competent rock climber, she looks like she would curse if she broke a nail let alone scale a mountain.

Many of the things that the movie was criticised for actually come from the peculiarities of the novel. People felt that for time travel there should be more effects. In some way the lack of effects reflects the methodology for the time travel as described in the novel, so you cannot really blame the director Richard Donner for that, though he did drive for low CGI content in the movie. Many critics were surprised that the time travellers gave no thought for the future consequences of their actions. However, from the novel, you know that Crichton believed there can be no future consequences of time travller's actions, certainly not in this universe. Unlike the travellers in the movie who simply move through our time, those in the novel go into a different universe, so whatever they do there will have an effect, but only in that universe, not our own. I dislike the fact that, because ITC have no way of reconstituting the bodies teleported through the wormhole (effectively 'faxed') we have to accept that the people that arrive are their exact replicas sent from a different universe where they have the capability to do the reconstitution at the end of the journey.

Aside from this different interpretation of time travel, which it is clear would be incredibly difficult to get across in a movie, there are other reasons why I prefer the story as it plays out in the movie rather than the novel. In the movie seven people are sent back rather than five. The two security staff are eliminated at the beginning so causing the damage back at base. In there are only three rather than four archaeologists, but it almost feels like it is an episode of the 'Keystone Kops' on paper. They simply run from place to place to place incessantly in the story and it gets bewildering. In the movie they are pursued regularly, but there are also moments of tranquility for the audience to catch up. In the novel almost every person who is met in the past is utterly cruel. In the movie some of this is retained as illustrated by the arbitrary killing of French archaeology student, Francois Dontelle (who does not appear in the novel) by Lord Oliver de Vannes (played by good actor Michael Sheen) brings this home. However, we do not need the constant cruelty that Crichton lays on so thickly and repeatedly in the novel. Ironically, he points out the sophisticated elements of medieval life and yet undermines this by suggesting that you could not walk a couple of metres without someone beheading you.

Crichton's novel also annoys me as he seems to subscribe to that horrible American attitude that hard times bring out the best in people. Chris in the novel goes from being a whimpering worrier to some macho-man, not as strong as his re-enactor friend Marek, but still, very different from what he was in the 20th century. This is a dangerous attitude to adopt. It smacks of the culture fostered by 'Iron John: A Book About Men' (1990) by Robert Bly that modern men are weak and useless and only by going back to primitive behaviour can they be 'real' men. This myth fosters that terrible American post-apocalyptic dream that after some disaster a simpler, better world would arrive which would be like frontier society and allow men to run around with guns being 'real' men. These sentiments in fact conflict with Crichton's portayal (presumably to instil drama) of an utterly cruel, brutal, arbitrary medieval society in which thinkers are slaughered and even the strongest (like Marek who can ride, joust, fight with a sword and kill) suffer.

As I have noted reviewers expect characters in movies to have complete awareness of all movie culture. A number ask had the characters not seen 'Back to the Future'? To some degree we could ask the reviewers if they think that physics actually works the way it does in movies? They seem to say that it must and anyone ignorant of movie physics is foolish. I suggest they check out the 'Hollywood Science' programme which puts numerous portrayals of scientific occurrences to the test. How do we know that the Bob Gale/Robert Zemeckis writing of time travel is any more or less accurate than the Michael Crichton one? Of course the reviewers had no knowledge of the novel and so could only criticise the movie. It does raise an alarming thought though, that audiences will no longer accept characters who do not have the same level of media awareness as themselves. Interestingly a French character might have had their view of time travel far more influenced by 'Les Visiteurs' than by 'Back to the Future'.

Saying all this, I like the fact that in the movie the actions in the past influence the future. There is a flaw in Crichton's novel, because for all he says about the different universes, Professor Johnston's spectacles which he dropped at the other end of the wormhole turn up back in our world. So I am glad to see in the movie that the severing of a character's ear and his subsequent marriage and the smashing through of a secret passageway are reflected in the archaeological finds of today. I suppose this is because I am a romantic.

Another criticism of the movie is the lack of issue over the languages people speak. Again the movie was hampered by what is written in the novel. In the book the travellers have earpieces that translate for them. Half of them have studied Occitan, the language of southern France and they know Latin. For a movie this would probably all seem too scholarly and anyway mainstream US and UK audiences loathe sub-titles or characters speaking in languages they do not understand. They would always prefer strangely accented English.

Crichton put immense effort into researching for the novel. The idea for it was triggered from real accounts of a medieval 'magister', an intellectual/inventor/scholar working in the Dordogne region and travelling with a group of assistants during the Hundred Years War and from this basis Crichton wove the story. However, even he makes some mistakes. We know now, that in contrast to the example illustrated in his novel, trebuchet siege machines work far better is put on wheels when firing rather than being flat on the ground. The movie is criticised for showing Johnston using Greek Fire, the formula for which has still not been rediscovered. Yet, again, this stems from the fact that in the novel, that Johnston creates better gunpowder and a far more flammable oil which is difficult to put out. They are not Greek Fire but they satisfy the lords seeking assistance; for the movie the explanation of these chemicals is simply termed Greek Fire.

It is a shame that flaws in the movie made it a flop. However, being based on the novel made it impossible to make a movie that contemporary English-speaking audiences would have willingly accepted. If Crichton had directed it the acting may have been better but viewers would have found it much harder to comprehend and it would have been purged of the romance and the genuine excitement (as opposed to repeated terrors) that are a part of its appeal.

Having read this novel and reflected on it, I began thinking about other stories revolving around time travellers to and from the Middle Ages. I suppose the era is a popular destination as it allows writers to get in more drama that is wrapped up in a style familiar to the audience. Of course the first entry in this genre is 'A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court' (1889) by Mark Twain (there have been movie versions in 1921, 1931 and a musical version which I have seen, with Bing Crosby in the lead, in 1949; a stage musical version was first produced in 1927, an animated movie in 1970 and another live action one in 1989). It was published six years before H.G. Wells's 'The Time Machine' and has a non-mechanical method of time travel, like that found in novels such as 'A Traveller in Time' (1939) by Alison Uttley. In Twain's story, Hank Morgan is beaten up by one of his employees and wakes up in 528 CE, the time of King Arthur. He manages to survive and strengthens his position by using modern technology to the extent that by the end of the novel with 12 Gatling guns and a belt of dynamite to face down thousands of soldiers. Merlin is electrocuted when he touches a wire that operates part of Morgan's system. Twain was trying to dampen the late 19th century enthusiasm for their view of the medieval past, which was often inaccurate anyway, and which he felt had led to misguided men of the Confederacy to go to war under some illusion that they were a kind of modern knight (perhaps we still see echoes of this delusion in the post-apocalyptic dream noted above).

Morgan wins by using modern technology and advancing the abilities of the locals, a theme taken up in 'Lest Darkness Fall' (1941) by Le Sprague De Camp set at the end of the Roman Empire; 'The Cross Time Engineer' (1988), 'The High Tech Knight' (1989), 'The Radiant Warrior' (1989), 'The Flying Warlord' (1989) and 'Lord Conrad's Lady' (1990), 'Conrad's Quest For Rubber' (1998), 'Conrad's Time Machine' (2004) and 'Lord Conrad's Crusade' (2005) by Leo Frankowski featuring a Polish engineer of 1986 travelling back to help the Poles of 1231 against the coming Mongol invasion of 1241 by developing their technology. Whereas Twain's hero came into friction with the Catholic Church, Frankowski's, Conrad Stargard, assists it. In contrast to these novels in Poul Anderson's short story, 'The Man Who Came Early' (1956) - 10th century Iceland and especially Ford Maddox Ford's 'Ladies Whose Bright Eyes' (1911; revised 1935) - 14th century Europe, which was provoked by Twain's story, both see their heroes have an inability to alter technological development at the time.

Other movie jaunts into the Middle Ages have included the Disney movie, 'A Spaceman and King Arthur' (1979) in which a spaceman from the 20th century, Tom Trimble, and his replica, an android, Hermes, travel faster than the speed of light and end up at Camelot, though the high medieval rather than early medieval version usually shown. As in many of these stories, it is influenced by Twain's novel, and he uses his technology (which appears advanced even for the time the movie was made) to impress Arthur and he helps to defend him from a plot by Merlin to dethrone him. The movie is filled with British actors - Kenneth More is King Arthur, Ron Moody is Merlin and other British acting stalwarts like John LeMesurier, Jim Dale, Rodney Bewes and Pat Roach appear. Disney also produced 'A Kid in King Arthur's Court' (1995) about a boy thrown back in time to the 6th century by an earthquake. He assists the elderly King Arthur by using modern technology he has brought with him. The US movie features leading UK actors: Kate Winslet (born 1975) as a princess, Ron Moody (yet again) as Merlin though on Arthur's side this time, Joss Acland as King Arthur and Art Malik as a lord. Another Disney movie on this theme is 'A Knight in Camelot' (1998) with Whoopi Goldberg as a physicist going back to King Arthur's court and using her knowledge to predict an eclipse as in the Twain novel and subsequently as Sir Boss of the Round Table uses modern technology to defend the king. Paloma Baeza who appeard in 'A Kid in King Arthur's Court' is also in this movie; British actors are represented by Michael York as King Arthur and Ian Richardson as Merlin. Then there is 'Black Knight' (2001) which features Martin Lawrence (all of these three movies have had black US actors as the lead) as a worker at a medieval theme park who being knocked into a fake moat ends up in medieval England we assume, but there is a King Leo on the throne who has overthrown the previous queen, so this is clearly some alternate universe. He learns useful lessons about hard work and honour and getting on through education for when he is thrown back to 21st century USA. His burgeoning romance with Nicole (seemingly the descendant of the Victoria he met in the Middle Ages) comes to an abrupt halt when he is again thrown back in time to find himself in a Roman gladiatorial arena facing lions.

To some extent time travel stories to the Middle Ages are about reflecting on our own time. Crichton does this with even Doniger the entrepreneur noting how much of modern society rests on medieval roots. It also puts forward thoughts about whether our world is better than the past for being healthier and less brutal or in some ways worse, for becoming over-complex and in some people's views very 'weak'. Perhaps the only people we can ask to judge this effectively are those women who claimed to have memories of being Cathar heretics who were violently purged in the 13th century (featured most recently on 'Tony Robinson and The Medieval Reincarnation, shown 31st December 2008 on Channel 4).

The other side of the time travelling coin is the travelling of medieval people to modern times. Generally these scenarios are played for humour. The stories that I know in this regard are 'Catweazle' (1969 and 1971) about a down-at-heel sorceror, Catweazle (brilliantly played by Geoffrey Bayldon (born 1924) from 1066 travelling to contemporary Britain. There were two series (all now available to buy on DVD) in the first he arrives at a farm in Surrey and in the second at a stately home in Bedfordshire. Getting to grips with modern technology and the reaction of modern people provides much humour. The second series was aimed more at the US audience and unfortunately substituted slapstick humour and extended chases for the more involved stories and fish-out-of-water focused humour of the first series. The series does lead us to reflect on the elements of modern technology and how much we take them for granted.

These themes are also taken up in the movies, 'Les Visiteurs' (1993), Les Visiteurs II: Les Couloirs du temps' (1998) and the US remake of the first movie, 'Just Visiting' (2001). All of these movies star internationally known French actor Jean Reno and Christian Clavier (who along with the director Jean-Marie Poire was co-screenwriter). 'Les Visiteurs' was one of the most successful French movies ever. Its sequel was poorly received because of changes in the cast (though given how horribly squeaky Valerie Lemercier's voice is, it was quite a blessing to have her replaced by Muriel Robin and product placement in the movie, no doubt a consequence of the previous movie's success, notably for Nestle chocolate and Nesquik, Bosch car parts, Pizza Hut, KFC and Grand Marnier. The French movies feature the Count of Montmirail (Reno) who is cursed by a witch and consequently kills his fiancee's father, the Duke of Pouille. In an effort to correct his error Montmirail gets a wizard to send him and his servant Jacquouille (Clavier) back in time instead he is sent forward to the same area but in 1993. Montmirail finds his descendant, Beatrice (played by Valerie Lemercier), is still living there though his castle has been transformed into a hotel, which ironically is owned by a descendant of the Jacquouille (again Clavier). Beatrice thinks Montmirail is her long-lost cousin, Hubert and takes him in while he tries to find the way back to his own time. Anyway, humour results as the medieval men deal with modern technology. The second movie despite the flaws, is still very funny with comedy both in the 12th and 20th centuries of the same ilk as in the first movie. I felt it could have been wrapped up a little more neatly, the relationship between the Count and Jacqueline (Arielle Semenoff), daughter of the cousin Hubert and the hints of an admiration from Hubert's estranged wife, Cora, seem unresolved. Also we do not know if the corridors of time which have been causing plagues in the 12th century are ever closed. It feels as if a third movie was expected which as it never appeared, is a shame. Anyway, it is still a laugh.

In 'Just Visiting' the story is similar but set in 12th century England where the Count Thibault of Malfete (Reno) is coming with his servant Andre (Clavier) to marry the King of England's daughter, Lady Rosalind (Christine Applegate) but the Earl of Warwick tries to use a witch's potion to make the princess see Thibault as a demon, instead Thibault drinks the potion and kills his fiancee. Arrested for murder, Thibault employs a wizard who sends him and his servant to 21st century Chicago (where a chunk of the castle is on show in a museum). Here he finds his descendant, Julia Malfete (Applegate) works at the museum and is being exploited by her unfaithful boyfriend who wants her to liquidate the lands she has inherited in Britain and France. Again there is humour around the count and his servant misusing modern technology. US reviewers felt the humour in 'Just Visiting' was more family-friendly than the more crass humour of 'Les Visiteurs', but that is simply snobbery, aside from the joke around the servant's name being 'jackass', the jokes in the movies are almost identical.

Though these are comedy movies, there are underlying currents which are interesting and to some extent show up the differences between how the societies of France and the USA see themselves. Of course, they have often seen paralllels between the two in the past, but nowadays, I would argue there are more differences than similarities, something, that I imagine, Reno who has worked on both sides of the Atlantic is very conscious of. In 'Les Visiteurs', Montmirial is proud to see he has a descendant over eight centuries into the future. There is a lot of emphasis on the continuity of life in a French town, that local people have connections. He is disheartened his descendant is not as powerful as he was and has lost the castle, but seems reconciled to the differences. Importantly, learning of the French Revolution (referenced in 'Les Visiteurs II') Jacquouille sees that he does not have to be beholden to feudal rules and sets out to establish his own life in late 20th century France. The appreciation is for the continuities and differences in French society and of the potential that can come from a family going on.

Ther US perspective is different. To some degree it reflects the attitude to the Middle Ages that I noted in Crichton's work above, i.e. that these were times when men were 'real' men. Malfete's chivalry is contrasted with Julia's boyfriend Hunter. She is encouraged by her ancestor to be 'lion-hearted' and is taught to wield a sword. The correct path for her is seen as connecting back with her noble heritage and keeping the lands, and meeting a handsome Frenchman. To some extent rather antithetical to the 'land of opportunity' of the USA. However, that perspective by Andre who learns that in the USA anyone with wealth can have everything and lift themselves up to a life of luxury. This contrasts with the more meritocratic situation in the French movie, though there, Jacquouille's descendant is rather looked down upon by the Montmirials as noveau-riche, but he is the one who owns the hotel. Thus, the French version has a different view of the past, that it is important but there is no way we should really be apeing it, whereas the American version has a kind of idea that we need more medieval values in our current society and to some degree that does not mean opportunity through effort or merit, but, just as in the Middle Ages, through arbitrary things such as titles, a family name or wealth.

Have we exhausted our interest in time travelling to the Middle Ages? I do not think so. Though there are some examples that suggest that travel to other time periods may be becoming popular, e.g. the early 19th century in 'Lost in Austen' (2008) and I know there are thousands of people out there begging the BBC to release on DVD its excellent 1978 series of 'A Traveller in Time' featuring a 20th century girl travelling back to Elizabethan England. Please BBC, you can do it! However, for now, I think the ease of slipping into medieval settings and similarly the humour of medieval people coming here will mean we will see regular revivals of this kind of story. The challenge is always going to be balancing authenticity against what the audience feels it can comprehend, without then facing criticisms for anachronistic elements in the movie.

When a Movie Remake is Better than/at Least as Good as the Original

It is rare to find a movie remake which is better than the original. Sometimes it makes you angry to think they even bothered to waste the money on it when each year there are scores of movies that are not made or if they are they are never distributed (I am still waiting for the UK movie made in the early 2000s, about female gladiators, something Britain was renowned for in the Roman period, to find a distributor). One of the worst example is the remake of 'Psycho' (1960; 1998), in which they did not even try to alter the film, it was just made with different actors and replicated scene-for-scene. In many cases the remake simply aims to draw on the title of the film, for example, 'Get Carter' (1971; 2000) or with 'The Jackal (1997) [a kind of remake of 'The Day of the Jackal' (1973)] or 'The Italian Job' (1969; 2003) or more obtusely 'Payback' (1999) from 'Point Blank' (1967) with very little of the original story remaining (accepted, 'Payback' shed the title and kept much more of the plot than the others). I suppose there is a kind of 25-30 year cycle with people seeing something that was good for one generation being worthwhile for a new generation, hence a similar gap in these cases. To a great extent it is about somehow 'fattening' the old movies. The success of 'Psycho' and especially 'Get Carter', 'Point Blank' and 'The Day of the Jackal' is that they were 'spare' movies, relying on tension and grittiness rather than effects. Even 'The Italian Job' which in 1969 was over-the-top was insufficiently loud and brash for the 2000s. However, if 'The Italian Job' (2003) had kept the action in Venice as it does in the early part of the story it would have been a much more successful movie, moving back to California weakens it severely.

So many remakes are poor because they lose the attraction of the leanness of the original. Especially in thrillers, bleakness adds to the sinister nature of what is being shown. 'Get Carter' can almost be seen as a docu-drama of people living in northern England in the early 1970s; it shows the wealthiest to the poorest and all kinds of people in between but at best their lives are tawdry, at worst they are grim. No Hollywood drama could come close to that. Why not take the remake's plot and make a wholly differently named movie?

One thing about remakes is Americanisation. Hollywood, for some reason, despite all the scriptwriters there, is always looking for successful stories from around the world, especially France and Japan. 'Ringu' (1998)/'The Ring' (2002), 'Ringu 2' (1999)/'The Ring Two' (1999)(remade by the original director, Hideo Nakata), 'Ju-On: The Grudge' (2003) / 'The Grudge' (2004) (remade by the original director, Takashi Shimizu', 'Honogurai mizu no soko kara' (2002) / 'Dark Water' (2005) amongst others are examples from Japan in the horror category. Hollywood has had an interesting relationship with Japan, people always refer back to 'Sinchinin no samurai' ('The Seven Samurai') (1954) influencing 'The Magnificent Seven' (1960) but there is also an interesting relationship with other Westerns. Partly this is because the Wild West and Medieval Japan, especially the pre-Tokugawa era (i.e. pre-17th century) had similarities in the role of armed individuals working alone in lawless places and the sense of duty, loyalty, courage, etc. The other case cited is 'Yojimbo' (1961) remade as the spaghetti western (i.e. made in Italy rather than the USA but with American actors) 'A Fistful of Dollars' (1964). That is only part of the story as 'Yojimbo' took from an American story set in the USA in the 1920s which is most faithfully shown in movie form in 'Last Man Standing' (1996) which took the story back to its roots.

Hollywood has not only drawn from Japan but also European countries. 'Le Retour de Martin Guerre' (1982) was remade very successfully as 'Sommersby' (1993). The story is the same, about a man coming back from wars in the Basque lands of France in 1538 and to 1866 Virginia, USA. The story was a true one, but by putting it into respective contexts for the French and American audiences gives it a connection that creates a logic and a legal dynamic for the stories. The American audiences find it much harder to stomach a sad ending than European audiences do so remakes often have redemption if not survival for the heros of tragedies which is missing from the European originals. This is notable in 'The Vanishing' (1993) which is a remake of the most successful Dutch film ever, Spoorloos' (1988). In my mind 'Spoorloos' is the most successful horror movie ever. It has not blood and gore, and that is what makes it so frightening, because in it evil is not spectacular, it is mundane and that makes it more credible. I am unlikely to be assaulted by a many-headed demon when I walk down my street but there is a chance my neighbour will hit me over the head with a spade an bury me alive in his garden. That is why 'Spoorloos' which its incredibly bleak ending that the hero is futile to prevent, is so grim and will remain with you. In 'The Vanishing' it is all fine because a woman comes and digs him up at the end and he survives to wreak revenge. That shows the difference, I would argue, in terms of maturity (but may be also in national self-perception and self-confidence) between American and European audiences.

As noted above, it seems increasingly common for non-American directors to remake their own films in the USA. I think that is a healthy development as it brings more of the original character of the film to the remake. Increasingly too original actors appear. There may be an earlier case which I am not familiar with but the first time I noticed this was with 'My Father the Hero' (1994) which like the original, 'Mon Pere Ce Heros' (1991) featured the French actor, Gerard Depardieu. The remake 'Just Visiting' (2001) used not only the same writers and directors as in the original, 'Les Visiteurs' (1992) but also the two stars, Jean Reno and Christian Clavier (Clavier was also one of the writers). The original was another big hit in France and a minor one in the USA. Comparing the two shows up more of the differences between the French and American audiences. The story is about a medieval knight, Godefroy de Malfete and his servant, Jacquouille who are transported to modern day France/USA and the humour that arises as they try to deal with modern technology and behaviour. The original is set in a small village in France where Godefroy's descendant still lives though she has sold the castle top a descendant of Jacquouille's. The story is around the two medieval men trying to get home and rectify the accidental killing of Godefroy's prospective father-in-law to maintain the Malfete line. There is much humour over Jacquouille's descendant being wealthy in post-revolution France and the fact that actually the French Revolution did break feudalism for the benefit of social mobility in the country. However, there is also a sense of the importance of ties to the locality. Through re-locating hidden treasure Jacquouille becomes a wealthy man and engineers to stay in 1990s France.

'Just Visiting' had a much budget and so the medieval men, this time Thibault de Malfete and Andre le Pate, travel to modern day Chicago. Their attempts to find a wizard in order to return and Andre becoming wealthy are the same. This time they have to get back to save Thibault's bride and thwart the scheming Earl of Warwick. Their difficulty with cars, using toilets, fascination with light switches, etc. are all the same as in the original. However, in the remake the director and the writers take the opportunities to improve the story in parts. Being in the USA there is emphasis on the country as a land of opportunity and social mobility achieved that way rather than in terms of societal opportunities shown in the original. In addition, the message from 'Just Visiting' is in fact old world values have much to offer and stop you being exploited in the modern world, whereas in 'Les Visiteurs' old world values are relegated to the middle ages and in the contemporary world, it is the contemporary values which work. Julia Malfete, Thibault's descendant in 'Just Visiting' has to learn the values of the medieval person (actually the robust female role real medieval women had rather than the princessified one they tend to be popularly portrayed as having) to boot out her exploitative boyfriend and reclaim her inheritance. Maybe the movie was too far removed from the get-rich-quick, everyone-can-be-a-celebrity attitude of modern day USA to appeal to a US audience. What is improved is the motivations in both the story in France and in the USA which round out the story better without losing the humour or excitement.

Another example in which a remake tackled some awkward aspects in the original plot is 'The Assassin' (1993) (also known as 'Point of No Return') which is a remake of 'Nikita' (1990) a very successful French film. The plot in each is nearly identical, a young female junkie is given the chance of surviving if she becomes a government assassin. The scenes are often identical and while 'The Assassin' tries to be stylish and does it very well, it is difficult to match the savoir faire of the French original. However, the one improvement comes near the end. In the original a 'cleaner' (played by Jean Reno in the original and Harvey Keitel in the remake) tries to stop Nikita completing her mission and yet he is also there to clean up her mess. Thus, his role seems very confusing and it weakens the conclusion of the movie. In the remake, the cleaner is there to finish off the bungled mission and then dispose of Maggie, his motives are clearer and so the tension is more effective.

Now, you have read a long way without me really mentioning any movies for which I feel the remake is better than the original. I think the first one is obvious and that is 'Ocean's Eleven' (1960; 2001). Both effectively are star vehicles, with Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr. and Angie Dickinson in the original and George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Andy Garcia and Julie Roberts in the remake. However, the quality of writing is miles better. It is more effective because the focus is on one casino rather than five. That approach would have made the original movie far stronger as separating the cast means losing a lot of the dialogue between then which provides both tension and humour and brings out the diversity of characters which is something you want to highlight in an ensemble movie like either version. Both try to make a good deal of the Las Vegas background but the original loses the tension with the casino owner which is a good element of the remake. The story is much more twisting too (something which was overdone in 'Ocean's Twelve' (2004) to detriment of the movie). I am so glad that they remade this movie. The original is an interesting historical artifact but it is not a fraction as entertaining as the remake (and that is a man, who as you can see from above is not averse to enjoying 1960s movies).

Less clear is the remake of 'The Thomas Crown Affair' (1968; 1999). I accept that the original has a real style in a way that many 1960s movies did that is impossible to replicate today partly as certainly in US films everything is too opulent, forgetting that real style means a degree of sleekness: less is more; more alone is just too much. The key difference between the two movies are the motivations and the actions of Thomas Crown. In the original he simply oversees mundane bank robberies. In the remake he personally carries out thefts of paintings. Now, with the original you keep asking, why if Crown is supposed to be so wealthy does he need to steal more money. In the remake it makes much more sense. He is a thrill seeker, searching for unique experience and in many cases even the most wealthy man cannot buy a unique piece of artwork. In terms of female characters both Faye Dunaway in the original and Rene Russo in the remake are international, well-travelled very strong women which makes them a match for the Crown character played respectively by Steve McQueen (who I think does not lack glamour, but certainly the suaveness for Crown) and Pierce Brosnan respectively. I think Brosnan consequently wins out in the sexiness of the role. Interestingly for a film made in 1999 there is no more overt sexuality than in the original, it is clever enough not to need that.

Another winning element of the remake is the visuals and sound track. Now, I recognise that in some ways it is unfair on the original as at the time, the split screen visuals were innovatory and they do add to the movie, however, the remake's visual referencing of classic artwork, notably at the climax, Magritte's work and the use of classic music from Nina Simone, I feel wins out.

This has been rather a ramble through remakes and their originals. I am sure that remakes across borders and through time will continue. In some ways it is a shame as every remake means another new story is not being made and there are lots of good stories out there. I do hope that directors encouraged to make remakes learn from the good examples and take the opportunity to sew up plot flaws and do not forget that what often made the movie so successful in its original context is its sparseness. Tight, focused movies are the ones which remain with us and to overload them with too much extra is to entirely miss the point and reduces the impact.