Who was the first director to remake their own movie?
Opinions on the remake have changed over recent years, though they still draw criticism on occasion.
Most of the time, the remake serves to offer a fresh take on an old classic, whether to update it for newer audiences, cash in on the nostalgia element, or a hefty mix of both, and when done right, it can also enhance the context of the source text, bringing in more nuances when it comes to other parts of the story that perhaps weren’t visited with as much care and consideration before.
However, for a period, remakes earned a bad reputation because of the influx of poorly executed stories, or ones that have been, quite frankly, done in poor taste or for the wrong reasons. For instance, when it was announced that there was going to be a reimagining of Alex Proyas’ 1994 classic The Crow, people were sceptical for reasons beyond it being one of the best cult movies of all time.
As expected, the film drew mixed reviews upon release, but it also got off on the wrong foot when people accused it of being disrespectful to Brandon Lee’s legacy, who, as we know, sadly passed away after sustaining a fatal gunshot on the set of the original movie. As you could expect, therefore, people had a thing or two to say when they caught wind of someone wanting to reboot a legacy that didn’t need touching in the first place.
And while most directors are aware of the risks when attempting to remake familiar favourites, poised for whatever criticism that may come their way from diehard loyalists, a less discussed grey area is when directors decide to remake their own work. They might be better protected from potential scrutiny, but that doesn’t make the challenges any less valid.
So, who was the first director to remake their own movie?
Often, directors remake original material because they’re after another chance to make it better, and look into different themes and aspects of character development to offer an improved version of the material. Going back some years, this has loose connotations when looking at how the remake is viewed nowadays, but if we go by that definition, then the first director to do so was in 1919 and 1939, when the French filmmaker Abel Gance made two versions of the same concept.
The films – J’accuse and J’accuse! – ruminate on wartime violence, with subtle differences that incorporate the shifting attitudes of both points in history. The first movie, despite being obviously different from the second in that it’s a silent movie, has more urgency in its war backdrop and the central romance, while the second utilises the theme with a sense of foreboding. The fundamental lessons of both seek to address the ways humans recreate history.
In these circumstances, there’s a unique position in that the remake serves to have its message strengthened over time. While hugely important at the time, Gance proved that remakes don’t always have to be done with profitability in mind, nor do they even have to be executed for the sole purpose of breathing new life into old concepts.
In this scenario, it hooks into the deeper principles of art and the prophetic nature of storytelling in film, and the ways that human behaviour can change when we find the right kinds of stories to connect with. In essence, those are examples of remakes done for the right reasons, as opposed to those who jump in for a quick cash grab when they know audiences will be right there in their seats.
