British singer Adele is set to star in a remake of Jonathan Demme’s classic psychological thriller The Silence of the Lambs. No, of course she’s not: if she were, you would not have been able to avoid the adverts in magazines and on the sides of buses for the last three months. But if she had been cast in such a role, would you have been surprised? You could see it happening, couldn’t you? Any film studio on the planet would love to make this scenario a reality but why should they jump at the chance to have Adele as the headline star in such a reboot? Is it because she has a proven track record as an actor? Is it because such a talented singer is likely to be able to mine their emotions to turn out a brilliant acting performance? Or might it just be because, with 60 million worldwide album sales to her name and a voracious fanbase, anything she is associated with is a sure-fire hit?
The fact of the matter is that, regardless of how much of a dud your script might be, or how appalling an actor Adele ends up being, the chances are your movie will attract a huge audience and earn loads of pounds before the penny drops. It’s a scenario we see all too often: David Baddiel- comedian turned children’s author, James Corden- British comedy actor turned US chat show host, Madonna- pop mega star turned Golden Raspberry award-winning worst actress, or even Rylan Clark- talent show wannabe turned surprisingly credible presenter.
My point is not whether these conversions are a critical success or failure (chances are they’ll at least make money), nor is it a criticism of these people themselves (who wouldn’t seize the opportunity if offered?). It’s that for every lazy decision to overextend and exploit the already famous, to bank on the bankable, there is the likelihood that a truly original, unique and as yet unheard voice gets stifled.
There’s a laziness too in the assumption by Hollywood producers that the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio’s yet to be born son will grow to become a world-renowned actor. But it’s the same lazy assumption that fuelled the careers of Dakota Johnson, Jayden and Willow Smith, Lily-Rose Depp and many others who through no fault of their own, got their foot in the door. Would Lottie Moss ever have graced a catwalk if she had a different surname? Or Miley Cyrus have got a record deal? Of course, it’s not just in the entertainment business that nepotism flourishes but it’s somehow a bigger injustice, where there is such huge fame and money at stake, that someone should get their lucky break on the strength of their surname rather than their sheer talent and drive. Then again, does it not stand to reason that children who are brought up surrounded by famous parents, steeped in the world of show business, would not be attracted by the allure of the same career? And what’s to say that when a famous parent passes their surname to their son or daughter, that they don’t also pass down some of the genes that made them the stars in the first place? Who’s to say that Kaia Gerber wouldn’t have made it as a supermodel even if she hadn’t been the daughter of Cindy Crawford? And then there’s the fact that some famous offspring take a very different path than their parent: it seems difficult to believe that Stella McCartney could credit her ability to design a handbag from the fact that her dad was one of the Beatles.
But my point here is that I’m not blaming the children or the parents, or denying that the former might be brilliants talents in their own right. My issue is with those in the entertainment industry who always seem too willing to default to the easy option – the lazy option – of trying to get ever more mileage from a limited pool rather than go to the effort of spreading the net that bit further and seeing what treasures lie in uncharted waters.
It’s the same laziness that seems to prevail when it comes to the actual product: be it an album, a musical or a film. Whether it’s a reboot, a remake, a sequel or a translation of a foreign film, how often do we see valuable funding and studio production time given over to seemingly endless rehashes of previously successful books, films and music, leaving little room for nurturing newer talent with fresher ideas. A successful movie franchise like James Bond or Star Wars is one thing but at least there is a vague attempt to switch up the storylines each time. But does the world really need another adaptation of Little Women? Having had two BBC versions in the 1950s and in the 1970s and two animated series in the 1980s, as well as film versions in 1917, 1918, 1933, 1949, and 1978, there was arguably a case for there to be a slightly more contemporary version. Having had that as relatively recently as 1994, however, why was there felt the need to churn out yet another mini series in 2017 followed by a seventh film adaptation in 2019. Let’s face it, the story was set in the early 1860s and it hasn’t really changed!
With the recent release of the latest instalment of the current Spiderman franchise, featuring Tom Holland’s incarnation of the friendly neighbourhood superhero, we start to wonder how long it will be before he is ditched in favour of another series reboot featuring an even fresher face, like Andrew Garfield and Tony Maguire were before him. Since 2002, we’ve had 3 remakes of a series of 3 movies telling essentially the same clearly money-spinning story to 3 successive audiences. That’s not to say that there’s not an appetite for this type of stuff – I speak as someone who’s seen all 9 and counting! – but it’s so obviously driven by money over original creativity and the laziness of Hollywood producers turning out batch after batch of a winning formula rather than experimenting with some new ingredients.
If that’s not lazy enough, did the producers of the 2021 reboot of the 6 season 2007-2012 phenomenon that was Gossip Girl even get out of bed to decide that a remake was a good idea? With the original cast still young enough to play themselves and the still teenage audience getting a strong sense of deja-vu, how long will it be before we see a series starting to be remade before the original version has even finished its run?
If there can be any legitimate justification for this for this lazy approach to producing works of entertainment it’s that audiences feel comfortable with names and faces, characters, scenarios and even plots they’ve grown familiar with. Just about everyone on the planet must’ve tuned in, whether by accident or design, to an episode of Friends that they’ve already seen but that hasn’t stopped them continuing to watch to the end. Perhaps the laziness of the producers, agents and promoters is fuelled by the fact that they’ve recognised that audiences are lazy too!
Ultimately though, the pursuit of art and entertainment relies on new faces, original ideas and unique talents. Classical music would never have moved on without Mozart. Art would never have moved on without Picasso. Bob Dylan moved the dial, not his son, Jakob. It was the original Star Wars in 1977 that really pushed the boundaries, rather than the concluding chapter in 2019. It’s the original raw talent that needs to be sought out and given a break. That’s where the creative and entertainment industries ought to be channelling their not inconsiderable energy and resources. Although there’s a cosy satisfaction to be had in reading a novel written by a familiar name, watching a tv series with a well-known actor or seeing a film adaptation of a much-loved classic, it’s time to wake up and realise that the truly thrilling and rewarding is only to be found in encountering a piece of art, literature, film or music that is utterly groundbreaking. Whether it’s the talent spotters that discover, the agents and producers that nurture or the audiences that consume, it would be refreshing to see a bit more effort. Let’s stop being lazy and clinging to what we know already. Let’s embrace the new.
Bibliography:
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/g12198161/celebrities-with-famous-parents/