From Madrid to Times Square: an analysis of the Hollywood remake

It is an opening scene that has left an impression on many viewers: during the intro of Cameron Crowe's Vanilla Sky (2001), Tom Cruise wakes up in his New York apartment, goes through his morning rituals, enters his car and drives to Times Square, only to find it completely deserted. The usually so crowded square is shown in a way in which we will hardly ever experience it in reality. One could say that for people who have seen the movie, Times Square becomes a lieu d'imagination, a place that allows the visitor to cross the boundary between the “real” world and the imaginary world the movie takes place in (Reijnders 2010: 40). Though there may not be any guided tours that specifically focus on Vanilla Sky, it's not unusual for the movie (and especially the scene described) to be mentioned in texts meant to draw tourists to Times Square. Especially visiting the square at the crack of dawn, before the daily stream of people starts moving through, will allow the visitor to experience the same sense of bewilderment as Cruise's character. This can be seen as an example of ostension, the reenacting of a fictional event in a real life setting (Reijnders: 44).

What viewers may not know, however, is that a strikingly similar scene can be found in the movie Abre los Ojos (1997), directed by Alejandro Amenábar. Here, Times Square, is replaced with an equally deserted Gran Vía in Madrid. Similar to those who visit Times Square after having seen Vanilla Sky, the location might help them cross over to the imaginary world the movie takes place in. Videos of visitors reenacting the scene can even be found online.

Vanilla Sky is, in fact, a remake of Abre los Ojos, and follows its plot relatively faithfully. It is produced by Paramount Pictures, one of the “big six” Hollywood film studios. Hollywood is not unfamiliar with remakes: for decades, movies from small producers or foreign countries have been adapted by large Hollywood companies and turned into blockbusters.

Most of us will likely have seen one or multiple remakes in our lives. What is less likely is whether we have seen the original as well, or if we are even aware there is an original. Is this practice harmless, or is Hollywood “stealing the spotlight” of the original movies it is remaking?

As a means of measuring media performance, Croteau and Hoynes present us with the market model and the public sphere model. While the former judges a medium's success through the profit it makes, the latter uses so-called “public interest” to measure the efficiency of a medium (Croteau & Hoynes: 16). The market model relies heavily on supply and demand, and this could be an explanation for Hollywood's decision to make remakes. When a movie from outside Hollywood gains noticeable popularity, it is not strange that major companies see this as a form of demand and respond by creating a version of their own to appeal to their Western public. Influences from outside Hollywood may indicate what sort of new products consumers are looking for, and thus encourage innovation within Hollywood.

When looking at the public sphere model, remakes might be somewhat less justifiable. After all, according to this model, the media have a goal beyond that of making profit. They are our primary storytellers, and we have come to rely on them as a source of information (Croteau & Hoynes 2006: 22). They can show us the state of the rest of the world and help promote diversity and awareness of other cultures. This is where the making of remakes might turn problematic. When being market-driven and specifically aimed at a certain group of consumers, media might reinforce prejudices and drive people apart from each other. It keeps the audience from interacting with groups other than its own.

Vanilla Sky deals with these problems as well. The original, Abre los Ojos, takes place in Madrid, and features a cast of Spanish characters. In Vanilla Sky, this setting has changed to New York, with the biggest part of the cast consisting of white Americans. Whereas distributing the original would have helped promoting diversity, the market approach Hollywood has taken seems to promote homogeneity. Watching Abre los Ojos could have presented us with a new perspective, and played a role in creating a healthy public sphere. The fact that the plot of the remake is fairly faithful to that of the original makes the choice to replace the Hispanic cast with a nearly all-white one even more dubious.

It could even cause trouble for the interpretation of some characters. Sofia, the main character's love interest, is portrayed by Penelope Cruz in both movies. The fact that she's the only Hispanic main character could easily skew our perception of her. In Abre los Ojos, her nationality is the same as that of all other characters. In Vanilla Sky, being the only foreign main character, she's much more easily interpreted as an exotic character that the main character is drawn towards because of her otherness.

Apart from homogeneity, there's another issue this remake brings along. It's interesting to note that while Paramount Pictures still seems to be flourishing, the producers of Abre los Ojos (Sociedad General de Televisión and Las Producciones del Escorpión) seem to have disappeared off the map since the early 2000s. “Moving” the production from Madrid to Hollywood may have harmed Madrid's potential media capital. The talent, resources and reputation (Curtin 2011: 544) that could have gone to Madrid may have gotten diverged to Hollywood. Abre los Ojos was shown in only ten US cinemas, whereas Vanilla Sky was shown in 2.742. Wide distribution of the original instead of the remake might have given creative workers incentive to travel to Madrid, whereas now, the siren call of Hollywood gained in strength by creating new job opportunities through this remake.

However, even though we can make theoretically backed claims of Hollywood “stealing Madrid's spotlight”, we should not forget that the remake did, in fact, give many viewers a reason to get in touch with the original. Whenever Abre los Ojos is mentioned, Vanilla Sky is usually mentioned as well. Upon getting in touch with the remake, people might feel compelled to get in touch with the Spanish film scene as well, meaning Madrid will indirectly gain media capital from it after all. Countless comparisons between the two movies can be found online, proving that viewers are interested in the similarities and differences between them. Even though the remake itself might be homogeneous, the fact that people are willing to delve into it and paraphrase how the cultural portrayal differs from the original might suggest that it might actually promote diversity. In this situation, things are not as black-and-white as they may seem at first sight. It is definitely a subject that calls for further research.

Thesis: while Hollywood remakes may hamper diversity in some aspects, they can also indirectly help promote it.

BBB / LB / YB / FM / MM

Sources:

• Abre los Ojos. Amenábar, Alejandro. (1997) Spain: Sociedad General de Televisión/Las Producciones del Escorpión.
• Croteau, D. & Hoynes, W. (2006), ‘Media, markets and the public sphere’, in: The Business of Media: Corporate Media and the Public Interest. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press, pp. 15-40.
• Curtin, M. (2011)’Global Media Capital and Local Media Policy’, in: J. Wasko, G. Murdock and H. Sousa (eds), The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 541-557.
• Reijnders, S. (2010), ’Places of the imagination: an ethnography of the TV detective tour’, in: Cultural Geographies 17 (1), pp. 37-52.
• Vanilla Sky. Crowe, Cameron. (2001) USA: Paramount Pictures.