Print
E-mail
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
In the original 1980 version of “Fame,” there is a scene in which Coco, an aspiring dancer and actress, follows a man claiming to give her a screen test to his apartment. While there, she is pressured into taking her top off, and Coco learns there is a dark underbelly to the entertainment industry. Nowadays, this dark side is no longer the underbelly; exploitation runs rampant, to the point where a reality show that involves following and filming eight children 24/7 is somehow seen as OK.
One would think this new “Fame” would have something to say about this. The mere concept of fame has changed so much in nearly 30 years, with YouTube and Paris Hilton and the like. The “15 minutes of fame” time frame has now shrunk to 15 seconds. Why go to four years at a performing arts school when you can try your hand at “American Idol” or “So You Think You Can Dance?” Surely the gap between these get-rich-quick schemes and those that train long and hard under professional supervision could be addressed.
But assuming “Fame” has anything to say, unfortunately, is a mistake.
This is clearly a cash grab. One imagines the executive meeting at MGM:
“Man, these kids really do like that High School Musical, eh?”
“Yeah, and those dance movies too. Do we have anything like that?”
“Maybe. And remakes are all the rage too. Let’s see what we can find in the vault, something to dust off and update.”
After a quick search for a known property later, the remake of “Fame” was born.
Formulaic and as by-the-numbers as they come, the movie hits all the stereotypical beats one can imagine. Unfortunately, these story beats have been hit with more accuracy by the original “Fame,” or more recently, “Center Stage,” and explored with more wit by the recent TV show “Glee.” None of the young characters are interesting, and their struggles and eventual triumphs feel less like organic evolution of character and more like arbitrary plot developments. The characters are all defined by their roles as students (dancer, singer, gay guy, nerd), and their actions are dictated purely by what is needed for the film to move forward.
The dialogue is trite and uninspired. The few song and dance numbers are poorly staged, slickly cut into overkill so that we can’t see and marvel at how the dancers move, and the songs are over processed and affected so much we can’t appreciate the original source voices. The rough and tumble, near docudrama style of the original is gone, replaced by MTV style and panache.
It’s a frustrating missed opportunity. The cultural landscape has changed enough so that the original is ripe for a remake. One that could pose the question: In a world with Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and reality TV where everyone is famous, what value does fame really have anymore? Is it better to chase fame or to chase one’s own personal and artistic integrity? Unfortunately, personal and artistic integrity is not something “Fame” intends to bring to the table. Instead, it comes with bells, whistles and hollow promises. And it merely asks for your $8 in return.
Grade: D-
Related Posts:- Film Review: 2012 (November 16, 2009)
- Film Review: Adventureland (April 6, 2009)
- Film Review: Paranormal Activity (October 29, 2009)
- Film Review: Milk (February 19, 2009)
- Film Review: Doubt (February 2, 2009)
