The Remake of Straw Dogs 2011: Whats Different and Whats the Same?

The Remake of Straw Dogs 2011: Whats Different and Whats the Same?

Introduction to the Remake of Straw Dogs (2011)

In 2011, a remake of the controversial 1971 classic film, Straw Dogs, was released. The new movie stars James Marsden as David Sumner and Kate Bosworth as his wife Amy; and Alexander Skarsgård as the local who threatens David’s peace. Directed by Rod Lurie, who is known for his works in both TV shows like Commander in Chief and films like Deterrence, this remake failed to reprise the original classic but still manages to become a noteworthy work of its own.

Straw Dogs follows the story of newlyweds David and Amy Summers, who move from Los Angeles to rural Mississippi. There they are met with opposition by the locals led by Charlie (Alexander Skarsgård). Despite accepting their presence at first, tension builds up between them as Charlie makes advances towards Amy. He drives her into an uncomfortable situation that leads to violence when David gradually defends her honor despite being verbally bullied or physically threatened on multiple occasions. Through this journey of hardship and struggle, they finally establish themselves and gain ultimate respect among their opponents through extreme brutality.

The remake is much harsher than its predecessor and depicts themes of rage more realistically – turning it into a bloody battle instead of a psychological journey. It also incorporates intense moments with some amazing cinematography and well-crafted editing but one thing the remake lacks compared to the original Straw Dogs is dialogue delivery; there was less build-up about what each character thought before resorting to action, making it harder for us to identify why certain characters acted out of desperation compared to others who adopted restraint during conflicts.

Though lacking allusions from other works that made viewers think deeper about questions based on morality or ethics that were seen in Stanley Kramer’s work; genres like horror, science fiction & thrillers were embraced throughout the movie while keeping up with its interesting storyline which enticed audiences with unpredictable twists alongside emotionally strong sequences that convey powerful messages aiding its success among casual viewers. The remake will not be remembered as something unforgettable or iconic yet this movie still stands out when compared to other similar genre flicks due its intensity and psychological take on imploring courage where necessary instead of running away scared in order to win respect through violence resolution when logic fails poor communication escalates hostile situations occasionally becoming chaos.

Comparing the Original Straw Dogs to the 2011 Version

The Original Straw Dogs, released in 1971 and directed by renowned director Sam Peckinpah, is a psychological thriller centering around the life of an academic couple who move to rural England only to find themselves drawn into a local conflict. This film has been long lauded for its iconic violence and bleak ending and remains today one of the pioneering classic pieces of psychological horror cinema.

The 2011 remake directed by Rod Lurie takes a much different approach with pacing, characterizations and plot changes that make it feel something entirely distinct from the original while still having some interesting nods to the source material. It follows largely the same basic arc as its predecessor but introduces far more moral complexity as time passes, while keeping much closer attention to emphasizing developing characters than spend too much time lingering on specific moments.

Starring James Marsden as David Sumner, he plays upon his change between mild mannered yet outspoken academic trying to fit in to a survivalist fighting off attackers with aggression and determination, giving further justification for his actions rather than relying too heavily on shock value. This version breaks down each attackers motivation for targeting David making it more believable that he must defend himself. By contrast, Dustin Hoffman’s Charlie Venner from the 1971 movie serves largely a vessel for displaying brutality towards women & homosexuals through misunderstood morality which does not offer any sort of justification beyond being part of an amoral culture as found in other rural parts of England at the time.

Both films manage to create tension throughout but where they differ greatly is in how each resolves its climax; The 1971 film ends with David’s Cottage besieged by villagers and leading him performing retaliatory rampage which symbolizes mankind’s depravity by insisting no man can hope escape his born nature—while converselyRod Lurie’s interpretation answers this theme more with personal responsibility; knowing that when justice will never be served it requires courage & integrity take matters into one’s own hands even if doing so means isolating yourself from society as result.

In either case comparing these two Straw Dogs leaves us with incredible opportunity contrast classic cinema style alongside modern sensibilities while also sparking deeper conversations about ideas like moral ambiguity in times when traditional structure have fallen apart,. Ultimately both works remain compelling in their own rights but those looking contrast subtle ways narratives can diverge may find comparing them non-trivial reward indeed!

Exploring Themes Present in Both Versions

The experience of art has always been a fascinating concept. It is said that the best art often reflects the society in which it exists and can illustrate aspects of human behavior, feeling, and emotion. In effect, themes present in a work of art also provide insight into the context in which it was created. This is true for both traditional works of literature or film and those based on such creations. Case-in-point: The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The storybook version written by L. Frank Baum in 1900 and its cinematic counterpart from 1939 were explored for two different perspectives on common themes revealed throughout the adventure.

First published in 1900, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz had created an idealized world with elements from several moral tales popular to the era’s readership. Within this setting existed a familiar hero’s journey featuring dynamic characters each with unique backstories and motivations for venturing together on their own quest to find what each character wished upon seeking out the wizard himself – depending on everyone’s background objectives, the message resonated differently amongst readers who could easily relate to their individual arcs and shared experiences as they traveled along their respective paths (or Yellow Brick Road).

The 1939 adaptation produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer showcased similar protagonists all unified by shared experiences while traveling through this unknown world, yet dimensions exposed within this feature film presented additional messages not conveyed in Baum’s original version over three decades before – most notably with an insertion at once reflective upon societal norms during these separate timeframes yet primitive when viewed under modern standards seen today. With prejudiced views rooted deep within America’s then segregated environment still unchanged or improved at that point since the story had first released, Dorothy Gale (Judy Garland) faces racism early on after befriending sentient characters contradicted against social labelings commonly observed among communities elsewhere at that time – exemplifying what it meant to grow confident in one’s identity while simultaneously expressing respect towards others associated outside recognized classifications living alongside them (i.e., Scarecrow/Cowardly Lion/Tin Woodman/etc.). And though such views remained still insensitive compared to any expectations deserving appreciation today, these thoughts offered layers beyond pages found untouched prior thus delivering moviegoers a newfound understanding around how life continues changing even as eras pass yet remain connected even afterwards through mutual acceptance evident whichever way we look back now days later – including fundamental ideas portrayed through folklore then remaining relevant ever since both here & long ago – reflected in renewed splendor whenever selected tales softly echo excepted truths amidst memories forevermore written thereon appearing timelessly among favorites everywhere beside you au naturelle…

Analyzing How Characters Differ Between Versions

Kathryn R. Castle, in her paper “Analyzing How Characters Differ Between Versions”, dives into a fascinating topic: comparing characters over different versions of the same story to see how their characteristics, motivations and relationships evolve from one version to another.

What purpose does this comparison serve? Is it simply looking for variations between the two drafts, or uncovering some deeper insight about literature as a whole? As it turns out, there can be a variety of reasons why an author might choose to rewrite the details of their characters’ personality or relationships over time.

Castle looks at five specific examples – including works by authors like Elizabeth Gaskell and Nathaniel Hawthorne – and explains how writers often draw upon their own life experiences when writing character arcs. Writers may also use certain characters to represent certain ideals or social messages they want readers to imbibe; thus, changes over different versions may well suggest that authors wish to modify these ideas as they gain maturity and perspective on life.

In every example discussed in Castle’s paper, we see evidence analysis uncovering previously unknown intentions behind changes made between different versions; without such examination, these meaningful nuances would likely never have been noticed. Thus we can see that by carefully studying character revisions across multiple adaptations of stories, literature scholars have the potential not only to glean new information about individual works but also about writers themselves. It is an important reminder that close reading still remains essential in our pursuit of literary knowledge.

Examining How Cinematography Changed Over Time

Cinematography has come a long way in the last hundred years. From grainy, silent black and white flickers of motion to vibrant stories filled with incredible visuals, the art of cinematography has evolved dramatically. Taking a closer look at this transformation is truly fascinating, especially considering the wide range of storytelling styles that make each era unique.

The earliest cinematic works were shot using hand-cranked cameras and recorded on nitrate film stock that got progressively more detailed as time passed. Early filmmakers had simple tools to work with since cameras weren’t easily moved and lighting was incredibly limited (of course, most works were filmed outdoors). This led to some interesting camera angles that lent themselves well to creating a sense of mystery and drama; shots from low angles or high above characters become quite popular during this period. Editing was also quite primitive; straight cuts between shots were common, making it even harder for audiences to understand what they were seeing without context or backstory.

Soon after sound looked came around in 1927, cinematographers began experimenting with new techniques that allowed them to focus deeply on their scenes and characters. Cinematographers began using depth of field more often than before so viewers could further appreciate performances by actors’ facial expressions or emotions through closeup shots. Dolly grip tracking shots also became increasingly popular; when used alongside smooth pans from side-to-side, directors could allow viewers to experience scenes far more realistic than ever before seen in cinema!

In 1940s Hollywood cinema increased its use of color filmstock (primarily Technicolor) which made it easier for directors & cinematographers to utilize vibrant hues & shades for emotion-rich composition; this included careful attention paid towards differentiating key backgrounds within any given scene – allowing viewers to have an extremely clear understanding as to where these whimsical tales take place! As technology advanced various lenses became available including anamorphic lenses which allowed makers great freedom in how they framed their subjects onscreen at greater levels thanks wider aspect ratios previously unavailable due widespread use 35/16mm film format prior point-in-time (which significantly narrower compared current norms).

Modern filmmakers have access to digital technologies that allows them unprecedented range in terms of capturing stunning visuals like never before – next generation cameras can shoot at up 4K resolution give marvelous detail clarity while special effects modifications let creators utilize creative techniques gain perspective impossible even decades ago (i..e drones shooting aerial footage); other recent innovations such ‘bullet time’ slow motion sequences also made possible through advancing computer software performance capabilities . Finally evolution naturally means changing post production processes – editing stacks digitized media rather physically cutting up strips celluloid prior thereby drastically reducing overall cost effort involved removing distractions uneccessary elements get point across finessed fashion!.

Overall examining evolution cinematic medium over ages truly revealing – whereas past primarily focused telling stories most basic manner matters scale much larger today! Through continued advancements filmmakers forever pushing boundaries genre ascendance higher degrees artistry all associated genres craft today remains testament grand future ahead not paying tribute those artists countless hours spent crafting breathtaking experiences remain timeless classic generations alike?

Reviewing Critical Reception and Cultural Impact

When it comes to reviewing critical reception and cultural impact, there is an often overlooked but immensely important aspect of the artistic process. While it’s true that the creative process is a personal endeavor – steeped in idiosyncratic self-expression and cloaked in individualized perspective – it can still be useful to take a step back and analyze how others have received our work. In doing so, we gain valuable hindsight and perspective on our accomplishments as well as discover some of the key forces that shape our art.

Critical reception involves gauging responses from literary or other industry professionals who have the expertise to weigh in on the efficacy of certain pieces of artwork or media. This can provide invaluable insight into ways to refine works of art prior to release. Evaluating reviews from renowned artiste, thought-leaders, cultural figures and scholarly journals gives us a better understanding as how to balance subtle nuances for greater impact.

The cultural impact of a piece also lends itself notably towards analysis. For example, by measuring public sentiment towards a project over time – both during its official launch period as well as beyond – we might find new opportunities or contextualize our work within more nuanced frameworks. Additionally, evaluating popular opinion can help foster necessary evolution toward next-gen creations while pointing out trends that are primed for disruption within certain genres or industries at large.

All said, educating ourselves on critical reception and popular culture can be crucial when shaping lasting artistic statements that resonate with outliers and contribute to larger conversations around social change. By taking note of existing external factors can give us applicable insight about innovative forward progressions in our craftsmanship even after the initial launch period has ended.

Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Leave a Reply

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: