The Vanishing

Knowing that I would have to be comparing these films, I was a little unsure of which I should watch first. I decided to go with the original film first, because it felt right to see the source material and then see the adaptation. Overall, I think I liked the original better, but both had interesting parts that altered both of them for the better.

One thing that was strikingly different about the two films was their linear nature. The original starts right before the incident, follows that to it's end with our two characters, and then goes back a bit to start over with our "monster". From there, it weaves in and out with Rex and the "monster". The new one, however, seems to determined more to make everything take place on one linear plane. It immediately starts weaving in and out of time with the "monster" and our couple, sometimes focusing more on the "monster" until we build up to the moment of the kidnapping. From there, it pans out again to both, traveling along the timeline until our inevitable end. But then, surprise! The remake changes up the ending. In the original, Rex has to go through exactly what Saskia went through to find out what happened to her, which ends up with him being drugged and ending up buried in a coffin underground. Very chilling. We see the "monster" and his family, and then the film ends. Not so in our remake. The makers must have deemed this ending too dark for a 90's American crowd. So they decided to change it up, going the more conventional horror route. Our main character, now Jeff, does get drugged and buried. But his new girlfriend finds out that he's been in contact with the "monster", and finds out where he lives. She's able to find out where he is at the cabin, and after a few scattered fighting and running scenes, she eventually is able to find Jeff, they kill the "monster", and essentially live what seems to be "happily ever after".

As far as the linear narrative goes, I really like what they did in the original better. Maybe it was the fact that I already knew how the story was going to pan out when I was watching the remake, but I really wanted to see things in the "right" order, kind of so they could be a reveal. I liked that we were peeling away the layers of this unknown character who would later turn out to be a monster, and revealing that yes he's bad, but oh maybe he's not so bad. In the remake, it seemed like it was ready to set him up more as a conventional villain.

I did enjoy the remake's ending though. While it was a bit of tying everything up nicely with a bow, I think it was satisfying for the viewer, for the most part. I wonder though if it may have been more satisfying if the original and remake had switched endings. In the remake, I really did not like Jeff's character as the film went on. He was kind of a scumbag to his girlfriend. Whereas with Rex, he still seemed to be a good guy, even though he was obsessing over Saskia. I almost wish Rex had survived and Jeff hadn't. But I don't think the "monster" of the remake would have been the kind of guy that Jeff Bridges was in the new film, as far as running around chasing the girlfriend through the house, etc. He seemed to much like a calmer version of what Jeff Bridges became. The "monster" from the original was an absolutely stunning and great actor.

The other thing that really set him apart from Jeff Bridges was the relationship with his daughter. In the original, the relationship seems very natural, and kind of touching, even though we kind of understand this guy to be a creep. In the remake though, it feels a little more forced. They don't seem to care about each other quite as much, and some of the things Bridges does come off a little creepy.

Take the scene where he picks her up from school. In the original, this scene is very short. He picks her up from school, tries out the drugging thing on her, makes up an explanation, she asks if he has a mistress, they smile, and it's over. In the remake, he picks her up from a train station, they talk awkwardly about Wuthering Heights and romance, then about a girlfriend, and then he tries the drug thing on her, but with a got your nose explanation instead. I really like how they did it in the original. Maybe it was also because she had been introduced in a previous scene with him so I'd already seen part of their relationship. But they seemed much more like a loving father and daughter, just having a normal conversation. They actually seemed to love each other, which made both of them more human, even though one of them was actually much less human! In the new one though, Jeff Bridges remains creepy throughout it all, and doesn't really feel like he connects with the daughter. What's supposed to make him seem more human, just makes him seem more like a monster. The got your nose jokes flies over his daughter without a laugh from her, and the secret romance stuff just comes across creepy.

Overall, I really enjoyed both films, but I think I would stick with the first one, just because the way it's done narratively is much more riveting and suspenseful!

Annie Hall

I find Woody Allen's comedic style to be incredibly successful, primarily because it is so off the wall and unexpected that it comes off incredibly genuine, and delivers a large punch in the laugh factor. Now, it's obviously in film, so it went through a lot of pre-production and preparation, which means most of his jokes were very well thought out, and thus, not really all that authentic/in the moment as they feel like they are. But yet, Allen still delivers them in such a fresh way as to almost bypass the "pre-production" effect and make them completely 100% genuine. When he breaks the fourth wall, and then the annoying guy behind him also breaks through, that's brilliant. So unexpected, because in a story where somebody breaks the fourth wall, it's usually to get away from the real world, so how can the real world follow him in there? And yet, it's hilarious. Or when we see subtitled words telling what the actors are really thinking underneath what they are actually saying. That's completely unexpected, because it shows the artificiality of the film, and yet it plays off perfectly because it feels so real. Everyone can identify with thinking one thing and saying another, and with awkward flirty conversations that are really just focused on analyzing a person. This genuine-ness that Woody Allen creates really helps his comedy to deliver on all cylinders. When somebody tells you a joke that's funny, it's a lot funnier when you know they came up with it themselves in the moment than if you find out it's somebody else's joke they were just borrowing. There's something about genuine in the moment comedy that just enhances the humor. And I think Allen displays this perfectly, even though it's not really in-the-moment. It just all feels natural. Even getting away from different jokes though, I think the comedy in Annie Hall really is delivered well simply by the brilliant actors. The way lines are delivered, the innocent hilarity in which dialogue is spoken, and even the awkwardness that each actor portrays really sells what it is he is trying to say, and emphasizes just how funny everything is. I found Annie Hall to be a truly hilarious film, and found myself laughing all the way through, because it was just overall brilliantly done, from every aspect. From acting, to writing, and even to camera movement. The cinematography knew how to focus on the exact right thing to deliver funny, and even sometimes the art of less is more. In the scene where they are waiting in line, the camera is one shot the entire time, because it knows it doesn't have to do much to deliver the humor, because it's already being delivered. That kind of restraint is great, and makes the humor hit home that much harder. Woody Allen's Annie Hall fires on all cylinders because Woody Allen's humor style is brilliant.