英语论文网

“more developed” (Verevis: 2006: 11) taxonomy of remakes. He claims that remakes seek to define themselves through either primary reference to the original film, or to the material both are adapted from, and there are four possible stances of remake that a film can fall under (Leitch: 1990: 142). The readaptation is the simplest of these stances, ignoring earlier cinematic adaptations in order to readapt an original literary property as faithfully as possible (Verevis: 2006: 12). The readaptations goal is “fidelity to the original text” (Leitch: 1990: 142), which it aims to translate as thoroughly as possible into the new film medium.

Unlike the readaptation, the update competes directly with its literacy source, instead of seeking to subordinate itself to the essence of a literacy classic (Verevis: 2006: 12). They transform the original text through such ways as transposing it to a new setting, changing its values, or making the original seem dated, outmoded or irrelevant (Leitch: 1990: 143). Films such as these updates often display their “contradictory attitude towards the material” (Leitch: 1990: 143) through their titles and marketing, sometimes even using a tone which verges on parody. For perfect example of this would be Baz Luhrmann’sRomeo + Juliet (1996), a film which takes an established screenplay and changes its meaning, updating it for a new generation.

The homage is a type of remake whose primary objective is not to disrespect and put down the original film, but celebrate and pay tribute to it (Leitch: 1990: 144). Much like the readaptation which seeks to direct the audience’s attention to its literacy source (Verevis: 2006: 13), the homage situates itself as a secondary text, with its only value depending on its relation to the original text they pay tribute to (Leitch: 1990: 144). Therefore the homage renounces any claims that it is better than its original and attempts to reintroduce films that are in danger of being lost and forgotten (Leitch: 1990: 144).

Leitch’s final category, the true remake is the complete opposite to the homage, claiming that it is better than its original (Verevis: 2006: 13). It focuses on a cinematic original with an accommodating stance and seeks to update the original, making its more relevant to a new modern audience (Leitch: 1990: 145). More than any of the other categories it borrows largely from the unacknowledged film, instead of being a reinvisioning of a literacy text (Leitch: 1990: 145).

As well as these three major taxonomies on remakes from Leitch, Druxman and Greenberg, Robert Eberwein has published an elaborate list, proposing fifteen individual categories, each with many subdivisions (Verevis: 2006: 11). Ranging from the obvious such as a silent film remade as a sound film (Eberwein: 1998: 28) to the much more specific, “A remake that changes the race of the main characters” (Eberwein: 1998: 30). His taxonomy doesn’t address the issue of film adaptations, (Eberwein: 1998: 31) but regardless is a comprehensive and extremely specific list of categories which film can easily be slotted into.

Chapter Two

Different Styles of Horror

It’s fairly clear to see, even to the most casual of au本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。