« Curious observation ... | Main | About time! »

April 05, 2005

'A classic updated'? Spare me.

Yesterday Jeff posted about a VW ad running in the UK but not in the US. As Jeff correctly points out, with the internet such a restriction is almost moot. The VW ad features Gene Kelly's classic scene from Singing in the Rain which starts running when suddenly the music starts hiccuping and Gene engages in weird contortions and lame moonwalking.

I ranted about it yesterday at Jeff's and then decided to withhold further comment until after sleeping on it last night hoping to get some perspective.

Nope. I still hate it. Hate it, hate it, HATE IT.

Ok, it is a clever bit of technology, seamless and quite a sight to behold especially if one is familiar with the original bit. But that's my problem, I am familiar with the original bit and I find this "update" as clever and original as slapping DaVinci's Last Supper on a cereal box and adding a sound chip that will have Jesus singing his words to his disciples in hip-hop fashion. Big C and his Galilee Homeboys.

There are just some things that are better in the original than any "update" can offer. Did anyone ever like Ted Turner's "colorizing" of black and white films? Is there any remake of a classic movie that exceeds the original?

My main objection is that Gene Kelly was a particularly singular dancer. His style was all his own, truly American, and not one person has been able to match, let alone exceed, his style. (Same for Fred Astaire) Morphing Kelly into breaking/popping moves that are so ubiquitous from thousands of other hip-hop dancers is to dismiss Kelly and his cultural contribution.

Of course, I may be a lone voice in this regard. I ran across this blog who's commenters almost universally love the VW ad.

Wow. Erudite statements like that inspires so much confidence in the future success of the younger generation.

Posted by Darleen at April 5, 2005 06:06 AM

Comments

This is just wrong on so many levels.

The reason why a classic is a classic is because it's...the best of its kind. It transcends the fads of the moment.

Just because something is technically possible, it doesn't mean you should do it, like Ted Turner and the Plague of the Black-lipped Females.

Posted by: Sal at April 5, 2005 06:40 PM

Eh. I wouldn't be that concerned. The younger generation doesn't have the same affection for the original when it's that long ago. It took me a moment to remember who Gene Kelly was (I think he's already dead, I don't actually know for sure). I kind of like the colorization too, sorry. Black and white just isn't something I can easily get used to.

Every generation worries about the one behind them, but the country seems to continue to bump along. After all, didn't your parents worry about your generation too? I'll probably fret a little over what the babies being born now will be up to in 20 years, but ultimately I think we'll all pull through, don't you?

Posted by: Erik at April 5, 2005 07:20 PM

Erik

This is not so much about the success of the future generation(s) as the worry that they are short changing themselves when they are ignorant of the cultural milestones that came before they were born.

We've now got computers with Adobe Paintshop, FLASH and all number of graphic programs, that doesn't mean art created via chisel to marble or oil paint on canvas is no longer valuable.

Spend a little time with classic film and you'll realize how much art there is to films in black and white. Watch Casablanca and ask yourself whether it would lose something if "colorized". Take a gander at the full movie Singing in the Rain and An American in Paris and try and tell me how a morphed Gene Kelly (where it took three anonymous hip-hop dancers for the technology) transcends the original rather than just cutting him down into a vehicle of pedistrian pop-culture.

Posted by: Darleen at April 6, 2005 06:27 AM

I can see what you mean here. I don't think I would like the "updated" version either.

Posted by: Erik at April 7, 2005 02:42 PM

- If anyone touches Casablanca I'm going to hunt him/her down and force feed them 4 years of cultural appriciation, with a king sized side of the best of Americana. I'm not interested in a balanced view in this case. What next. Rock around the cross with Pontius Pilot and his finger snapping rythym boys. Some thing are, and always will be, sacred cultural icons, never to be even approached.....

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 7, 2005 10:04 PM

Im sixteen and I think the ad is great. I think it is probably one of the best ads I have seen and its important to remember that even though I think the tune is great the ad producers didnt want to create a rerelease but to create a very clever advert.Personally I prefer the remixxed version to the original but thats just my style. I cant believe that so many of you are overlooking the fact that its just an advert.The idea behind it is gret and the way that idea is delivered is supurb, top marks to the producer

Posted by: Max at April 15, 2005 01:56 AM

I think that those that do not like the ad campaigne are taking things a bit too seriously. What it is marketing pure and simple. No one is trying to remake an entire classic movie, just trying to sell a product in 30 seconds or less.

I think that the commercial is genius and the dancer, amazing.

But we all have our own opinions.

Posted by: summer at April 28, 2005 09:25 AM

Its taken a while for this ad to travel its way around the web, so I'm coming in a bit late on the discussion...

But I agree with the latter posts on this thread!

Darleen, whilst you raise some pertinent points in your posts, you've flat out missed the point.

This isnt a remake of the original, its just a clever ad. Even you admit that the ad is "quite a sight to behold especially if one is familiar with the original". No-one is trying to surpass Gene Kelly or devalue his work, no-one is trying to deny that this work ever existed. If someone produced an entire movie remake of singing in the rain in this style I would join you in bringing it down. But this is just an AD!

The simple point of this ad is to engage the viewer, and it does this perfectly by adding an amusing modern twist to an established classic, with a soundtrack that is by today's standards catchy. I think the ad is brilliant, and I will be surprised if it doesnt win an award or two.

"Wow. Erudite statements like that inspires so much confidence in the future success of the younger generation." Know this: the street and net lingo of one individual is not the voice of an entire generation.

My advice to you: for chrissakes lighten up and develop a sense of humour - it will ease the ageing process; and learn that life goes on, the wheel turns, generations develop new trends, new dance styles, new music. This is the spice of life, every generation has a new voice and a new identity. Lock yourself in Pleastantville if you like, we wont miss these sorts of comments.

Posted by: Adrian at July 13, 2005 09:12 PM

I'd sit here and read every post and form an argument, but I don't particularly feel like it. The individual who posted this originally has interpreted the ad on a level it was never intended to be interpreted...You're from the same school as the classical music aficionado who feels jazz music that contains quotations from classical pieces is blasphemy. This is an awesome ad. It does what an ad is supposed to do and does it in a way that is far more interesting than most TV ads. There has been art produced in the last 50 years that can be appreciated even by individuals of such fine taste as yourself. This almost has me hoping to see Rick Blaine plugging some solid deodorant on MTV next week.

Posted by: Evan at November 21, 2005 03:51 PM