Remakes are big nowadays. Some believe this is due to Hollywood and filmmakers in general "running out of ideas." As frustrating as it is to face writer's block and think to yourself "EVERYTHING'S ALREADY BEEN THOUGHT OF," this is simply an excuse. There are tons of original ideas out there ready to be made, it's just that investors have little to no faith in original stories. So sometimes the best way to get an original script produced is play around with characters and settings to fit within a familiar brand. So we get remakes.
However, that's not what I really want to talk about. Yeah, films ultimately get made for a variety of different reasons, but just because something is a remake doesn't mean it is doomed to remain in the shadow of the original. Dredd is a perfect example. A remake (or reboot, however you wish to look at it) of the 1995 Judge Dredd starring Sylvester Stallone.
Both films follow Judge Joseph Dredd. But Dredd isn't stuck in a courtroom preceding over trials. No, Dredd operates in a future where crime is so rampant the government has essentially declared a police state in which the law is enforced not by police officers, but by Judges. Judges combine the power judge, jury, and executioner to a single individual. There is no trial before peers, no probable cause, in the eyes of a Judge you are guilty or innocent. It's as simple as that.
Now, you may notice that this concept is basically fascism taken to the extreme. You're correct in that observation, and the writers did that on purpose. See, Judge Dredd originated as a comic book character. Within the comics, the stories are meant to be dark satires of the justice system. Sure, Dredd is the good guy, but the audience is also meant to laugh at how ridiculous he is. The stories don't embrace fascism, they critique it (1). In that spirit, Dredd essentially embodies the very concept of fascism. He is less a character and more an idea. To that end, within the comics, Dredd rarely removes his helmet. And if he does so his face is obscured, allowing Dredd to remain "anonymous." He could be anybody underneath that helmet.
Of the many (many many MANY[2]) problems of the original Judge Dredd, this was one of the biggest. Dredd removes his helmet to reveal that beneath that visor is none other than Sylvester Stallone. Why did this happen in the original? It's very simple: Sylvester Stallone is a STAR. You can't hire a movie star and not show his face. Even if you wanted to, movie stars are very tempremental about their image. Even if no one said a thing all the way up to the first day of shooting, Stallone himself would have, and likely did, demand the helmet come off. Now, you could blame such a demand on vanity, or the desire to easily convey a full range of emotions through full use of your face. Seeing as it was Stallone, I suspect it was the former.
Dredd, on the other hand, takes a HUGE risk in rectifying this mistake. Sure, it's one thing to want to please fans and stick to tradition (and symbolic imagery), but it's another thing entirely to do it. Think about it, if Dredd never removes his helmet, that means the actor playing him has to convey every emotion possible through body language and frowning. It's difficult to act even when you have full access to your abilities, but to do it with such restrictions... mind-boggling. Yet Karl Urban, the new Dredd, leaps into the role with no fear. To the naked eye, Karl Urban's Dredd may appear almost emotionless, or at most displaying only one emotion (grim determination). But look closely and there is so much more going on underneath. Using what little tools of expression he has left, Urban displays a full range of emotions as the constantly grimacing Dredd. Yes, he even seems happy at one point.
This calls to mind the fact that there are two types of performers in this world: there are the vain who want to see their names in lights and faces on bilboards (3), and there are the dedicated who always put the work before their own needs. Urban is definitely of the latter catagory. Take a moment, can you remember another film that never shows it's leading actor's face on screen (4)? Not even superhero movies allow the lead actor to be onscreen with their mask on for too long. Now I'm not calling for an Oscar nomination or anything, but seriously, slow clap for Karl Urban!
But it wasn't just the vanity of Judge Dredd's star that ruined the film... it was also his ego. Stallone reportedly demanded numerous changes be made to the script and final film, likely to make it more mainstream and fit better within his usual repertoire. He didn't want to make a Judge Dredd film, Stallone saw a property that could be twisted and made to fit his action niche. Stallone wanted the film made for himself, not to please fans.
Dredd goes the opposite way almost wholeheartedly. It's clearly a more collaborative effort than the original was. It's not a vehicle, it's not a cash grab. Dredd was made because someone wanted to make a good Judge Dredd film, and they managed to surround themselves with great people willing to help.
Of special note is how the two films treat their female protagonists. Judge Hershey (Diane Lane) alongside Stallone is little more than an accessory, someone needed to help drive the plot forward. Judge Anderson (Olivia Thirlby) on the other hand, is the emotional core to the entire film. See, the makers of Dredd understood that the character of Dredd is less a character and more a constant in an everchanging world. To counterpoint this, all the important contextual moments and emotional beats are shifted to Judge Anderson, whose abilities as a psychic force her to be more emotionally connected to other characters (whereas everyone else has become noticeably desensitized to the chaos). But also, Anderson is no sidekick, nor does she ever become a damsel in distress. She's a strong woman who can take care of herself, and proves it on multiple occasions in some surprising (and occasionally gruesome) ways. Even if Dredd had gotten everything else wrong, the characterization of Judge Anderson would still be noteworthy (5).
The biggest difference between the two films would obviously be tone. While Judge Dredd was never very serious, Dredd pulls for a more darkly satirical edge. Judge Dredd is light-hearted and campy, Dredd is grizzled and offbeat. Judge Dredd is a distraction, Dredd is a film (6)
Footnotes
1. Starship Troopers is film that was originally seen as glorifying militarism and even fascism, but was really just a great big satire of war and propoganda.
2. Rob Schneider being annoying as hell. To be perfectly honest, I think that's the only reason the character is annoying: because he's portrayed by Rob Schneider.
3. This has nothing to do with the ability of such actors. There are many great actors out there who love to see their faces on screen and hear their voices through those speakers. Someone like Jack Nicholson comes to mind.
4. Yes, there have been numerous actors who have played supporting roles without showing their faces. Andy Serkis is a particular name who comes to mind. Serkis portrayed Gollum, King Kong, and Caesar (Rise of the Planet of the Apes) through motion capture technology, never actually appearing onscreen himself. However, I'm asking about lead characters, the characters that the story follows from beginning to end, the protaganists.
5. I personally love seeing strong women in action films. My problem is that filmmakers too often desexualize heroines and essentially create ambisexual characters who could be portrayed as either a man or a woman. Dredd is commendable for making both Judge Anderson's strengths as well as her weaknesses uniquely feminine. Her pyschic abilities make her greatly empathetic, but also leave her open to mental abuse (imagine being able to literally see men thinking about raping you).
6. I didn't talk about this because it didn't really fit in with the whole theme of this topic, but the cinematography in Dredd is gorgeous. Seriously, the slo-mo sequences are some the most beautiful images I've scene in film for a while. The fact that they often occur during brutally violent action scenes makes it all the more bewildering. I never thought watching a villain fall to their death from 200 stories up and come crashing to the ground could be so beautiful. I know that sounds weird, but you'll just have to see it to really understand.
