Better of Remakes: "The Hills Have Eyes"

Hollywood remakes tend to get a bad rep because they're assumed to be lazy attempts at creativity, and an effort to destroy the original. And while I'm not a movie buff, to my knowledge, I can say the early 2000's was a decade of remakes, and real terrible ones too.

Recreations of classic, older films never bothered me but I can enjoy a film for what it is and what's presented. If I felt I wasn't interested however, I just wouldn't watch it. Kinda how I've never watched the Friday the 13th remake or the Halloween remake. Not that I won't watch it; but the interest just isn't there yet, and the expectation of disappointment is partly the reason.

But anyway, when I reflect on horror films with terrible remakes, I remember one horror film remake that I enjoyed; I enjoyed it in every respect. Funny enough, I didn't even know it was a remake until I recall looking up filming locations for the film and two movie titles with different release years came up; the '76 original and the '06 remake. The Hills Have Eyes is pretty self-explanatory. It's an amazing film from beginning to end. Summarizing the film's plot, it's based around a stranded family being terrorized by a deformed clan of a destitute family in the middle of a desert. It’s probably one of the few films where mutant, deformed-like characters aren’t zombies, but are actually a direct historical result of atomic test bombings.

The first film was created and directed by Wes Craven and released in 1977. A remake would be released in 2006, same plot and everything. But it is far more superior to the original, for many reasons. The characters, to the background story, to the conclusive ending. In the original film, we're immediately introduced to the family, who they are, and where they're going. The immediate difference in the characters is how much more likable they are in comparison to the ones in the original.

Doug, the hero of both films, is an even bigger hero in the remake. In the remake version, the film explores a portion that was not part of the original. It's a portion that extended for a good part of the movie. And thanks to advanced technology and makeup, the destitute clan seemed more gory than they appeared, allowing the audience to immediately see that they were deformed physically. And one particular scene with the father of the family gave viewers background as to why and how these people came to be.

This is just one of the examples of a good remake. It may seem as Hollywood just picks a film, and places good-looking people as leads for a sucky movie, but not always. It can't always be a miss. It's not just the horror genre either, thrillers have seen the same fate too, like When a Stranger Calls or The Hitcher. And those films weren't bad, but compared to their originals...yeah.

Two Types of Stereotypers

Confronting stereotypes has been a recurring topic that I've talked about several times.

Well, besides the stereotypes themselves, what's often left out from the subject are the stereotypers, a.k.a the people, who in my opinion are more responsible for the stereotype they ascribe to, as they help aid in its perpetuation.

In my personal experiences I've encountered two types of stereotypers—the ones who are willfully insecure, and the ones who are actually or unintentionally ignorant.

When confronting stereotypes, I've mostly noticed these two reactions. The first example is the stereotyper who decides to box you into a character based off assumptions they've formed and/or accepted—these people are insecure. Another example, is the stereotyper who boxes you into a stereotype and may backtrack what they've said or assumed, or try to make attempts to fix error and is embarrassed—they are simply ignorant, likely due to limited interaction, or frequent and erroneous interactions with certain people. 

Nonetheless, both types of people are tiring to deal with however, and neither is more better than the other—there is no lesser evil. Stereotypes are dehumanizing. It goes without saying that having to combat them and explain your humanity to anyone is stressful, exhausting, and will likely negatively impact your future interactions with other people who exhibit the same attitudes. 

Still, it also exposes how and why these people choose to stereotype in the first place, and opens up another discussion about privilege. Because....privileged people usually can, ascribe to, and participate and perpetuate stereotypes, while also avoiding the consequences of its harm. In many cases, they are unaffected by stereotypes that would negatively harm them, compared to lesser privileged groups that are heavily impacted socially by how people view them. This doesn't negate that underprivileged groups can't share the same misconceptions about groups who equally have harmful stereotypes.

But when I say insecure, it sounds vague but it's pretty simple. I find that the people who easily believe and use stereotypes about certain groups tend to not only believe them, but hold them dear for reasons. Typically they'll have these stereotypes pre-loaded and ready to dispense on people they want to attack or put in place. These stereotypes are stacked like a deck of cards, and it's holder will play a card, always pulling out stereotype after another, in an attempt to 'read' you. One can only wonder why. Although these stereotypes are not specifically targeted at them, it contributes in reassuring their confidence. This is what I've come to conclude based on how I've witnessed these attitudes play into action towards me.

When someone's self-worth is dependent on the degradation of another via stereotypes they will use those stereotypes to prop themselves up. In the same instance, that person will be ineffective without that crutch. It's in this moment, their reaction is crucial because it certifies their insecurity. I have watched people become upset, angered, disappointed, and in disbelief, when I did not fit a preconceived notion they designated to me. It's troubling, disturbing, but mostly pathetic, that rather than correcting themselves, the response is doubt.

What's also telling is why they choose to expect certain characteristics from the people they're stereotyping. To be so comfortable throwing people into specified expectations, whether you think they're good stereotypes or not, is intolerant and unreasonable. Again, this exposes the temperament of the stereotyper. Why are they so set in their beliefs, particularly when it's not affecting them? OR does it?

Below are a few questions to help posit where this attitude may come from; the insecure stereotyper will say yes to at least one of these or all:

• Were you propped up to believe you were better than certain people in specificity? 
• Does your confidence spike when people meet your stereotypical expectations? 
• Do you feel threatened or vexed when someone doesn't fit your stereotypes?
• Do you rely on negative stereotypes to advance yourself over others?
• Do you feel discounted when stereotyped people empower themselves?

As for those who are (possibly) unintentionally ignorant, they too can fall into the insecure category, but since their reactions tend to vary from the first, it's not the same. I've met people who were truly embarrassed by the stereotypes they've labeled onto someone. Some become shocked and correct themselves accordingly. There are even folks that ignorantly base their assumptions via confirmation from another person—likely a member of that stereotyped group. In this instance the may resort to the attitude of the insecure stereotyper, because they feel their expectations hold more weight because it came from the horses mouth. In addition to that, they may have also based their assumptions on what they've seen. If someone is presented with a continuous observation, it wouldn't be surprising if they believed what they see to be true. But this is flawed because no one person(s) will ever represent a large demographic group—but it happens all the time.

Stereotypes are harmful—they misinform and justify mistreatment of people who have no control over their existence and presence of these stereotypes. This is also why it's counterproductive to blame people for stereotypes or deriding people for not defying them. It's a daily task for me to acknowledge my own perceptions at times and keep my mouth shut when I know I'm also misinformed. No one can say they have never assumed something about someone, but don't act like you didn't have the power to change your thinking. Ask yourself why are you stereotyping, and whether it matters to your humanity? In my experiences, a lot of stereotypes placed onto me have been reflective of what people see on TV. If your only perception of certain people is through television, and you expect people you meet to be the same way, give yourself a huge slap in the face for being a narrow-minded idiot. Although the power of American media can't be underestimated, those who drink the kool-aid instead of challenging what they see or hear are responsible for why these stereotypes continue to exist; not the stereotyped.

The Problem with Separating the Art from the Artist

Off the top of my head, I'm not too sure how I came upon it, but it simply goes:

"separate the art from the artist"

This quote above is self-explanatory; detach the artist from their art, particularly in the moment of displeasure by something the artist has said or done. I began hearing this a few years ago, and have practiced it diligently, whenever I discovered something unpleasant from someone I liked (from a distance of course). In a world where celerities are treated in a god-like fashion, it can be challenging for one to go about dong this, especially in situations where the artist has done the unimaginable.

History has always showed that having power and status excuses guilty people from facing crimes and such. Many people have gotten away with just about anything simply because of who they are. With celebrities, because they are so admired and placed on pedestals, they can also abuse their star-power to evade crimes.

Recently, R&B singer R. Kelly has returned once again to the spotlight. The singer was found not guilty several years ago on charges that he sexually abused underaged girls. Even with a recorded video which showed proof that he engaged in sexual acts with a child, as well as witnesses identifying the victim and him in the tape, he served no time. He kept a low-profile after his trial ended in 2008, and emerged a few years after at a BET show in 2010, much to the disagreement of many, but also to the thrill of a lot more others who applauded his 'comeback.' Now, R. Kelly seems to be completely comfortable with the spotlight, and was recently on SNL performing with Lady Gaga in a bizarre and cringeworthy performance for her latest single. It would seem the public has forgotten about his abuse of young girls, and he is currently promoting the release of a new album.

And of course he's not the only celebrity who was able to evade crimes and continue work with little reaction despite vocal criticism. Roman Polanski is still revered despite his departure from the states to escape the crime of raping a 13 year old girl. Decades have passed, and he has never been extradited to the US to face charges.

Being aware of these incidents, and others, can put any fan of these artists' work in a difficult position, especially those who care about the dismay their victims had to endure afterwards. I don't support or apologize for child abuse at all. So it's not at all hard for me to stop supporting someone because of something they've done outside of their artistry. But for a while I didn't, and I coped with this by trying to simply separate the person from their work. But recently, I've seen how difficult it is to do, and fairly, now that I'm older I see how it was a dumb and foolish idea.

Aside from the reality that an artist on your no-support list may have created a favorite or life-changing song/movie that inspired you, it's the simple fact that trying to separate them from their work is problematic. In continuing to support just the work of an artist guilty of a reprehensible crime, you're still supporting said person. Because you can't really separate the art from the artist. It's impossible, and in ways dismissive (to the artist, not that it applies for these men). I mean, what are copyright and royalties for? They are there for a reason and they are also designated to a specific person(s) as attribution. That work will be theirs no matter what becomes of them. And this goes for all artists in general; would you want someone liking your art and not you, especially when your work/art is technically an extension of who you are? It just makes no sense to me.

As many have seen with victim blaming and shaming of others for things they can't control, it's quite obvious that supporting an accused artists work would be in junction with these forms of abuse. It would be an encouragement of support, and a disregard to the victims of their crimes. It also intersects with with the silencing of their victims. The silencing over disempowered people usually works with money. Millions of dollars have been used to settle, evade, and buy good lawyers that will help them slide through the loopholes of the justice system. This is exactly how Kelly silenced most of his victims.

So at my choice of being a former fan of R. Kelly and some of Polanski films, that meant not supporting or viewing future and past work. Which also meant that even when though Rosemary's Baby is one of the best classic horror films and a favorite of mine, it's still a Polanski film. The Pianist is another one of my favorite films by him, but its even more challenging for me to watch and enjoy it, knowing that it was filmed during Polanski's repatriation, unlike Rosemary's Baby which was filmed almost a decade before he fled. 

With R. Kelly it was easier for me to stop listening to his music. I wasn't much of huge fan really, but I did have a few of his songs on my iPod—songs that I grew up on and listened all the time. He became a popular artist by writing sultry, sexy R&B music a.k.a 'baby-making music.' But now I can't comfortably listen to his classic 'Bump and Grind' knowing it was during this peak he was circling schools preying on young girls who'd become his victims. I can't even listen to Aaliyah's debut song 'Age Aint Nothing But a Number,' when it's been a widely-known secret that he and an underaged Aaliyah were married; him 27 and her 15. And as much I partied, danced, and played the song 'Fiesta,' I also can't help that when I think about the lyrics, I wonder what women was he talking about pursuing sexual escapades with? It's saddening to even think, especially when the infamous video tape would surface around the release of that song.

It can take some effort to go about this since the entertainment industry is interconnected in many ways. In my choice to not listen or support future R. Kelly songs or appearances, I didn't realize it wouldn't just stop there. Just because his name isn't labeled on the product doesn't mean he's not an ingredient. R. Kelly isn't just a singer, but a producer and songwriter, which further expands his art. He's written songs for so many people like, Michael Jackson, Genuwine, Beenie Man, Whitney Houston, and he wrote Aaliyah's debut song. That would mean he's not the only person I would have to stop supporting.

So nah, I'm not going to help contribute in maintaining whatever legacy R. Kelly has left. And while I unfortunately discovered the details of the Polanski case after seeing his films, I'll avoid his future projects.

These people became famous and popular because of me, you, us, fans, them, and society. If the public at large wanted to erase them, they could. And that would also mean not supporting or encouraging their appearances and projects. That's how protest works and succeeds. Still, it's sad but not surprising R. Kelly is getting invited to shows and making appearances. He was found not guilty on the charges against him, and for some people, that's enough to completely forget his crimes. Not Guilty does not mean nor has it ever meant that anyone is innocent. And Polanski has lived a great life overseas, knowing why he is there in the first place.

The way I see it, I can't comfortably like anyones work of art, when I have a particular strong opinion of the artist. The problem really lies in the silly idea to even try separate them, what's the point when I'm still supporting them anyhow? Ugh. It hurts my head that people comfortably say, "(enter artist name's) music/movies are still great, even though he/she committed (enter crime)." For Polanksi, there's hope that a time may come where he may be brought to justice. For R. Kelly however, it's sad enough that he was able to walk, and probably won't be tried again unless another victim possibly comes forward.

They aren't the only ones either, Michael Jackson(?), Tupac, etc; all artists accused of reprehensible crimes where evidence was strong against them.