« How You Say: Blog? | Main | A Very Special Daily Danza »
IN DEFENSE OF: Steve Martin's Remake of "The Pink Panther"
Looking over the reviews of Steve Martin's remake of The Pink Panther, I've noticed that a lot of reviewers ask, "What's the point?" (here, here, here, here, here, etc.) Setting aside the fact that these critics seem to have rejected the movie on some kind of misguided principle before even seeing it, I'd like to try to answer the question:
Steve Martin is one of the great geniuses in the history of comedy, and like most geniuses, he seeks out challenges. He's done it his whole career: When he was the biggest comedian in the world, he quit touring and focused on acting. He followed The Jerk with a Depression-era musical (Pennies From Heaven) that confused his fans who expected another zany comedy.
Then he moved successfully into movies that were more "mainstream." Then he switched his focus again, this time to writing plays, short stories and novellas. (There's more, but you get the idea.) All of these things were new challenges that he needed to tackle to keep his inspiration alive. Was everything great? No. But he would have died as an artist if he had kept making The Jerk over and over. Now, as a fan of Peter Sellers, Martin would understand how difficult it would be to take on the role of Inspector Clouseau, so I see this as merely another challenge for him to embrace. For someone lacking imagination, maybe remaking The Pink Panther is pointless. But I seem to remember a pointless remake of another classic about a French guy called Roxanne that was pretty good.
February 13, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
i agree with most of that. i would love nothing more than to see Steve Martin have a movie go right for him. He's a talent that yes, has made some real crap movies in the past, but when you've been around for as long as he has, that's a given. As if Robert DeNiro, Tom Hanks, or even Sir Anthony Hopkins haven't made some horrid choices.
As far as him being put up against Peter Sellers, that's unfair. That's like putting in the pinch hitter at the big game, when everyone came to see Babe Ruth hit the homer. People have set expectations of what they've seen before. The best example being the James Bond series. Nobody will ever play Bond like Sean Connery. But would you want Peirce Brosnan to be Roger Moore or Sean COnnery? No, you want him to be BOND.
I hope people give Steve Martin more of a chance to make this role his own, and I really hope the same with the up coming "Get Smart" remake with Steve Carell as Maxwell Smart. Don Adams will always be Max, but i want people to be open to a new chance.
Posted by: Secretlayer | Feb 13, 2006 12:38:54 PM
piper is right until you consider "cheaper by the dozen." even steve martin can't seem to find the challenge in that remake so he just cashed the check.
Posted by: cohagen | Feb 13, 2006 1:17:07 PM
"As far as him being put up against Peter Sellers, that's unfair. That's like putting in the pinch hitter at the big game, when everyone came to see Babe Ruth hit the homer. People have set expectations of what they've seen before. The best example being the James Bond series. Nobody will ever play Bond like Sean Connery. But would you want Peirce Brosnan to be Roger Moore or Sean COnnery? No, you want him to be BOND."
as roger ebert put it, the character of inspector clouseau does not stand on its own as a character like batman might. the character was the actor; the reason you saw those movies was peter sellers. and even then, it got a little tired by the end of his run. let alone the fact that other talents have already tried to fill sellers' shoes and failed miserably.
Posted by: mediaphile | Feb 15, 2006 4:38:40 PM
