Alfie

Why turn "Alfie" into a chick flick?

Maybe for those who mis-remembered the bright, scabrous, creative original. I'm finding that most reviewers are remembering it incorrectly, whereas I saw it for the first time the weekend before I saw this too-pretty make-over.

Most reviewers remember it as black-and-white, which it wasn't.

Most remember it as reflective of the Swinging '60's of London, but the mise en scene was London at the cusp, as attitudes were just starting to change, so characters were flopping in moral confusion.

Most remember the women as pre-liberation, but their passivity was more complicated; Alfie had an unerring ability to hone in on women with horrificallly low self-esteem, regardless of their marital or economic status.

Michael Caine is such an established actor now, none remember that he was not a conventionally handsome lead to be conquering all these women, let alone that he was a cocky Cockney like the Angry Young Man of the period kitchen sink British dramas.

Few remember just how heartless he was - calling all his conquests "it".

None seem to remember how vividly babies and abortion figure into the plot, a la "Vera Drake."

The new version is confused about all these elements.

The cinematography is beautiful, but has to cover up for the fact that while it supposedly takes place in New York City, it was actually filmed in Manchester, England so is missing atmosphere that's so critical to the same ground that's trod in "Sex and the City;" frequent background mattes of the Brooklyn Bridge are weak atmosphere-builders . And this is also some sort of retro NYC that allows smoking in bars and doesn't require helmets on mopeds, which is also a retro means of individual transport.

The film probably takes place in the '00's - but the flashy split screens and the women's make-up and styles are retro-'60's. "Keen Eddie"'s Sienna Miller is made up as a duplicate of the original's Jane Asher. Marisa Tomei even has her hair in a flip with a wide head band and Nia Long is made up like "Cleopatra Jones" from the early '70's.

At least one time we do get a glimpse of a condom package, but that's only obvious now because films today show them, not that they weren't used in the '60's; it does take place in post Roe v. Wade NYC.

The women's personality upgrades are inconsistently effective and there's no drama to how the incredibly beautiful, posh-sounding Jude Law captures them.

Susan Sarandon's self-assured, independent entrepreneur is a sexy, believable update of Shelley Winters' rich widow, making her closing dig at Alfie as a gigolo even more devastating.

Miller's character is now trendily manic depressive, or some such chemically-dependent disorder, rather than just an insecure runaway, which weakens Alfie's hold on her; that character's passive aggressive manipulation of him and how she bypasses him to straighten out her life are missing completely, so we lose some insight into both his cruelty and comeuppance.

Long's character's crisis is weakened from the original's, as her pregnancy conflates two different affairs, with the emphasis instead put on male friendship betrayal, the friend that this "Alfie" claims in passing calls his women "it".

"Alfie"'s health scare had to be updated from TB, and the cancer testing is done for laughs; the lack of mention of Viagra is odd if it is in fact taking place now. Here the older male confidante is stuck in deus ex machina, rather than in plot context.

While the original stands up 35 years later as a mordant and brilliant, matter of fact presentation of "moral lapses," the mild update is considerably weakened and Hollywoodized as respectable company, such that the finale doesn't even segue smoothly into the first musical line of "What's it all about?"

The soundtrack selections are otherwise excellent, but as confusingly retro as the rest of the atmosphere, with neo-soul teen Joss Stone singing and Mick Jagger collaborating with Dave Stewart on originals that sound old.

... as I haven't (FAR too young when it originally came out!), and can judge the movie without preconceptions, it's actually quite, quite good. From others' comments, I believe this should be called a reconception rather than a remake - and face it, if they followed the original, time-bound character/plot, it really WOULDN'T work today - so there is no sense in decrying that this isn't slavish to the Caine version. On its own terms, the movie is very stylish, with excellent cinematography, directing and editing, and the acting is top-notch across the board [For Broadway aficionados, look for Tony winners Jefferson (I Am My Own Wife) Mays as the Doctor and Hairspray's Dick Latessa as Joe].

Law is disarmingly charming as Alfie, and that goes a long way in selling the character, and making his attitude towards women somewhat tolerable. Of the women, Sarandon {looking incredible for 58! ... and delivering her final coup de grace with devilish elan], Long, Krakowski and especially (surprisingly?) Law's current squeeze Miller all make strong impressions. Tomei is OK, but is really neither attractive or special enough to justify Law's interest in her [and his fixation on her young son is a little creepy/unbelievable for such a womanizer]. The substitution of the interracial dalliance with Long for the abortion is a stroke of genius, as it will probably have the same 'shocking' effect for some in the audience. Yes, the direct address is a little jarring at times, but is necessary and DOES follow the original.

On the minus side, the Mick Jagger/Dave Stewart music DOESN'T work, but Joss Stone's remake of the title song is effective. If you can forget, or better yet, haven't seen the original to compare this version to, I think you will find it a very entertaining, relevant movie (compared to most Hollywood remake dreck). I wouldn't even be surprised to find this garnering quite a few Oscar noms (given this year's weak field) come the end of the year... Give it a chance.

Not a lot of people know this, but Terence Stamp first played the role of Alfie on stage over thirty years ago. He was then offered the film role, but turned it down. His flatmate, a struggling up and coming actor, tried to convince him to take the part, but Terence was not budging. And so his flatmate took the role. His name, was Michael Caine, and that film, Alfie, spring boarded the young actor to be the most famous cockney in the world. Of all Caine's films this ranks alongside Get Carter and The Italian Job as his best, and so why re-make it I hear you cry! Hollywood had a go at remaking The Italian Job and Get Carter but only came out with turkeys so big you couldn't fit them in your oven. But instead of remaking a Michael Caine film that wasn't good (THE SWARM, BLAME IT ON RIO!) Caine's golden classic Alfie has had the makeover, with pretty boy Jude Law bought in to ask what it's all about. Well for those who don't know what it's all about, Alfie's world is women, pulling them and dumping them. Sounds a little cold, but that is Alfie, a bird puller extraordinaire who lives for the conquests, but soon bores of them whenever commitment rears it's ugly head. Of course Alfie has to be bought down a peg or two, and this happens as a result of another conquest, which has further reaching consequences than Alfie can realize. But should Alfie have been dusted down for the 2004 audience? Well the answer is no. But why? Well, to analyse this we have to go back to the beginning and what Alfie was in Caine's day. Alfie was a man about town stuck in the poor end of London, sleeping his way through a never ending supply of 'birds' while fighting his working class shackles. Back then women were not the powerful sex they are today, at least not on the cinema screen, and were happy to get Alfie's dinner and scrub his floors. Now lets look at Jude Laws Alfie, living in present day New York, and sleeping with a seemingly never ending amount of stunners, who all seem to be getting as much out of him as he gets out of them. And so what's he got to fight against? Not his surroundings (he's in glamorous Manhattan) and his job isn't that bad (still a driver, but look at the perks), and he even likes the kid of one of his girlfriends. And so he's a nice guy, and there is problem 1, bang goes Alfie's cold side. And so what we are left with is a man who lives in New York and finds it hard to commit. Hardly a rare phenomenon. Problem number 2 is the original Alfie movie's use of the shock factor. Denholm Elliott turning up to do a back street abortion was enough to make some walk out the cinema in 1966. In this film the subject of abortion, although delicately handled, has lost it's cinematic impact, which is no doubt due to the three decades that has passed between films. And so we come to problem number 3, the films flaw being that the Alfie of today is simply not as relevant to the Alfie of yesterday. Today we have 'Sex and the City', empowered women, whom one can't help but feel would eat Alfie up alive. Indeed, the film would be more realistic if the lead was a female, although that would send traditionalists (like myself) running up the nearest tree. The makers of this re-make obviously think that illnesses has to be stepped up, and so while Caine's Alfie was given shadows on his lung to make him give pause, Law's Alfie gets a lump on his…erm…'Big Ben' (I hope to God that's not the new word for it) But what about performances? Well, Law as Alfie is fine, giving emotion where its needed, although his performance does not bounce along like Caines did. When Caine spoke to the camera, immediately breaking the fourth wall and bonding with the audience, it was the height of cool, when Law does the same it feels cheesy, and like cheese, it soon starts to grate. Susan Sarandon, as the sexy older woman, certainly fulfils her characters description, while Sienna Miller gives a promising portrayal as a young women who looks like a young Marianne Faithful (circa 1965) minus her Rolling Stone. And so the blame for the films failure cannot be left at its actors doors, nor its director. The film is simply a victim of its time. Alfie belongs in the sixties, when the world (or London at least) was swinging. Right now the only thing swinging is the cinema doors, and that's because I've just left.

Remakes are always a problem for the critic, whether or not he or she has seen the original. Here we have an American remake in 2004 of a British film made by Lewis Gilbert in 1966, itself an adaptation of a stage play by Bill McNaughton from the early 60s. The creative process is not easy to track in these circumstances, even though the DVD I saw has two sets of audio-commentary by the director, Charles Shyer, and others.

In this version Alfie is still the chirpy cockney Lothario, but operating as a chauffeur in lower Manhattan rather than London. His women are characters derived from the 1966 film, but glamorised somewhat. Alfie's philosophy, delivered face to camera, as in the first film, is the same – love 'em and leave 'em.

As Alfie, Jude Law channels Michael Caine in the 1966 film but puts his own stamp on the role. Jude is exactly right for the part and makes Alfie both repellent and sympathetic. We are left hoping he will mend his ways but thinking there's not much chance of that. For Alfie, there is no answer to the question posed in the song "What's it all about?" The music, written and performed by another hardy survivor of swinging London in the 60s, Mick Jagger (and others) is a pleasant feature, and Alfie's girls are undeniably attractive. (During filming Jude Law and Sienna Miller became an item – that's method acting for you.) Charles Shyer tells us in the audio-commentary that he set out to be stylish and there's considerable use of split-screen technique and some fancy cutting. Using Manchester, Liverpool and London as Manhattan as well as Manhattan itself for location shooting must have caused some production problems, though most of them seemed to have been overcome in post-production.

This 2004 version did decent business in the UK but bombed in the US. Why? The hero is a Brit, but then so is James Bond. The women are all accomplished actresses and Susan Sarandon delivers a standout performance. There is plenty of relatively tasteful humour but no happy ending, just "life goes on". The pace is fast enough and Shyer slaps on plenty of "style", but what we are seeing is the 1966 film lite. A period piece set in the wrong period. Elaine Pope, who co-wrote the screenplay with Shyer, was well aware that women are now less inclined to be doormats for feckless men like Alfie, and adjusted the female parts accordingly, but ultimately we have a movie 40 years out of its time.

Jude Law takes the title role in this remake of the 1966 flick that was the follow-up hit that confirmed Michael Caine as a star. He's been an enduring one, still turning them out, as British actors do, whenever he's asked. 130 movies, with three n various stages of production. Good on him.

But we're talking about the 2004 production, and Jude Law here. Remakes of classics always start with a disadvantage. Just as Caine undoubtedly had to contend with comparisons to Terence Stamp's performance in the original stage production (Stamp turned down the movie, and helped talk Caine into it, impelled, no doubt, by a hope that a good paycheck would get Caine out of his apartment and into his own flat). So lets get to it: Law plays a playboy, not uncaring, but happy with his life of plenty of women and no attachments, who comes to realize that's not what he wants. Caine played the same facade and base.... and then layered them with the coldness he plays so well. Law thinks he has it all; Caine brought an amount of misogynistic disdain into the mix. That might not play in the 21st century, but it's a more nuanced and interesting performance, watching Alfie's change from a cheap villain into his own victim.

Still, this is a handsome production, reset in New York City for no particular reason, and offering a good time. It's not a classic, but it is a good film.