Hollywood Remakes Represent Regressive Ideology

I recently saw the original version of the Wicker Man (1973) and was reminded of something Zizek had written about the ideologically regressive nature of Hollywood remakes.  In Hollywood Today: Report from an Ideological Frontline he describes the ideological trajectory of three adaptations of Richard Matheson's 1954 novel I Am Legend thusly:

The gradual ideological regression can be observed here at its clinical purest. The main shift (between first and second cinema version) is registered in the radical change in the meaning of the title: the original paradox (the hero is now the legend for vampires, as once vampires were for humanity) gets lost, so that, in the last version, the hero is simply the legend for the surviving humans in Vermont. What gets obliterated in this change is the authentically “multicultural” experience rendered by the title’s original meaning, the experience of how one’s own tradition is no better than what appears to us as the “eccentric” traditions of others, the experience nicely formulated by Descartes who, in his Discourse of Method, wrote how, in the course of his travels, he recognized that “all those whose sentiments are very contrary to ours are yet not necessarily barbarians or savages, but may be possessed of reason in as great or even a greater degree than ourselves.” The irony is that this dimension disappears precisely in our era in which multicultural tolerance is elevated into official ideology. 

Such ideological regression can also be seen in the two versions of the Wicker Man.  The first version is a commentary on the cultural and societal changes that took place in the late sixties and the resistance from the old-guard status-quo.  In the first version the police officer is an interloper in a neo-Pagan, Dionysian utopia.  He is a devout Christian and struggles with the hedonistic nature of the Summerisle society.  

In the 2006 remake Nicholas Cage (who is always awful in whatever he is in) plays the police officer who finds himself an interloper in a matriarchal/radical-feminist utopia where the men are demoted to the status of obedient servants.

In the original, 1973 version we are to revile the uptight cop who sticks his nose where it doesn't belong and gets what's coming to him in the end.  In the 2006 version we are to pity  Nick Cage's character as a victim of feminine seduction and, in the end, feminism gone wrong.  This is clearly an ideologically regressive trajectory.

Another example is the J. J. Abrams bastardization of the Star Trek franchise. This version of the Star Trek universe is far from the vision of anti-racist, anti-sexist, socialist harmony that Gene Roddenberry established in the original series and the Next Generation. What's more, Abrams has turned the characters into caricatures in the worst possible way.

Hollywood.com writer Christian Blauvelt described the regression quite elegantly in a recent article reviewing why Trekkies recently voted Into Darkness the worst Star Trek movies:

...Uhura's a Less Progressive Character in 2013 Than She Was in 1966

When Star Trek first aired, Nichelle Nichols' Uhura was a competent professional who was defined by her intelligence, her skills, and the ambition that saw her serve aboard the bridge of a major Federation vessel. By Star Trek Into Darkness, however, Zoe Saldana's Uhura is defined entirely by her romance for Spock. Not to mention that unlike most other incarnations of Trek, Into Darkness doesn't even pass the Bechdel Test.

For those that don't know what the Bechdel Test is, here's a little video for explanation.

Pretty simple basic criteria:

1. It has to have at least two [named] women in it

2. Who talk to each other

3. About something besides a man

To close, I'd like to demonstrate the emancipatory nature of Star Trek:

 Click here for more information on Star Trek and communism.