Oh, yeah, the movie is still totally charming, aside from the outdated sexual politics of the ending, which were endemic to its time. And you gotta a love a movie in which a big romantic scene takes place on the roof of the Flatiron Building in NYC (where I used to work). FYI: I MARRIED A WITCH is airing on TCM this Monday. Think I'll rewatch it in light of this discussion.
I wish in a way they weren't changing so much about the remake. I think in doing that something will be lost not gained.
Bewitched was a product of its time and place. Humor has changed, attitudes have changed. Added to that, you had exactly the right cast playing those roles. Elizabeth Montgomery was the perfect Samantha, Dick York was Darrin (not wanting to speak ill of Dick Sergeant who was a fine actor, but his Darrin just never seemed right), David White as Larry Tate, Agnes Moorehead as Endora, Paul Lynde as Uncle Arthur, and all the rest of the supporting cast and guest stars--it just clicked. I"m no sure it can do that now.
I agree. I say that from great fondness for the original and not from wishing anything negative if they try a remake.
Sounds to me like the only thing they're really changing is the lead character's skin color. Which seems logical to me. As I've said, the original series was intended all along to be a commentary on "mixed" marriages and the societal issues they raised, even though it was later dumbed down to focus almost exclusively on magical antics and gimmicks. It was always a show about a marriage between two "races," mortal and magical, with the minority member having to deal with the tension between assimilating into her husband's culture and staying true to her own heritage and identity. Back then, the only way to do a show about an interracial marriage was through allegory, with a fictitious race that could be played by white actors. These days, you can bring the subtext out in the open. That's the only real change. It does add another layer, though, because it seems they'll be contrasting the real-world racial issues with the fantasy ones rather than just using the latter as a metaphor for the former. But it's an expansion on the same core idea.
I thought part of the reboot was that Sam was a single mom and it wasn't set in the Sixties? The dynamics of that alone is a big difference. How can it not be?
She's a single mom before she marries Darrin. From the description, the show begins just after they marry, much like the original, except that the kid (presumably Tabitha) is already part of the equation from the start instead of being born in season 2. But that is true to the original dynamic, since the Stephenses were parents or expectant parents for 7 out of 8 seasons. It's just condensing the timeline a little. And obviously it's set in the present day; of course there's no point in doing a new version if it isn't updated. The fact that times change is exactly why stories need to be retold and updated for new generations. The purpose of fiction, especially fantasy and science fiction, is to comment on the real world, on matters relevant to people's lives. The original show was using magic and witchcraft to comment on social and gender dynamics that were relevant to 1960s audiences. But it's not the 1960s anymore, so a new version has to use magic and witchcraft to comment on social dynamics that are relevant today. That's the way to keep it the same. After all, the original show wasn't trying to be a period piece, it was trying to be about modern life. Doing a new version as a period piece might look the same on a superficial level, but it would be a completely different storytelling dynamic and give it a very different meaning to the audience. Of course any period piece is still going to be an allegorical commentary on issues relevant to its present-day audience, but Bewitched is already using magic and witches as an allegory for class, race, and privilege, so throwing in a period-piece allegory on top of that would change the dynamic massively. Which I gather is what you don't want.
I don't know. There's a lot of truth in that saying that you can't catch the same lightning in a bottle twice. For example, no one has been able to successfully cover Dusty Springfield's "You Don't Have to Say You Love Me." That's her song--pure and simple. And, no one's been able to successfully cover Janis Joplin's "Tear Out Another Piece of My Heart." Even though Dusty Springfield made a valiant effort at it--but not even she could do that. I don't think a reboot would work. They're not going to be able to catch that same dynamic...the interactions of the characters as the actors back then portrayed them. Nor will the messaging be as subtle--this is more of an 'in your face' society in a lot of ways. Also, they had to be more subtle in their messaging back then. The three networks provided about 90% of the entertainment and all of them relied on ad revenue for profits as measured by Neilsen numbers. In order to get viewers, the shows had to appeal to as large and diverse an audience as possible. That meant not only reaching liberals--it also meant keeping conservative and apolitical viewers. To do that, your messaging had to be subtle. If you were too up front, you risked getting yanked off the air--witness the Smothers Brothers Show. Now, with a wealth of cable channels and streaming services, producers, writers, actors, and directors can and do tailor their shows to reach certain audiences and don't really care about alienating others.
But what's the point of rebooting. something if you're not going to change things up? We already have the earlier version--it's been done--so you might as well rock the boat and try to find a new take on the material. .
Of course you can't guarantee that anything will succeed, but that's as true of an original concept as it is of a remake. Most TV shows fail, period. But people still need to try. And seriously, come on, folks, we're talking about Bewitched here, not Shakespeare. For all its sophisticated aspirations in season 1, for most of its run it was just superficial goofiess and formulaic plots, by network fiat. If someone wants to try to bring it back to its roots as a work of allegorical commentary on a mixed marriage as a microcosm for larger societal tensions, to get it back to what it initially tried but mostly failed to be, I say more power to them. Heck, that's what I feel Netflix's Lost in Space remake did -- suceeded at long last in being what the original show was initially meant to be but was never really allowed to become. That's the best possible outcome of a remake. It is unrealistic to think that's the goal. Of course it's not about creating an exact duplicate -- there's no point in doing a new version if it isn't new. When Shakespeare wrote Julius Caesar, he wasn't trying to make it exactly like an Ancient Roman playwright would've done it -- he told it in a way that was tailored to the audience of his time, because that's who it was made for. Creativity is not about copying, it's about reinventing and remixing, about changing raw materials into something new.
Well I personally LOVE this series so any call out to it is something I would most definitely give a chance. However (to me) the original was magical and fun in its stories. I don't sit and analyse whether I get this week's lesson. I also slightly disagree with the emphasis of Bewitched being just about a mixed marriage. It was as much about actual marriage. Marriage as a convention. Obviously that has changed because the expectations of the Sixties though evolving are simply not there anymore. So setting this modern marriage whereby Sam is trying to make it work is going to be less tenuous because many marriages these days are throwaway. If current Sam wants to twitch up some pancakes for breakfast, modern Sam is not going to think her marriage is being compromised because she broke her promise. She's more likely to twitch batter all over modern Darrin's head. I also think a massive part of the show revolved around business. That I can see possibly playing out the same way because I think trying to impress clients and the boss definitely still goes on. However would a modern woman smile sweetly and whip up dinner for the clients every time her husband or his boss snaps their fingers? How about all that drinking they did, lol? They would be classed as alcoholics these days. And speaking of Tabitha she was actually quite a well behaved little kid. Why do they have to change Tabitha not being born after the marriage?? Just a commentary on Bewitched from the Sixties. No way was Sam ever the lowly one. Witches had a class system and it was Darrin who was 'mere' in their eyes. That was also a challenge for Sam and one for Darrin too. I would hope that a modern Darrin would at least have some likeability otherwise the story doesn't work either, we need to believe in their relationship. Practically every episode ended in a kiss
As I've said, I was referring to the original intention of its first-season showrunner Danny Arnold. His allegorical goals were abandoned when he left after that season, in favor of an emphasis on magical antics and gimmicks. I think that's pretty obvious. Every series's concept evolves over time, and often something that comes to be seen as an integral part of it takes time to arrive. It's only logical for a new version to incorporate it from the start, rather than waiting an identical amount of time to introduce it. For instance, in Batman comics, Robin didn't show up until the second year, and it was maybe 2 more years before Commissioner Gordon formally allied with Batman and Robin and another year after that before Alfred showed up; but the '66 show began with all those elements already in place from the start, because they had ended up becoming fundamental aspects of the concept. Similarly, the Flash didn't meet the Reverse-Flash until 7 years into his comics run (pun intended), but the current TV show made Reverse-Flash the villain in its very first season. Again, it's not the goal of a remake to exactly copy the original, since that would be redundant. The goal is to distill the best, most effective parts of the original. The whole value of getting a second try at something is the chance to avoid the false starts and mistakes and learning curve of the original. You don't have to wait around to get to the good stuff, because you already know what the good stuff is rather than having to discover it gradually like the original creators did.
Darrin as a slacker is a bigger change for me than any of the other stuff. He was always the typical go-getter in the 60's idea of success. (Well, early 60's, I guess)
To me, one of the cruelest stunts Endora ever pulled--and she came within a hairsbreadth of succeeding in her goal of busting up that marriage was when she arranged it to where Darrin would "just happen" to run across an old lithograph or sketch of Samantha from circa 18th century. That brought home to him the fact that she had a life long before he was even born and would be around long after he died--it really brought home to him that he was just a moment in time for her--and it very nearly broke him. Dick York's acting in that episode was nothing less than superb--I think that was his finest moment on that show. It also brought home just how cruel and viscous Endora was and just how deeply he loved Samantha that in the end, his love for her was stronger than the knowledge that he was just blip in her life.
Turning him into a slacker doormat totally ruins the character. Darrin was a man who prided himself on climbing the rungs of success through his effort and hard work. Take that away, turn him into a couch potato slacker, and you don't have Darrin.
I don't see the original as being resultant as false starts and mistakes, lol. It was enjoyable and successful. One would think the whole idea of a remake would be to measure up to that...
You know, the ironic thing about objecting to a remake of Bewitched is that Bewitched itself was directly inspired by the movies I Married a Witch and Bell, Book and Candle. https://www.harpiesbizarre.com/prelude.htm