Two Actors, One Role.

Two Actors, One, Roll This is something prevalent when you have “remakes” of films. You have the “original” actor and the “new” actor. I am not going to discuss roles like Dracula, the Wolfman, the Mummy, or Frankenstein’s Monster as they each can and will have articles of their own. Not to mention each of those have had multiple incarnations. I am talking more about Norman Bates, George Lutz, Mr. Loren/Mr. Price, Dr. Loomis, and Freddy Krueger, just to name a few. There are always those actors/roles that are iconic and it is hard to see someone else in the role, as well as hoping they can measure up to the legacy left to them by the actor that portrayed the role before.

By now, most people know of my distaste for the remake of Alfred Hitchcock’s 1960 masterpiece, "Psycho", mainly because of my strong disagreement with the casting of the 1998 remake. Again, I will go on record and say that I LIKE Vince Vaughn, just not in this role. Anthony Perkins was Norman for me. He had the “look”, his tall gaunt frame, his awkward demeanor, and his uncanny ability to be very expressive with his eyes and subtle facial expressions. One of the final scenes of the 1960 version still resonates with me after all these years, just from the look on the character's face. Check out the original film and feel free to comment if you agree. Now, when the remake was announced and the casting choices were made known, I honestly cringed. You have basically a comedic actor playing a role that requires an almost brooding yet awkward personality and your lead actress…...no. But, I gave it a shot. Sadly, I could not get behind it. Looking at Vaughn, I couldn’t get past his comedic roles, and, to me, he didn’t have the proper look or presence. He is not someone who looks unnerving and that was something the look was a large part of the original role.

Not every “recasting” is a bad thing and there are actors that can carry the mantle of the actor who came before them. One film that comes to mind is “House on Haunted Hill” (1959 and 1999). In the 1959 version, horror icon Vincent Price played the millionaire host of the evening, Frederick Loren, and forty years later, Geoffrey Rush played the eccentric Stephen Price. What started as an idea to make the character of Price more “flamboyant” turned into a perfect and beautiful homage to Price’s Loren. Originally, the character of Price was to be a “normal” businessman, Rush didn’t like this idea and suggested that Price look like legendary director John Waters. But, once in makeup and costume, the resemblance to Vincent Price was so uncanny, the director kept the look and the rest is history. Both men carry themselves in a very similar manner throughout their respective films. It is easy to see either man in the other’s film and it still works, they are interchangeable. Now “House on Haunted Hill” (1999) is not a remake as well as a “reimagining” as locations, character names, motivations, and some plot points are very different, so while the two actors, one role principle can be used here, it is not exactly the “same” role.

So let’s look at another film where it is the same name, same character. While Vince Vaughn couldn’t really pull off Norman Bates. Ryan Reynolds stepped into the role of George Lutz, a role played originally by James Brolin in 1979, and knocked it out of the park for the 2005 remake of "The Amityville Horror".

Now I have to be completely honest here, I was very nervous when I heard Reynolds had been cast for this role, I only really knew him from low brow comedies. But, as always, I gave it a shot and I was very surprised. He surpassed all of my expectations and delivered a great performance. He doesn’t quite have the same look as Brolin, who had longer hair and a bushy beard that helped add to the look of madness that Brolin shows later in the film. Reynolds used more facial expressions and body acting when the same or similar scenes arose in his version. Even though I knew Reynolds from comedies, he was able to make me forget that as he made his terrifying journey as the head of the Lutz family.

There are many more negatives than positives in this category. Sometimes, it is the actor, other times, the actor is a great choice but it is a change in the writing of that character that can be the failing point. One example of this is Dr. Loomis from the "Halloween" franchise. In 1978, this character was played by Donald Pleasence and he continued to play the role up until his passing in 1995. His Loomis was a man driven to stop Michael at all costs and do whatever it took to keep people safe. When Rob Zombie decided to retell the story in 2007, he chose icon veteran actor, Malcolm McDowell to play the role. Before I go any further, I actually really like this version of the film and am in no way bashing it. I was actually quite excited to hear that McDowell would be playing such an iconic role, as he is a very gifted actor and I thought he would be able to portray Loomis respectfully. Sadly, I was disappointed, not so much in McDowell’s portrayal of the character, but how the character had been written. Sam Loomis in the original franchise was never interested in fame or notoriety. In this new telling, he was a man who cashed in on his experiences with Michael. Personally, this left more than a little bit of a sour taste in my mouth. If I was not familiar with the original franchise, it might not have had quite the same effect on me.

Sometimes, it is a combination of the two, the writing and the casting…. I present "Nightmare on Elm Street" (1984 and 2010) and our favorite dream demon, Freddy Krueger. This role was played from 1984 until 2005 with an uncredited voice role as the character in Mortal Kombat in 2011 by Robert Englund and then was reimagined in 2010 by Jackie Earle Haley. Jackie had a pretty big sweater and glove to fill and he just… fell flat. In the 1984 Nightmare, Freddy has less than 7 minutes of screentime and was able to be terrifying and start a franchise that still is one of the most well-known in the horror industry today. You don’t have to know horror to know the gloved hand of Freddy Krueger or the unnerving nursery rhyme that grew from the series. Jackie’s Freddy is more prevalent in the remake and while most likely not intended to be, it comes across as a caricature, making him sound whiny and just less than the demon we all came to fear in 1984. Another point against Haley was the look of this “new” Freddy, something that didn’t sit well with myself or many other fans. Now I will admit, they went places in 2010 that they did not go in 1984 because of the true backstory of Krueger, and that was still pretty heavy material back in ‘84. But, presentation is key and this just didn’t present the backstory in a way that felt right to the entire franchise. Most of us knew what he was in life, and actually saying it, in some ways, cheapened the whole thing.

That being said, it is never a good idea to write off an actor as being unable to fill a role until you give them a chance. You might be surprised that someone you felt had no business being in a horror film, let alone a retelling of a possible favorite, could end up being someone you see with new eyes after it is all said and done. Let me know if there are any other two actors, one role that you can think of that you would like to see compared. I would love to hear your input.

Yours in Horror,

Diva