Connect with us

Entertainment

Remake’ Review: Ross McElwee Honors the Memory of His Late Son

Published

on

Editor’s Note: This review was originally published during the 2025 Venice Film Festival. Music Box Films releases “Remake” in U.S. theaters starting Friday, July 10.

Long before the video diary became the en vogue format of personal expression on YouTube and social media platforms like TikTok, Ross McElwee was America’s preeminent first-person filmmaker. While studying under cinéma vérité pioneers Richard Leacock and Ed Pincus in MIT’s graduate film program, McElwee developed his own style of memoir cinema informed by direct cinema, a Southern literary sensibility ingrained from his North Carolina upbringing, and an almost religious belief in elevating the mundane texture of daily life, previously the province of amateur home movies, to a large artistic canvas. His droll voiceover, which warmly blankets and contextualizes his imagery, provides viewers an entrée into an worldview effortlessly engaged with culture, politics, and the smallest details of his private life.

While many of his films feature traditional documentary premises — the lingering effects of the Civil War on the South in “Sherman’s March,” broadcast television’s warped view of reality in “Six O’Clock News,” the complicated legacy of the tobacco industry in “Bright Leaves” — McElwee inevitably deploys them as scaffolding to examine himself and his family. For McElwee, the personal is paramount, and it will either intersect with or supersede any supposedly “professional” requisites whenever it can. His father and siblings, his friends and mentors, they all become recurring characters in his work. McElwee’s innately generous eye keeps his work from devolving into solipsism; he frequently extends his gaze to outsiders to help expand his perspective. For instance, gregarious poet and teacher Charleen Swansea appears in many of his films, playing both captivating subject and a pointed foil. She frequently expresses gentle skepticism towards his longtime friend’s life’s work in casually philosophical terms.

McElwee constantly interrogates his compulsion to film daily life, a recurring theme that becomes more prominent once he begins a family. Part of the joy of watching McElwee’s work over the years not only comes from watching his family grow up, but also seeing how his creative perspective changes in response to his concerns as a late-in-life husband and father. He adapts his working methods and cheerfully embraces his family as co-authors, but his belief in continuous filmmaking eventually clashes with the wishes of his wife and kids, who understandably don’t want their private lives to be grist for the artistic mill. “Turn it off! This is important. This is not art; this is life!” Charleen exclaims to McElwee in “Sherman’s March,” insisting that his camera has become a mechanism of detachment. But this tension between art and life, and McElwee’s insistence in rendering it a Möbius strip, ultimatelydrives his singular artistic practice.

“Remake,” McElwee’s latest accomplished feature, strikes a raw nerve because he makes his family his primary subject for an especially tragic reason. McElwee’s son Adrian, a recurring figure in his father’s work dating back to when his birth wasdocumented in “Time Indefinite” way back in 1993, died in 2016 of an accidental drug overdose following a long struggle with mental health issues. With “Remake,” McElwee pays tribute to his son by tracing their on-camera relationship, incorporating footage he and Adrian filmed separately and together. In his voiceover, McElwee frequently addresses Adrian and eulogizes his memory, but also expresses self-critical ruminations about his part in his son’s death, how his filmmaking may have contributed to his shaky self-image and the growing distance between them.

Pain and heartbreak understandably radiate from McElwee’s voice throughout “Remake,” a deliberately heavy affair that dives headfirst into the director’s lingering remorse. He announces Adrian’s death minutes into the film, so every subsequent image of him, from when he was a happy, photogenic child through his more troubled adolescence and subdued final years, are framed by his absence. “Remake” adopts a non-linear approach similar to fragmented memory, jumping back and forth between the past and more recent present, which Ross compares to film reels being out of order. His commentary across the film, which potently mixes 16mm film and contemporary digital imagery that encompass the multiple eras of Adrian’s life, switches between adoration and regret befitting a father still contending with such a devastating loss.

Save for a few notable exceptions, McElwee has almost always been the main character in his films, but with “Remake,” he appropriately shares focus with his son, whom he paints without judgment as a lovable, flawed human being. “Remake” portrays Adrian as an ambitious, charming young man whose drive was stymied by substance abuse and unmanaged bipolar disorder, but McElwee never lets his son’s setbacks define him in the film. He frequently captures his outgoing personality and sly wit, both as a kid and an adult. Their alternatively affable and tense banter in front of the camera depict a fraught father-son relationship in miniature, but also how self-aware and intelligent Adrian could be even in his lowest moments.

Adrian’s professional goals varied across multiple disciplines — filmmaker of music and skateboard videos, online entrepreneur, brand manager — but they were founded on a love of moving-image work clearly stemming from his father’s influence. At one point, Adrian speaks unfavorably of documentary cinema, claiming he wants to make “real movies” and happily agrees to work within a Hollywood ecosystem that his dad rejected. But he eventually begins filming himself and his friends, like McElwee once did, and even addresses the camera in a similarly intimate fashion. McElwee incorporates Adrian’s own unvarnished filmmaking efforts into “Remake,” some of which were designed to be part of a project on opioid addiction in youth culture. The results are authentic and occasionally upsetting: sometimes it’s fluid first-person snowboarding footage and other times it’s dark scenes of drug use.

Like most of McElwee’s films, “Remake” meanders from his relationship with his son to various other personal and professional threads, which serve as necessary breaks from the film’s central tragedy and meaningful detours on their own. He discusses the painful separation from his wife Marilyn and how it impacted his relationships with Adrian and his daughter Mariah. At one point, McElwee undergoes brain surgery after a doctor discovers a massive tumor that surprisingly caused no physical symptoms. The most prominent digression involves the futile attempts of comedy director Steve Carr, whose credits include “Daddy Day Care” and “Paul Blart: Mall Cop,” to remake McElwee’s most enduring film “Sherman’s March” into a fictional movie. Though initially skeptical of the idea, McElwee agrees to Carr’s proposal and, in typical fashion, plans to document his efforts. This was the initial foundation of “Remake,” hence the title.

As to be expected, a fictional “Sherman’s March” never gets off the ground, but not before going through multiple phases of prolonged development: the movie eventually morphs into an hour-long dramatic series before reaching its final failed state as a half-hour comedy. (The single funniest moment in “Remake” features McElwee, shocked and dismayed, watching a sizzle reel of scenes from “Sherman’s March,” presumably assembled for interested producers, soundtracked to Beck’s “Loser.”) Yet, McElwee uses Hollywood’s fleeting attraction with “Sherman’s March” to reconnect with real-life figures from his 1986 film and restage certain scenes in the present day. A former girlfriend featured in the film remarks to McElwee that it now plays like a version of sense memory for her and a crucial document of a bygone time in her life.

But as much as McElwee wanders away from Adrian in “Remake,” his absence always snaps the film back into place. So much of “Remake” plays like a companion piece to “Time Indefinite,” McElwee’s last film explicitly focused on family and loss. Whereas that film was an optimistic portrait of new beginnings (McElwee‘s engagement and marriage to Marilyn; the birth of Adrian) tinged with a series of unexpected deaths, “Remake” is its explicitly mournful counterpart. On paper, the choice for McElwee to detail his son’s final year in painstaking detail, across interview footage and recorded phone calls, might seem like an exercise in misery. In practice, however, the sheer accumulation of documented material becomes absorbing because it’s the act of a father desperately struggling to hold onto the memory of his son, even in his darkest hour.

Adrian’s death encompasses so many various endings in McElwee’s life, both small and large, including the end of his 24-year-long marriage, the sale of his beloved house, and the slow evaporation of his friend Charleen’s memory. Anyone remotely invested in McElwee’s career will feel nothing short of devastated to watch McElwee interview an elderly Charleen as she struggles to remember her appearances in his work.

Despite being so dependent on McElwee’s personal and professional history, “Remake” plays perfectly well in a vacuum; he constantly incorporates scenes from his previous films as exposition and background information to ensure that everyone will be up to speed. However, “Remake” will certainlyhave greater significance for those familiar with McElwee’s oeuvre since so much of it recontextualizes and fills in gaps from his prior work, particularly his last feature “Photographic Memory,” which partly chronicles McElwee and Adrian’s fracturing relationship in a different stage. “Remake” questions some of McElwee’s filmmaking choices in the previous film, including the unexamined ethical dilemma of a parent filming their child, especially one obviously struggling with mental illness, for the purpose of public exhibition.

McElwee’s bouts of self-doubt about his modus operandi in “Remake” comprise some of the best scenes of his career. When he watches footage from his wedding during a screening of “Time Indefinite” in Poland right around the end of his marriage, he fantasizes about turning off the projector and storming the stage to the film a lie. For such a reflexive filmmaker, McElwee has never appeared so nakedly introspective as to when he’s implicitly questioning the value of his career and future as a filmmaker, going beyond mere pondering about the relationship between camera and subject. While this contemplative approach was likely inspired by Adrian’s death, it also certainly stems from an aging filmmaker looking back on an intertwined, recursive body of work with a new set of eyes.

“Remake” occasionally suffers from occasionally clumsy cross-cutting and some needless repetition in sound and image, but those minor blemishes fade away in the face of its remarkably affecting heights, which capture a father’s palpable love for his son and a filmmaker’s enduring passion for his creative vision in tandem. McElwee has stated that “Remake” was his attempt to hold onto Adrian and also to let him go. He succeeds in that charge, but that tension he describes, of clinging to memory while desiring to relinquish it, defines McElwee’s vision to a tee. His films document the present, but they also preserve the past in amber and point towards an uncertain future. “Remake,” like all of McElwee’s personal cinema, embody the passage of time itself. In other words, it’s the stuff of life.

Grade: A-

“Remake” premiered at the 2025 Venice Film Festival. Music Box Films releases “Remake” in U.S. theaters starting Friday, July 10.

Want to stay up to date on IndieWire’s film reviews and critical thoughts? Subscribe here to our newly launched newsletter, In Review by David Ehrlich, in which our Chief Film Critic and Head Reviews Editor rounds up the best new reviews and streaming picks along with some exclusive musings — all only available to subscribers.

>

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Oregon AG Withdraws Motion to Delay Paramount-WBD Merger

Published

on

Oregon attorney general Dan Rayfield has withdrawn the state’s records request and motion to delay the closing of the $110 billion Paramount Warner Bros. merger, according to a filing with the Multnomah County Court on Friday.

The state has been investigating the merger since it was first announced in February and claimed that Paramount had not complied with a records request that was sent to the company in June. That request asked for documents about the company’s lobbying of federal officials in support of the deal, its role in a U.S. Department of Justice statement approving the merger and an internal effort referred to as “Project Warrior.”

ODOJ subsequently filed and presented a motion in person in Multnomah County Court on Wednesday that aimed to delay the closing by 60 days following Paramount substantially complying with the records request. A hearing on the matter was then scheduled for Monday.

Paramount had argued that the complaint lacked “clear and convincing proof of irreparable harm” and that there was no legal basis to delay the closing. It also said the state’s request had “nothing to do with whether this transaction complies with Oregon’s antitrust laws” and that it had ample opportunity to investigate, noting that it has given over 822,000 documents from the company, in addition to a further 1.2 million documents provided by WBD.

“We are pleased that the Oregon Attorney General has withdrawn its motion to delay this transaction,” a Paramount spokesperson told TheWrap on Friday evening. “It was the right decision and avoids an unwarranted effort to delay a lawful, pro-competitive merger.”

“Antitrust authorities around the world have carefully reviewed this transaction, clearing it or concluding that it does not violate any competition laws,” the spokesperson continued. “That regulatory record underscores what the facts, the law and the economics make clear: this transaction will create a stronger challenger to dominant global streaming and technology platforms, expand consumer choice, increase investment in premium content and theatrical distribution, and create more opportunities for creators and workers. We look forward to completing the transaction and delivering those benefits.”

An ODOJ spokesperson did not immediately return TheWrap’s request for comment.

The Paramount-WBD deal already received approval from the U.S. Department of Justice and Warner Bros. shareholders, though a group of U.S. state attorneys general are mulling possible litigation to block the deal.

It is expected to close by the end of the third quarter and will not close prior to July 22, when the European Commission will decide whether to clear it or refer it for a more in-depth investigation. The EC has also set a July 14 deadline for its review of the deal’s foreign investment.

In addition, U.K. Secretary of Culture, Media and Sport Lisa Nandy informed Paramount and WBD that she’s “minded to intervene” in the deal and asked for her concerns to be addressed. The regulator will decide whether to clear the merger or refer it for a more in-depth investigation by Aug. 7. The FCC will also review the deal’s foreign investment, though a specific timeline for completion has not been announced.

In the event the transaction does not close by Sept. 30, WBD shareholders will receive a 25 cent per share “ticking fee” for each quarter until closing. In the event that the deal does not close at all due to regulatory matters, Paramount will pay WBD a $7 billion termination fee.

>

Continue Reading

movies

Peter Van Norden Dead: ‘Police Academy 2’ Actor Was 75

Published

on

Peter Van Norden, the actor who appeared in Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment and The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear, has died. He was 75.

The actor’s wife Wendy was by his side as he died peacefully on Thursday morning in a Southern California hospice facility, where he was struggling with multiple health conditions, according to TMZ.

Born Dec. 16, 1950 in New York City, Van Norden graduated magna cum laude from Colgate University in Upstate NY, before moving to Los Angeles in the 1970s, making his onscreen debut in the Lloyd Kaufman-helmed ’79 comedy Squeeze Play!.

Van Norden later appeared in the Troma Entertainment founder’s 1981 comedy Waitress!, also starring in films like Headin’ for Broadway! (1980), Hard to Hold (1984), Roadhouse 66 (1984), The Accused (1988) and Gigli (2003).

In 1985, he joined the Police Academy franchise with the second installment, playing Officer Vinnie Schtulman. Van Norden later played George H.W. Bush’s chief of staff John H. Sununu in The Naked Gun 2½ (1991).

Peter Van Norden in ‘The Stand’ (1994) (CBS via Getty Images)

On TV, Van Norden appeared in shows like Cheers, TJ Hooker, St. Elsewhere, Family Ties, Hill Street Blues, Newhart, Matlock, LA Law, The Stand, Tales from the Crypt, Murder She Wrote, Nash Bridges, Family Matters, ER, Days of Our Lives and 9-1-1.

Van Norden is survived by wife Wendy and son Robert.

>

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Giulia: The Poison Queen of Palermo’ Off Broadway Review

Published

on

In a recent interview with The New York Times, Jennifer Nettles never once mentions the musical “Sweeney Todd.” Lots of interviewees at the Times don’t mention Hugh Wheeler and Stephen Sondheim’s great musical; then again, those people haven’t written a new stage musical about a serial killer. As subject matters go, serial killers are rare indeed for musicals. “American Psycho” and “A Gentleman’s Guide to Love and Murder” come to mind. Even the many killers in Sondheim’s “Assassins” are just one-shot wonders.

How many times has Nettles seen “Sweeney Todd” or listened to its recording? Obviously, not enough.

“Giulia: The Poison Queen of Palermo” opened Friday at PAC NYC. Nettles not only stars as the title character; she also wrote the songs and the book, and, indeed, the show hits a number of notes struck in “Sweeney Todd.”

First off, there’s a serial killer, based on the real life Giulia Tofana, who, in the 17th Century, poisoned a few hundred men who probably deserved to die for abusing their respective wives, girlfriends and pet dogs. In that respect, Giulia has a definite leg up on Sweeney, who simply slits a number of throats for no other reason than he hates all of mankind. Unlike London’s demon barber, however, this deadly Italian druggist lacks a Mrs. Lovett to lighten up the multiple murders.

In that Times interview, Nettles reveals that she worked with other book writers, but they all had a “campy” approach to the material. In the end, Nettles had to hire herself, not only to write the songs but the book, too.  

“Sweeney Todd” isn’t campy, but it is often very funny, thanks to Sondheim’s witty lyrics. Wheeler also gave the show’s serial killer an accomplice, Mrs. Lovett, who brings ditzy low humor to the whole grizzly enterprise.

In “Giulia,” the title character has to carry the moral weight of all those murders alone, and, frankly, as played by Nettles, she’s something of a one-woman dirge. Giulia is also the local abortionist, helping pregnant women not give birth to babies with lousy fathers.  

Not that Giulia doesn’t have her scruples. When the Duchessa (Didi Romero) wants to off her husband because he’s a bore, Giulia must say no. Only wife abusers deserve to die. To their credit as serial killers, Sweeney Todd and Mrs. Lovett never cop to having a moral code that exonerates them of guilt.

Regarding the Duchessa, one has to wonder why she doesn’t just lie to Giulia and say her husband forces her to have sex with his brother? It’s a scenario that’s good enough for another woman to receive Giulia’s deadly brew. Apparently, Giulia has an infallible BS-detector when it comes to poisoning only the right bad men.

It’s telling that “Giulia,” unlike “Sweeney Todd,” never shows its title character royally screwing up. Sweeney is so possessed he accidentally kills his long-lost wife in his killing spree. It turns the musical from an exercise in Grand Guignol into a genuine tragedy. A similar transformation could have been achieved with “Giulia” if the Duchessa had duped Giulia, only for the druggist to learn later that she had helped to kill an honest husband.

Instead, Giulia never stops delivering all the high-minded sanctimony of an Aimee Semple McPherson, one who sings female empowerment ballads, the most self-congratulatory being “Call Me David,” as in the slayer of Goliath. Giulia’s fatal flaw may be that she possesses an overbearing superiority complex.

Nettles gives the other Devil all the funniest lines, not that there are many. In scene after scene, the Governatore, played with devilish charm by Christopher M. Ramirez, steals the focus from the righteous serial killer, whose head remains stuck in a feminist manifesto written centuries later by Valerie Solanas. Compared to Giulia’s multiple crimes, the Governatore emerges as something of a piker. He just wants to screw Giulia’s underage daughter, Vitoria (Naomi Serrano), amidst all the murder.

It’s a scenic treat to watch Sweeney Todd repeatedly slice throats. Poison is a decidedly sneaky way to murder, and, as such, not very theatrical.

Giulia: The Poison Queen of Palermo
“Giulia: The Poison Queen of Palermo” (Andy Henderson)

The real villains in “Sweeney Todd” are Judge Turpin and his servant, Beadle Bamford. Those bad guys in “Giulia” are the Governatore and the Cardinale (Quentin Earl Darrington), both of whom are given a confusing scene at the top of the show that identifies the one as a politician and the other as a clergyman, and therefore bad. The Cardinale, despite eating up lots of stage time, has nothing to do except to deny he’s syphilitic in the face of Giulia’s diagnosis. He sings the self-flagellating “Shame,” a clear rip-off of the Judge’s “Johanna (Mea Culpa)” from “Sweeney Todd.” He does better with his vengeance credo, “The Wolf,” in which, late in act two, he finally finds his raison d’etre for killing Giulia. Unfortunately, the very grandly delivered “Wolf” comes after several equally loud and pompous anthems. Even little Vitoria, stuck away in a convent, gets her big caterwauling moment with “When I Still Believed.”

In “Sweeney Todd,” the chorus’ song “City of Fire” thrills because, in part, it’s preceded by the quiet, plaintive ballad “Not While I’m Around.”

There are kernels of good songs in Nettles’ score, but every catchy tune gets swamped by Cian McCarthy’s orchestrations that bring a “Les Miz”-overstatement to each of them. Watching “Giulia” is like sitting through the season’s grand finale of “American Idol” where every singer is out to win the contest. What can be exciting in a TV singing contest is numbing in the musical theater. At the end of “Giulia,” all that’s missing is Ryan Seacrest appearing to announce, “And the winner is…!”

There is some good news: The physical production is exquisitely restrained under the direction of Mary Zimmerman, who has better luck with her designers than her actor-singers. Daniel Ostling’s scenic design features three doors and a grand staircase off to the side, sinisterly lit by designer T. J. Gerckens. Whenever an actor opens one of those doors, we don’t know what to expect – the bay of Naples, shop windows, a convent — and after a few scenes, the major suspense of “Giulia” is what we’ll find there. Less is always so much more.

>

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.