It looks like Robert Pattinson and the Smile director are remaking Possession
Director Andrzej Żuławski’s bizarre, terrifying, and disturbing divorce thriller will be a steep hill to climb for Pattinson and Parker Finn
Aux News Possession
Robert Pattinson is putting all that goodwill he’s built up over the last decade toward the most horrifying divorce drama imaginable. Per The Hollywood Reporter, Pattinson and Smile director Parker Finn have “quietly” teamed up to remake Andrzej Żuławski’s most infamous nightmare, Possession.
The 1981 thriller’s reputation has grown significantly in the past few years, mainly as its influence spread in the so-called “elevated horror” space. Namely, A24 horror and horror-adjacent thrillers like The Lighthouse and Hereditary operated on a similar wavelength, transforming their ghost stories into extended metaphors for trauma, mental illness, and sexual transgression. That’s all in Possession, and Finn’s Smile, which takes a less elegant approach to the trauma-as-monster subgenre, turning in a broader, more commercial version of It Follows. Smile was also a big hit for a low budget, so it makes sense that A24, Netflix, Paramount, Sony, and Warner Bros. are bidding for the remake.
Pattinson is producing but has yet to be announced for a role in the film. We can only assume he’s stepping into the Sam Neill part of Mark, a West Berlin spy returning from duty to find his wife, Anna (Isabella Adjani), demanding a divorce but refusing to explain why. She says she is neither having an affair nor has she found new love. Nevertheless, her refusal to explain herself drives Mark into a violent frenzy that seemingly transfers to Anna, whose mental state also starts to spiral as a result of the hostile separation. The whole thing becomes a psycho-sexual whirlwind unbound by logic and populated with some of the sexiest tentacle monsters in cinema history.
The film’s most infamous sequence sees Adjani having an intense physical and emotional breakdown in a subway tunnel. Armed with groceries and an unending well of tears, she thrashes about the underground, smashing her milk carton against the wall in a fury. In recent years, the scene has routinely gone viral on various social media platforms, where Anna now exists as a meme for scorned women hiding a violent, manic rage. Her performance is often used in conversation with recent, emotionally draining horror performances, such as Hereditary’s Toni Collette and Midsommar’s Florence Pugh. Damn, we guess Ari Aster has the market cornered in that regard.
Finn is currently in post-production for Smile 2 (somehow not called Smiles), and Pattinson’s Mickey 17, directed by Bong Joon Ho, is currently in limbo at Warner Bros. Will Possession hit theaters before Mickey 17? Anything’s possible in a world where the Smile guy and Batman are remaking Possession.
60 Comments
Possession is far from a great movie, but it so unique as a work of art, it belongs in that category of films that should never be remade. Also see Insomnia, Let The Right One In, Goodnight Mommy, etc.
Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner in The War of the Roses. Been there done that?Politically speaking, these are good times for validating rage and violence, no?
Like: PattinsonNot So Much: The director of SmileUgh, Fuck That: PossessionI finally caught it when Shudder got it and… okay? I mean… It struck me as a tedious slog of melodrama whose admittedly fascinating but woefully overdue turn into real horror doesn’t justify having to endure the bullshit that leads up to it. There are much, much better niche horror films in the world.
Yeah, it had a great concept, but definitely felt like warmed-over leftovers from The Ring and It Follows.
OK, but aren’t movies with a great concept but an frustrating execution the exact movies we should we remaking?
I am perplexed by your comment. (Re-reads the chain of comments leading up to it…) Ohhhhhh.I don’t know why I thought Necgray’s final paragraph was still talking about Smile because in hindsight, that wouldn’t make much contextual sense. Like, at all. It’s been a long day.As such, I will just politely disagree with their take on Possession and restate my belief that when it comes to this movie, there’s just some things you shouldn’t fuck with.
Yeah, agreed. I don’t *like* the film but a remake feels like a bad idea. It’s a very specific piece of art. I respect it even if it’s not my cuppa.
In theory, but not so much in practice. For example, consider Joel Schumaker’s Flatliners (1990). A fascinating concept (medical students investigating near death experiences) with a tedious execution. It was remade in 2017 by Niels Oplev, yielding again a fascinating concept with a tedious execution.
I think it depends on the reasons for frustration. Possession is exactly the movie it wants to be. I mention in another response that I don’t like the film but I respect it. It is clearly a specific vision of a very particular artist. I just find that vision aggravating.
Do you mean Possession or Smile?
I got mixed up and thought they were still talking about Smile. Can’t possibly tell you why upon re-read. And thanks to Kinja, can’t go back and correct it. Ah, well.
Possession predates both of those movies by decades.
Yeah, I got mixed up and was still talking about Smile with that comment. Saying Possession owes anything to The Ring or Smile would be patently ridiculous.
give me a motherfucking break
No thanks. I’ll just wait for the Possession-branded asymmetrical PvP horror game.
This is a bad idea. You’d think people who were familiar with Possession would know there’s just some things you don’t fuck with.
The Gift is a very good thriller in that genre, imo. Given what Rebecca Hall’s character had to endure, I’d label it a “horror” movie.
Remaking Possession is like remaking a Lynch movie. I’m not knee-jerk opposed to all remakes, but I hate this
AFAIK, the one Lynch movie that has been remade is Dune. Take that however you will.
That’s completely different. Dune was not Lynch’s creation, and the Villeneuve version may have taken some influence from it here and there but it is a distinct new adaptation of a novel. Remaking Possession is like remaking Eraserhead or Mulholland Drive. Sure, you could try, but what is the fucking point??
Agree.
This
Lynch disowned Dune.
I don’t see how it matters, but in any case he only took his name off the TV cut, and he has moderated his stance on the movie as a whole in recent years.
It mattered when even Lynch said it wasn’t a Lynch movie.
But if he’s truly changed his stance since then now it could be argued it doesn’t matter.
Lynch has said it wasn’t the movie he wanted to make, but he did make it, and he always kept his name on the theatrical version. (Plus he even started work on a sequel until the movie bombed, and was interested in doing a director’s cut that more closely matched his vision, until the TV cut soured him completely on it.)
He has “moderated” his stance insofar as saying he thinks it has some good parts, and in clarifying that he did enjoy making it (for most of the process) and working with the cast and crew, just not the end product.I don’t think any of that means he’s actually changed his mind at all, I think he has just recognized that the way the story had spread had become a little oversimplified, and that he should correct the record on those points.
JFC dude. Literally everyone here understands what I meant but you.
Don’t know why you think I don’t, and my response was not to you.
Please point out where he’s moderated his stance. I’ve only ever heard him say how painful that movie is to him
The new Dune isn’t a remake of Lynch’s film any more than a new adaptation of Hamlet is a “remake” of previous ones. Something that goes back to the source material (and could have been made without the prior movie existing) isn’t a remake. That being said, in a lot of ways I actually prefer Lynch’s version, as idiosyncratic as it is. I know Lynch “disowns” it, but I think that’s just because it was unsuccessful in the box office.
Very few of Lynch’s movies could be considered to be box office “successes” and Dune is the only one that he disowned, which is because he didn’t have creative control over it – Lynch is not a commercial, team-player studio-friendly director, he is a capital-A Artist and views the films he creates the same way he does his paintings or sculptures. I think the process of making a “blockbuster” (though it didn’t turn out to be one) that was compromised and edited without his consent was an upsetting experience for him and made him realize that he needed to stay true to his own artistic vision.
Yes, noted commercial whore David Lynch was forced to take his name off the first and only movie of his career that failed to turn a massive profit.
I think people overthink the definition of “remake.” It’s another movie with the same title, story, and characters as an existing film, so yes, it’s a remake.In any case, Villeneuve’s Dune clearly draws upon elements from Lynch’s film (much like Disney’s Beauty & the Beast draws upon elements from Cocteau’s film, or Jackson’s Lord of the Rings draws upon elements from Bakshi’s film), so to that extent it is a remake even by a more narrow definition.
No. A remake specifically has to buy the rights to use the script of the previous film. It may rewrite the script considerably, but it is still based on that script. Villeneuve’s Dune is not based on Lynch’s script in any way but is based on Herbert’s novel. Again, nobody would claim Ethan Hawke’s 2000 Hamlet was a remake of Laurence Olivier’s 1948 version. Or Greta Gerwig’s 2019 Little Women of Gillian’s Armstrong’s 1994 version.
As for “drawing upon elements” of previous films, lots of films do that and nobody calls them remakes. Star Wars was obviously copying concepts from the classic 1930s Flash Gordon serials (and in fact Lucas considered making a licensed Flash Gordon film before deciding to create his own universe), and the Indiana Jones movies likewise take inspiration from the various archeologist serials of the time too.
No. A remake specifically has to buy the rights to use the script of the previous film.By what rule or definition? Many films that re-adapt the same source material as an earlier film are routinely called remakes without delving into the details of the contracts and licensing, such Manhunter/Red Dragon, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Purple Noon/The Talented Mr Ripley/Ripley, The Postman Always Rings Twice, Ghost in the Shell, etc. etc.Basically, if there already is a well-known film version that the filmmakers were aware of and to some extent influenced by, it’s a remake.Again, nobody would claim Ethan Hawke’s 2000 Hamlet was a remake of Laurence Olivier’s 1948 version. Or Greta Gerwig’s 2019 Little Women of Gillian’s Armstrong’s 1994 version. It’s easy to find plenty of examples of Gerwig’s Little Women (correctly) being called a remake.
Again, readaptations and remakes are different. Did Gerwig have to pay Armstrong anything to make her version? No. (She also didn’t have to pay for the source material because it’s public domain. But you can still have to pay for rights if you are really remaking a movie even if it has a public domain source; Mel Brooks had to pay to remake To Be or Not to Be because there is a lot more to that than just Hamlet, and he obviously wasn’t just reeadapting Hamlet but specifically the 1942 film).
I don’t agree with your assumption that the meaning of “remake” is or should be based on whether or not the filmmakers had to pay for the rights to the earlier film.
Do you have many examples of remakes using the same script? I mean…maybe Gus van Sant…but where do they do that? It isn’t like a play where if there is an adaptation it requires permission from absolutely everybody, you need rights from the estate of the writer of the source material, and maybe the rights to the original film depending on a number of factors but that doesn’t mean you remake the same script even if you technically have to buy the rights to it. Or maybe I’m totally wrong on this one, or the massive changes in every remake now is so that writers change enough to get a screen credit? Copying concepts is just mise-en-scene which is not really covered by copyright, especially if it’s something that a lot of things used and you can’t point to one source of the concept…GENERALLY: I understand Philip K. Dick’s Man in the High Castle might have given him some kind of copyright on alternate history stories or something. It’s not really an easy question. In theatre it can be even harder…the fights over the new adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird (which is okay but VERY flawed) have been enormous, and I remember I think Steppenwolf with Gary Sinise was going to do a new version of Cuckoo’s Nest (lots of birds in this comment) and they had to go back and redo it with the not very good 1960’s adaptation. In film they often at least pretend it is an independent new adaptation of the book.
Do you have many examples of remakes using the same script? I
mean…maybe Gus van Sant…but where do they do that? It isn’t like a
play where if there is an adaptation it requires permission from
absolutely everybody, you need rights from the estate of the writer of
the source material, and maybe the rights to the original You literally have to buy the rights to the script to remake a movie regardless of how many changes you make. It’s *exactly* like making a new production of a play. Why would it be any different? However, like in case of the recent Dune, the makers only had to buy the rights for the Herbert novel; Lynch and his screenwriters got nothing simply because they adapted the book in 1984, as the new version isn’t based on it but just the novel.
I understand Philip K. Dick’s Man in the High Castle might have given
him some kind of copyright on alternate history stories or something.
The Man in the High Castle is nowhere near the first alternate history story. It was a very common trope when he wrote it. He himself said he was inspired by Ward Moore’s 1953 Bring the Jubilee, which like his book is set in the “modern day” but in a world in which the Confederacy won at Gettysburg, leading to a world in which the USA and CSA exist in the present (well, the 1950s). But earlier than that, the French had a tradition of writing fiction where Napoleon won and unified the world under his rule, and even the Roman historian Livy (~20 BCE) wrote about what could have happened if Alexander the Great had lived to attack Rome a few centuries earlier.
I know that
They should call the SMILE sequel ‘2MILE’ haha *dies*
SMIILE
SIMILE
2MILE, the prequel to 8 Mile.
Smile was… enh. Too predictable to generate any real unease or uncertainty, and while that’s not necessarily fatal, there wasn’t much there on top of it. I don’t trust this director to get to the level of freaky this material requires.
Possession is a film from a very particular time and place which, absolutely, cannot be recreated. This remake will be a polished, clean pastiche which will miss everything that made the original weird and ugly.
There’s an homage to Possession’s subway scene in the First Omen, which just fails to capture the same intensity and rawness because it is an *imitation,* a self-conscious affectation instead of something honest.
I don’t know. On one hand, it is a very unique and insular art horror movie, that seems like it would be a disaster when remade by Hollywood. On the other hand: the whole thing reeks of ‘the manosphere’ avant la lettre: there’s a tradwife and a sex monster the main character can never compete with. That guy Andrzej Żuławski surely had issues with women. So that sort of speaks in favour of it, but why not just write an original script about these issues?
Even if you wrote that film about the same issues, I’m pretty sure Berlin itself is as much a character in that film as anyone esle and that unique feel of that city in that postwar time is not something a new film can capture.
I agree. Berlin and the paranoia go hand in hand and add a LOT to the overall vibe of the films atmosphere.
That was my first thought too. This article wasn’t specific. I wonder if they’ll set the story somewhere else, and will it occur in present day? Confusing.
This is the problem I had with the anime adaptations of Junji Ito’s works. His art style is so visceral and grotesque, and it’s what makes his rather ridiculous concepts work. I just didn’t feel the same way about it being depicted with “near and clean” animation.
I would tell them: go ahead, try remaking it. Let’s see how it develops. If they are brave enough to have the idea of remaking such a weird one with such a history in its production, go full in, let’s see what they’ve got.
Ha ha.
Pattinson has made really good project choices and done some pretty excellent work in this area, and has earned himself a some cred.
Smile, while a solid enough example of the “It’s really about *traaauuuma*” genre, also didn’t have anything especially noteworthy about it, apart from a few clever bits of jumpscare framing. So a big ol’ furrowed brow question mark about Finn.And really, the only way this works is for them to do what the *Suspiria* remake did- take the bare outline and do something COMPLETELY different with it. There’s no way you’re going to out-weird the Zulawski original, and whoever gets cast in the Adjani will HAVE to go somewhere else with it. Assuming neither Finn nor Pattinson (or whoever they pick for the spouse) will be going through their own divorce, and losing the sterile, cold-war German setting, they’re gonna have to pull in stuff from somewhere else. I can’t say I’m optimistic, but it’s not necessarily a doomed-from-the-start idea…
The Suspiria remake is definitely lighting the path for this one, but that had the benefit of being done by a fascinating director with an incredibly solid vision rather than… well, the director of Smile.Also worth noting that the Suspiria remake amped up the paranoia of cold war Berlin, while that’s the thing everyone is convinced the Possession remake will lose. Not really making a point here, just an interesting parallel between the two.
Smile was excellent. A lot smarter than it’s given credit for imo. Particularly it’s treatment of trauma in horror after a decade of the overtness becoming boring. But trying to remake one of the greatest and singular movies of all time? Absolutely not.
This is great! I love A.S. Byatt! Oh, wait, this isn’t a remake of the adaptation of her novel about Victorian poets in love originally filmed (to mixed reception) in 2002 with Aaron Eckhardt and Gwyneth Paltrow?
Of all the movies to remake, this is not one of them.
If you didn’t see Smile in the theater you might not have got how the jump scares caused the audience to laugh uproariously and that it was intentional and self-aware (specifically piano and car). It was predictable, but it wasn’t really trying not to be predictable. So I am cautiously optimistic about the director, I just don’t know why a movie that everyone agrees was good (and unique and unexpected) needs to be remade, especially when they aren’t going to top it and it is already in English and available so that isn’t an excuse (I’m looking at you, unnecessary Solaris remake).
There really needs to be a stupid thread of alterative SMILE titles.
Smile 2: Tokyo Grin
Smile 2: Smile Harder
Smile Too: Chee2e (the same first movie just in a different high school with jason bateman)
Smile2