I don’t normally do entertainment news, but I just heard Steven Spielberg is remaking “Harvey.” The 1950 James Stewart version is one of the all-time greatest films, IMO. Stewart re-filmed “Harvey” for television in the 1970s, as I remember, but I don’t think I’ve seen that version since.
Spielberg hasn’t cast the film yet. Who could come even close to James Stewart? I’m thinking Tom Hanks, although Hanks has been a bit weird lately.
Stewart was 42 in 1950. Hanks is 53 now, but he does seem like a natural for it. Nobody can do what JS did, but every time I see Sean Penn or Leo DiCaprio I think they can do just about anything.
Thanks Maha for another very interesting thought topic. Imagine Johnny Depp, Matt Damon, both closer in age. I’m voting for Nick Cage (45). Whatever, it will be weird, and I like that in a movie.
In 1950 Stewart really was too young for the part, but nobody cared because he was so brilliant in it. In the script his sister was at least in her 50s and his niece was an adult, so it seemed a little unnatural for Elwood P. Dowd to be as young as Stewart was at the time. I believe Stewart himself said he liked the television version he did in the 1970s better than the film version because he was the right age for the part in the 1970s.
They’re going to use a new script updated to the present day. I hope they don’t lose the daffy sweetness that made the original so wonderful.
Why do they insist on remaking movies that cannot be improved upon? How do you improve on Stewart? What new take do you make on that classic? Is Harvey gay? Bi? What? Not a rabbit, but a Rabbi? WHAT?!?
It’s like that remake of “Psycho” a few years ago. The director got new actor’s and shot the remake frame-for-frame, except in color. To what end? It wasn’t better, it was worse.
I won’t watch it. If Hanks is in it, it might be good. Even then, I still won’t watch it. Unless it’s great, in which case…
There’s already been a brilliant modern take on “Harvey”: Donnie Darko.
Although it is about as far from an idyllic Spielbergian suburbia as you can get.
I agree. Tom Hanks has gone weird on the rails. Charlie Wilson’s War was a bit too much “Boo-Yah! selling guns is a Good Thing!” for me…
How about Jack Nicholson?
Now THAT would be interesting……….
Or Joe Peschi……….
John Cusack.
Yeah, all great suggestions, but who are they going to get to play Harvy? I actually think Hanks would be good in this part, since we’ve seen altogether too much of him in recent years… 🙂
Hey, if we’re thinking about John Cusack, how about Edward Norton? He can do sweet (“Death to Smoochy”).
Update: Or Luke Wilson? They’re all a bit young for the part, but so was James Stewart.
Or we could go older. Gene Hackman?
Well, since it’s Hollywood, I’m guessing it will be Ben Stiller or Brendan Frasier.
In answer to why movies are remade…it’s often a creative endeavor that introduces a classic to a new generation who might not have seen or have a chance to see the original. The Blues Brothers didn’t do original songs, but they were still good, and introduced kids to the blues.
I can’t see Spielberg casting Ben Stiller.
Uh oh. Spielberg is the definition of idiot hack. Good luck!
I think it would be better to cast an unknown who may have shown Jimmy Stewart qualities in an audition. Of known actors, I think John Cusack is the best choice; however, I must confess to being madly in love with him. But, I think he would not try to be Jimmy Stewart. And, if Cusack were cast, his sister, Joan would have to be cast as one of the sisters.
John and Joan Cusack are both awesome. Loved War Inc.
Such conventional thinking. Why not cast the part as a woman.
Probably my favorite movie and one impossible to improve on – how can something perfect be improved on? Stewart’s dead so a remake isn’t possible so we’re left with what Hollywood does so well – disgrace its own original art. (Did anyone see the abomination that was the remake of the ‘Manchurian Candidate’?)
I am NOT recommending this choice, but the way Hollywood thinks in tiny little circles, it’ll probably be Jim Carrey.
I can see the Cusacks playing Elwood P. Dowd and his sister (gosh, what was her name? Vida Louise?). That would make sense if directed by Spielberg.
It was a play originally, which is still fun just to read.
I got to play the role of Veta in hs. Such a fun show. I too am confused as to why directors in hollywood are remaking classic films that really don’t need the treatment. Perheps this means that Hollywood has officially run out of ideas.
Why not cast the part as a woman.
Interesting. I think it would be harder to pull off as comedy, but not impossible.
I thought the TV version, with Fred Gwynne as the cabbie, was far better than the film version. I don’t know if that’s available anywhere but it should be.
I just hope they don’t CG in a Harvey that is visible only to Elwood P. Dowd (and the audience).
I remember seeing the original “Angel’s in the Outfield” in the era where indy TV stations played old movies. The original showed little miracles happening in the field implying the angels presence, while the remake had actual (rotoscoped? CG?) angels influencing the game.
As long as George Lucas isn’t in charge, it’s probably safe from that…
I think Richard Jenkins could pull off the role quite well – see him in The Visitor and Burn After Reading.
How about Kevin Costner or Dennis Quaid? Both play the all-American kind of guy and Costner already has shown a fine ability to do fantasky (Field of Dreams).
Bill Murray, please.
Actually, the Cusack siblings is an excellent suggestion. The Pooka (Harvey) is in Irish púca (a ghost) and Puck in Shakespeare. The Cusacks have that Irish fey quality.