The Case for Remaking Mannequin
Nov. 10th, 2017 09:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastThis is a rather obscure one from the 1980's. I just don't hear anybody talking about it anymore and... that's just as well. I did enjoy this movie, repeatedly. I'd watch it over and over again because, and this is important, I was a child who liked repetition. When the sequel came to cable, I watched it and enjoyed on the basis of a movie that was bad enough to be amusing in its own right.
Of movies from the 80's, there are better movies to be remembered. Then again, a movie doesn't need to reach heights of art. It just needs to be amusing enough to be worth what you paid to see it, especially if it's on cable and that cost was shared with a great deal of much better entertainment.
For those who, quite reasonably, don't know, Mannequin is the story of an artist and the bit of anthropomoriphized plastic he falls in love with... Really.
Okay, there's a more generous description. There are two main characters.
The one the descriptions I've found online focus on is Jonathan Switcher. He has what a screw-ball comedy movie wants you to pretend is an artistic mindset. In the beginning, we see him go through a montage of jobs, losing each one because he employs his artistic expression to the detriment of the job he's doing. By memory, he spends time shaping a topiary statue rather than just trimming a hedge like he's supposed to.
In one of his jobs, he designs a mannequin. He designs and builds a mannequin and, much like Daedalus before him, falls in love with his creation. He loses that job and finds the mannequin he loves in a department store. By hapinstance, he saves the life of an old woman and she rewards him with a job putting together the mannequin displays. That's where he finds the other main character.
The other main character will be called Emmy.. Her story starts in 2514 BC. She was set to be married off to... I don't remember. But, it was Ancient Egypt, so the options probably aren't great, but what we're given is that Emmy doesn't want to settle down just yet. She wants to invent things, try new things.
During an argument with her mother, she beseeches the gods to find some way out of this. Her mother gives the line about how she thinks the gods have more important things to do and, in a flash, Emmy is gone.
There's an animation about what she does for the next four thousand plus years. In the animation, she jumps from time to time taking part in various time-periods. And, by the time she shows up in what was "modern day" for the movie's release, she's not at all phased by what's happening. This would suggest that she hasn't been conscious for all that time, but has been going from artist to artist to artist confering with them, inventing things, trying things nobody has ever tried before. According to one of her name-drops, she worked with Leonardo Davinci.
Emmy explains the rules to Jonathan. She is only human so long as only he can see her. If someone else is looking, she's that mannequin again. She might have changed position, sometimes in ways that wouldn't be possible for a mannequin (such as a raised middle finger for a joke), but just a mannequin. Whacky situations, of course, result.
There is one other character that must be acknowledged, the only character to make it to the sequel and one that may well have deserved his own movie.
Hollywood Montrose is many things. He is brave. He is loyal. He is instantly ready to help a noble cause at cost to himself. He's a good leader, a man of vision and the ability to see that vision out. He is also very much the 1980s Hollywood representation of gay men. It would be massively insulting if not for the almost accidental greatness of this character... though it may well still be.
The story involves Jonathan and Emmy working together to make mannequin displays for their department store and, at the same time, having a love affair. Their visually impressive and pleasing displays is responsible for bringing in crowds who spend money and, contrary to expectations, keep the department store financially afloat.
But, the son of the department store's owner actually wants the department store to go under. He wants to sell it off for... some reason or another. For reasons I don't remember, he could get the control necessary to do what he wants only if the department store goes under.
As well, there's a security guard who has fantasies of being a soldier in a war, viewing Jonathan as an enemy that has to be observed and stalked.
Much of this movie only works because the movie is openly not taking itself seriously, even as a comedy. Too much of this doesn't work if you think about it. That's okay to have the option to just not think about it, but there's far more potential here than is seen.
So much of the basic idea has great story potential. The frustrated artist, the woman gifted/cursed to hopscotch through time, the big business interests at odds with the lives and jobs of people who need good jobs with steady incomes, and, of course, Hollywood Montrose. Why not make a story that stands up to some thought?
We start off focusing on Jonathan. In this version, he's not the artist who can't stop being artist. He already works at the department store. He only works there part time, because everybody works part time with few exceptions. And, he'd work another part time job, only he doesn't get a set weekly schedule around which he could work another part time job. Instead, he drives for Uber in order to make ends meet.
He wants to be an artist. He has the graphic design knowledge to be an artist. After working a wildly unstable schedule that can have him closing at midnight one night and up to open at eight AM the next morning and driving the drunk around in the mean time, he just doesn't have the time, energy, or opportunity.
He even has ideas for how to set up those window displays, ways that would be unique and interesting, drawing the eye. But, he's bound up. All displays are strictly controlled by upper management. Even the store manager loses points on inspection if the plans aren't strictly by the instructions given... no matter how much of an eyesore those instructions make.
At the same time, his work friend, who goes by Hollywood Montrose has some of the same frustrations, with one additional added on. The manager keeps on telling him to "tone it down". "It" refers to not just his accessories, but his mannerisms, his way of speaking. The manager might even use the words "don't be so in your face about it."
That phrase might be an inciting incident for both Jonathan and Hollywood. They need the income, yes. But, they both need to express themselves in their own way and they're both not getting a necessary level of respect. It's not the best of ideas, but sometimes you just have to take a risk because the alternative is to risk being crushed.
It takes some forged instructions on a display. Rather, it takes some forged lack-of-instructions on a display. Careful absence of a page and careful reprinting allows the two to have instructions that demand that a window display be done by start of business the next day, but not enough time to finish it before closing. This gives them an excuse to be unsupervised while Jonathan comes up with an idea for the display and Hollywood makes some strategic moves to irk that manager.
Enter Emmy. I don't believe that's an Egyptian name, so she might need a different name for an actual movie. We'll work with that for now.
In a moment with Hollywood gone, the mannequin that was once just a mannequin is now a woman. She greets Jonathan and immediately sets to discussing what his project is and what he wants to accomplish with it. He doesn't have the chance to process anything, just make a startled noise at the sudden presence of a completely unknown person there.
Some parts of this are standard. Hollywood returns and she's just a mannequin. Jonathan plays it off as being startled by something random and laughing off what he initially suspects is his own hallucination. Hollywood leaves and there she is again.
She admits that she's not in his frame of reference. She admits that this is really weird for him. She doesn't want to discuss that quite yet. In the moment, she wants to talk about his project and take part in planning it.
It's obvious that he can't call the cops on his own halucination or a woman who nobody else can see. He might as well.
The next day, the expected happens. It's a success. It's a much better than the original plan would have been. It verifiably draws more foot traffic and encourages more sales. Sure, it's not by the plan, which would cost in points, but it increases profits. In terms of the manager's interests, there's a conflict, but sales goals rule.
That night is when we get the explanation and the flashback. Emmy tells him how it works. She's only a human woman when only he can see her. Anybody else's eyes return her to a mannequin. She'll make the references to old famous artists, including Divinci.
In flashbacks, she's to be married off. This isn't seen as settling down. It's not like she's got many options in Ancient Egyptian society. Queen Cleopatra may have been an intelligent leader, but she was quickly recast as a seductress. And, Emmy was recast before her very eyes. Her designs and expressions are quickly swept aside, as unimportant, by her husband to be, the one that has declared that she will be his wife.
She doesn't object to the concept of a marriage. She objects to being made nothing more than a role to fill, one that any woman could fill. She demands that she not be an object and prays to the gods to support her in her desire. Her husband to be says "between you and me, the gods obviously support..." and she's gone.
Jonathan doesn't even ask, initially, about her origins. She's not a muse as we imagine the idea these days, one who's presence grants inspiration, but he thinks of her as a muse. Rather, she cooperates with him, adding her creativity to his own. In so doing, she takes a measure of satisfaction in being a partner in the creative endeavor. But, while Jonathan grows more attached and more affectionate, she finds that lacks for something.
At the same time, there's a greater conflict. Jonathan's displays work, yes, they bring in the money. But, he's just one store and, to someone, there's a greater principle to be held. After all, you can't just trust all the stores to do just as well. There has to be a control. You'd think the CEO would be all for anything that brings in more money, but he approves the displays. He makes sure nobody takes control away from him.
The theme to all of this is, of course, objectification. Jonathan, despite not hooting or hollering is objectifying Emmy, who can't be a person to anybody else. Jonathan, himself, is objectified by the company that owns the department store and would rather see him a controlled object than a human with potentially risky judgment.
Hollywood Montrose is objectified in a different way. He shouldn't have to "tone it down" in order to be seen for the courageous, impressive person that he is. At the same time, people, like the manager, only see the flamboyant and fill in the details as though he isn't a real person.
Sure, there's that whole thing about the upper management conflict, but the real question is if they can achieve a point where they can be seen not just for the potential uses and inconveniences, but as people, as messy as that can be.
Of movies from the 80's, there are better movies to be remembered. Then again, a movie doesn't need to reach heights of art. It just needs to be amusing enough to be worth what you paid to see it, especially if it's on cable and that cost was shared with a great deal of much better entertainment.
For those who, quite reasonably, don't know, Mannequin is the story of an artist and the bit of anthropomoriphized plastic he falls in love with... Really.
Okay, there's a more generous description. There are two main characters.
The one the descriptions I've found online focus on is Jonathan Switcher. He has what a screw-ball comedy movie wants you to pretend is an artistic mindset. In the beginning, we see him go through a montage of jobs, losing each one because he employs his artistic expression to the detriment of the job he's doing. By memory, he spends time shaping a topiary statue rather than just trimming a hedge like he's supposed to.
In one of his jobs, he designs a mannequin. He designs and builds a mannequin and, much like Daedalus before him, falls in love with his creation. He loses that job and finds the mannequin he loves in a department store. By hapinstance, he saves the life of an old woman and she rewards him with a job putting together the mannequin displays. That's where he finds the other main character.
The other main character will be called Emmy.. Her story starts in 2514 BC. She was set to be married off to... I don't remember. But, it was Ancient Egypt, so the options probably aren't great, but what we're given is that Emmy doesn't want to settle down just yet. She wants to invent things, try new things.
During an argument with her mother, she beseeches the gods to find some way out of this. Her mother gives the line about how she thinks the gods have more important things to do and, in a flash, Emmy is gone.
There's an animation about what she does for the next four thousand plus years. In the animation, she jumps from time to time taking part in various time-periods. And, by the time she shows up in what was "modern day" for the movie's release, she's not at all phased by what's happening. This would suggest that she hasn't been conscious for all that time, but has been going from artist to artist to artist confering with them, inventing things, trying things nobody has ever tried before. According to one of her name-drops, she worked with Leonardo Davinci.
Emmy explains the rules to Jonathan. She is only human so long as only he can see her. If someone else is looking, she's that mannequin again. She might have changed position, sometimes in ways that wouldn't be possible for a mannequin (such as a raised middle finger for a joke), but just a mannequin. Whacky situations, of course, result.
There is one other character that must be acknowledged, the only character to make it to the sequel and one that may well have deserved his own movie.
Hollywood Montrose is many things. He is brave. He is loyal. He is instantly ready to help a noble cause at cost to himself. He's a good leader, a man of vision and the ability to see that vision out. He is also very much the 1980s Hollywood representation of gay men. It would be massively insulting if not for the almost accidental greatness of this character... though it may well still be.
The story involves Jonathan and Emmy working together to make mannequin displays for their department store and, at the same time, having a love affair. Their visually impressive and pleasing displays is responsible for bringing in crowds who spend money and, contrary to expectations, keep the department store financially afloat.
But, the son of the department store's owner actually wants the department store to go under. He wants to sell it off for... some reason or another. For reasons I don't remember, he could get the control necessary to do what he wants only if the department store goes under.
As well, there's a security guard who has fantasies of being a soldier in a war, viewing Jonathan as an enemy that has to be observed and stalked.
Much of this movie only works because the movie is openly not taking itself seriously, even as a comedy. Too much of this doesn't work if you think about it. That's okay to have the option to just not think about it, but there's far more potential here than is seen.
So much of the basic idea has great story potential. The frustrated artist, the woman gifted/cursed to hopscotch through time, the big business interests at odds with the lives and jobs of people who need good jobs with steady incomes, and, of course, Hollywood Montrose. Why not make a story that stands up to some thought?
We start off focusing on Jonathan. In this version, he's not the artist who can't stop being artist. He already works at the department store. He only works there part time, because everybody works part time with few exceptions. And, he'd work another part time job, only he doesn't get a set weekly schedule around which he could work another part time job. Instead, he drives for Uber in order to make ends meet.
He wants to be an artist. He has the graphic design knowledge to be an artist. After working a wildly unstable schedule that can have him closing at midnight one night and up to open at eight AM the next morning and driving the drunk around in the mean time, he just doesn't have the time, energy, or opportunity.
He even has ideas for how to set up those window displays, ways that would be unique and interesting, drawing the eye. But, he's bound up. All displays are strictly controlled by upper management. Even the store manager loses points on inspection if the plans aren't strictly by the instructions given... no matter how much of an eyesore those instructions make.
At the same time, his work friend, who goes by Hollywood Montrose has some of the same frustrations, with one additional added on. The manager keeps on telling him to "tone it down". "It" refers to not just his accessories, but his mannerisms, his way of speaking. The manager might even use the words "don't be so in your face about it."
That phrase might be an inciting incident for both Jonathan and Hollywood. They need the income, yes. But, they both need to express themselves in their own way and they're both not getting a necessary level of respect. It's not the best of ideas, but sometimes you just have to take a risk because the alternative is to risk being crushed.
It takes some forged instructions on a display. Rather, it takes some forged lack-of-instructions on a display. Careful absence of a page and careful reprinting allows the two to have instructions that demand that a window display be done by start of business the next day, but not enough time to finish it before closing. This gives them an excuse to be unsupervised while Jonathan comes up with an idea for the display and Hollywood makes some strategic moves to irk that manager.
Enter Emmy. I don't believe that's an Egyptian name, so she might need a different name for an actual movie. We'll work with that for now.
In a moment with Hollywood gone, the mannequin that was once just a mannequin is now a woman. She greets Jonathan and immediately sets to discussing what his project is and what he wants to accomplish with it. He doesn't have the chance to process anything, just make a startled noise at the sudden presence of a completely unknown person there.
Some parts of this are standard. Hollywood returns and she's just a mannequin. Jonathan plays it off as being startled by something random and laughing off what he initially suspects is his own hallucination. Hollywood leaves and there she is again.
She admits that she's not in his frame of reference. She admits that this is really weird for him. She doesn't want to discuss that quite yet. In the moment, she wants to talk about his project and take part in planning it.
It's obvious that he can't call the cops on his own halucination or a woman who nobody else can see. He might as well.
The next day, the expected happens. It's a success. It's a much better than the original plan would have been. It verifiably draws more foot traffic and encourages more sales. Sure, it's not by the plan, which would cost in points, but it increases profits. In terms of the manager's interests, there's a conflict, but sales goals rule.
That night is when we get the explanation and the flashback. Emmy tells him how it works. She's only a human woman when only he can see her. Anybody else's eyes return her to a mannequin. She'll make the references to old famous artists, including Divinci.
In flashbacks, she's to be married off. This isn't seen as settling down. It's not like she's got many options in Ancient Egyptian society. Queen Cleopatra may have been an intelligent leader, but she was quickly recast as a seductress. And, Emmy was recast before her very eyes. Her designs and expressions are quickly swept aside, as unimportant, by her husband to be, the one that has declared that she will be his wife.
She doesn't object to the concept of a marriage. She objects to being made nothing more than a role to fill, one that any woman could fill. She demands that she not be an object and prays to the gods to support her in her desire. Her husband to be says "between you and me, the gods obviously support..." and she's gone.
Jonathan doesn't even ask, initially, about her origins. She's not a muse as we imagine the idea these days, one who's presence grants inspiration, but he thinks of her as a muse. Rather, she cooperates with him, adding her creativity to his own. In so doing, she takes a measure of satisfaction in being a partner in the creative endeavor. But, while Jonathan grows more attached and more affectionate, she finds that lacks for something.
At the same time, there's a greater conflict. Jonathan's displays work, yes, they bring in the money. But, he's just one store and, to someone, there's a greater principle to be held. After all, you can't just trust all the stores to do just as well. There has to be a control. You'd think the CEO would be all for anything that brings in more money, but he approves the displays. He makes sure nobody takes control away from him.
The theme to all of this is, of course, objectification. Jonathan, despite not hooting or hollering is objectifying Emmy, who can't be a person to anybody else. Jonathan, himself, is objectified by the company that owns the department store and would rather see him a controlled object than a human with potentially risky judgment.
Hollywood Montrose is objectified in a different way. He shouldn't have to "tone it down" in order to be seen for the courageous, impressive person that he is. At the same time, people, like the manager, only see the flamboyant and fill in the details as though he isn't a real person.
Sure, there's that whole thing about the upper management conflict, but the real question is if they can achieve a point where they can be seen not just for the potential uses and inconveniences, but as people, as messy as that can be.
no subject
Date: 2017-11-13 11:41 am (UTC)That genre's tropes reflected social conventions of the era, and anyone remaking or copying such a film couldn't update the conventions without changing the basic premise. (I suspect that films like Mannequin, Hello Again and Chances Are were attempts to tap into the Reagan era's misguided nostalgia.) Mannequin has a woman instead of a man as the store's owner, but it's same basic character of the wise leader who dispenses justice, and audiences in the 1960s and even the 1970s would have laughed at a CEO portrayed that way.
Also, did you mean Pygmalion instead of Daedalus?
no subject
Date: 2017-11-13 12:30 pm (UTC)So, there's a little of both.
Yeah, I can see the similarities in style to those kind of movies.
no subject
Date: 2017-11-13 03:10 pm (UTC)Any studio seeking to remake films from another era should at least think about the points you raise in your “Case for Remaking” entries. In the case of Mannequin, having one character be stereotypically gay doesn’t qualify as setting it in the modern era. Reminds me of the first Independence Day, with the first half being apocalyptic and the second half being merely a World War II melodrama with CGI.
no subject
Date: 2017-11-13 04:33 pm (UTC)The mobile factor being when/why it becomes human.
And, thank you. I'll take that as a compliment... for me and not for Independence Day.