MovieChat Forums > You Can't Take It with You (1938) Discussion > Perfect Cast for a Remake

Perfect Cast for a Remake

posted 19 years ago by CIARG4
41 replies | jump to latest

OK, the format of this cast follows more closely to the portrayal of the characters from the play than from the movie. I don't expect everyone to agree with every casting call in this movie and some people cast in this have been in other movies or shows before so we all know that they can pull off the chemistry required for this production. Having said that, here it is:

Alice - Kate Bosworth (The perfect all American girl next door)
Grandpa - Christopher Walken (The only actor that could possibly live in a situation such as this and find it totally normal)
Tony - Topher Grace (Polite, charming, and with a slightly crazy edge, he'd be perfect)
Mr. Kirby - James Rebhorn (The tightass bad guy from "Scent of a Woman" has also shown a genuine warmth in a few other films to make Kirby's character arc believable)
Boris - Willem Dafoe (Who else could play an eccentric Russian?)
Essie - Jessica Simpson (Beautiful & bubbly, she'd be fantastic)
Penny - Debra Jo Rupp (Just watch her as Kitty on "That 70's Show" and you'll see that there's no contest)
Paul - Ron Perlman (The middle-aged everyman with something slightly off kilter about him)
Ed - Keanu Reeves (His stoic energy and subdued charm would be a nice foil to Jessicas' Essie)
DePinna - Colin Mochrie (Just watch him on "Who's Line is it, Anyway?" and you'll see that he was born to play DePinna)

I know that some people will have some beef with some of my casting calls, especially if their only exposure to these wonderful characters is through the movie alone, but I personally feel that this cast could pull off a damn fine version of this show. Any thoughts?

[–] rosedickens 18 years ago

There is no need for that! It is a masterpiece, one of the best films ever made! A really great cast wonderfully directed. Or would you rather see a "remake" of Monalisa than the original? LOL

[–] lawyergirl 17 years ago

I agree. Hollywood should come up with new ideas, rather than butchering classics! They already remade Harvey, which is blasphemous. The next thing you know, they will remake It's A Wonderful Life. No one can do it like Capra, so why try? I'm actually surprised they haven't gone after Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, too!
I also disagree with the casting choices. Kate Bosworth and Topher Grace are overrated, third rate actors. Neither of them could come anywhere close to the level of Jean Arthur and Jimmy Stewart. I saw an article compare Topher to Jimmy Stewart and Jack Lemmon. It's absolutely absurd. The only thing he did half way decent was That 70's Show. Jessica Simpson should be forbidden from making anymore movies. She should just become a Playboy Playmate and get out of the general media.

[–] jay-863 17 years ago

To the person who wrote "The next thing you know, they will remake It's A Wonderful Life,", it's already been done. "It Happened One Christmas" was a 1977 remake, which I think it was a made-for-TV movie rather than for the theaters, though I could be wrong. Instead of being told from the viewpoint of George Bailey, Marlo Thomas was cast to play Mary Bailey and the story was told from the point of her despair and her wish to have never been born. The character of George Bailey is relegated to being more of an afterthought in this version. Though of course not as good as the original, it is a fun movie to watch once in a while (if it ever gets shown, which is seldom). The two best castings in this remake were Orson Welles as Mr. Potter and Cloris Leachman as the female angel "trying to earn her wings". There are other familiar names in the cast, but I think these were the best two castings.

[–] lawyergirl 17 years ago

I wouldn't consider that a remake. For starters, it didn't bear the same name. It seems to be more of a sequel, similar to Cinderella 3. Since the central character wasn't George Bailey, it bears no similarity to the original other than the concept. It was a tv movie. It is no better than It's A Wonderful Life being parodied on several tv shows, when characters see what it was like if they had never been born. It's nothing new to steal/copy the concept.

[–] koppmeier_kevin 16 years ago

"To the person who wrote "The next thing you know, they will remake It's A Wonderful Life,", it's already been done. "It Happened One Christmas" was a 1977 remake, which I think it was a made-for-TV movie rather than for the theaters, though I could be wrong. Instead of being told from the viewpoint of George Bailey, Marlo Thomas was cast to play Mary Bailey and the story was told from the point of her despair and her wish to have never been born. The character of George Bailey is relegated to being more of an afterthought in this version. Though of course not as good as the original, it is a fun movie to watch once in a while (if it ever gets shown, which is seldom). The two best castings in this remake were Orson Welles as Mr. Potter and Cloris Leachman as the female angel "trying to earn her wings". There are other familiar names in the cast, but I think these were the best two castings."

They didn't shift the emphasis from George to Mary. They just switched the names because Marlo Thomas had the lead. She is George Bailey in everything except name.

[–] arossen 17 years ago

I agree. Leave it just the way it is. Perhaps we can make sure edition we have available is preserved and maybe enhanced. Some movies (like Casablanca) are best left alone.

[–] wmoores 16 years ago

It's perfect the way it is! If you take something that's perfect and remake it, you will ruin it. None of the 'modern' actors could equal any of the characters in this perfect movie.

[–] myclover 18 years ago

Aww, lots of these castings are very clever! Debra Jo as Penny is genious. But yet, I really do hope they don't make a remake. I'd be afraid the movie would ruin the charm of the original film and play.

The only one I very much-so disagree with is Jessica as Essie. I played as Essie in a production about a year ago, and in my opinion, Essie is a bona-fide brunette. I was cast as Essie because I was bouncy, gawky and really skinny/flat...makes for dancing around a little easier. Try that, Jessica!

:P

[–] mdfst13 17 years ago

"Essie is a bona-fide brunette."

I suspect that Jessica is as well. :)

[–] thelilmunkie 17 years ago

I totally agree.
The Debra Jo bit is a wonderful idea, but even the mention of the hypothetical casting of Jessica Simpson as Essie is an insult to every Essie S. Carmichael to hit the stage/screen, myself included. Essie is most definitely a (although somewhat ditzy) brunette.

[–] cuzitwasgood 17 years ago

thank you. i actually needed ideas for a theater class project in which i have to do exactly this. i dont think theres anything wrong with putting a modern twist on a play. i think you did a great job. i promise not to use ur ideas but that gives me some help to get other peoples thoughts about the characters and who would match.

mary

[–] johnrupertg 17 years ago

You're all nuts. The 1938 film is ABSOLUTELY PERFECT just the way it is. What all of you should be worried about is not recasting this masterpiece, but who today can write such a masterpiece.

[–] prenzie-1 17 years ago

It's beatifully cast but NOT absolutely perfect! It's a completely horrible rewriting of the great pulitzer prize winningg play. What a desecration! And waste of talent! Look up the real play and read it sometime. Or rent the '79 or "80's version if you can. I guarantee you'll prefer the real script. :)

[–] novastar_6 17 years ago

Well things are always moved around and changed for a movie, but as you said, there are versions of the PLAY itself. This is the movie, all others are for the PLAY. And why they don't show any of them on TV I'd sure like to know because if people watch the movie and they do, they're bound to watch the play as well.

[–] hodie 12 years ago

Agreed. No one can surpass the original. It's foolish even to try.

"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"

[–] Davart 17 years ago

Do NOT tamper with art (i.e. masterpiece), get an original idea.

[–] Enrique-8 17 years ago

CIARG4:

I am sure you have the best intentions -- but I could not disagree with you more. There is NO WAY to remake this priceless masterpiece today! If modern audiences do not try to find these classics WHY OH WHY do we have to cowtow to them and UPDATE for modern audiences????

Have Hollywood come up with SOMETHING ELSE, SOMETHING NEW for this generation. Do NOT TOUCH our classics! I absolutely ABHORE the entire remake of MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE! What did updating do to IMPROVE the whole concept of MC? NOTHING at all. What was most shameful was that the TWO major stars of the NEW MC had never even seen the original with Angela Lansbury, Laurence Harvey and Frank Sinatra! Are we to disrepect those performances and the direction of that original effort? Apparently, they did and frankly the NEW MC flopped!

Just in case you want to know how much to respect the NEW MC, Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep (for goodness sakes!) had ever even bothered to see the original!

I get so angry when people call for remakes. In most cases, they cheapen the whole experience....and new audiences hardly EVER try to see the original because the remake is never that good at all.

I don't think any of your actor choices could really compare to any of the those wonderful quirky actors that populated the original. Rebhorn as sympathetic? Dafoe as the Russian? Come on! Topher as Tony? Kate Bosworth as Alice? She's runway clone! Too mousey! Christopher Walken as Grandpa? A verifiable psycho! Really...?

I am sorry...I really cannot sympathize with your plan. :)

Enrique Sanchez

[–] markochris 17 years ago

NO NO NO NO NO !!!!!!!

No remake. Stick with the classic. Someone would butcher this absolutely wonderful film and turn it into something totally dismal.

Actually someone once tried, there was a TV version made in the 80's with Jason Robards as the grandfather. No disrespect to Jason, he was a great actor, but remaking this would be a kin to try to repaint the Mona Lisa - with colored chalk.

[–] novastar_6 17 years ago

Well if you want to get technical about it, this movie has already been remade, twice in teh 40's, once in the 70's, and twice in the 80's...though I suspect those were only for TV...although I don't know that I would mind seeing them to see how they fair with the classic. I tell you, I'm on the fence about a remake, now it's true most remakes are the biggest mistake the producers could make, HOWEVER, I think in this case, if they would do it like Psycho did its remake, everything is done exactly the same as the original, only the actors and the scenery is different...THEN it might have a chance at being good. Because anybody, I could see them making a dozen easy mistakes for a remake by trying to make it work in this time. I say to hell with that, if you do remake it, do it like the original, stick to the details!

[–] jamdonahoo 17 years ago

Enough already with the remakes. Let's repaint the Sistine Chapel. Maybe psychedelic colors would perk the place up. Rewrite Beethoven's Fifth Symphony to rap music. Redo Hamlet with CGI. Puhleeze!

[–] novastar_6 17 years ago

Allright already, don't let Hollywood do it...but what if they'd do it as a TV movie? Or what if they'd do it as a play and put it on film? I don't see anything wrong with doing it like that, they don't get as much attention as the actual movie but they could still be good to watch.

[–] lawyergirl 17 years ago

A lot of great movies started as plays, so they would really just be reviving the play. You can't take it with you was a Pulitzer winning play. Harvey (also starring James Stewart) was a play (in which James Stewart and Josephine Hull also performed). The details are typically changed so much in tv movies that it is practically a different story. They hold the same basic concept for the most part.

[–] hodie 17 years ago

No, this film is perfect as it is.

It's an interesting psychological phenomenon.

[–] mjmusic-2 17 years ago

no one can replace James Stewart. he is the best, and he was so adorable in this role, which i think was one of his earlier ones. also, black and white films from the 20s, through to the 60s are awsome. the soft pale look of everything in old black and white films is unigue for the times. we don't get films with that look any more, except when a director decides to try and give a modern film an old style feel, but it's still not the same as the original black and white films. and Frank Capra could make a heartfelt movie standing on his head with his eyes closed. there was no one better for that sort of film. some films shoudln't be tampered with. in fact, most films shoudln't be tampered with. i agree with what someone above wrote that people should come up with knew ideas, instead of thinking of ways to out do the old. i just watched You Can't Take It With You for the fourth time last night, and i'm still not sick of it, it's turning out to be a favorite. but my number one favorite film will always be It's A Wonderful Life, which is also Capra and Stewart, and is the reason i started seing more Capra movies in the first place. i mite have never seen You Can't Take It With You had i not seen It's a Wonderful Life. i've seen a bunch of other Capra films as well by now, and i hope to see more.

Long Live James Stewart!!!

[–] novastar_6 17 years ago

Indeed nobody could replace Jimmy, I wouldn't want to see anybody else play his part in Harvey, Rear Window, or Mr. Smith goes to Washington...however, You Can't Take it With You has been redone 4 or 5 times for TV, and countless others for high school and community theater productions...and to be honest, I would very much LOVE it if I could find the other versions...I once found a tape of the 1984 version but it went for too much...and the '79 version was too expensive to begin with...now, I don't expect the other actors to be as good as Jimmy, but that don't necessarily mean they're bad either.

[–] Carlota138 17 years ago

DUDE. I laughed so damn hard when you suggested Jessica Simpson and Keanu Reeves. Possibly 2 of the worst the worst actors in Hollywood at the moment. And Christopher Walken for Grandpa? What the hell?

[–] novastar_6 17 years ago

Indeed, it can be remade as a play, but the movie would NOT see a fair remake...there are just some movies that cannot and should not be remade, and You Can't Take it With You is one of them, because everybody would worry about household name stars and not somebody who's actually good.

[–] lawyergirl 17 years ago

novastar 6, that IS one of the biggest problems in Hollywood. People are cast for their name not their talent. I don't go to movies that I know are going to suck, even if big Hollywood actors are in them. It might be nice to see some of the great movies from the past brought back in plays. In fact, I'm hoping to see 12 Angry Men in a couple of months at a local theater. I'm sure the actor won't be as intriguing as Henry Fonda, but it will be worth the price of admission.

[–] novastar_6 17 years ago

True, however, 12 Angry Men for the most of it takes place in 1 jury room, so there's very little in the way of how that could be screwed up. But there could be plenty of possibilities as to what could go wrong in a remake of You Can't Take it With You. It wouldn't surprise me if they tried to modernize it as they do with so many movies, and you know how terrible those turn out.