Norma – How to Remake an Untouchable Classic?

In short: you don’t. Usually. Time and time again, attempts are made to pull this off but it never works, and for good reason. If a story has been already told successfully once, telling it again in the same medium, can only pale in comparison to the original, especially if that original just happens to be what many view as a rarity : a perfect film. And since a new version clearly can’t be better than perfect then why bother? There will be a target on its back even before a single scene is shot and ultimately it will just get the same old “repetitive and unnecessary” feedback that recent attempts received, like the remakes of Rebecca, Ben Hur, Psycho, and Sabrina, just to name a few.

So the question remains: is there a loophole ? Can you remake an untouchable classic in a way that could possibly result something exciting, bold and ultimately worth the effort? I firmly believe there is but only if something truly significant can be added to the original. It has to be a completely new, poignant take with something other to say than “look, we have better technology now so we can shoot the same story scene by scene but with fancier cameras and special effects.” That kind of repetition, dressed up in new clothes, is completely unnecessary in my opinion. However if there’s a new point of view and new subtext to add to the original story, then that is an entirely different ballgame, one that could very well be worth the price of the popcorn. And then some.

And that brings us to the long-gestating film adaptation of the Sunset Boulevard musical. I think the reasons why this project has been in development hell for almost three decades, are obvious: touching an untouchable classic is already scary but for a big studio like Paramount to greenlight a big budget movie musical based on a niche property is a tricky proposition. At the end of the day big studios want to make movies that make big money and a niche project with a hefty price tag is probably not the kind of business decision that any studio board of executives would sign off on without hesitation. It would be a big risk and that’s clearly not something a group of businessmen would like to take on.

This however doesn’t mean the project is not worthy nor that it would be undeserving of a greenlight. It simply means that the business proposal could use some adjustments that in the end would allow the creative team to deliver a film that is satisfying both artistically and financially. And here is how I believe that could be done.

Change the title (thus the narrative)

Even though Sunset Boulevard is most closely associated with its legendary female lead character, Norma Desmond, the original film is told from the point of view of the male lead, the considerably less memorable Joe Gillis. A male character narrating the story of a legendary actress, was clearly the running theme in 1950 since All About Eve did the same thing. Ironic considering every film buff worth their salt can immediately answer who Norma Desmond (or Margo Channing) is but the response time would be probably a bit longer for Joe Gillis (or Addison DeWitt).This story through Joe’s eyes had been already told on the big screen. So wouldn’t it be more compelling to see it through Norma’s point of view? This could be a great way to distance this version from the original and the new title, ‘Norma’, would both make sense from the standpoint of this new narrative, and would further emphasise the point that this version is not another Sunset Boulevard film, it is the first ‘Norma (Desmond)’ film.

Reevaluate the perception of the lead characters

In the original, Joe, the male lead, is the narrator thus it only makes sense that he is portrayed in a positive light: he is charming, ambitious, in love with a beautiful young girl and trying to escape from the clutches of a deranged, narcissistic, older woman who repulses him. It was very easy to root for that Joe and to feel sorry for him when he met his untimely death.

However that Joe, in spite of appearances, was no victim. Not until the very end at least. Until then, he was horrid, taking advantage of Norma (deranged and narcissistic OR neglected and insecure ?) and betraying her in every possible way, most notably professionally and emotionally. He led her to believe that she has a shot at the comeback she had been longing for for so long and he also let her believe that they were in love. The two greatest tragedies in Norma’s life were loneliness and the loss of her career. When Joe made her believe he could be the solution to both—but instead turned out to be a liar, a cheat and a shameless opportunist—it made perfect sense that an already fragile Norma would snap because what that infamous ending tends to make us forget, is this little truth bomb: Norma had been Joe’s victim long before he became hers.

Throughout the entire story up until the moment she pulled the trigger, she had been the victim and he had been the villain and this would come off much more clearly if we saw that realization through her eyes and not the other way around. After all we had already seen “the other way around.”

It would be also fascinating to reintroduce one of the greatest cinematic villainesses to a new generation, not necessarily as a movie villain but a complex woman of a certain age whose inevitable—and most likely permanent—mental collapse is clearly foreshadowed by all her demons she acquired from her experience of existing as a woman in a then (and still) male-dominated film industry. In a way it almost feels like Norma is fundamentally misunderstood because she is seen as the villain long before she becomes one in the third act, until that point the actual villain is the opportunist Joe, and in the grand scheme of things, the true villain is the system, run by men, that abandoned her.

The cold hard truth is that this angle, barely explored in the original, is still painfully relevant today because while progress has been made, not enough and not fast enough. Most recent example is probably this whole Nicole Kidman / Lucille Ball saga: one of the most acclaimed actresses of our time who, thanks to an absolutely stellar and versatile body of work, should have earned the benefit of the doubt in spades by now, can’t take on a role without garnering widespread ridicule and cyber bullying simply because she is not a doppelganger of the icon she signed on to play.

Why is this deeply problematic ? Because men do it all the time and not only does nobody bat an eye or ridiculing them for it, but their Oscar campaigns are actively supported later on. Or at least I don’t recall widespread outcry happening around the time Brian Cranston was cast as Dalton Trumbo or when Eddie Redmayne booked that Stephen Hawking biopic. Long story short : Norma Desmond was a victim of sexism in Hollywood. Just like many actresses continue to be today. An angle definitely worth exploring.

Focus on only one location

If the creative team opted for a minimalist but still very cinematic approach, using only one location, that could be the gift that keeps on giving. It is one thing that focusing on only one location, the grand and very cinematic Hollywood mansion, could result a quick and (relatively) inexpensive shoot (Ready or Not and its modest price tag comes to mind), but it could be also a great move from a creative standpoint, as another recent and very successful stage adaptation, The Father, so brilliantly demonstrated.

In the context of Norma Desmond’s story, such a take could result a potentially very compelling collision of genres: it would no longer be only a drama like the original film and a musical like the stage adaptation but also a classy, gothic, claustrophobic, noir-ish horror that would demonstrate perfectly why Joe wants to get out and why Norma can’t. Think Miss Havisham meets The Others.

This could be the foundation of a creatively fresh take on one of the most famous stories in the history of American cinema and while skipping all the parts of the story that are set outside the mansion, may seem daunting, I genuinely don’t think it would hurt the film one bit. If the story starts with Norma looking out of her window and spotting Joe driving into her driveway, then the “Joe at home / at the studio / escaping from debt collectors” bits are gone already and without these scenes, his arrival would be instantly more ominous since he would be just a mysterious, enigmatic drifter, clearly up to no good. While a focal point in the original film (and definitely in the stage musical), I think Norma’s visit to Paramount could be taken out, as well, the famous song (As If We Never Said Goodbye) could still figure into the narrative but in this Norma-centric context the last straw, when Joe taunts her about her film having no shot at being made, would be much more effective if the viewer heard it for the first time from him and not from DeMille in a cameo role.

The only character whose screentime would seriously suffer from the one-location concept, would be Betty, but once again it could work out beautifully in the end: she could be Joe’s platonic love interest whom he calls often and we hear their conversations but we won’t actually see her until the end when she shows up to save Joe. After Joe is killed, she and Norma could share a memorable moment that could elevate the tension of the scene even more.

Long story short, this one-location concept would require the story to be reimagined as a four-character chamber piece instead of a grand Hollywood epic with big studio scenes and lots of extras, and considering that the story is essentially about—and for the first time from the point of view of—Nora’s deranged mind, such an intimate take would actually make more sense, too.

Reimagine the Musical Aspect

This is probably the trickiest part. If this film ever gets made, it will be the adaptation of an Andrew Lloyd Webber stage musical and that is both its biggest advantage and also its biggest disadvantage. It is great because the songs will add something to this version that was clearly not in the original thus a sense of novelty will be already a given. Having said that, film adaptations of stage musicals are always very challenging because what can work wonderfully on stage, rarely works as well (or at all) on screen, especially the big screen. This is true for plays and even more true for musicals. While theatregoers expect the characters on stage to break into song, cinemagoers are less forgiving since the medium they chose to entertain them on that day, is slightly more into realism than musical theatre is.

This is why something like Rob Marshall’s Chicago was actually a brilliant take on the film musical concept : it portrayed the musical numbers as figments of Roxie’s imagination, a simple concept that worked well and has aged beautifully. I believe a similar approach would benefit this project, as well, focusing on the figments of Norma’s deranged mind could result some rather cinematic scenes. I also don’t think this film adaptation has room for all the big Broadway / West End ensemble-style song and dance numbers that are very much expected from stage productions and work well in that context, but are very tricky to pull off on the big screen especially for a story that essentially is a modern tragedy. So with that in mind, I would cut all those numbers and I would focus on the main quartet of characters, their solos and duets thus creating an intimate, terrifying yet heartbreaking chamber piece instead of an expensive scene-by-scene adaptation of the stage musical.

I would frame the story around 5 musical sequences with the music explained in all 5 :

Surrender – Norma stares out of her grand window from behind an elaborate lace curtain with only her eyes not covered by the fabric (a memorable, cinematic opening shot). A music box is playing and providing the instrumental background with her humming along and then singing the first stanza of ‘Surrender.’ As she finishes singing, she spots Joe pulling in her driveway.

With One Look / New Ways to Dream – A few weeks after he moved in, a clearly irritated Joe is trying to leave the mansion for an evening but a dressed up Norma won’t let him and invites him into the salon where, with the obvious intention to seduce him, she performs this medley for him, with Max accompanying her on the piano. Joe pretends to be appreciative but it is clearly just an act.

Sunset Boulevard / As If We Never Said Goodbye – After Norma is once again disappointed by Joe’s behaviour, she drinks too much, goes to bed and has a nightmare that will feature an unexpected duet with Joe, using a mash-up of these two songs. Joe will sing about his resentment toward her, Norma will sing about her fears of returning to acting. A nightmarish montage alternating between images of Norma, Joe, scenes from Norma’s early hit films from the silent era (meticulously crafted, homage-esque scenes evoking classic silent era heroines, could be created here with Glenn Close’s daughter, Annie Starke) and flashes of Norma seeing herself in her mirror, as a much older woman than she is.

Too Much In Love to Care – A concerned Betty tracks down Joe whom she finds in the garden near the pool, he confesses everything and Betty both forgives him and urges him to pack and leave with her immediately. A visual bookend to symbolise the end of Norma’s infatuation with Joe: she saw him first through the window in the beginning (Surrender) and once again sees him through the window with Betty. She imagines this love song between the two, once it is over, betrayed and officially broken, she gets the gun from her drawer and in a daze goes out to confront him. Joe doesn’t see the gun and taunts her about the Salome script and Max’s fan letters, an unflattering look on him that stuns Betty who sees his cruel side for the first time, she tries to make him stop the verbal abuse but he doesn’t stop. The comments of course are the last straw for Norma who shoots him several times. Betty freezes from the sound of the gunshots. Norma slowly walks up to her but to Betty’s shock she is not there to harm her, she caresses her face, gently kisses her on the cheek and only then walks back inside the mansion. Betty never hurt her. Joe did.

The Greatest Star of All – Everyone is in the house waiting for Norma to descend on her elegant staircase to give the media their money shot. Max wants to contribute to her big finale so he sat by the piano and starts singing this song and the flattering lyrics jolt Norma out of her catatonic state and she finally makes her great entrance that tragically enough, is also her great farewell.

Hire VisionariesThis section comes with a disclaimer: I understand that acclaimed theatre director Rob Ashford signed on two years ago to direct this film adaptation but since there hasn’t been a single new studio announcement about the project since (nothing on casting, shooting schedule etc.), I am not sure if he is still involved. If he is, I apologise for this section and I want to say that I am looking forward to his take on this famous tale.

However if the project is without a director at the moment, I am sure there are several who could do wonders to this source material. Florian Zeller, director of the previously mentioned The Father, comes to mind but he is of course probably busy with his new project, The Son. Glenn Close also often talks highly of acclaimed Hungarian film director, Istvan Szabo, who directed her in Meeting Venus and whose last English-language film was also a star vehicle for an actress of a certain age (Being Julia, featuring Annette Bening’s Oscar nominated lead performance).

The cinematic sensibilities of the criminally underrated duo, director Claire McCarthy and cinematographer Denson Baker, could also work beautifully for this. They create meticulously crafted and visually stunning films (Ophelia) and limited series (The Luminaries) and frankly it is only a matter of time before one of the big studios snap them up for a high-profile feature project.

And speaking of people creating meticulously crafted and visually stunning films with great interest in and knowledge of classic American cinema, the brilliant Mank duo, David Fincher and Erik Messerschmidt, would be an excellent fit, as well, and if Paramount is ready to either sell to or co-produce with a streamer, they couldn’t ask for a better set up than an all-time great director like Fincher who also happens to have an overall deal with the biggest streamer out there (Netflix).

And if we are talking about directing giants with Netflix connections, it should be also said that the property is close to Martin Scorsese’s heart, too. He saw the original in cinema with his father when he was 8 years old, and during a Cannes tribute to Billy Wilder a few years ago, he called the film “a horror story because Hollywood IS a horror story” and while it is doubtful he would ever want to touch a beloved classic especially one from a late, dear friend of his, maybe that personal connection could be exactly the reason why he would consider it. Who knows, it is Hollywood after all, stranger things have happened there for sure.

Find a Vibrant Supporting Cast

While the biggest casting decision had been already made (Glenn Close as Norma is a spectacular choice), there has been no word yet on who will play the other three characters. If it were up to me, I would ask Jake Gyllenhaal (Joe), Gugu Mbatha-Raw (Betty) and Christoph Waltz (Max). A very talented, established and charismatic trio, with former two also being skilled vocalists.Adjust the Business Model

Right now, from afar, this project looks like a questionable business proposition : a big budget musical adaptation that would need a successful, worldwide theatrical release to turn profit, that could prove to be challenging for any film in these unprecedented times, let alone for an older-skewing movie musical based on what is essentially a tragedy. This would have been a tough film to market even before the pandemic. Not because it doesn’t have the potential for greatness – it does – but simply because the theatrical landscape is impossible nowadays and not just because of the pandemic but also because the industry has been insisting for years on only being invested in the success of mega tentpoles and low-budget Oscar bait so a potentially midrange-budget studio film is essentially in No Man’s Land as far as theatrical releases go.

Having said that, with a few adjustments, this project could actually be an excellent business proposition for any studio or streamer. The above mentioned creative suggestions (one location, four characters only, no elaborate song and dance numbers) could not only be the foundation for a bold and artistically successful new take on an old classic, it could also help a lot in the budget department : with only one location and four characters with no scenes requiring extras or dancers, the shoot could be completed relatively quickly thus at a much more reasonable price, as well. Just to put it in perspective, Ready or Not (also a film set entirely in a gothic mansion with only a handful of characters), was shot in 26 days on a $6M budget. Now clearly that price tag would never work here (that was an original script, this would be an adaptation of a stage musical based on a classic film, so a lot of people would have to be paid before a single scene is shot, including the high-profile cast I proposed) but if the shooting schedule could be kept under 2 months, I could see the ‘Norma’ concept working out at a budget somewhere in the $20M range.And the best thing about a low(er) budget ? No pressure to deliver big numbers at the Box Office. Without the need to recoup a big budget with an equally big wide release, suddenly there is some welcome wiggle room as far as potential release plans go. As a classy drama with elements of horror and theatre (not unlike the smash hit, Black Swan), it could be positioned for a limited theatrical release by Paramount or if the studio wants to remove the pressures of Box Office altogether, after an awards-qualifying run, it could debut on their brand new streaming service, Paramount+, just as well. But if Paramount preferred to stick to tentpoles, they could always just sell or co-produce this project with a top streamer like Netflix that is always on the hunt for prestige films that may not make sense in the studio system (The Irishman and its $160M price tag come to mind).

The important thing to remember here is this : rebranding is key. In order to deliver an update worth remembering, the new take must appeal to more than just the demographic the original appeals to. It is essential to position this film as a cool hybrid of sort : a smart and scary gothic horror film with a new title and a few powerful and perfectly positioned songs. This way it could pique the interest of younger generations who would definitely embrace a horror presented to them but probably not if the exact same film is presented to them as a scene-by-scene-song-by-song adaptation of a 1990s Broadway musical that is based on a 1950s drama film. After all, it is exponentially more impressive to deliver a third classic than to rely on being connected to the first two.

Give Glenn Close her due

Glenn Close and some numbers. She was 35 when her first film was released. She received 3 Oscar nominations in supporting in 3 consecutive years for her first 3 films. In the same decade she also received 2 Oscar nominations in lead for iconic star vehicles, 3 Grammy nominations and won her 1st Tony. And this is just her 80s.

Then in the 90s she won her 2nd and 3rd Tony (latter for Sunset Boulevard, 26 years ago), her 1st Emmy and also broke the zeitgeist with her iconic take on Cruella DeVil in 101 Dalmatians that she headlined at age 49. The film that made $320M worldwide ($550M when adjusted for inflation).

In the 2000s she continued to break new ground by headlining one of the best TV shows in recent memory, Damages, a 5-season run for which she won her 2nd and 3rd Emmy (a total of 14 nominations).

In the 2010s she started focusing on films again and as a result she received her 6th and 7th Oscar nominations.

And that brings us to the 2020s. Still early days but in this decade she had already received an Oscar nomination. Her 8th.

So with all due respect, Hollywood, numbers don’t lie : Glenn Close is one of the most successful and acclaimed actresses today so if she has a passion project that needs funding, especially if the price tag is reasonable, then please do us all a favour and just get out your checkbook already. If Scorsese and DeNiro could get a $160M check to do their passion project, then fellow national treasure Glenn Close clearly should get the low-to-midrange budget she needs to do hers.

And the point here is not that someone of Scorsese’s stature shouldn’t have been given the creative freedom and the huge budget he needed to deliver his passion project against all odds (and zero chance of recouping), the point is that if a living legend who happens to be male could get that much for a passion project then a living legend who just happens to female, should get the necessary amount to do hers, too. Especially when the difference between the two price tags is 9 figures. NINE.

In conclusion, my goal with this lengthy article was to make a case for a seemingly impossible proposition, that a perfect film needs a remake. I genuinely believe that as long as Glenn Close is involved, this film should be made. Not as a problematic and completely unnecessary remake of a classic but as a bold, fresh, brand new take on a cinematic icon, a take that is compelling and different enough to stand on its own. Carried by a legend.