A while back, at the end of last March, I wrote about how director Sofia Coppola was remaking the Clint Eastwood starring, Don Siegel directed 1971 film The Beguiled.  (You can read that original article here)

Those who know absolutely nothing at all about this film, quite understandable as I freely admit it isn’t one of Mr. Eastwood’s best remembered works, nonetheless are missing out on what is probably the weirdest film Mr. Eastwood ever made post stardom.

The Beguiled tells the story of John McBurney, an injured Yankee soldier during the Civil War, who is found by a Southern girl’s school and nursed back to health…and the sexual tensions/games played between this officer and the women around him.

This is a dark, dark, dark erotic fable which, because of the presence of Mr. Eastwood in this Civil War setting, plays on your and subverts your expectations (by this time Mr. Eastwood was very well known for his westerns, including the justifiably famous The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, a film which took place at roughly the same period of time).

In my original posting I noted Mr. Eastwood essentially was a “bad guy” in the film…or at least that’s what he ended up being in the end.  However, to ascribe “good” and “bad” labels to characters in this film, in retrospect, is probably counterproductive.

This film goes beyond regular movie tropes and delivers a story which, it can be argued, is quite original and not easy to categorize.

Anyway, last March we got the news of Sofia Coppola doing a remake of the film and that it would star Nicole Kidman, Kirsten Dunst, and Elle Fanning.  There was no word on who would play Mr. Eastwood’s role, at least at that time.

Now, with the release of the remake film’s trailer, we know: Its Colin Farrell…

I…I dunno.

I don’t dislike the casting of Mr. Farrell and certainly have nothing against him…

…but…

The original film benefited immensely from the casting of Clint Eastwood.  Putting such a screen icon (he was most certainly there at that point) and having him play a character with such nuance was an incredibly risky move, one that I felt paid off very well.

So risky was the move that it should not be surprising to learn the original film was a box office failure.  That same year, 1971, it is worth noting Mr. Eastwood and Siegel would also collaborate on and release Dirty Harry.

I suppose I’m willing to give the remake a try.  I just don’t know if it can hold a place next to the so damn dark original.

Here’s a trailer for the original film.  It sucks.

Clearly the studios had no freaking idea what they had with the original film and didn’t have a clue how to market it.  Still, the film is worth a look see, especially if you are a fan of Clint Eastwood’s acting.

I’m a big fan of Clint Eastwood, actor and, to a somewhat lesser degree, director.  Mind you, he’s directed some very fine films but it is his magnetic screen presence that gets me whenever I think about him.  He’s made plenty of films.  Some, like his Italian “Dollar” Trilogy, the suspense classic Play Misty For Me, and Dirty Harry (to name but a few) were outstanding classics of cinema.  Some, like Pink Cadillac and Heartbreak Ridge, to name but two, were gawdawful.

And then there’s the 1971 film The Beguiled.

If one were to look over the history of Clint Eastwood, actor, it is my firm belief this film stands out as one of his strangest works.  Sure, its weird to see Mr. Eastwood in a musical and actually singing (1969’s Paint Your Wagon) but that film was what it was: A musical.

The Beguiled, though set in Civil War times, is about as far away from The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, another Civil War time-frame set movie, as can be.  Based on a novel by Thomas P. Cullinan, The Beguiled features Clint Eastwood as John McBurney, an badly injured Yankee soldier who stumbles upon -and is helped by- women in a Southern boarding school.

I don’t want to get into SPOILERS, even though they involve a 45 year old film, but suffice to say this is a film fraught with sexual tensions, jealousies, and, ultimately, very dark, dark psychological issues.  Because Clint Eastwood is the “star” of the film and because of its Civil War setting, the movie slyly plays with your expectations of what to expect in his character.

If one looks through Mr. Eastwood’s acting career, he has played the “good guy” (though morally shifty) in most of his films, in this one he can be called an out and out “bad guy,” though using the term feels like it diminishes the dimensions he brings to the role.  Suffice to say Eastwood’s John McBurney is a bad man who takes advantages of his situation and ultimately pays for the way he treats/uses those around him.

This is not some “action” film.  It is a work which focuses on human interactions and the darkness that can arise out of sexual tensions.

It is a provocative work and, as I mentioned above, easily one of the more startling and daring works he’s ever acted in.

The reason I point all this out is because it was announced a remake of this film is in the works:

Sophia Coppola will remake The Beguiled with Nicole Kidman, Kirsten Dunst, and Elle Fanning

The article above is from Slate.com and the headline essentially states everything there is to know, so far, about the film.  We have our three female stars but, at that writing, there is no news as to who will play the Clint Eastwood role.

I’m intrigued but also curious if the film will be quite as…daring…as the original.  It’s also a daring step forward for Ms. Coppola, who I don’t believe has made anything quite this gothic and macabre before.

We’ll see!

The trailer to the film, presented below, shows just how hard the studio had it when it came to advertising the movie.  What do you say?  How do you go about saying it?  They tried.  They failed, IMHO!