Remake Freaky Friday Social Commentary

¶ … Remake Freaky Friday

Social Commentary by Genre Freaky Friday (1975-2003"

Social transformation and the development of popular media are essentially linked in an environment such as the U.S. where the popular media both reflects social change and spurns it on. Within this statement are many possible examples, and yet none is more representative of the statement than popular film representations of social and cultural change. One particularly fine example of this phenomenon is a contrast and comparison between two films, based upon the same story line that are developed and made popular in two differing social and cultural timelines. One fantastic example of this in particular is the film Freaky Friday, first filmed and made popular in 1976, and then remade in 2003, with the same general story line and significantly different social and cultural messages that match the different times in which they were made.

If one were to classify genre of these two incarnate films the title would likely be family comedy, and yet as is expected of remakes and originals the films are significantly different in content, elements of culture and social change and comment. Each film, in turn provides reflections of prevailing issues of social, economic and political issues of American culture at the time of its release to the public and these issues significantly affect the content and tone of each film. Finally this work will discuss the comparative strategies for using genre as a vehicle for cultural comment, drawing conclusions from the comparison of the two films.

Comparison and Contrast

The original Freak Friday (1975) depicts a young girls and her mother, equally un-empathetic to each other's lives and needs. The film depicts what would happen if each person traded places with the other (in each other's bodies) and live a day in each others lives. To this extent the women learn to understand how difficult the lives of each are and empathize with the position of the other. The 2003 version of the film has the same general story line and from this point both films have the same or similar goals of allowing the two women to see each other and be aware of the other's trials and tribulations. Yet, both films do so in a completely different way, as per the period of time in which they were released.

One very demonstrative difference between the two films is the manner in which the mistaken identity romance plays out, as the daughter in each case and the mother as well must navigate through timely relationship moors and taboos that are specific to the day. In each film the daughter has a romantic interest that she is unable to get through to, in the 1975 version the situation is associated in great part to appearance as the daughter is a wallflower wearing braces and not projecting the ideal of beauty, while in the 2003 version the lack of connectivity between the teenage boy and the daughter is reflective of more modern ideals, i.e. internal drives and personality characteristics that build upon the idea of companionate relationships of the modern era rather than simply on appearance, which plays out in attitude change for the mother (when her daughter hijacks her body and day and perpetrates a makeover).

Annabel Andrews thinks it is hard being thirteen, but after a day in her mother's body is happy to remain herself. Only at the end of the book does the reader learn that the mother was, in some unexplained way, responsible for the change. While the book focuses on the daughter struggling to cope with her mother's appointments and chores, the mother has gone out and had her hair cut and bought new clothes, and had the braces taken off her teeth. Much of the humour in this book is based on what Annabel doesn't know, just as in Vice Versa Paul, the father, has problems with school friends and school codes and classroom material.

Smith 450)

In other words the mother in the first film is able to allow her daughter's physical transformation from ugly duckling to traditional beauty in order for a more surface relationship to bud between the boy and the teenage girl, while in the 2003 film the boy becomes interested in who he believes is the mother because all his preconceived notions about the daughter are broken down when she is in the body of the mother and she is able to then be herself, and show the boy that they have many things in common.

In the second film (2003) the realization of that the mother is in fact the daughter never plays out and an added modern twist is that the boy could potentially see himself with a woman who is old enough to be his mother and therefore pursues her, not knowing that she is in fact the daughter in the mother's body. While concurrently the mother in the daughter's body, attempting to overcome social and academic woes drives an even more serious wedge between the boy and the teenage girl, by defaming a fellow student on a test, with the reluctant help of the boy.

Carroll 154) While the mother in the second film (2003) is the one who experiences the physical "makeover" at the hands of the daughter (in her body) allowing her to become more expressive and capable of understanding her daughter's youth and potentially finding her own anew and again pursue an intellectual relationship with the boy.

The films also express differing social comments regarding adult vs. childhood. In the 1976 film Annabelle, though living the day as an adult comes to terms with the fact that she does not want to grow up just yet and childhood isn't so bad, even before she knows of her own transformation. The work her mother does in an outside the home is taxing and much more difficult than she expected it to be and she is clearly driven to better understand her mother and her responsibilities. Near the close of the film she comes to terms with the idea that she would prefer to remain a child. While in the 2003 version, growing up is not the key grief concept, as Anna's conflict is more closely in line with the grief of her father's death and the fact that her mother is moving on with a man, and about to marry him despite the fact that she has not fully bonded with him and does not have a guarantee that he will have her best interests at heart. Her mother has been holding her to a high standard, stressing the importance of the wedding schedule over things which are more important to the teen girl, most importantly the battle of the bands the girl gets the opportunity to participate in concurrently with a very important pre-wedding function for the mother and her fiance. Anna, in her conflict associated with being in her mother's body is in dire straights over the fact that she is expected to respond and react to the loving nature of her mother's relationship (while in her body) despite the fact that she is not bonded or connected to her future step-father and the comedy of the genre as well as the seriousness of the situation is not lost on the viewer. Anna, does not know how to respond appropriately in an adult relationship and is torn between these obligations and that to her own need to participate in the battle of the bands with her very modern all girl band.

Lastly, both works provide a relatively congruent social comment through genre on the challenges of motherhood, defining it in a new world where mothers have just as pressing obligations to intense and stressful work. The first work (1976) touches on this redefinition in a way that surface responds to an older phenomena, i.e. that of the career goals of husbands and the work that creates for mothers and wives, while the 2003 version more seriously approaches the challenge of working mothers. In the 1976 version of the film, the mother is a stay at home mom, with an intact marriage, that is driven by the career aspirations of her husband, who completely relies upon her to raise the children, run the household and more important than anything else support his goals by hosting and planning a huge level of his home/work obligations. At the last minute, the husband drops on the mother the responsibility of hosting planning and preparing for huge work social events and the stress of the situation is lost on him. The work clearly evaluates the new role of the stay at home mother in a situation where she is expected to be the whole administrative staff for a very ambitious husband, who is expected to show the grace and ability of his home life, as much as he is expected to show his ability and capabilities to do the work associated with his job. The messages of the work are totally different in this manner but reflect the changing times, as one will see from further descriptions of the more modern adaptation that follows.

Either way the reality is that the two works demonstrate that ultimately motherhood is work and doing it effectively while concurrently chasing career goals and challenges is even more work. Though this issue is played down to some extent as the mother (while her daughter is in her body) is allowed to ignore and remake some of the obligations of her frantic career and social world, the works are congruent in that the conflict for working mothers is an essential one, often creating lighthearted conflicts and genre-based statements about the stress that the conflict can create in a women's life. In other words, having it all takes a significant toll on self, and each mother is depicted as seeking resolution that is found then through the reintroduction of childlike needs and freedoms, that help her realize what is really important and what needs to be paid attention to, i.e. family. In the 2003 version some of this is played down by the concurrent adult obligation of a huge wedding and all the planning involved but it is clear that the mother (up to the switch) has been managing three concurrent and important issues with the utilization of the comical relief of technology, which in a modern role switch the daughter seems to be clueless to manage. While the 2003 film depicts the daughter being unable to manage a blackberry, PDA and cell phone concurrently the 1976 version shows the daughter (in the mother's body also) being unable to manage a variety of household technology and obligations, including a very overstuffed and responsive washing machine, which first thing in the morning flood the house and then requires repair and cleanup, opening the house to a cacophony of workers, then the neighbor attempting to retrieve a borrowed hairdryer and lastly the maid, who is unapologetically raining generation gap insults regarding Annabelle's poor behavior and out of control nature. The comedic scenes that follow lead the mother into the saving company of the Annabelle's crush, whom has previously spurned her because she is a tomboy and injuries and insults to the house that further exacerbate the situation. All the while the genre is developed into a collective of timely social commentaries on technology, generational conflict, stress and overextension of responsibilities and reliabilities.

Ultimately both girl's ignorance of the technology proves an important twist in that the two versions of the daughter become capable of seeing just how obligated her mother is, as compared to her and the mother sees that maybe taking a few hours off work to focus on more important things (herself and her relationships with her children and family) is not so bad after all. While in the 1976 version of the film Annabelle manages to respond to and deal with all the obligations associated with her mother's role, comically and in a trial of errors but effectively, none the less the works have completely different tones, with regard to the development of self and the world around these women, both proving that motherhood is work and that obligations are extreme in this fast paced crazy world.

Even comedies express a more benign version of uncertainty. Both versions of Freaky Friday (1976 and 2003) and Baby Boom (1987) exhibit a post-Pill, post-Women's Lib desire to place career over family. Much of the comedy in these films stems from the tension between motherhood and work. Diane Keaton's Wall Street consultant, at whose doorstep an infant has been left, finally chooses to move to Vermont, marry the cute large animal vet instead of the stockbroker, and make her money selling homemade baby food (a more domesticated version of capitalism). and, after being horrified to find themselves in each other's bodies, the mothers and daughters of Freaky Friday come to appreciate their respective positions. Even more: what Keaton, Jodie Foster, and Lindsey Lohan all learn when they're forced into motherhood is that motherhood is not opposed to work -- it is work. Motherhood is a labor-intensive activity, whether or not you're paid to do it.

Keller 1)

It is clear that the films, as comparative models provide different views of the times in which they were released, even involving a strikingly similar plot and story line. The works stress both universal principles of conflict, such as the stress of managing a family and being a mother, relationship development and maintenance and to some extent appearance, yet both do so in very different ways, all playing gout as genre updates on the family comedy genre. If comparing the two films on the issues of the stress of a working mother the general message would actually be indicative of the fact that this expanding role, and increased responsibility (including the connectivity of technology) has actually become even more challenging and complicated than it was in 1976.

Genre as Social Commentary

The comedy genre is known for its ability to play up social conflict in a fashion that is digestible for the viewing public, even in some cases some of the most significant of social stressors, like grief of divorce and/or death of a spouse, generational communication gaps, evolving social roles that challenge the fabric of society and even gender role playing that can also challenge the standards and taboos of society. In the case of Freaky Friday even the issue of age differences in relationships is breeched (first with the innocent infatuation of the crush boy in 1976 on the mother (with Annabelle in her body) and more specifically in the budding relationship between crush boy in the 2003 version and the mother (with Anna in her body). Each of the films offers significant examples of the way that the comedy genre and more specifically the family comedy genre provides approachable social commentary on issues that plague society but need to be addressed as they evolve into different traditions, mores and taboos in any given period. The aspect of suspended disbelief and comedy offered by a film is seriously indicative of the genre of comedy and helps transform society by allowing issues previously unapproachable to be breeched first in comedic form and then possibly in more serious form after th shock effect of the issue has worn down a bit.