Three Babysitters
in Two Adventures Almost Thirty Years Apart
By Chris Sabga
"Adventures
in Babysitting" sits comfortably among the pantheon of 1980s
movies not as a classic necessarily but certainly as a
warmly-remembered time capsule of a sillier cinematic era. When the
2016 Disney Channel remake was announced, fans of the original
expressed doubts. Surely it would be toned down and more childish
than the "edgier" PG-13 original. What many people may not
realize is that the 1987 version was also from Disney; it was
released through Touchstone Pictures, which was Disney's label for
films aimed at the teen and adult markets.
The
premise of both versions is the same: A harried babysitter (Elisabeth
Shue in 1987; Sabrina Carpenter and Sofia Carson in 2016) are forced
to drag several children along (Keith Coogan, Anthony Rapp, and Maia
Brewton in '87; Nikki Hahn, Mallory James Mahoney, Madison Horcher,
and Jet Jurgensmeyer in '16) to rescue someone stranded in the big
city (the hilarious Penelope Ann Miller in '87 and the much younger
Max Gecowets in '16). Throughout the night, they're chased by bad
guys. Wacky misadventures ensue. Can they get back home before Mom
and Dad realize anything is amiss?
The
Babysitters
Elisabeth
Shue is radiant as babysitter Chris Parker in the 1987 original. Her
facial expressions and reactions alone are classic. It is almost
unfair to expect Sabrina Carpenter (or Sofia Carson) to live up to that. But Carpenter has a bright future ahead of her and will be a
star. Her role in the 2016 film as the prim and proper Jenny Parker
(a distant relative of Shue's Chris Parker, perhaps?) is a nice
contrast to the wild child with a heart of gold she plays on "Girl
Meets World."
It
helps that Shue was legitimately an adult at the time compared to her
younger co-stars (Keith Coogan, Anthony Rapp, and Maia Brewton). In
the film, she's 17 and the two boys are 15, but their age gap was
considerably wider in real-life (Shue was almost 24 at the time of
the film's release). That made her seem so much more mature and
worldly. She came across as a woman in charge of children.
In
the remake, one of the babysitters (Carpenter) is the same age in
real-life as one of the kids (Max Gecowets, who plays Trey). While
there is an age difference between the characters in the movie, and
it can be argued that the boy playing Trey probably looks slightly
younger than he really is, the contrast between the babysitter and
the "baby" isn't nearly as strong.
It
also works in Shue's favor that she was already a major movie star in
the '80s because of "The Karate Kid." That made her seem
larger-than-life at the time, compared to Carpenter and Carson now,
who are known primarily for their work on the small screen.
The
Babies
The
remake has double the cast – two battling babysitters and twice the
amount of "babies" being "sat" – but less is
more.
Of
the new children, Jet Jurgensmeyer (what
a name!) as budding chef
Bobby – obsessed with culinary perfection and perpetually
frustrated until he gets the right
result – is easily the comic standout. On the other hand, while
Mallory James Mahoney does a
good job as the junior
"fashionista" Katy,
the character's
costuming and makeup reminded me uncomfortably of JonBenĂ©t Ramsey –
the
little girl who competed in beauty pageants and was tragically found
murdered in her own home. I realize Katy
is probably meant to be
a spoof of
the ridiculous
"Toddlers & Tiaras"
reality show, but most reasonable people don't find much humor in
that bizarre subculture.
In
addition to that, it's a bit absurd that the 14-year-old boy in the
2016 version, Trey (Gecowets), still needs a babysitter and barely
anyone acts like this is abnormal – other than one scene-stealing
scene where a friend of the teenager's (Joshua Morettin) says
breathlessly, "You have a babysitter?! I want a babysitter!
She's hot." I laughed. At least in the 1987 original, the
babysitter wasn't for the older boy (Keith Coogan's character
was actually leaving the house for a sleepover with Anthony Rapp).
With
only three kids in the 1987 version, there was ample room for all of
them to stand out and shine. Coogan and Rapp are superb as the little
teenage freshmen with a crush on the babysitter, but everyone who saw
the original "Adventures in Babysitting" will instantly and
fondly recall Maia Brewton's role as the little girl obsessed with
the comic book hero Thor and her excitement when she finally gets to
"meet him."
Thor
After
rewatching the movie for the first time in years, I was shocked to
discover that "Thor" is only in one scene. In my memory,
Vincent D'Onofrio's role (credited as Vincent Phillip D'Onofrio) was
so much bigger. That shows the power of his performance.
(By
the way, in case anyone still doesn't realize this: Thor from
"Adventures in Babysitting" and Private Pyle from "Full
Metal Jacket" are portrayed by the same actor. I didn't realize
that for twenty years. Yes, I saw "Full Metal Jacket"
a child. When it finally dawned on me in the late-'90s or thereabouts
that D'Onofrio played both roles, my mind was blown. Other future
stars to look out for: Bradley Whitford, George Newbern, and Lolita
Davidovich all make appearances.)
When
the remake was announced, everyone was nervous to see how the "Thor"
aspect of the story would be replicated. Well, as it turns out, the
little girl this time (Madison Horcher) is a major roller derby
fanatic. With the incredible cast of characters Disney owns, this
was the best they could do?! The scene involving quarreling roller
derby rivals in a police station is mildly amusing, but the poor kid
isn't given much to work with this time around. No one is going to
remember her character or obsession fondly two decades from now.
The
Nightclub Scene
The
big scene shared by both "Adventures" involves the
babysitter(s) and kids being chased into
a nightclub. In 1987, it's a jazz club and they're forced to sing the
blues – "the Babysitting Blues" – in one of the
movie's most memorable moments. The 2016 version pits the warring
sitters against each other in a "battle rap." I prefer the
original version of the concept, but the update is a clever enough
modernization.
The
remake features a few other scenes, lines, and nods to the original –
such as a reference to going out for ice cream and the children's
reactions to similar situations.
The
City
In
both films, the big bad "city" functions as a character of
its own – a place
where anything can (and does) go wrong, and danger lurks around every
dark corner. Whether either
movie is an accurate representation of Chicago, I wouldn't know, but
they are accurate representations of each other. (The original was
filmed in Chicago and Toronto while the remake was shot in Vancouver
but is once again supposed to be set in Chicago.)
The
Bad Guys
The
villains in the
1987 incarnation were
bumbling buffoons (after all,
only an idiot is going to write important business information on a
Playboy Magazine centerfold),
but they still had an air of menace. The new bad guys are walking,
talking, slipping, falling Disney cartoons. It
is ironic that the original was directed by "Home Alone's"
Chris Columbus, because it's the remake that's overrun with those
types of juvenile gags. It's
too goofy at times,
even with
the ridiculous standards set
by the '80s version.
1987
vs. 2016
The
original "Adventures in Babysitting" is remembered almost
thirty years later for a reason: it's terrific escapist
entertainment. The remake will get criticized for being too toned
down and "Disney-fied." But let's face it: no "kids'
movie" today would get away with the outdated gay and rape jokes
that were in the '87 version. Plus, no one reads Playboy anymore. The
modern equivalent of that – a kid looking up grown-up material on
his iPad – would never fly in a Disney Channel flick, and it would
probably bump any other studio's movie up to an "R" rating.
Look,
the remake is certainly no classic and likely won't have the long
shelf life its predecessor did, but there is still a lot to like
about it. It's a fun and serviceable replica. It's more innocent, but
the '80s were a tougher time with tougher kids.
Great article my friend. I love, love, loved the original movie. I will not see the remake.
ReplyDelete