It's not on the level of such head-scratchers as Is there a god? How do I find meaning in life? or even Why aren't peanut butter M&Ms sold in all supermarkets? But it's a question worth pondering nevertheless: do we really need another movie version of Charlie's Angels?
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Originally on the small screen, Charlie's Angels began as one of the "jiggle television" shows that became rife in the 1970s. It was one of Aaron Spelling's many TV productions that used female sex appeal to attract audiences. And it worked: Charlie's Angels ran from 1976 to 1981.
The premise was that three women - originally Kate Jackson, Farrah Fawcett-Majors and Jaclyn Smith: though the Angels changed, there were always three of them - were Los Angeles police academy graduates. They went to work as private investigators for the Charles Townsend Agency. Their unseen boss Charlie (voiced by veteran actor John Forsythe) gave them - and associate John Bosley - their assignments via speakerphone and off they would go. While the show featured women in action roles, nowadays it feels rather sexist and demeaning, both for the Angels' subordinate status to a boss who never even meets them face to face and for the aforementioned "jiggle" factor.
There was an attempt at a role reversal spin-off - with veteran actress Barbara Stanwyck in the title role of Toni's Boys, with three good-looking young men at her disposal - but it flopped. There were foreign versions and a short-lived US 2011 reboot.
Unlike a lot of TV shows, Charlie's Angels seemed like promising material for a big-screen reimagination - one that could lessen the awkward elements, tell a story, and still be fun, with the opportunities of movie scale adding to the promise.
And in 2000, that's what happened.
Forsythe returned as the voice of Charlie and the film was jokily self-aware and sometimes (a bit too) goofy and the new Angels - Lucy Liu, Cameron Diaz and co-producer Drew Barrymore - were more modern women, though perhaps not as differentiated as they might have been. Some of the supporting cast were good - Bill Murray as Bosley in particular.
The film made money, even if not all critics were impressed, and a sequel, subtitled Full Throttle, resulted a couple of years later. Murray did not return, reportedly because of a fight with director McG and/or Liu. The film didn't do as well as its predecessor (there was a time when franchise sequels seldom out-grossed the originals: how things have changed).
And there things seemed to lie, the short-lived TV revival notwithstanding. But if nature abhors a vacuum, Hollywood abhors a promising franchise that's waiting to be reborn for a new generation. And so the new Charlie's Angels, written and directed by Elizabeth Banks, and starring Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott and Ella Balinksa, is upon us.
Even without having seen it, a few observations can be made. The title trio seem more imbalanced in terms of star power than before - Stewart is the only really big name among them - which might be why this film has not one but multiple Bosleys including Banks and (unrelated to Kristen) Patrick Stewart (who is obviously happy to make some real, Hollywood, money between theatrical engagements, and why not?).
Having Banks, who directed the second Pitch Perfect movie, as writer-director may or may not make much difference in terms of how the women are portrayed - the commercial imperatives are always there - but here's hoping. And given this franchise has come up repeatedly, let's also hope we get something new amid all the familiarity.