Cinephile by heart, techie/computer geek by necessity. I write about both topics.
"The computer... got confused … It mated us, me and the fly. We hadn't even been properly introduced." --Seth Brundle, The Fly (1986)
That is how Jeff Goldblum's character tries to make sense of what happened to him, during a teleportation experiment gone wrong. Somehow, his body has been fused with that of a housefly, which gradually presents devastating effects; not only to his body and mind, but also to those around him.
Based on a 1957 short story by George Langelaan, The Fly was first adapted on a 1958 film starring Patricia Owens and Al Hedison. Goldblum’s version comes from a reimagining released almost 30 years after. Here's a look at both films. (SPOILERS included.)
The Fly (1958)
Released in 1958, the original film follows Langelaan’s short-story closely, with a slightly broken chronology, starting with the moment when Helene Delambre (Owens) calmly surrenders herself after allegedly murdering her husband Andre (Hedison). With the questions of Andre’s brother (Vincent Price) and a criminal investigation of her, Helene decides to tell the story of what happened, as the story backtracks a couple of months.
Andre, a brilliant scientist, had been working on a matter transporter in his laboratory, until one of his experiments apparently goes awry when a fly gets into the machine with him. Hiding in his basement, with a cloth over his head to cover the effects of the experiment, Andre tries to ask his wife for help in finding a particular fly to revert the process, while also keeping her at a distance. Unfortunately, Andre’s brain begins to suffer the consequences of the transformation, putting Helene and their son at risk.
The Fly (1986)
Released in 1986, the remake is significantly different to the original film, and therefore to the original story, although it still retains the same basic premise. Here, an eccentric scientist called Seth Brundle (Goldblum) befriends a journalist (Davis) in his desire to talk about his latest experiment. He has been working on a teleportation device that he thinks might change the world. However, as he works on some tweaks on the machine, he decides to test it on himself, not realizing that a fly has gotten into the tele-pod with him. As a result, Brundle becomes fused with the fly, which at first results in superhuman agility and stamina.
Unfortunately, Brundle slowly begins to transform physically and mentally. Not only does his body begins to deform, but he also becomes aggressive. Veronica tries to help him through the process, but as the transformation proceeds further, she is unable to do more, forcing her to see the man she loves decay and disappear.
Comparison of Both Films
August 29, 1958
August 15, 1986
Charles Edward Pogue and David Cronenberg
Al Hedison, Patricia Owens, Vincent Price
Jeff Goldblum, Geena Davis, John Getz
The Fly is another case in which I had seen the remake back in the late 80's, before I even knew there was a previous version. But still, I didn't remember much about it. A couple of weeks ago, I decided to both watch the original, and revisit the remake to see how they compared against each other. The original ended up being better than I expected; I was expecting more of a goofy and campy creature film, but it was quite solid. I think it perfectly embodies the essence of 50's creature films while still managing to be both effective and creepy.
There were things that initially bothered me a bit, like Helene's reaction to the death of her husband. But after reading that her calm demeanor was part of the original story, I sorta appreciated that more. I also think that the climatic reveal of Andre's physical transformation near the middle of the film wasn't managed as well as it could've, but overall, I enjoyed the film a lot.
Read More From Reelrundown
The remake, like that of The Blob in the following years, takes advantage of the 80's trend of horror and gore. But with David Cronenberg's direction, the gore runs more towards the really icky stuff. But despite its abundant gruesomeness, particularly in the last act, the film doesn't rely solely on it to succeed. The film is successfully carried by the performances of Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis, who pretty much carry the whole film on their shoulders. Although I do think their relationship felt a bit rushed in the beginning, they do have a lot of chemistry, and Davis is perfect emoting the suffering that a person might feel by seeing a loved one slowly decay in front of you.
The only other character who has significant screen time is Davis' boss, Stathis Borans (John Getz), who also happens to be her ex-boyfriend. Still in love with her, Borans feels jealous about her relationship with Brundle, and serves as some sort of light antagonist to the pair. Still, I would've appreciated if the writers didn't turn him into a sleazy douchebag at first. It felt gimmicky, and just for the sake of having an antagonist. But, for what it's worth, he was probably the most level-headed character during the last act.
Another interesting aspect is how Cronenberg chooses to draw a parallel between Brundle's transformation and terminal illness. The way that Brundle's body and mind slowly decay can be analogous to cancer, or AIDS. And seeing Veronica deal with it makes you think how tough it must be for the relatives of those who are terminally ill to deal with the situation. Although I do think the second act where Brundle starts exploring the effects of the experiment was a bit weak, there's a tragic aura over the last act of the film that's really intense and makes you feel the emotional pain of Davis' character.
The original, on the other hand, relies more on the mystery of Andre's death and the creature aspect, building everything until the reveal where we first see Andre's transformed head. And even though I think that moment wasn't that well handled, there's still an inherent creepiness in it that's quite effective. But if that's creepy, more creepy is the last iconic scene with the spider and the web. Like Inspector Charas says: "I shall never forget that scream as long as I live..." I also appreciated the broken chronology of the film, but since most people who watch the film probably know the reasons why Helene killed Andre, there really is no mystery to the events that lead to it.
Original or Remake?
Well, although my write-up leans more towards the remake, this one is closer than the Blob matchup. I really enjoyed the original film, and thought it was both engaging and effective. But the remake, despite significantly deviating from the source material, manages to push the subject further and in a more effective, and emotional way. Plus, the impressive special effects from the remake are also on its favor. So this is another round for the remakes. Still, don't let my preference stop you from watching the original film. It's a really good film.
Other mystery films...
- Original vs. Remake: The Blob (1958) vs. The Blob (1...
A meteorite from outer-space lands near a small town, releasing a mysterious jelly-like creature that devours everything in its path.
- The Unknown Horrors of Past and Future: The Exorcist...
Two seemingly unrelated horror films deal with similar yet opposing fears and evils. Fear of things from the past or the future, but still unknown to humanity.
Carlo Giovannetti (author) from Puerto Rico on January 16, 2019:
Dylan, I found the moment where Helene uncovers Andre's head to be shocking. Not necessarily for what we see, since most of us have already seen the image, but for what it entails. I thought it was effective, but yeah, the big reveal at the end is the big moment.
Bill, I don't have the particulars of Helene's confession that fresh in my mind right now, but I'll pay more attention if I rewatch it one of these days.
Thanks for the comments!
Dylan on September 03, 2018:
the cronenberg version is scarier and has more of an atmosphere of horror, the original only has one scary scene at the end when the fly monster is revealed and is better described as a science fiction thriller.
Bill on October 18, 2017:
I enjoyed the article. Very good comparison! I love Cronenberg's work, but I still prefer the original film for the drama as opposed to the gore.
I would disagree, however, that we know why Helene killed Andre. Everything we know of the past is told to us by Helene. Until we see the fly with Andre's head, we are assuming that she is telling the truth. Without that last reveal, you could assume that she was delusional.
Carlo Giovannetti (author) from Puerto Rico on March 06, 2015:
It's actually a sad story, but like I said in the Hub, I like how Cronenberg draws parallels with terminal illnesses. It's sad, but it's something that real people have to deal with. Anyway, thanks for the comment!
Stargrrl on March 06, 2015:
I only saw the 80's version, and didn't like it. I hated seeing the guy's life get ruined as he transitioned into a giant whatever that was. But good hub.
Carlo Giovannetti (author) from Puerto Rico on January 31, 2014:
Thanks for the visit, the comment, and the nice words! I'm glad you enjoyed the article and found it useful/interesting. Cheers!
Kelly A Burnett from United States on January 30, 2014:
I don't consider myself a film buff but amazingly I have seen both versions of this movie. Exceptionally well written and great use of the tables. You are a terrific writer. So glad I have found you. Voted up!
Carlo Giovannetti (author) from Puerto Rico on November 22, 2013:
Thanks, janshares! for some reason, I never see either of the films on TV.
Janis Leslie Evans from Washington, DC on November 16, 2013:
Great review and comparison of two of my favorite films. I love Jeff Goldblum in "The Fly" and watch it every time it shows on network tv. I think it was an Oscar-worthy performance but he got snubbed, not even a nomination. The original is a gem, I love the ending. Thanks for this hub. Well-written and engaging. Voted up and interesting.
Carlo Giovannetti (author) from Puerto Rico on November 15, 2013:
Thanks for your comments!
Sharkye11, I agree the special effects in the remake are impressive and effective, so "ew!" is a valid reaction, hehe!
chef-de-jour; Yeah, Goldblum really brings it home, although I kinda give the edge to Davis in the acting department on this film.
Suhail and my dog, that last scene with the spider, although already spoiled by pop culture references, was extremely creepy. I suppose this is that kind of classic film that I wish I could've seen unspoiled, like Psycho. Oh, and thanks for the tip! :D I haven't seen Gun Fight at the OK Corral, but I'll keep my eyes open for it.
Suhail Zubaid aka Clark Kent from Mississauga, ON on November 15, 2013:
I saw the original with my dad as a rerun sometimes in late 70s. I saw the remake in 1986 in NYC. The original kept me engrossed as it was not only mysterious, you had sympathy with both husband and wife team. Also, the last seen with fly in the spider web and the end was marvelous. It was creativity at its peak.
The newer version had me throwing up. It was simply too yucky.
Thanks for a great article comparing the two movies.
I will be looking forward to reading your comparison of 'Gun Fight at OK Corral' with 'Wyatt Earp' and 'Tombstone'.
Andrew Spacey from Sheffield, UK on November 15, 2013:
I love this movie - with Goldbum excellent as the mad scientist - just something about the way it's put together.
Votes for this review and comparison. Thank you.
Jayme Kinsey from Oklahoma on November 15, 2013:
I've seen the original hundreds of times, but have only seen the remake once, and that was years ago! I really have to get it again so I can do a comparison. But I remember that my first impression was "Ew!" which is my way of saying "awesome effects!" And I agree that the original is one of the better 50's horror films. Good acting, better dialog, etc. So, I can't cast a fair vote, but I will say I read and enjoyed your hub! Sharing!
Carlo Giovannetti (author) from Puerto Rico on November 15, 2013:
Thanks for the comments, people!
nAchuleta, although I'm a male, I would agree that Goldblum exuded a certain quirky mystique in the film that I suppose women would find sexy. Now, as a straight male, I would say that I've always thought he's awesome, hehehe.
johndnathan, I don't remember if I've seen the sequel, but I might have to check it out soon. As for the remake, I do think there's more to it than the gore, which is obvious in my write-up. But to each his own.
bat115, that's understandable. As you can see in my write-up, I really thought the original was a good film. I just found there was more depth and overall quality on the remake.
Tim from Los Angeles, CA on November 14, 2013:
Cronenberg's remake is a classic but I do have a fondness for the older ones. and even Fly II.
John D Nathan from Dallas, Texas. USA on November 14, 2013:
I've never seen the original. I've only seen the remake and its sequel "The Fly II".
Those are movies that I don't see for a long time so I forget why I don't like them. Then I see the movies and see all that visceral gore, and then remember why I hate them.
Nadia Archuleta from Denver, Colorado on November 14, 2013:
Props to the 80s film -- one of the few in which Jeff Goldblum looks kinda hot. Great comparison of the two movies. Thanks for shairing!