STREAMING NOW: Watch Now

Fun with Dick and Jane (1977) vs. Fun with Dick and Jane (2005)

Because laughing at other's misfortune never goes out of style.

Posted: Apr 10, 2021 9:39 AM
Updated: Apr 10, 2021 9:54 AM

The more things stay the same, the more they change. I can’t think of a better way to describe this edition of KIMT’s Weekend Remake Throwdown. Fun with Dick and Jane (1977) and Fun with Dick and Jane (2005) are as about a similar as original and remake can get without crossing over into the shot-for-shot madness of Gus Van Sant and his replication of Psycho. Not only is the basic plot the same but specific moments and scenarios are recreated and put to the exact same purpose. Where these films differ, however, speaks volumes about how America and Hollywood changed over 28 years. Some of the changes are superficial and for the better. It’s the deeper and more subtle differences that are more concerning.

Not that I or anyone should confuse either of these motion pictures with serious cinema. Though both take on important issues of their day, these are first and foremost comedies. The first is amusing and more daring in its wit. The second is a lot funnier but also timid. That edge is why someone remembered “Fun with Dick and Jane” (1977) and thought it deserved a new life. Its absence, despite all aesthetic logic, is why the 2005 version couldn’t inspire anything besides a bowel movement.

Based on a story by Gerald Gaiser, the original “Fun with Dick and Jane” is about an upper-middle class couple who love each other, their son, and the trappings of their upper-middle class life only to become unemployed, go broke, and comedically turn to robbery to reclaim their American Dream. The sequence of events is almost identical in each movie, with the remake expanding a few of the original’s scenes for more laughs. The endings are starkly different and the one place where the writing in 2005 is far inferior to 1977.

Most profoundly, the first film was confident enough in the America of 1977 to put some teeth and breadth into its satire. It mocks the capitalist quagmire Dick and Jane find themselves in and doesn’t shy away from pricking everything and everyone. The second time around, we have very talented filmmakers churning out many more jokes but also being careful about who and what gets to be the butt.

Let’s start with the dueling Dicks. George Segal played the part of Dick Harper in ’77 and Jim Carrey then stepped into his shoes in ‘05. Few entertainers in history can match Carrey’s manic talent and Segal isn’t one of them. Segal was a pretty big star in the late 1970s, though not at Carrey’s level, and is a better actor than Carrey has ever been. Dick Harper with Segal is an actual person. Dick Harper with Carrey is Jim Carrey doing the Jim Carrey things that made Jim Carrey a very rich man. He’s trying to make you laugh, but Segal is also trying to portray a man with real fears and doubts and pride. Carrey is only trying to make you laugh.

They don't make 'em like this any more.

The biggest Dick-difference, by far, is that it’s hard to imagine anyone like the late Segal being a movie star today. He’s not a hunk. He’s not a freakish talent. He’s not a brand. He’s simply a talented and likable performer who could play a variety of roles in any story. But Hollywood doesn’t tell stories anymore. They create vehicles which they hope will turn into franchises. The folks who made “Fun with Dick and Jane” in 1977 did so because they thought it would make a good movie and they thought casting Segal would help with that. In 2005, they just wanted to make a Jim Carrey movie and happened to pick an old script to redo. They could have grabbed another off the pile and no one would likely have noticed or cared.

So among the biggest things we can learn from this Throwdown is how Hollywood has shifted from a place where storytellers tried to tell stories to a place where stories are fabricated to order. And no, I’m not naïve enough to believe there was ever a time when people in Hollywood didn’t want to make money. But they used to think that making quality motion pictures was the key to making money. Now they want a product they can market and aren’t all that picky about whether that product is…you know…anything that anyone will remember 5 minutes after the film is over.

The distinction between the Janes is more depressing. Jane Harper in 1977 is played by Jane Fonda and it is easy to see why she was a movie star, both physically and as an actress. The remake’s Jane is Tea Leoni, a beautiful woman and capable thespian who is not really in Fonda’s league. “But wait,” you might be thinking, “isn’t it a positive thing for women if a lesser performer like Leoni can be the star of a film that made over $100,000,000 at the box office?” It would, if Leoni could in any way be considered the star or even the co-star of the flick. Fonda and Segal were equals on screen and in the plot. Their movie was about fun with Dick AND Jane. 2005’s remake should have honestly been titled “Fun with Dick….and there’s also this chick named Jane who comes along for the ride”.

You're almost 60, Jim, and should be a millionarie many times over.  It's okay to dress like an grown up.

Before I get too negative with the remake, and before I get into the most bothersome things about it, let me praise it as a well done star vehicle. It’s a lot funnier than the original. It’s also better written in many respects. There’s a bit about the Harper’s lawn being repossessed that’s much more well established in the remake and 2005’s Fun takes a scene from 1977 where Dick is picked up by Immigration for being an illegal alien and not only executes it better but extends it out for more laughs. The second rendition does a superior job as well in unraveling the Harper’s upper-middle class existence in a more logical and believable way. The first Dick and Jane go from top of the heap to bottom of the pile so quickly and easily that you sort of wonder how they ever got to be upper-middle class in the first place.

The clearest and most disturbing way these movies are the same and yet not is in how they portray the American economic system. To start with, George Segal plays an aerospace engineer who loses his job because the economy sucks and the U.S. space program has come to an end. His Dick does real stuff and is unemployed for real reasons. Jim Carrey plays a PR shill who gets set up to take the fall by a corporate CEO who’s defrauded the public and his own workers. His Dick has a job of dubious value and loses it all because one guy decided to play Snidely Whiplash and tie him to the tracks. If anything, the financial scandals of the mid 2000s should have lent an even more bitter and cynical slant to “Fun with Dick and Jane” (2005) but the film takes a cartoonish approach and avoids anything that smacks of questioning the financial status quo. To use a James Bond analogy, it should have been like Connery or Craig but it deliberately chooses to be Roger Moore.

Another way 2005’s film is neutered is in how the story handles the welfare state. In 1977, Dick and Jane’s upper-middle class introduction to unemployment and food stamps make up a key part of the story. 28 years later, Fun with Dick and Jane takes place in a world where government assistance does not exist. Dick never gets unemployment insurance. They never go on welfare. The whole subject is avoided. Why? I can only guess it’s because the subject of how and why the government should help people down on their luck is so culturally and politically toxic today that 2005’s filmmakers didn’t want to deal with it. In 1977, they could make fun of the red tape and bureaucracy of welfare and unemployment benefits without fear of sparking a death match between conservatives and liberals.

I imagine this is how most of Carrey's co-stars look at him on set for most of the time.  "No, Jim, I don't want to watch  you do Fire Marshal Bill again."

The original movie also has Jane turn to her parents for money, only to be refused. It’s become a wonderful scene in retrospect because you can tell that in 1977, the scene was supposed to be all about how Jane’s parents are ridiculous and don’t understand the challenges of the then-modern world. It’s a scene built on the desiccated remains of the “Don’t trust anyone over 30” slogan of the 1960s. A generation removed, you can see Jane’s parents are actually acting in a very wise and appropriate manner despite the film’s effort to make them look silly and contemptible. Again in 2005, neither Dick nor Jane appear to have any parents or relatives at all. Why leave out that scene when they recreate so many others from the original? I suspect it’s because, lacking the generation gap attitude to fall back on, they couldn’t conceive of any way to write the scene that didn’t make Dick and Jane look like wasteful spendthrifts. The remake is fully committed to Dick and Jane being innocent victims. The original was far more willing to consider they might bear some responsibility for what’s happened to them.

I’ve got a couple of other points. One is the most depressing yet and the other is rather weird. In 1977, when Dick Harper loses his job, he falls in with some illegal Latino immigrants who work the low-paying and difficult jobs native-born Americans don’t want to touch. In 2005, when Dick Harper loses his job, he falls in with some illegal Latino immigrants who work the low-paying and difficult jobs native-born Americans don’t want to touch. 28 years later, which for those keeping score is 7 Presidential elections and 14 elections for the U.S. House of Representatives, and not one blessed thing has been done about the issue. If anything, these movies display a failure of immigration policy that’s getting worse. In 1977, the illegals are just like a poor underclass. They’re part of society, just a part that has to be on watch for La Migra. In 2005, the illegals are like a sub-class that lives and works in an entirely different reality than white America.

The weird bit is when a transsexual shows up in the original. Dick is standing in line for unemployment benefits and the person ahead of him is a pre-op male transsexual seeking the same benefits for being fired from his/her job. It’s a weird scene because I have no Earthly idea what it’s supposed to mean or signify. The transsexual doesn’t do or say anything truly funny. There doesn’t appear to be any joke or punchline to their appearance in the story. Dick then refers to the transsexual with an anti-gay slur that would get you sent to sensitivity training today, only to be corrected by the government clerk that a transsexual and a homosexual are not the same.

This woman is over 80 years old in this photo.  We really are living in a sci-fi future and just don't realize it.

The scene doesn’t serve any thematic purpose. Nothing comes up later in the story connected to or referencing it. It doesn’t make any sense in the context of the film to make Dick look bad for using the anti-gay slur but the scene is also too straightforward to believe the audience is supposed to sympathize with Dick, like TV viewers did with Archie Bunker. And yet, the transsexual behaves in a stereotypical effeminate manner. There’s no internal or external logic for why the scene exists.

Oh, and I can’t forget about the endings. In 1977, Dick sees his old boss testifying before Congress and lying about not giving out bribes as a standard business practice. Jane gets the idea of stealing the bribe money Dick’s old boss keeps in his office and they use their newly acquired criminal experience to do it. When they’re caught, Dick and Jane call the police themselves. You see, if they’re caught with the money, Dick’s boss would have to explain where it came from and that would bring down his whole corrupt business. It’s a sly way of driving home who the big-time criminals really are in the story.

In 2005, Dick and Jane see one of the corporate executives who helped the CEO plunder the company of 400 million dollars and cost Dick his job. Dick bullies him until the executive comes up with a plan to steal that 400 million back from the CEO. The criminal skills that Dick and Jane have developed have nothing at all to do with making the plan a success. It’s not even their idea. And they don’t even steal the money for themselves. Instead, they put it into a special fund to pay back all the people screwed over by the CEO and they give the CEO credit for setting up the fund, making him wildly popular.

In 1977, Dick’s boss isn’t arrested. He’s not defamed or humiliated. That’s part of the movie’s basic message. The game is rigged and you can’t change that but with some guts and luck, the little guy can still come out ahead. I can’t make hide nor hair of what 2005’s Fun with Dick and Jane is trying to say.

If all you want is a laugh, go with the more recent film. If you want to watch something with a bit of substance and bite, give Segal and Fonda a gander.

Fun with Dick and Jane (1977)
Written by Davie Giler, Jerry Belson and Mordecai Richier.
Directed by Ted Kotcheff.
Starring George Segal, Jane Fonda, Ed McMahon, Richard Gautier, Allan Miller, Hank Garcia, John Dehner and Sean Frye.

Fun with Dick and Jane (2005)
Written by Judd Apatow and Nicholas Stoller.
Directed by Dean Parisot.
Starring Jim Carrey, Tea Leoni, Alec Baldwin, Richard Jenkins, John Michael Higgins, Carlos Jacott and Aaron Michael Drozin.

Minnesota Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Cases: 591445

Reported Deaths: 7367
CountyCasesDeaths
Hennepin1224421730
Ramsey51212875
Dakota45791452
Anoka41604438
Washington26834283
Stearns22196222
St. Louis17734303
Scott17244124
Wright16009139
Olmsted1322598
Sherburne1167187
Carver1047545
Clay814492
Rice8037107
Blue Earth749641
Crow Wing663189
Kandiyohi654283
Chisago596651
Otter Tail574078
Benton568297
Goodhue477272
Douglas466375
Mower464832
Winona453950
Itasca435556
McLeod422559
Isanti419664
Morrison418260
Nobles407648
Beltrami394459
Steele386715
Polk383568
Becker379751
Lyon360251
Carlton345054
Freeborn341529
Pine327822
Nicollet325643
Brown305040
Mille Lacs303253
Le Sueur290922
Todd281632
Cass271328
Meeker255740
Waseca235922
Martin230531
Roseau209019
Wabasha20513
Hubbard188341
Dodge18453
Renville179743
Redwood174037
Houston171616
Cottonwood164821
Fillmore155910
Wadena155922
Pennington153619
Chippewa152138
Faribault152119
Kanabec144326
Sibley143110
Aitkin134736
Watonwan13219
Rock128119
Jackson121712
Pipestone115426
Yellow Medicine114120
Pope11006
Murray10619
Swift105218
Stevens90411
Marshall88117
Clearwater86616
Koochiching82715
Wilkin81112
Lake80919
Lac qui Parle75222
Big Stone6004
Lincoln5813
Grant5748
Mahnomen5469
Norman5399
Unassigned48993
Kittson48622
Red Lake3957
Traverse3695
Lake of the Woods3243
Cook1620

Iowa Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Cases: 366827

Reported Deaths: 5937
CountyCasesDeaths
Polk57596625
Linn20845335
Scott20025241
Black Hawk15803308
Woodbury15128228
Johnson1447483
Dubuque13368208
Dallas1117898
Pottawattamie11113168
Story1061248
Warren577088
Clinton555593
Cerro Gordo539789
Sioux514474
Webster512393
Marshall482975
Muscatine480799
Des Moines455766
Wapello4299122
Buena Vista424540
Jasper418872
Plymouth401180
Lee375755
Marion362575
Jones298957
Henry291637
Carroll285752
Bremer284360
Crawford266440
Boone264534
Benton256455
Washington254150
Dickinson248343
Mahaska230351
Jackson221742
Clay215525
Kossuth215364
Delaware209541
Tama209571
Winneshiek196834
Page192622
Buchanan191232
Cedar190023
Hardin185243
Fayette185041
Wright184637
Hamilton179849
Harrison179573
Clayton169456
Butler164934
Mills162322
Madison162219
Floyd160542
Cherokee158738
Lyon157941
Poweshiek154734
Allamakee151551
Iowa148724
Hancock147834
Winnebago142431
Cass138554
Calhoun138413
Grundy136333
Emmet134140
Jefferson132335
Shelby131037
Sac130319
Union128333
Louisa128049
Appanoose127949
Mitchell126342
Chickasaw124015
Guthrie121530
Franklin120021
Humboldt119126
Palo Alto112723
Howard104622
Montgomery103338
Clarke100124
Unassigned9710
Keokuk95831
Monroe95229
Ida90535
Adair86532
Pocahontas85522
Davis82924
Monona82830
Osceola78616
Greene77610
Lucas77323
Worth7478
Taylor65812
Fremont6229
Decatur6089
Van Buren55818
Ringgold55624
Wayne53923
Audubon51010
Adams3384
Rochester
Clear
64° wxIcon
Hi: 65° Lo: 48°
Feels Like: 64°
Mason City
Mostly Cloudy
62° wxIcon
Hi: 65° Lo: 44°
Feels Like: 62°
Albert Lea
Partly Cloudy
63° wxIcon
Hi: 64° Lo: 50°
Feels Like: 63°
Austin
Partly Cloudy
64° wxIcon
Hi: 65° Lo: 47°
Feels Like: 64°
Charles City
Partly Cloudy
° wxIcon
Hi: 68° Lo: 42°
Feels Like: °
Rain chances return for Friday
KIMT Radar
KIMT Eye in the sky

Community Events