Common wisdom says remakes are rarely better than the original. In this case, the 1954 version can stand up proudly against the 1931 version.
There are more: in addition to the 2001 latest German version, Emil has been put to film in Argentina, Brazil, Japan, UK (1935) and US (1964). Makes eight. Such world-wide attention is not so frequent, for a children's book no less.
But back to 1954. It sticks quite close to the 1931 script (by Billie Wilder), but pads it - love interests are added for Emil's mother and Grundeis, and parents for Polly. The subplot of the sleeping pills in the coffee (dangling in 1931) was brought to comedic conclusion.
But what made this movie most lovable for me were the period details, especially street scenes - both in 1931 and 1954. The 1954 version gains much by using the ruins of Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche as backdrop (briefly seen, intact, in 1931). Interesting that the money amounts (140 marks stolen, 1000 marks reward) needed not to be updated.
All in all, a well-done update, and at 54 years of age a venerable museum piece itself. I had seen it years ago, but enjoyed a re-watch (and that an hour after watching the 1931 version). Both are very good, for different reasons.
There are more: in addition to the 2001 latest German version, Emil has been put to film in Argentina, Brazil, Japan, UK (1935) and US (1964). Makes eight. Such world-wide attention is not so frequent, for a children's book no less.
But back to 1954. It sticks quite close to the 1931 script (by Billie Wilder), but pads it - love interests are added for Emil's mother and Grundeis, and parents for Polly. The subplot of the sleeping pills in the coffee (dangling in 1931) was brought to comedic conclusion.
But what made this movie most lovable for me were the period details, especially street scenes - both in 1931 and 1954. The 1954 version gains much by using the ruins of Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche as backdrop (briefly seen, intact, in 1931). Interesting that the money amounts (140 marks stolen, 1000 marks reward) needed not to be updated.
All in all, a well-done update, and at 54 years of age a venerable museum piece itself. I had seen it years ago, but enjoyed a re-watch (and that an hour after watching the 1931 version). Both are very good, for different reasons.