Tuned In

History’s Roots Remake: Probably Unnecessary, Possibly Worth It Anyway

A new version of the 1977 classic might not be as good. But if it gets people talking, it could still do good.

  • Share
  • Read Later
ABC / Getty Images

LeVar Burton, center, in "Roots"

Amid an already reboot-crazy TV season–a new Ironside here, a new Murder, She Wrote there–History channel now has plans to develop a remake of Roots, the 1977 slavery epic miniseries that remains one of the most acclaimed and culturally important TV shows of all time. And you’re probably thinking–as I did, as Levar Burton didwhy?

Good question. There’s no artistic reason to remake Roots. (There is maybe a commercial one, following Django Unchained and 12 Years a Slave, as creepy as it may be to think that slavery is “hot.”) The new version is unlikely to add much; at 8 hours to the original’s 12, it will probably subtract. And it’s not like the original–available streaming and on DVD–really begs fixing; I re-watched it several years ago while compiling TIME’s top-100 TV list, and it holds up fantastically well. The best a new version could hope to do aesthetically is not to screw anything up too badly.

And yet it could all be worth it anyway.

Sure, if viewers of a new generation–or the old one–really want to experience Roots for the first or second time, they can already do so. But they probably won’t, even if you simply bought the rights and re-aired it. (The miniseries still reruns today, recently on BET.) At least they won’t in the kind of numbers to generate the conversation and reflection that–beyond what we saw on the screen–was what made the original Roots a phenomenon.

I was in elementary school when the original Roots aired, and it’s hard to overstate how the show dominated conversation in the U.S, while it was on. I watched it; my friends–mostly small-town white kids–watched it; grown adults watched it, black, white, and other. We all took different things from it and appreciated it at different levels. But with the civil-rights fights and assassinations of the ’60s still relatively fresh, we all needed it, as brutal as it was to watch. You might know, from textbooks, that millions of people were kept in America like animals, denied even the power to name themselves, but that was nothing next to seeing it.

Time has passed, and the U.S. has a black president. The country’s issues and needs may be different from the 1970s; there is, for instance, more consciousness of African American heritage today, in part because of Roots’ legacy. But racism hasn’t ended, and history hasn’t been revoked. Whatever you thought of the Trayvon Martin case and verdict, the ugliness around it proved, if it needed proving, that there is nothing “post-racial” about America. (In pop culture, meanwhile, Saturday Night Live is still on the air, and its racial representation is still an issue.) The need to learn and look back on the history that Roots tells is as important as ever.

But like it or not, people need the buzz of something new to draw their attention. This is our culture now: unlike in 1977, there are dozens of TV outlets, thousands of media outlets, millions of news stories and memes flittering across our radar. Without a hook–even if that hook is “Seemingly gratuitous remake of TV classic”–there is little reason to stop and notice.

(Sure, the best thing might be for someone to create a new work that galvanizes attention the way Roots did or that explores other troubled corners of American history. They still can! No one’s stopping them!)

Realistically, no remake of Roots–no TV show, period–is ever going to have the kind of reach that Roots did, when it was a new and stunning thing, when original cable programming scarcely existed, and when broadcast networks like ABC commanded massive audiences. (Nearly two-thirds of all TVs in use were tuned to the show, an unheard-of figure today outside the Super Bowl.) Still, History channel is one of the few outlets that still knows how to attract big audiences with miniseries, as it did with The Bible and Hatfields and McCoys.

So no, America may not need another version of this story. But it can use another version of the conversation. A new Roots probably won’t be be nearly as good. But it can still do good.

3 comments
JohnG911
JohnG911

More Hollywood fiction to stir up racial violence. Is the absurdly disproportionate black-on-white murder not enough for these blood thirsty liberals? Will they use the same author Alex Haley plagiarize or did they find a new one? 

Lucelucy
Lucelucy

I've been waiting for our infotainment (and I use the word in the best possible way) to catch up with our own holocausts, to explore the reality of race-based slavery and the damage done to the descendants of both slaves and slaveholders. I didn't see Django - maybe later, on Netflix - because it wasn't that kind of superhero who freed the slaves. I'll see "12 Years a Slave" tomorrow.  I'd love to see someone do Octavia Butler's "Kindred" too. There are collections of slave narratives, letters, and records, not to mention novels written by African American writers in the years after the war, just waiting for their stories to be told in ways more revealing than Henry Louis Gates documentaries, valuable as those are, can ever be.


SukeMadiq
SukeMadiq

The best part is where the white and black guys caught him and he freaked out in slow motion for like 10 minutes.