400 Screens, 400 Blows - Going Psycho
Filed under: Horror, Remakes and Sequels, Columns, 400 Screens, 400 Blows
For Halloween week, I thought I'd go back and challenge one of the biggest movie myths of recent years: that Gus Van Sant's Psycho (1998) is the worst remake of all time. On the contrary... it's actually one of the most fascinating of all remakes, and a great deal more satisfying than almost any other horror remake. Let me explain. If we go back and look at the history of horror movies, we can divide up the last 100 years into sections. There were the Expressionist horrors of the silent era, then the Universal monsters, then Val Lewton's RKO films, the British Hammer films, the Italian horrors, the American Renaissance of the 1970s, the 1980s tongue-in-cheek films, the Asian horrors of the 1990s, and now -- remakes.
There were three factors that made Psycho different from other horror remakes. It was based on a high-quality, undisputed classic rather than some slapdash, B-level monster movie. It was shot-for-shot, and a respected art house director made it. Van Sant had earned some fame, acclaim and an Oscar nomination (for Good Will Hunting), and so by signing on to do the remake he unconsciously indicated that he was stepping into Hitchcock's shoes, which was unforgivable, and also impossible. If a fourth-rate hack had tried it, it would have been laughed at, or ignored, out of existence. But Van Sant's skill and reputation made it stick.
Additionally, the film was not screened for the press, so reviewers attacked it without doing much real reviewing. They simply compared it to the original and found it wanting, which is not the point. Rather, it's a great experimental film. In the world of cinema, each director chooses his or her own shots, approach and mood depending on their own training, skill, instincts and experience. But on Psycho, Van Sant deliberately did not choose any of these things, which in itself is a fascinating choice. In fact, I suspect it was far more difficult to do the shot-by-shot approach than it would have been to re-interpret the story for the 1990s and for Van Sant's style. And indeed, it cries out to be shown to film students alongside the original; imagine all the lessons to be learned on casting, film stocks, editing, lighting, pacing, etc.
We should also compare it to the hundred or so horror remakes that have come since. Van Sant's Psycho was an artistic choice, an experiment driven by curiosity. Almost every other horror remake today is driven by greed and laziness. There have been half a dozen this year so far: One Missed Call, Shutter, Funny Games, The Eye, Prom Night, the current Mirrors (60 screens) and Quarantine (still on more than 400 screens). I haven't seen all of these factory widgets -- mainly because they generally don't screen for the press and I have to pay for them -- but it strikes me that the worst, most soulless ones have been The Amityville Horror (2005), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003), The Hitcher (2007), Halloween (2007) and The Haunting (1999). In the original versions of these films, someone was at least trying something. And if nothing else, you have to give Van Sant credit for that much.
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-30-2008 @ 4:49PM
Miichael said...
The "Psycho" remake licks the boot of Rob Zombie's "Halloween" any day of the week. Let's see: the former was a dull trifle, the latter had Ken Foree as Joe Grizzly. If I was back in school at the moment, would I really want to be subjected to the sound of Norman Bates spanking the monkey? Would that really improve my artistic development versus, say, just watching the original? The "Psycho" remake is a Marchel Duchamp sans the wit. Don't get me wrong. I think "My Own Private Idaho", "Elephant", "Last Days" and "Good Will Hunting" are fine pictures, but the "Psycho" remake? Not so much.
Reply
10-30-2008 @ 3:58PM
Taylor Barratt said...
Just because it's fascinating, doesn't mean it's any good, therefore it can still be the "worst" remake.
Ultimately the only thing fascinating about it is Van Sant decision to make it and not the resulting work... other than how a "shot for shot" remake could possibly suck so bad.
I'd almost consider arguing that no 'artistic choice' was made. It was plagarizing a laser printed piece of work with a lime green highliter... on a napkin... wet from a beer mug.
Hitchcock: "Wow, green eh?"
Van Sant: "Yup... though it would be interesting in green."
Hitchcock: "Uh huh.... Ummm... Why?"
Van Sant: "Well this is green, instead of black...."
Hitchcock: "What was wrong with it?"
Van Sant: "Nothing"
Hitchcock: "Right... so why?"
Van Sant: "You know.. Green"
Hitchcock: *dropkick*
That's why it sucks.
Reply
10-30-2008 @ 4:41PM
Harshman Grevelis said...
I wouldn't lump the Psycho remake in with lazy remakes like Prom Night or Halloween.
It is more like one of those pointless remakes like King Kong or The Bad News Bears.
Six of one, half dozen of another.
10-30-2008 @ 11:06PM
AJ Wiley said...
I would say that the Funny Games remake was an artistic choice as well. An almost shot-by-shot remake of the film by the same director. It's very interesting.
Reply
10-31-2008 @ 2:26PM
Sean said...
Oh, how I hate this movie. I would love to go on a ten page rant, but won't. Like I really needed to see Anne Heche's pubic hair or Julianne Moore act like a lesbian. and Vince Vaughn is no Anthony Perkins. I just fine it a useless waste of money. The acting is atrocious. The only good thing to come of it was Danny Elfman's orchestral production of Bernard Herrmann's score.
Reply
11-14-2008 @ 9:42PM
Jeff said...
Danny Elfman's production of Hermann's score is quite good, but for me what was quite good about it was how close to the original I found it to be.
But I must also give particular credit to William H. Macy for his performance. I've read that he was one of those who asked "why?" when approached about a "Psycho" remake, but as with everything he does, I think he did well as Arbogast.
And I think Viggo Mortensen was very good as Sam Loomis. Robert Forster, Phillip Baker Hall, Chad Everett and Rita Wilson were all good in their performances. James Remar was almost eery as to how well he played the original role.
I found Vince Vaughn to be a PERFECT choice for Norman Bates (although everyone I know whom I have asked disagrees with me on that . . .). And I have loved Julianne Moore in many other things, she was just OK in this.
I love how every location was also duplicated where possible all the way down to the same spot on the same road where Marion Crane pulled over to sleep the night, and driving along what was US 99 thru Gorman and Bakersfield.
The biggest problem I had with it was casting Anne Heche as Marion Crane. Not that I dislike her; on the contrary I really like her a lot in many other things she has done. I've listened to her commentary on the DVD and have complete respect for the commitment she put into the role, I just think she was not the right choice for this role. With it being the most important role, other than Norman Bates, I really think Van Sant should have picked someone much more like Janet Leigh.
As to the changes in dialogue, Joseph Stefano actually worked on this film as well as the original, and all changes in screenwriting from the original he did himself (or so he and Van Sant both said in a book I have read about it).
The color was intended to be overdone. It makes its own statement in and of itself.
Matching shot-for-shot in almost every shot is very intriguing to me. Down to the second in some cases, like where Norman Bates looks into the bathroom to see Marion's body, then turning and covering his mouth and knocking a bird picture off the wall to the floor.
And Van Sant's easy ability to do some shots that Hitchcock tried to do but couldn't with what was available to him in 1960 and with the budget he had were very pleasing to see. For example, the full helicopter shot in the opening. I must be honest and say that as many times as I had seen the original, I had never realized that it was NOT a single helicopter shot! The continuous shot from Marion's dead eye all the way to looking out the window up to the house is another example.
I guess what it is, is that I am fascinated with what it is, rather than spending any time thinking about what it isn't. I remember sitting in the theatre and the audience laughing at it, but kids today laugh in most horror thrillers so I was not surprised . . .
I can understand that most people don't look at it that way, but that's my take on it --
Reply