I have rarely ever enjoyed a remake of a good film, and, unfortunately, the 1998 remake of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho was not an exception. Gus Van Sant's worthy goal of trying to bring a classic film to a younger generation resulted in just cheapening the masterpiece. He was trying to reinterpret the Psycho plot through color, quickened pace, and stylistic differences in acting. However, he copied Hitchcock's film almost shot-for-shot cinematographically and nearly line-for-line. There was not a bold enough deviance from the original to be able to judge the 1998 film independentally, and so Van Sant's film simply fell short as a reflection of Psycho.
One of the first distracting aspects of this remake is the color scheme. The original version depended on important color symbolism that used shades of black and white, and Van Sant's film did (I think) attempt at continuing that idea. However, the color and pattern choices of wardrobe and set design were so outrageously mismatched with bright oranges and greens screaming out at the audience that I was almost too distracted to think about anything else. The intention may have had significance, but I would rather have no symbolism than have it blaring from the screen.
The 1998 movie also seemed to move at a speedier pace than the 1960 one. While the introductory bedroom scene in Hitchcock's film set up the relationship between Marion and Sam (which in turn created a motive for later stealing the cash and helped the audience sympathize with the doomed Marion), Van Sant's Psycho sped through it. After the few choppy minutes they spent together in the movie, I'm suprised audiences didn't completely forget about Sam as a character! Whether due to the flippancy of Anne Heche's line delivery or the fast editing of the scene, neither character seemed dedicated to marriage...especially not to the point of major theft.
All in all, I felt too many little unique aspects of Hitchock's original Psycho were compromised by Van Sant in the attempt to rejuvinate the film for a younger audience. Things that made Psycho so great, like the long, drawn out scenes that provoked anxiety and discomfort in the audience, and the unpredictable nature of the story (I think its far too easy to realize that Vince Vaughn's Norman is the "psycho" dressing up like a woman) are completely absent. It may have been good as a cheap thriller, or even for a laugh, but it definitely was not a creative or insightful interpretation.
2 comments:
I think you nail the problem when you say that if Van Sant wants his movie to be judged on its own merits, then he should have made his own film. Instead, the 1998 Psycho gets caught in "no man's land"--too much an imitation to be judged as it own movie, and not good enough an imitation to do justice or pay fair homage to the original.
It seems like far too long ago that I have had the opportunity to read one of your critiques, and as always, it brought to light some excellent points. Unfortunately, I had been trying to block this film from my brain since seconds after it had ended back in 1998. I fear that all Van Sandt has accomplished is to alienate people like us (people who truly enjoy the classics) in favor of the next generation; specifically, by deviating from the original performance of Anthony Perkins. For me, nothing sends a greater chill down my spine then when he [Perkins as Bates] is peering through the hole in his wall. “What’s he thinking,” I immediately thought. However Vaughn’s portrayal is to a point laughable as he feverously pleasures himself; less creepy, much more repulsive. The mystery is instantly gone from the scene as no one in the audience needed to think at all. The Bates we have come to know is transformed from homicidal maniac to sexual predator; losing the entire essence of a character that we, on some level, feel sorry for.
I’ll stop here cause, as you know I could go on forever. Hope all is well, and I miss arguing with you.
- Mr. Galgon
Post a Comment