Psycho(1998)
First a word of warning, this spoils the movie, both the original and this one as they are basically the same, so if there really is someone out there who hasn't seen the original stop wasting time reading this and go watch it. Anyway, when I first and last time saw this in the 90's I condemned it to be nothing but a worthless piece of crap made only to get more money from the modern audience. I thought while it looked like an exact copy of the original it still ruined the three key scenes, the shower scene with these pointless image inserts, the Arbogast murder for the same reasons and the final big reveal with the ridiculous set. I also thought the actors did a horrible job and none of them fit the parts and all the little additions didn't really work. I promised I will never watch this movie again. Well here we are now and I watched it again. The reason why I did so was because Mark Cousins mentioned it in The Story of Film: An Odyssey (2011), which by the way is an incredibly brilliant series. I was puzzled how the hell would someone pick this as a notable movie from the history of cinema, especially since his other picks seemed to be quite spot on perfect. Well as it troubled me for quite some time and as I read Alfred Hitchcock andthe Making of Psycho a while ago and since I saw Hitchcock (2012) not just recently, I decided to give it another chance, even though I still feared I shouldn't.
Well surprised as I am I must say I'm glad I did watch it again, as I think I got the whole idea of this movie. And believe it or not it just might actually not be just to make some more money on the success of Psycho (1960). This movie really is quite an experiment in filmmaking. Now knowing what Hitchcock had to leave out of his version, some of the additions made perfect sense. The camera flight across the city to the hotel window actually looked exactly what I imagined Hitchcock wanted but had to leave it out because of the costs. Other parts like the conversation between Cassidy and Marion where Marion says "Thank you, but I think I'll spend this weekend in bed" and Cassidy replies "Only playground to beat Las Vegas". That last line was actually cut from the original by the censors, so again that was a great addition. But the problem is that some of the additions and changes still don't fit the movie, no matter how you see it. Like the discussion between Marion and Norman where in the original Marion relates to Norman's points of view and she sees that it might be better to return the money, but in the remake she just seems to be scared of him. Making Norman menacing this early was not good for the shower scene. Another thing that really eats the effect of the shower scene is that Norman is clearly masturbating while watching Marion undress, the original hints towards it cleverly, but this remake makes it very clear what's happening. That lessens the shock effect from the shower scene immensely, subtlety is an art form after all. Also the new setting for the final reveal of the mother, the taxidermy room instead of the basement in the original, didn't fit it in any way. It misses the grave aspect of it totally which Norman sets up earlier by saying he couldn't leave his mother in a cold and damp place like that. And speaking of Norman, Vince Vaughn didn't fit the role at all, first of all he's too big and menacing to start with and second he's not even trying to act or sound like a little momma's boy. So the movie adds some parts to the original that fit it very well, especially since they were supposed to be there, but got left out because of censorship or tight budget, but still it adds other aspects that don't fit at all. But I think I get it now why it's like this.
There's two ways of making a remake of an old classic, either copy it shot by shot or tell the same story again with modern story telling methods. This movie actually does both, well lets say it tries to do both. As I see it, there are characters which are exact copies of the original, like Marion, Arbogast and Sam in a way as well. Anne Heche tries to copy Janet Leigh even to the smallest detail as does William H. Macy with Martin Balsam. Viggo Mortensen is also very close to what John Gavin was in the original. But then there's Norman and Lila, who are nothing like the ones in the original. I guess Vince Vaughn didn't even see what Anthony Perkins was doing in the original and just created a character of his own as did Julianne Moore who has little to nothing in common with Vera Miles. I'll bet that was all intentional as it does show some very nice things about how differently people react to the content of the movie if it's a modern movie like this remake or if it's a classic like the original. Some things that work in a black and white 60's movie simply doesn't work in a modern movie and on the other hand all modern characters don't really fit a 60's movie. Like Julianne Moore would have been just as good in both of them, but Vince Vaughn wouldn't fit in the 60's one at all. Same goes the other way around on the cast that copied their performance, Marion works well on both of these, Janet Leigh could have just as well been in the new one or Anne Heche on the old one. Arbogast on the other hand seems extremely outdated for a modern movie, no matter who plays the part, but William H. Macy could have just as well replaced Martin Balsam in the old one.
And there's more. Those inserted images in the two murder scenes, sure they might have some suggestive meaning to them and everyone is free to make their own interpretations, but really I couldn't care less about that. I saw them as nothing more than distractions, but they were very interesting distractions and I would bet that they were deliberate distractions. On the shower scene the random cut to clouds takes you out of the scene for a second, but the very next shot brings you right back into it. Those two cuts show how powerful the scene actually is, they distract you but they don't take you out of it completely, that proves that the scene even taken out of it's context is still extremely effective. The cuts on the Arbogast murder however take you out of the scene and just leave you wondering what the hell was that? Then again the sheep and the woman in a mask are so much more out of context than the clouds that it could be just a poor choice of images. But as I saw it was that the scene just doesn't work in a modern movie as well as the shower scene. The same scene in the original is very effective, but in this remake it just seems rather dated.
What this movie does best is pointing out how brilliant the original is. Also as a test on how old style movie making works today with modern equipment this is great. But seeing that it actually misses quite a many subtle touches that make the original so brilliant, I just can't shake off that feeling that this is not an homage, but just an attempt to cash in on a classic. And since it's just rubbish as a modern thriller, so that makes quite a dilemma. On the other hand it's bad but in a way it's extremely interesting as well. In the end I'm glad I watched it again as it opened up in a completely different manner this time, but then again that's just for me as a huge Hitchcock fan, for everyone else I guess this is nothing more than garbage.
20%
First a word of warning, this spoils the movie, both the original and this one as they are basically the same, so if there really is someone out there who hasn't seen the original stop wasting time reading this and go watch it. Anyway, when I first and last time saw this in the 90's I condemned it to be nothing but a worthless piece of crap made only to get more money from the modern audience. I thought while it looked like an exact copy of the original it still ruined the three key scenes, the shower scene with these pointless image inserts, the Arbogast murder for the same reasons and the final big reveal with the ridiculous set. I also thought the actors did a horrible job and none of them fit the parts and all the little additions didn't really work. I promised I will never watch this movie again. Well here we are now and I watched it again. The reason why I did so was because Mark Cousins mentioned it in The Story of Film: An Odyssey (2011), which by the way is an incredibly brilliant series. I was puzzled how the hell would someone pick this as a notable movie from the history of cinema, especially since his other picks seemed to be quite spot on perfect. Well as it troubled me for quite some time and as I read Alfred Hitchcock andthe Making of Psycho a while ago and since I saw Hitchcock (2012) not just recently, I decided to give it another chance, even though I still feared I shouldn't.
Well surprised as I am I must say I'm glad I did watch it again, as I think I got the whole idea of this movie. And believe it or not it just might actually not be just to make some more money on the success of Psycho (1960). This movie really is quite an experiment in filmmaking. Now knowing what Hitchcock had to leave out of his version, some of the additions made perfect sense. The camera flight across the city to the hotel window actually looked exactly what I imagined Hitchcock wanted but had to leave it out because of the costs. Other parts like the conversation between Cassidy and Marion where Marion says "Thank you, but I think I'll spend this weekend in bed" and Cassidy replies "Only playground to beat Las Vegas". That last line was actually cut from the original by the censors, so again that was a great addition. But the problem is that some of the additions and changes still don't fit the movie, no matter how you see it. Like the discussion between Marion and Norman where in the original Marion relates to Norman's points of view and she sees that it might be better to return the money, but in the remake she just seems to be scared of him. Making Norman menacing this early was not good for the shower scene. Another thing that really eats the effect of the shower scene is that Norman is clearly masturbating while watching Marion undress, the original hints towards it cleverly, but this remake makes it very clear what's happening. That lessens the shock effect from the shower scene immensely, subtlety is an art form after all. Also the new setting for the final reveal of the mother, the taxidermy room instead of the basement in the original, didn't fit it in any way. It misses the grave aspect of it totally which Norman sets up earlier by saying he couldn't leave his mother in a cold and damp place like that. And speaking of Norman, Vince Vaughn didn't fit the role at all, first of all he's too big and menacing to start with and second he's not even trying to act or sound like a little momma's boy. So the movie adds some parts to the original that fit it very well, especially since they were supposed to be there, but got left out because of censorship or tight budget, but still it adds other aspects that don't fit at all. But I think I get it now why it's like this.
There's two ways of making a remake of an old classic, either copy it shot by shot or tell the same story again with modern story telling methods. This movie actually does both, well lets say it tries to do both. As I see it, there are characters which are exact copies of the original, like Marion, Arbogast and Sam in a way as well. Anne Heche tries to copy Janet Leigh even to the smallest detail as does William H. Macy with Martin Balsam. Viggo Mortensen is also very close to what John Gavin was in the original. But then there's Norman and Lila, who are nothing like the ones in the original. I guess Vince Vaughn didn't even see what Anthony Perkins was doing in the original and just created a character of his own as did Julianne Moore who has little to nothing in common with Vera Miles. I'll bet that was all intentional as it does show some very nice things about how differently people react to the content of the movie if it's a modern movie like this remake or if it's a classic like the original. Some things that work in a black and white 60's movie simply doesn't work in a modern movie and on the other hand all modern characters don't really fit a 60's movie. Like Julianne Moore would have been just as good in both of them, but Vince Vaughn wouldn't fit in the 60's one at all. Same goes the other way around on the cast that copied their performance, Marion works well on both of these, Janet Leigh could have just as well been in the new one or Anne Heche on the old one. Arbogast on the other hand seems extremely outdated for a modern movie, no matter who plays the part, but William H. Macy could have just as well replaced Martin Balsam in the old one.
And there's more. Those inserted images in the two murder scenes, sure they might have some suggestive meaning to them and everyone is free to make their own interpretations, but really I couldn't care less about that. I saw them as nothing more than distractions, but they were very interesting distractions and I would bet that they were deliberate distractions. On the shower scene the random cut to clouds takes you out of the scene for a second, but the very next shot brings you right back into it. Those two cuts show how powerful the scene actually is, they distract you but they don't take you out of it completely, that proves that the scene even taken out of it's context is still extremely effective. The cuts on the Arbogast murder however take you out of the scene and just leave you wondering what the hell was that? Then again the sheep and the woman in a mask are so much more out of context than the clouds that it could be just a poor choice of images. But as I saw it was that the scene just doesn't work in a modern movie as well as the shower scene. The same scene in the original is very effective, but in this remake it just seems rather dated.
What this movie does best is pointing out how brilliant the original is. Also as a test on how old style movie making works today with modern equipment this is great. But seeing that it actually misses quite a many subtle touches that make the original so brilliant, I just can't shake off that feeling that this is not an homage, but just an attempt to cash in on a classic. And since it's just rubbish as a modern thriller, so that makes quite a dilemma. On the other hand it's bad but in a way it's extremely interesting as well. In the end I'm glad I watched it again as it opened up in a completely different manner this time, but then again that's just for me as a huge Hitchcock fan, for everyone else I guess this is nothing more than garbage.
20%
By the way, I must say
this trailer is just beyond stupid for a movie like this.
No comments:
Post a Comment