Gus Van Sant is the Psycho here!

Views : 183    Comments : 1

This reviewer's thoughts on Gus Van Sant's remake of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (as well as the sentiments of virtually every critic and movie-goer in the world) can be summarised using one word and a bit of punctuation: Why?!

This "why" can be addressed in a financial sense, but in terms of artistry the concept of remaking perfection remains baffling. Director Van Sant has proved that a bunch of Hollywood heavyweights can indeed use $25 million and colour photography to mimic a classic, but he failed to prove his ability to capture the terrifying essence of said classic. It appears there are only two audiences for this Psycho remake: those familiar with Hitchcock's film who are morbidly curious, and newcomers to the story willing to give this edition a chance because it's in colour and stars a more modern cast.

Since Joseph Stefano's original script was used here (only slightly altered), we all know the story: Marion Crane (Heche) is entrusted by her employer to deposit $400,000 in the bank (for those keeping track, it was only $40,000 in the original). However Marion perceives this phenomenal sum of money as a way to start off fresh, and decides to embezzle it. En route to visit her boyfriend Sam Loomis (Heche), she pulls into the Bates Motel where she meets proprietor Norman Bates (Vaughn). Events of this evening eventually turn violent, with the jealous rage of Norman's twisted mother putting an end to Marion's plans. Once Marion's disappearance becomes worrisome to those closest to her, an investigation commences.

Remakes come in all shapes, sizes and colours. Successful remakes employ older material and do something new, interesting, and/or intelligent with it (like The Magnificent Seven; a Western appropriation of Akira Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai). 1998's Psycho does nothing of the sort. Director Van Sant obviously knew he couldn't improve upon Hitchcock's masterpiece, so he decided to just copy it instead (virtually shot-for-shot and line-for-line). A few alterations were made to the original script (mostly to the detriment of the film - the most egregious addition is Norman visibly masturbating while peeping on Marion through a hole in the wall), but for the most part it's the same. Interestingly, this film is set in the year 1998, but the fashion and set decoration would make one think it's 1968!

When Hitchcock himself remade his own films (as he did with The Man Who Knew Too Much), he had the good sense not to replicate the earlier version. He instead took the good ideas and ran with them. Gus Van Sant may have alienated Hitchcock purists if any major alterations to the story were made for this Psycho remake, but he would have made a far more compelling film at least. Here's the major problem with Van Sant's film: even if you wanted to praise something about it - the cinematography, the pacing, the music, the storyline, the dialogue, or even Saul Bass' design for the opening credits - you'd be better off praising the original. The sense of déjà vu while viewing this carbon copy is powerful, as is the sense that something isn't quite right.

As "accurate" as this Psycho is, it's not particularly terrifying or thrilling. It's a lifeless, slapdash project with all tension leeched away. It's also in colour. Hitchcock opted for black and white photography all those decades ago because the starkness of monochrome enhanced the movie's shock value. Colour, on the other hand, makes Psycho seem ordinary. In addition, Van Sant does a woeful job of refilming the infamous shower scene. He copies a lot of the camera angles and much of the editing from the original sequence, but speeds up the film and (in MTV fashion) inserts a few pointless flashes of a stormy sky as well as an extreme close-up of Heche's iris opening. The shrieking violins of Bernard Herrmann's score are inexplicably altered too. In addition, more blood flows from visible stab wounds, but it doesn't make the sequence any scarier or more shocking - if anything, it shows how masterful Hitchcock was for being able to do more with less. Disappointingly and astonishingly, the blood here looks faker than the chocolate syrup used in Hitchcock's original.

The performances are another issue. Only Julianne Moore and William H. Macy (as characters once portrayed by Vera Miles and Martin Balsam) hold their own and bring at least a slight degree of intensity to their roles. Anne Heche as Marion Crane pales in comparison to Janet Leigh - she's very contrived. Viggo Mortensen is a weak Sam Loomis, and frequently sounds as if he's just reciting lines from nearby cue cards. Most lamentably, Vince Vaughn is unable to present a truly compelling interpretation of Norman Bates (despite his attempts to imitate a number of Anthony Perkins' mannerisms). The main problem with the cast is that they're just playing surface impersonations of their characters instead of embodying them.

Ironically, Van Sant stated in a Newsweek article that he hates remake. In fact (irony of all ironies), he calls his Psycho an "anti-remake film". "Why do people take films that are really well done and change the dialogue and change the shots and call it the same movie?" he asked. In theory, he's correct, but it's doubtful that the answer is to mimic a "really well done" film and call it an "anti-remake film".

It's possible to argue that since this remake is more or less the same film as Hitchcock's original, there isn't anything truly wrong with it. But this argument is utter nonsense because there's plenty wrong with it - Van Sant's direction is lifeless, the performances are tragically unremarkable, and as a standalone feature it's poorly made and lacks tension. Nothing flows naturally; it all feels very awkward, with lines and actions included perfunctorily rather than organically. 1998's Psycho does, however, effectively prove that it wasn't the technical aspects of Hitchcock's masterpieces that made them so great - Hitchcock relied on originality, plot and unexpected twists. Van Sant's remake is humdrum because it has none of these.

The makers of this film obviously wanted to pay tribute to Hitchcock's work, but the film is more of a self-indulgent exercise (it was undoubtedly more stimulating for Van Sant and crew to make the film than it is for an audience to watch it). Psycho simply gives a new generation of movie-goers (who are already ignorant of classic movies) another reason not to see Hitchcock's original. As far as the future is concerned, this Psycho will become little more than a footnote in cinematic history.

The end credits are tagged with the words "In Memory of Alfred Hitchcock" which is an official insult.

1.5/10

Comments

theseoman

Posted : 3 weeks, 5 days ago at Oct 30 9:08

I would want to comment on the saying above that says about a boy's bestfriend is his mother. Well, this is true.