Now that the furor over this notorious remake has all but died down to nothing more than a whimper, one can take a closer look at whether it was a good idea and/or if the resulting picture is any good.
While many classic titles have been remade throughout the history of film -- with pictures such as "King Kong," "Rear Window" and "Sabrina" receiving updated overhauls -- and others have had their plots or individual scenes pilfered by later day auteurs -- raise your hand, Brian De Palma ("Body Double," "Blow Out") -- it's not often that a film is re-shot scene by scene.
It was somewhat done for 1973's version of "Double Indemnity," but rarely has it drawn the outrage that's followed the announcement of director Gus Van Sant's decision to essentially reshoot the precursor and grandfather, excuse me, grandMOTHER, of the past two decades of slasher films -- Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho."
To set the record straight, there are a few minor differences between the two versions of this story -- this one's set in the present and was filmed in color, monetary amounts have been updated and some dialogue has been changed, etc... -- but, for the most part, this is pretty much exactly the same movie that originally debuted in 1960.
The question that now comes to most people's minds is "why?" Director Gus Van Sant offers several reasons in this disc's supplemental material -- such as doing it just because it had never been done before and giving today's young moviegoers a more accessible version of the original (since many of them won't watch black and white films), etc... Whatever the explanation, it wasn't a good decision for several reasons.
First, the film, while revered by many, simply isn't a great picture when viewed today and certainly isn't one of Hitchcock's best (think of "North By Northwest," "Vertigo," etc...). Although it scared the socks off most moviegoers when it debuted -- as the first "slasher" film and before most people had ever heard about psychotically disturbed serial killers -- the film just isn't that frightening today.
After horror pictures like "The Exorcist," "Halloween" and "The Silence of the Lambs," the original "Psycho" comes off like a well-made, but decidedly antiquated piece. Slowly paced with only a few classic scares and absolutely nothing remotely frightening occurring until forty-five minutes into the picture (only Robert Rodriguez's "From Dusk Till Dawn" comes to mind as a recent film that takes so long to get to its horror), the story -- as solid as it still is, and as scary as it probably was -- simply lacks the necessary "oomph" in today's market.
The second reason concerns the overall choice of this particular picture. Beyond the use of color to make the infamous shower scene a bit more graphically bloody, there's nothing in the film that cries out for an updating (compared, for instance, to the lousy "King Kong" remake that showcased the technical improvements made over the years since the original).
As such, Van Sant seems to stumble over how to manage the timely aspects of his new picture. While it's set in 1998, much of the dialogue -- mostly left intact from the original -- sounds out of place considering its antiquated vocabulary and delivery.
The director -- best known for helming "Good Will Hunting" and "To Die For" -- also has investigator Arbogast constantly wear a 1950's like, and now out-of-style hat, while the local sheriff's wife picks up the phone and asks the operator to connect her to the Bates motel, two things that don't jive with modern day times.
The problem really rears its ugly head in scenes such as when Marion decides to trade in her car to cover her tracks. The fact that she pays the difference between the two cars with four $1,000 bills would surely raise anyone's eyebrows, whereas it somehow seemed to fit in better in the original where she made in $100 bills (although back then that was probably outrageous as well). Nonetheless, when viewing an older film set in the past -- when most everyone was less suspicious and more "innocent" than today -- it seems easier to buy into such a notion than what's presented here.
If the film were to be remade shot for shot, why not leave everything intact, or conversely, update everything to modern times? By forging a middle ground, the result is a muddled mess that's consequently stuck in limbo trying to figure out in which time period it wants to exist.
In addition, while I don't claim to be an expert on the original, it was quite obvious (upon having just viewed the first film) that subtle changes were made within the same shots, although Bernard Herrmann's screeching score (now arranged by Danny Elfman) and most of Joseph Stefano's screenplay (based on the novel by Robert Bloch) remain intact.
Of course, most people are interested in how the new cast rates when compared with those appearing in the original. Regarding that, while some have stated that this "re-staged" film shouldn't be viewed any differently than the many incarnations of Broadway musicals -- something of a valid point in and upon itself -- you can't help but compare and criticize those who fill the shoes of the original performers.
As such, Vince Vaughn ("Clay Pigeons," "Return to Paradise"), a tremendously talented actor, simply can't compare to Anthony Perkins in the central role. While he gives something of an appropriately creepy and spooky performance, he's too physically imposing to give the role the proper squirrelly characteristics that Perkins perfectly brought to the original, and to put it quite simply, there's only one Norman Bates and it will always be Mr. Perkins.
Of course, considering that Van Sant has essentially redone the original, it may have made sense to cast performers who more closely resemble the actors and actresses from the first film. If that had been done, a much better choice for the role of Norman would have been Jeremy Davies ("Saving Private Ryan," "The Locusts") a little known actor with an uncanny resemblance to a young Anthony Perkins.
The rest of the cast goes through the now well-known motions in their roles. Julianne Moore ("Boogie Nights," "The Big Lebowski") and Viggo Mortensen ("A Perfect Murder," "G.I. Jane") are decent in the parts originated by Vera Miles and John Gavin, but don't bring anything particularly special to their performances.
Meanwhile, the always reliable William H. Macy ("Fargo," "Pleasantville") takes over the private investigator role from Martin Balsam (but isn't quite as convincing), while Anne Heche ("Six Days, Seven Nights," "Wag the Dog") has the unenviable role of trying to outdo or at least match the original Oscar nominated performance from Janet Leigh. Unfortunately, she doesn't succeed and her part will probably best be remembered for a rather unflattering and briefly graphic shot of her derriere sticking up over the side of the bathtub.
All in all, most will probably agree that this sort of remake of a film like "Psycho" was unnecessary and comes off only as a pale imitation of the original. With performances that can't help but be unfavorably compared to the originals and a presentation in color that actually detracts from the first film's creepy atmosphere (that was punctuated by the black and white footage), the film will have a hard time finding an audience beyond the initially curious.
Fans of the original will protest the remake, while today's teen audience will find the proceedings decidedly less than frightening than what's been available in the past decade or so. Lacking the shock value it once possessed, the story simply isn't up to par in today's market.
Despite a few instances of pixelation, the film's picture looks good and the audio retains the well- known -- and still effective -- score. While the film offers a decent amount of supplemental materials -- including a candid "why did they make this remake" feature -- the format's best feature -- running audio commentary by the filmmakers -- isn't as good here as on other discs.
Director Van Sant and performers Heche and Vaughn don't seem prepared for what they have to say about the film and any particular scenes, and often go off into related, but rather long and tedious stories that have nothing to do with individual scenes.
They also continually comment on the film's colors being all wrong (the print they were watching while recording their comments apparently wasn't color-corrected) which comes off as pointless since the disc's colors are obviously correct. While a few insightful remarks are otherwise made, the threesome's overall presentation isn't up to par with what other titles offer in the same regard.
![[Logo]](/images/screenit_logo2.jpg){kind=logo}
