When it came out in 1998, Gus Van Sant’s shot-for-shot remake of Alfred Hitchcock’s exemplary and seminal 1960 proto-slasher Psycho was hailed by critics as a bold cinematic experiment gone terribly awry. The mere idea behind remaking such a well-known film as Psycho has been held by critics and most filmgoers as misguided at best, and a cinematic crime at worst. Even the positive reviews of 1998’s Psycho were merely warm on the notion, likening it to a spirited Broadway revival rather than a successful and scary film in itself.
Well, here at CraveOnline‘s Trolling, we take what most critics and audience members have long since agreed upon, and deliberately throw it out the window. Here, we take the contrary opinion. If it’s universally loved, we’ll tell you why we hate it. If it’s universally hated, we’ll tell you why it was great. This is done partly as an intellectual exercise, but largely it’s done just to piss you off. As such, let us make the following declarative statement: Van Sant’s Psycho RULES. In many ways, it improved upon the original classic, and made for a chilling night at the movies. Here are some reasons for that:
WARNING: If you don’t know the twists and surprises in Psycho, don’t read this article. I don’t want to be the one who spoils them for you.
Some may see the remake of Psycho as nothing more than a film student tinkering with a movie, wasting millions of dollars in the process, and I openly admit that the remake is not as subtle as the original. But academically, a film like this was going to be made sooner or later. Some young Turk was going to remake a well-know classic shot-by-shot. It was an experiment that needed to happen. I’m glad we had someone daring enough to do it, and I think the result is most certainly worth study.
Until next week, let the hate mail flow.
Witney Seibold is a featured contributor on the CraveOnline Film Channel, co-host of The B-Movies Podcast. You can read his weekly articles Trolling, Free Film School and The Series Project, and follow him on “Twitter” at @WitneySeibold, where he is slowly losing his mind.
1998 Psycho RULES
-
It Was Audacious
One cannot deny that Gus Van Sant tried something that no other filmmaker would touch. Remaking a well-known classic like Psycho is a dodgy proposition on paper, and most filmmakers wouldn't dare to go near such a project. It would be like remaking
A Nightmare on Elm Street,The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Citizen Kane. However you feel about the result, you cannot deny that it took balls of brass to even attempt. I give the film points for mere audacity. No usual filmmaker can try something like this. It takes a bold maverick. -
It Had a Good Aesthetic
Times had changed since 1960, as had fashion, filmmaking style, and photography. When remaking Psycho, Van Sant did recreate each individual shot nearly identically, but he also decided to shoot it in color, on new sets, changing the very look of the film. Which, when looked at objectively, is actually gorgeous. The lighting is misty and low. The colors splash in like vibrant nightmare interjections. The very tone of the film was shifted to a TV serial to something far more, well, cinematic. Yes, I said it: Van Sant made a more cinematic film than Hitchcock. It looks slicker, darker, and weirder. The weirdness only added to the overall impact of the movie. Which leads me to...
-
Never Sleep Again
Also added from the original were occasional flashes of bizarre music video-like nightmare images. They were only flashes, and they only occurred a few times during the movie, but they added so much fright to the end product. Psycho, true to its title, should be all about the mindset of a lonely murderer, and the bizarre, beautiful twisted reality that a murderer sees. Thanks to the hazy, ultra-cool aesthetic, some stylized killings, and those terror flashes, Van Sant's Psycho begins to feel like a genuine nightmare. He took what was a regular-looking horror film, and pushed it into the weirdo subconscious.
-
It Proved the Filmmaking Skill of Hitchcock
Alfred Hitchcock is often called one of the greatest commercial filmmakers of all time, a notion that is rarely challenged by the film elite (maybe Trolling will be the one to challenge that notion someday). It's easy to sit down and re-watch 1960's Psycho for the 12th time, and sing its praises, but it takes a stronger mind to place the very same filmmaking (really, shot-for-shot!) in the modern filmmaking age. Much of what made 1998's Psycho weird and scary was taken from Hitch himself. Any kids who stumbled into the remake without having seen the original were treated to a master's style. There was a timelessness to the 1998 movie, all thanks to what was set down in 1960.
-
It Proved the Filmmaking Skill of Van Sant
Van Sant is something of an arthouse darling himself, and even his lesser-known films (like, say Gerry) have been praised by critics. In addition to his sheer audacity, he also proved to be a strong and stylish filmmaker who managed to cut through something incredibly well-known and put his own stamp on it. The pacing and story and camerawork were taken from Hitchcock, but the tone, the aesthetic, and the directing all came from Van Sant. And, as the tone was so gleefully nightmarish, and the aesthetic was so strong, I'd say that Van Sant proved himself to be a forward-thinking, creative soul.
-
Vince Vaughn is a Good Norman
Anthony Perkins originated the role of Norman Bates, the shy murderous beanpole, henpecked by his mother. Many criticized Vince Vaughn, the new Norman, merely because he wasn't Perkins. I think what Vaughn accomplished is often overlooked. Vaughn's Norman is less skittish than Perkins. Perhaps more confident. More natural. More comfortable in his own skin. And while the bird-like weirdo was appealing the first time around, he never felt like a true psychopath. When in the room with Perkins' Norman, you were never truly threatened. Vaughn played his Norman as a giggling fratboy type. An awkward but friendly oaf who would pat you on the back, and perhaps just as easily pummel you to death with his fists. Vaughn was brutish, and seemed like he might turn on you. Vaughn, I buy as a psycho.
-
It Brought the Sex to the Fore
Psycho has always been about sex. Themes of Freudian incest, voyeurism, and unmarried affairs are the important thematic notions that are just on the surface. but 1960s film studios weren't so keen on putting outright nudity in their movies, and they could only allude to the sexual aspects. What Van Sant did was take what Psycho has always been about, and actually put it center stage. As such, Norman masturbates openly, we see some actual nudity, and the unseemly sexuality of the film is finally visible. As such, you finally get it. Van Sant strengthened the sexual themes of the original by making sex more explicit.
-
It Cleaned Up What Was Messy
1960's Psycho may be well-regarded, but there are scenes that are decidedly clunky. In 1960, filmmaking equipment was heavier and less agile. In the 1998 version, certain shots are now seamless. The spiraling tracking shot away from the dead Marion's eye, for instance, is now far more fluid and lovely. The tracking shot at the film's very beginning now floats effortlessly across the sky and in through the window of a tall building. Hitchcock probably tried to make his movie as fluid as its counterpart, but wasn't able to thanks to the technology. Van Sant recognized this, and corrected the minor flaws. I say he shored up the flick.
-
It Was a Successful Experiment, No Matter How You Slice It
What was the function of this experiment? I think it had less to do with Psycho in particular, and more to do filmmaking in general. Van Sant wanted to show what 1960 filmmaking looked like in 1998. If you love both versions, Van Sant may have proved, with his interpretation, that classical filmmaking can still be classical, even when the aesthetic and acting is updated. If you love the original, but don't like the remake (and I know many don't), you still have to concede that it was a successful experiment, as it proved how classical filmmaking can't be recreated, and how strong the classical truly is; Van Sant offered valued juxtaposition. If you hate both versions, you can see that updating the material won't save the stodgy material. If you hate the original and love the remake, well, then, I rest my case.
