Psycho (1998)If you are a regular reader of mine (ahem), you would know that I think Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho is one of the greatest films ever made. Everything about the film was perfect or near to it, and nothing could really have been improved. So, yes, I balked when I learned that Gus Van Sant was choosing to remake Hitchcock's classic for his next film (hot off his Good Will Hunting success). And then I balked some more when I learned that he would be doing it shot-for-shot. What's the point? And then I saw the previews. Frankly, I was impressed. I was more than impressed. I was stunned. It looked almost exactly the same (except for the obvious change in actors and color), and suddenly, I found myself hoping Van Sant had succeeded. After all, he'd been taking much heat for his update.
Then Universal refused to show screenings to critics. This was one of two things: A) The film sucked and Universal didn't want critics to keep audiences away, or B) Van Sant was merely imitating Hitchcock's release, which also wasn't shown to critics. Well, it certainly isn't A, which leaves B, the most obvious of the two. Imitation is the finest form of flattery, right? Obviously not, since you can expect to see critics hating Van Sant's remake just because it "serves no purpose." On the contrary, it does serve at least one purpose: those audience members who haven't seen Hitchcock's 1960 black-and-white version might decide to check it out.
The plot of PSYCHO is probably one of the most famous around, yet I still know many, many people who haven't even seen the original. They've seen it spoofed in many films; they know the music all too well, yet they do not know what film those homages came from. For those uninitiated people, here's a brief summary (and I'll try not to give too much away). Marion Crane (Anne Heche) is one of two secretaries working for a small Arizona real estate agency. In walks her boss and a prospective client. Marion is handed $400,000 in cash and is asked to take it to the bank. Instead, she takes it home, packs a bag, and pockets the wad of cash. She then makes her way to her boyfriend living in California. But before she makes it, she stops at a hotel to rest: the Bates Motel. A friendly Norman Bates (Vince Vaughn) greets her and gives her the key to room number one. After a brief dinner and a rather heated chat, Marion turns in for the night. But first, a shower...
Ah yes, the shower. Quite possibly the most shocking and influential moment in film history. Nothing comes to mind, anyway. Here's a little history lesson: Hitchcock originally wanted the shower sequence unscored (maybe even completely silent), but changed his mind when he listen to Bernard Hermann's shrieking violins. If anything about this shower sequence stands out, it's Hermann's music. I doubt that Psycho would have been as great without that infamous score. I will go so far as to say that Hermann's music compositions for the film are the best ever written for a motion picture. Never have I heard music that creates such complex emotions before. If you take a shower and overhear the music, you immediately want to jump out and run, screaming. One of the most enjoyable moments of PSYCHO is the very opening credits, which recreate Hitchcock's splitting lines (this time, green, instead of grey), foreshadowing what is about to come. A big smile came across my face seconds before Hermann's music blared over the digitally-enhanced speakers--after all, it's one of the most outstanding examples of credit shots ever filmed. And with that first note from the orchestra, I literally wanted to applaud.
And really, my two biggest problems with this version were, in fact, the two murders which took place over the film's running time. The shower sequence pales in comparison to Hitchcock's, despite the added touches of stab wounds and new edits. The editing is nowhere near as crisp and tight as George Tomasini's, and the music doesn't screech in for a good second after the shower curtain is pulled away, almost ruining the scene. As for the second murder, Van Sant retained the cheesy "falling-down-the-stairs" sequence that plagued the original. Certainly, this is a shot-for-shot remake, but we can change a couple things, right? I mean, there are a couple new edits during the shower sequence, how 'bout a little change here too?
But let's stop comparing the two. Based on its own merits, Van Sant's PSYCHO is a very good horror film that is sure to make many viewers think twice before stepping into the shower. As I arrived home, I was surprised that the last thing I wanted to do before going to bed was take a shower. If it wasn't necessary, I would have avoided the bathroom altogether. Van Sant's "direction" is very well done, providing a steady build-up of suspense. In fact, the suspense almost becomes unbearable leading up to the shower murder. However, I began to wonder if the suspense came not from the film itself, but from my knowledge of what was coming. I knew what was going to happen, and when it was going to happen, but knowing that made it seem much more intense.
The cast is a big help to the success of this remake. Some Hitchcock remakes fall flat when a bad cast is chosen, but Van Sant has picked a cast high on talent, if a little too low on prestige. Anne Heche is well known, mostly for being Ellen DeGeneres' girlfriend, but her powerhouse acting skills are proven with such motion pictures as Return to Paradise and this one. In fact, Heche does an even better job at portraying Marion Crane than Janet Leigh did so many years ago. Heche makes Marion pop off the screen, showing us the fear and panic beneath her rather cold surface. Vince Vaughn towers over the rest of the cast, yet he succeeds in portraying a sexually repressed man, held back from succeeding in life by his invalid mother. His stuttering and anger is quite effective (though, not to disrespect Vaughn, no actor could top Anthony Perkins). Julianne Moore is a brave choice, portraying a lesbian Lila Crane (though no mention to her sexual preference is made). William H. Macy is even better than Martin Balsam portraying an intuitive private detective looking for the missing Marion Crane. Viggo Mortensen has already done another Hitchcock remake earlier this year with A Perfect Murder, and here he does it again. Mortensen is the least effective of the cast, almost mumbling his lines at time. Robert Forster pops up for a brief scene as the psychiatrist at the end (he was also in another Hitchcock remake this year, Rear Window with Christopher Reeve). This is a very good cast to head up this film.
Technically, it's quite similar to Hitchcock's original version. The framing and cinematography are almost exact, save the color. The color does take away, I thought, from the overall impact. Thankfully, they use color to good effect, contrasting Marion's bright and sharp clothes with the drab conditions of the hotel. The Bates Motel, if I am correct, is exactly the same as it was, complete with the glowing neon signs. The Bates house is still (if not moreso) as creepy as it was in 1960. Digitally added clouds are foreboding and linger over the house. The music has now been adapted by Danny Elfman (who better?), but he doesn't change it much at all. The only difference is a twangy, country-style take of the famous Psycho theme heard over the final credits. The final revelation at the end in the Bates house is more gruesome than it was in 1960, and self-gratification is included in the "peephole" scene. And while that doesn't sound like it would fit, it does (stretching the boundaries of logic, Norman Bates could be interpreted as Master Bates). One person in the audience even applauded.
PSYCHO is rated R for violence, some gore, nudity, and sex. With all the hype and all the critical slamming, the final question still remains, "Why?" There isn't a sound reason that will settle all those who claim Van Sant to be out of his mind, but Van Sant has never been known to go the safe route. After such experimental films as My Own Private Idaho and Drugstore Cowboy, he has taken his experiments in a new direction. What if you did a shot-for-shot remake of the master of suspense? Would it still hold up today? The answer is yes. But please, if you haven't seen the original, don't think of this as a substitute. Think of it as a companion piece, and go back to watch the original first.