PSYCHO (1998)
** (out of ****)
Rated R (for violence, brief nudity and sexuality)
Norman Bates: Vince Vaughn Marion Crane: Anne Heche Lila Crane: Julianne Moore Private Detective Milton Arbogast: William H. Macy Sam Loomis: Viggo Mortenson Caroline: Rita Wilson
Directed by Gus Van Sant. Produced by Brian Grazer and Gus Van Sant. Screenplay by Joseph Stefano. Distributed by Universal Pictures. Running time: 109 minutes. Release date: December 4, 1998.
(to view this review complete with images from the film, go to: http://www.impactprod.org/people/huston/psycho.htm )
Ever since Universal Pictures announced that they and director Gus Van Sant ("Good Will Hunting") would be `recreating' the Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece "Psycho", the most oft asked question has been a simple three letter word: why? Well, given that it has been asked so much, it seems almost futile at this point to ask it again. It's done, it's in theaters, and that's that-deal with it.
Besides, to ask `why?' to such an issue is as pointless as asking, `Why is there pain and suffering?' or `Why do NBA players feel they need more money?' or even `Why is sleeping with an intern young enough to be your daughter so easily forgiven nowadays?' There are no reasonable answers to these questions. These realities exist, no matter how ludicrous they may be, and that's the end of it. We just need to accept it and move on.
So with that open frame of mind, I went to see the new "Psycho". And as I left the theater upon the film's conclusion, only one thought continued to haunt my mind: why? I know, I know, it's pointless to even ask. But for one who knows the greatness of the original (as so many of us do), I simply couldn't stop myself from asking it. In the context of having seen the original, to see the new one simply warrants asking the question `why?'. Hitchcock's "Psycho" has earned the right to be elevated as one of cinema's sacred cows. To tamper with such greatness is to flirt with cinematic blasp hemy. It is only because of a few elements of original creativity that Van Sant and the rest should be saved from eternal film damnation.
Universal's new "Psycho" has been touted as a `shot-for-shot recreation' of the original. And while it does stay about 95% faithful to the original script, it is not a pure `shot-for-shot' remake. This is evident in the film's opening hotel room scene. Van Sant utilizes more close-ups and camera movement than Hitchcock did in this sequence. This is not a gripe on my part, but simply an observation. Such liberties in shot selection are taken throughout this film, but some are unavoidable given that many of the sets and locations are not exact replicas of the original.
But having said that, the new "Psycho" does contain a bountiful number of shots that are literal recreations. It was interesting to see these and think back to the originals. The sad part is that I continually found myself preferring the originals, thus making this new movie going experience more of a letdown. As intriguing as the idea of a recreation is, I think the talented Van Sant should have just opted to do a remake and bring his own style to the table (that is, if he really had to remake it to begin with).
Joseph Stefano, the original screenwriter for Hitchcock's "Psycho", was brought on board to make minor tweaks to his script in order to update the story to the Nineties. As a result a few changes were made, one example being the money stolen by Marion Crane was increased from $40,000 to $400,000. Necessary alterations such as these occur from time to time, but for the most part the story remains intact. Other changes are also present, but I tend to think that they were more Van Sant's doing than Stefano's. For those of you who wish to discover those changes for yourself, I won't detail them in this review. But for the curious or indifferent, you can find a list of those changes with a link provided in the review on my website (the link to that list can be found in this same paragraph). It essentially lists the differences that I observed. For a link to the review itself, see the top of this page.
But what I will do here is discuss my take on the film's look as well as its performances, and I'll begin with the latter. I do a great deal of comparing between the two versions and the remainder of this review is rather lengthy as a result. Normally I would not do this with your standard remake. But given the fact that this is supposed to be a recreation of a masterpiece, I feel that such comparative analysis is warranted.
Needless to say, the actors in this film certainly had their work cut out for them. And while these talented performers do a fine job in their own right, their characterizations simply pale in comparison to the originals.
I'll start right off the bat with Norman Bates. Without even taking characterization into account, Vince Vaughn ("The Lost World", "Swingers") simply isn't right for this role in my opinion. Physically, he's just too big. The thin, lanky build of Anthony Perkins personified the shy mamma's boy personality of Norman Bates. Vaughn is no mamma's boy. His build and height tower over the rest of the cast, making him appear stronger than he should. Perkins didn't look like a threatening guy, making Norman all the more creepy. With the intimidating Vaughn, you almost expect the guy to haul off on some of these people. His obvious talent aside, Vaughn was simply miscast.
Okay, so he doesn't look the part-but can he act it? Yeah, he did okay. It 's a fine job of acting to be honest, but one that would have looked better had it not Perkins's masterful performance to overshadow it. Vaughn definitely makes it real, but his Norman Bates is a little too obvious in comparison to Perkins. Perkins was meek and child-like. He was friendly, but shy. Vaughn's Bates is too personable. Also, Vaughn exposes Bates's psychosis more than Perkins did. With Perkins you sense that there may be something odd or different, but it's probably only because his mother emotionally suppressed him. To see Vaughn's Bates is to think, `Um, there's really something wrong with this guy.' And in the `post shower clean-up' scene, we really see the difference between the two. The Vaughn Bates is genuinely troubled as he cleans up the blood and disposes of the body. But the Perkins Bates has a rather disturbing, methodical approach to him. This calm, calculated persona is far more troubling and intriguing. Again, let me restate that Vaughn does a fine job here. But the Anthony Perkins Bates, one of cinema's all-time great performances, is in every regard superior.
The other character prone for extensive dissection is that of Marion Crane. It is up to the immensely talented and strong actress Anne Heche to fill the Oscar-nominated shoes of Janet Leigh. As with Vaughn, Heche ("Return To Paradise", "Six Days, Seven Nights") does a good job; but she doesn't live up to the standard set by Leigh. Heche has a strong, assertive personality in her acting style. She brings it to the role of Marion Crane, and I feel it is to the detriment of the character. There's almost a sense of a dry sarcastic attitude with Heche. Heche's Marion is too confident and emotionally together to be a person who is having an affair or one who impulsively steals money and hightails it out of town. It seems out of character for her to do these things. From the very beginning, Leigh's Marion had an unease and nervousness about her. She seemed confused and uncertain. Heche does not.
This comes into play in two key areas, the first of which is Marion's drive that eventually leads her to the Bates Motel. It is during this drive that Marion imagines what others will be saying about her once they've discovered what she has done. Janet Leigh's stark, unblinking eyes revealed a paranoid heart and guilty conscious. Her intense stare showed us a mind that was racing. The intensity is lost with Heche. She merely appears to be thinking these thoughts, but doesn't seem overly troubled by them. There was something mysterious about Leigh's Marion, we never quite understand or know her. Heche, in comparison, almost seems like an open book.
The other scene is her parlor conversation with Bates. As Norman discusses the traps that each of us live in, Leigh's Marion subtly showed increasing guilt and nervousness about the situation she had gotten herself into. Again, Heche doesn't quite achieve this. We see her thinking, but the emotional aspect isn't there with the same intensity. As a result, it almost seems surprising that Heche's Marion would make the decision to return home in the morning. She hasn't seemed troubled enough up to this point, so why does she feel compelled to turn back? Plot-wise, it's unavoidable of course. But there's not enough emotional subtext with Heche to motivate the change. The bottom line-Heche's interpretation is simply too strong and confident.
I will give praise to Heche for one key addition that I thought was very insightful. In the ill-fated shower scene, Heche's Marion has a moment of recognition before she is brutally murdered. This recognition, I feel, increases the level of psychological terror in the scene. Kudos to Heche for this small but masterful improvement.
Without going into as much depth, I do wish to address some of the other key characters. William H. Macy ("Fargo") plays Detective Arbogast, hired by Marion's employer to track her down. Macy brings his trademark naturalism to the role, but like Vaughn, he seems physically miscast. Martin Balssam's Arbogast was a husky gumshoe. And although his demeanor was calm and unthreatening, his physical presence seemed to intimidate the weaker Norman. The physical makeup of the actors is reversed here, with Vaughn being much bigger in comparison to Macy. Balssam's Arbogast almost seemed like a threatening male figure to Norman, much like the man who formed a relationship with Norman's mother. This subtext is lost by default given the drastic physical differences between Vaughn and Macy. Aside from that, Macy's characterization is right on.
Two of the film's biggest changes are the characterizations of Lila Crane and Sam Loomis. Lila Crane was strong in the first "Psycho", but she seemed to defer to Sam at times. Julianne Moore's ("Boogie Nights", "The Lost World") Lila is much stronger here, leading Sam every step of the way. It's definitely a 90s interpretation, and given that it fits this film. Moore's Lila is very aggressive and assertive. But my preference is the more balanced performance by Vera Miles in the original.
Moore's stronger Lila is exemplified best in the film's climactic scene. Straying from the norm, Van Sant's direction of this scene is drastically different (and far less effective) than Hitchcock's. As well as differences in characterization, great liberties are taken with shot selection and composition. There is one shot from the Hitchcock version of this scene that is imbedded in my mind. No attempt is made to even come close to duplicating it. If Van Sant's goal is to duplicate the original, why does he veer drastically from one of the film's most crucial scenes?
I greatly enjoyed Viggo Mortenson's ("A Perfect Murder", "Crimson Tide") take on Sam Loomis, the married man that Marion is having an affair with. Mortenson's Loomis is a laid back, easy going hick cowboy without much backbone. He's not weak, necessarily, but morally indifferent. John Gavin' s Loomis seemed to have too much moral character and strength to be a guy who would cheat on his wife. With Mortenson, Loomis is exactly the type of amoral person who would be involved in such an affair. Mortenson's Loomis is one of the few examples of where I preferred this "Psycho" over the original.
The other would be in the character of Dr. Richmond, the psychiatrist who explains the psychotic motives involved in the killings. If the original film had a weakness, it was this scene. Simon Oakland's psychiatrist was interpreted completely wrong. Instead of portraying a doctor who is examining the delicate psychosis of a disturbed mind, Oakland played it like an angry police detective or prosecutor detailing the crime. Emotionally, Oakland was way off. I won't expose the identity of the actor who portrays Dr. Richmond in this new version so that you may discover it for yourself. But I will say that he delivered one of 1997's top performances. Given my immense respect for that performance, I was pleasantly surprised to see him take on this role that I felt needed much improvement. This actor delivers as he takes the softer, more caring approach with Dr. Richmond. If for no other reason, Van Sant can possibly justify his recreation in that he greatly improved this scene.
For all of the missteps and errors that I feel Van Sant made here, I must credit him for two areas where he changed the original. These two changes were elements that Hitchcock wanted to include, but for technological and cultural reasons was unable to do so. The first is the opening shot. Panning across the expanse of Phoenix, Arizona, Van Sant's lengthy take moves from a wide view of the city and closes in on the window of Marion's hotel room, traveling through it to reveal Marion and Sam on the bed. The shot is continuous and uninterrupted. This is how Hitchcock wanted to do it, but was unable to because of technical restrictions. His slow zoom into the hotel room was assembled by dissolves, linking the various shots used to compose this opening sequence.
The other is in the death of Marion. Originally, Hitchcock wanted to have an overhead shot of the naked dead Marion draped over the side of the bathtub, revealing her entire body. Given that it was a shot of her backside, Hitchcock believed it is something he could get away with. The censors said otherwise. Van Sant restores that shot to his version, tastefully lingering on it for only a moment.
The two best elements of this new "Psycho" are the art direction and costume design. Although set in 1998, the look of this world is wonderfully retro. The set pieces favor the late 60s and early 70s, as do the costumes. But the colors are modernly pastel, instilling it with a contemporary feel. Props and clothing have an air of thrift store quality that is fun and uniquely original. Credit Tom Foden's production design and Beatrix Aruna Pasztor's costumes for giving this recreation its most original elements.
I also took great joy in two of the film's more faithful efforts. First and foremost is Danny Elfman's loyal re-recording of Bernard Herrmann's masterful score. I must admit, a smile came across my face as the film opened and the theater was filled with Herrmann's eerie composition. Fifty percent of the film's impact is found in the music, one that is frightfully full while only using string instruments. This is one of the most recognized and best film scores of all time. Thankfully, Elfman keeps in intact.
The other element is that of the mysterious highway patrol officer that Marion runs into on her way to the Bates motel. I nearly did a double take when I saw him. The guy is a virtual clone of the actor in the 1960 original. It really captivated me to see this. I can only imagine the giddy glee expressed by Van Sant and producer Brian Grazer when they came across this actor. It was, perhaps, the film's best element of homage to the original.
Arguably the worst aspect of this recreation is the use of color. The black and white photography was such an integral element in the overall mood and effect of the original. The dark shadows and lifeless gray's created a palpable sense of foreboding evil. It also allowed Perkins and Leigh to remain subtle while bringing out the subtext so evident in their eyes. The color makes the visuals too busy and distracting. The imagery doesn't arrest you as it does in the original, therefore exposing some of the story' s slow pacing. The original's black and white images enrapture you as the compensate for the plot's few tedious moments.
The bottom line may be this: as I watched the new "Psycho" (less than two hours, just like the 1960 version) it actually seemed to drag. It didn't captivate me like the original did. Conversely, I could watch Hitchcock's version tomorrow and be completely drawn into it from beginning to end. It has a psychological power that is missed in Van Sant's recreation. If you do see this new version, my recommendation would be this: watch Hitchcock's version first, even if you've seen it before. But if you haven't, then without question you should see it prior to watching the recreation. Do not taint your initial viewing of Hitchcock's masterpiece with this plodding remake. Then shortly thereafter, like say within the next day or so, go see the new one. I think the greatest enjoyment one could have with Van Sant's version is to view it comparatively. Sure, it will most certainly result in some level of disappointment, but there is something uniquely entertaining in watching the film from this context.
Finally, let me just say this. Van Sant, Grazer, Vaughn, Heche and the rest were in an admittedly no-win situation. The collective gifts that this immense talent pool brings would have been better spent on an original collaboration. But instead, they are wasted on this doomed venture of trying to meet expectations that are simply impossible to achieve. Given that, I commend them for their courage in tackling this daunting effort. I don't doubt their bravery or love for Hitchcock, but it is their wisdom that I question.
(if you would like to read other reviews by Jeffrey Huston, visit his film review website "Believe Me" at: http://www.impactprod.org/people/huston/core.htm )
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews