Bates Motel renovation unnecessary
Psycho A Film Review By Michael Redman Copyright 1998 By Michael Redman
** (Out of ****)
Of all the questions that have puzzled mankind over the years, "Why?" is the most difficult to answer. Philosophers struggle with the Why of human existence. For journalists the rest of the big "W"s are simple compared to that one.
Newspaper articles ask "Why did Bill Clinton act like a 16-year old kid in heat instead of being a little more careful?" Your young daughter questions "Why did God let my kitten die?" Your lover wants to know "Why do you have to be the way you are?"
In many situations there are no real answers or at least none that we can ever know. Van Morrison's studied response is "It ain't why, why, why, why, why. It just is." When asked why he chose to redo "Psycho", director Gus Van Sant paraphrases the great philosophical jeans commercial: "Why ask why?"
He also explains that he'd like to bring the great Hitchcock film to a new generation of audiences that have never seen it. He wants to introduce color to the classic. None of these reasons wash.
Re-issuing the original on the big screen would allow new viewers to see the film...it seems to have worked for The Wizard Of Oz. If the first version had been destroyed, this might make more sense, but it's still around and it's still a great film. Color would be a good excuse if it added anything to the movie. It doesn't.
"Psycho" is one of those films that have become a part of modern western mythology. Nearly everyone knows the story. When someone stabs the air with a clinched fist accompanied by screeching noises, you get the reference. Years ago, explaining a trip to Madison, Wisconsin, I mentioned to friends that I'd spent a night in the Bates Motel. They all understood.
In case there's anyone who isn't familiar with the plot, here's the "Reader's Digest" version. Marion Crane (Anne Heche) steals a ton of money from her boss. Making a poor choice in lodging, she checks into a motel run by Norman Bates (Vince Vaughn) who has a very odd relationship with his mother. After she disappears, her boyfriend and sister come looking for her.
Touted as a shot-by-shot recreation of the original, it's really not. Camera angles are different. The script has been slightly re-written by original screenwriter Joseph Stefano. Although Van Sant has done a credible job of maintaining Hitchcock's scenes, he loses the spirit. The film is lifeless.
There are two primary audiences for this film. Those that have seen the original and want to compare the two and those that have never viewed the first one and are seeing the story for the first time. It doesn't work very well for either.
Even for teenagers who haven't experienced the 1960's version, most know about the shower scene and Norman's mom. These work most effectively as surprises. After untold slasher films, the killings here aren't as terrifying as they were 40 years ago.
The story hasn't been updated enough to provide much entertainment for people who want a new version. The few new items don't add much. Norman indulges in a very personal activity while watching Marion disrobe through his peep hole. The shower scene is a bit more revealing. There are a few lines of dialog that Hitchcock wanted and weren't in the original but they're minimal.
Some scenes don't make sense. A couple extremely short hallucinations occur during a killing. So brief that they are difficult to catch -- maybe a semi-clad woman on a couch, some animal in a fog perhaps on train tracks -- they feel tossed in for no reason.
The bizarre combination of the sixties and nineties is distracting. Private detective Milton Arbogast (William H. Macy) is well-played but his dialog is anachronistic and his suit and hat are out of some time that films have never seen. Computers sit on a desk in an office that could have been designed in 1950. Lila (Julianne Moore), Marion's sister mentions that she has to get her Walkman, prompting a laugh from the audience only because it is so out of place.
All of this would be minor if the film worked. But it mostly doesn't. Everything is flat. The original shower was extraordinary. The editing in the newer version isn't as effective and now it's just one more murder scene.
Heche does a good job of portraying the conflicted Marion, but she often comes across as searching for her character. Vaughn is never menacing. Viggo Mortensen as Marion's lover occasionally appears to have taken lessons from the Dick Tracy villain Mumbles. Moore is one exception, playing Lila as a lively hard-edged modern woman.
I got the feeling that most of the audience was watching the movie while replaying the original in their minds. It is almost impossible to do otherwise. Watching for similarities and differences is fun for a while, but it doesn't carry the entire film. After that limited entertainment value wears off, you're just marking time until the end. If you have any doubts as to the popularity of the Compare The Films game, try to rent a copy of the original. Good luck finding one in stock.
The film is an academic exercise. It's like a beginning painting assignment: re-paint Van Gogh's sunflowers brush stroke by brush stroke, but this time make them blue. I'm sure that Van Sant learned a lot about Hitchcock during his experience, but that doesn't make it any more interesting for the rest of us.
The film reminds me of Shakespeare's answer as to the "why" of life: "...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
(Michael Redman has written this column for well over 23 years and he's working on a painting of Mona Lisa but without the smile. Email your suggestions of classics that need redone to Redman@indepen.com.)
[This appeared in the 12/10/98 "Bloomington Independent", Bloomington, Indiana. Michael Redman can be contacted at Redman@indepen.com]
-- mailto:redman@indepen.com This week's film review at http://www.indepen.com/ Film reviews archive at http://us.imdb.com/M/reviews_by?Michael%20Redman
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