Charles Henderson's movie reviews -- written from a theological perspective appear regularly at: http://christianity.miningco.com
Following up on his huge success with Good Will Hunting, Director Gus Van Sant has taken a bold risk in making another ground breaking film: a remake of Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 original, Psycho. There has never been anything quite like this. For Van Sant uses virtually the same script, score, and camera angles that made the Hitchcock version of the film a classic. I saw the film on opening night in New York and wanted to review it right away. In doing a "background check" to compare what Van Sant has done here with the Hitchcock template, I've come to see what a remarkable effort this is. And thanks to the number of websites that have been created around the 1960 film, you'll be able to see for yourself exactly what I mean.
But first, a word about Hitchcock's original. It did not open to critical acclaim. Its status as a classic emerged over time. It took over thirty years to achieve such stature that it regularly appears in college textbooks, television specials, and now on the Internet, as an object of veneration. There is even one website created for the sole purpose of stopping this film from being made. A vain effort to be sure. Still, the culture-icon status of Psycho will make it all the more difficult for Van Sant.
In discussing his project with members of the Hitchcock family, and the screen writer, Joseph Stefano, Van Sant described his project not as a remake, but as a "revival." He wanted to preserve as much of Hitchcock's vision as possible. And the extent to which he has gone to do this is exemplified in the famous shower scene. A frame by frame comparison between the two versions of the film is possible thanks to one website where an animation of the original scene has been assembled. The similarities are striking. And the same is true throughout the film. The major differences are, of course, the color, and the acting. Many reviewers will compare the Janet Leigh/Anthony Perkins face-off in stark black and white with the Anne Heche/Vince Vaughn re-creation in full color. The actors follow the same plot, read the same lines, even retrace the same footsteps and body movements, but in so-doing convey something quite original and unique. Which brings me close to the reason I was so interested in reviewing this film -- from the point of view of a person of faith.
There will probably be as steep an uphill climb for me to persuade devout readers that the Psycho remake has merit as it will be for Van Sant to convince Hitchcock true believers that anything like a "revival" of the Master's work would be worthy of the attempt. This is doubly true, of course, because this movie -- in either version -- has few, if any, obviously redeeming qualities. Its focal point is a bloody murder committed by a mentally deranged young man. The book on which the film-script is based was inspired by a true story of a perverted mass murderer. That this criminal both in real life and in the movies is "brought to justice," will not be of sufficient significance to offer Psycho as a "morality play." At a deeper level, this movie is about the traps we all find ourselves in, and the difficulty of escaping them. Neither will this be a sufficient reason for readers of this review either to rent Psycho, take one, or go out to your local theater to see Psycho, take two. What I find most worthy of attention in this whole situation, and this may be closer to what Van Sant was getting at in his "revival," is the larger lesson that this film has to teach about both story telling and "truth telling." As any story teller knows (including those of us who merely read stories to our children) there's as much in a story that is brought to it by the listeners as the tellers, and each time a powerful story is told, it takes on new meaning. This is true of the good mystery stories that Alfred Hitchcock told; it is also true of the "greatest story ever told, " and, for that matter, the entire contents of the Holy Bible. Biblical literalists notwithstanding, the truthfulness of the Bible cannot be validated simply by repeating the words of the text over and over again. The meaning of the text can only be validated within a living community of faith and within the personal lives of individual believers. And, equally important, the truths to be found in the Bible will vary from age to age as its implications are seen and appreciated by different people in different ways.
The two versions of Psycho, identical though they may be in sharing the same script, are vastly different in terms of look and feel. More important, the differences in nuance and meaning are striking. Their animating spirit is profoundly different. The actors, of course, make a great deal of difference, the colors less so. Most critical is the unique event that takes place when film and film-maker, actors and audiences encounter each other in the viewing of the film. Seeing Psycho in 1998 is different than seeing it in 1960, whatever version you are seeing. During the showing of the film that I attended at a theatre in Manhattan, two individuals in the next row of seats started fighting and had to be ejected. Rather than disrupting the film, the conflict seemed to heighten the suspense, drawing further attention to the "congregation" that would experience this "revival" as none other. I suspect that Van Sant's effort will be studied alongside the original, precisely for what such a parallel viewing will reveal about what has become of us, as a people, during the near 40 years between these two films. Seeing Psycho, take one, and Psycho, take two, side-by-side is like taking a stereoscopic photo that penetrates into the depths of who we are as a people. Four flames.
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