May 26, 2012

When Psychos Compete Does the Audience Win?

Spoiler Alert! How does the original Psycho compare with Gus Van Sant's 1998 remake? Read on only if you know how it ends.

by Kyle Rupprecht | Published October 1, 2008

Janet Leigh stars as Marion Crane in Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho.

When Alfred Hitchcock released Psycho in June 1960, he had little idea how influential his low-budget “B-movie” would become. His experiment in terror would lead the way for the slasher movie craze and redefine the horror genre in the process. Before Psycho, audiences had never seen as suspenseful a sequence as the infamous shower scene, as chilling a score as Bernard Herrmann’s slashing strings, as mild-mannered and seemingly unassuming a villain as Norman Bates, as unexpected a plot twist as the lead actress being killed off halfway through the film and, even, a toilet flushing on-screen (Psycho was the first American film to do so). Almost 50 years later, the story of a young woman (Janet Leigh) with a suitcase of stolen money staying the night at a run-down motel operated by a troubled, mother-obsessed loner (Anthony Perkins), is still remarkably fresh and bone chilling.

This all makes one wonder what Gus Van Sant was thinking when, in 1998, he directed a shot-by-shot remake of Hitchcock’s classic. Using Joseph Stefano’s original script, the updated Psycho stars Anne Heche as Marion Crane and Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates, both woefully miscast. Anthony Perkins, the original Norman Bates, had a natural, boy-next-door quality, which made the twist ending that much more surprising and rewarding. The looming, neurotic Vaughn seems off his rocker as soon as he speaks in the remake, which makes the film significantly less creepy.

Perhaps Van Sant’s biggest blunder in remaking Psycho was shooting the film in color, robbing it of much of the atmospheric power of the black and white original. Ironically, that shower scene isn’t nearly as scary when it’s in blood red rather than stark grey. There are a few other instances where Van Sant’s attempted modernization falls flat, including an unintentionally funny version of a scene in the original, where Bates spies on Crane undressing through a hole in the wall. In the remake, Bates isn’t merely spying but engaging in a bit of self-gratification. A scene like that would have never made it past the censors in 1960, but the original movie’s notion of keeping Bates’ sexual desires repressed is much more interesting and thought-provoking than Van Sant’s over-the-top interpretation.

While the Psycho remake might have made for an interesting film school project, as a big-budget Hollywood reimagining by one of independent cinema’s most respected minds, it still begs the question, “Why bother?” The original Psycho has all the suspense and chills viewers could hope for.

SHARE THIS STORY

COMMENTS | POST A COMMENT

Comment by صور on 12/21/10 at 2:48 pm: thank you very much
منتديات
ميك اب
Comment by صور on 12/21/10 at 2:48 pm: thank you very much
تسريحات
صور للماسنجر
Comment by sniper2 on 9/26/11 at 3:28 pm: زفات
زفات

When Psychos Compete Does the Audience Win?

Spoiler Alert! How does the original Psycho compare with Gus Van Sant's 1998 remake? Read on only if you know how it ends.

COMMENTS | POST A COMMENT

POST A COMMENT

Latest from the forums:

Cartier Watch The positioning boasts quickly infor

Louis Vuitton Bags Outlet Copy wallet will be an t

Jordans Shoes G VA 3 or more 2143 Viana vom Ficht

Coach Factory Proenza Schouler Bags But yet no mat

Watch Horror Movie Chernobyl Diaries

Have you watched Men In Black 3?

Excited to watch UFC 146 Live

Cheap Coach Bags special options might lead you i

Gucci Bags We've been granted with what looked lik

Louis Vuitton Handbags Qual ¨¨ new york nostra m

Latest from the polls:

RELATED ARTICLES FROM THE ARCHIVES

Name:
Email:
URL: