Alfred Hitchcock's seminal classic Psycho is a bona-fide masterpiece -- no question. It's iconic in every way imaginable and will forever be embedded into the hall of cinematic treasures. But when there was talk and eventually the product of a "remake" there was an outcry among the FilmFreaks, cinephiles, and the whole general public. It stands today (I believe) as the only movie to be a re-created shot-by-shot film, and really designed to make this oldie more accessible to newer, younger audiences. Only problem is that those of the new generation blew it off just as badly as those who were already familiar with Hitchcock's movie.
But why? Why does Gus Van Sant's films still hold such an "awful" reputation after almost twelve years in existence? Some call it "insulting" or "pointless" without having even seen it (I know from personal encounter with a girl in a past film course who dismissed the '98 version after being thrilled by the original - even admitting she hadn't seen the new one) but I call it fresh, intelligent, and inspired. Of course its the same story and characters, but it is not the same film as Hitch's flick, as Van Sant has very subtly made the project his own.
As we all know, the plot follows Marion Crane who is itching to escape her mundane life of working behind a desk at a bank, so she plans on stealing $40,000 from a horny client so she and her sweetheart Sam can run off together and forget there troubles -- but things don't go quite as planned when Marion's trip gets turned upside down when she enters a nightmare she never escapes. Van Sant keeps the dialogue mostly the same (a few little tweaks here and there) and even though it was written fifty years ago it somehow still maintains its plausibility which is just another credit to the timeless script.
But the genius here lies within the film's other carefully crafted assets of the narrative and the manipulative ways Van Sant handles them; as such, this Psycho takes a different kind of psychological trip into some of the strangest, darkest, and most shocking places within the human psyche. While it is of course true that Hitchcock's film is a hugely psychological character study, Van Sant gives us a invigorating new stance on a story/characters that have been analyzed and studied for many years.
I personally believe that this is film's greatest accomplishment, deriving from its ability to project many different variations on what we have previously seen and having us pick up on it or not. Almost tossing little tid-bits out and lets us suspend our own beliefs. All of this is done without taking away from the brisk pacing and staging that is so artfully placed out.
While most of those mentioned discrepancies went by completely unnoticed by most, the film's visual look and style was up for big discussion right away -- as the black and white's are gone and are contrasted by a range of vividly gorgeous colors. Bright neon hues of eye-popping technicolor that are infused over almost every part of the production which invite us into a world that looks so bright and pretty, but are the surface for something much darker...something that skirts and bubbles over in each scene. While the colors might be looked upon as overly brash or loud, they remind me of those bold, early sixties-ish colors that Hitchcock's film would have had, if it hadn't been shot in the appropriate black and white. In fact, even the surprising costume design outfits the actors in wardrobes that have a distinct '60s look (a lot of pinks, oranges, and greens) that somehow could still be understandably worn in 1998.
But what makes all of these images so lush and stylish is the sharp cinematography by Christopher Doyle, whose camera not only illuminates the brightness of this world's candy-colored appearance, but the essential shadowy nightmarish atmosphere which stands as the lurking grounds of the Bates Motel. There's an certain detailed artfulness that Doyle brings to each frame which makes Psycho such a visual treat to experience over and over.
But as I had previously said this is not just attractive eye-candy, but a whole new interpretation which takes place with the guidance of Van Sant's careful eye. There are some ideas in Hitchcock's film that were underplayed for restraint and for what was allowed at the time, and it seems that Van Sant continually transcends those notions and letting them flourish in a fully realized yet subtle manner. For example, he allows the character's to have a bit more noticeable sexuality and to let its identification for each person tilt back and forth.
There's a distinctively gay subtext about this Psycho, that a openly gay director like Van Sant likes to play with. Some new examples are the lesbian tendencies of Moore's Lila who keeps brushing off any masculine attention such as never seriously getting to know or understand Sam and the way she pushes his hand off her shoulder as they pose as a married couple. Or what about in the first hotel scene we get a brief shot of Sam's ass crack which didn't have to be there. Even the character of Marion who was clearly feminine in the hands of Janet Leigh, now played by the more androgynous Anne Heche (who remember was gay at the time), who as one critic said, "looks like Pee Wee Herman in drag". But is that the point? Is Marion made up to resemble a drag performer in that little tomboyish hairdo while wearing those campy outfits? The director toys with the psychology and emotions of these people who live with or without morality as they try to express themselves among their many restrictions, and the film presents this with sharp clarity yet keeps them slightly foggy which adds to the mystery.
Some other changes are cool, interesting touches such as the replacement of the Bates Mansion which still remains as ominous as the old one, add to make this a new experience. There's a very slight reference to one of Hitchcock's other films, The Birds when Marion is packing up her things in the hotel room and in the window we can see and hear birds outside on a tree. Does this story in some way exist in the same world as the one in The Birds? Does the shock and violence presented here in the form of a mama's boy psycho have some kind of connection to the deadly birds that cause danger? It's a curious thing, indeed.
But there's one other thing that I must call attention to and give its due praise is the department of the acting. Well, it just happens to be one of very favorite aspects of cinema in general, and here in Psycho, there's more reason to get excited. Vince Vaughn in the role of Norman Bates is an interesting, offbeat case of casting that seriously delivered. This isn't just some retread into the same waters Anthony Perkins swam in, but a whole new twisted, bizarre characterization that works marvelously. He lets the menace and terror of this ledgendary character slowly seep through the cracks until he is completely consumed by it. Vaughn's Norman actually scared me much more than Perkins' Norman. Why? Vaughn just brought something to the part -- it's his commanding screen presence, his actorly instincts (illuminating Norman's madness while also keeping him detached and sympathetic), and his remarkable dedication in creating this new, rich, multi-layered performance. Real proof of his potential as a dramatic actor.
Anne Heche, too, puts a new spin on the role of Marion, playing her in a more on edge register than Janet Leigh did. Heche is interesting in the role and her acting choices and line readings are occasionally very inspired -- she's enigmatic in a strange, unconvential kind of way which makes her work shine. Another surprising performance is that of Julianne Moore's who plays Lila as a tough, ballsy, and determined fighter -- making her a refreshingly updated version of the quiet, meek, Vera Miles who let the men always take control. In fact, Moore's performance is so much greater than Miles' for her ability to tackle the role and give this woman some life -- plus, that kick to Norman's face says it all.
This new Psycho's got that new car smell and a shiny polished coat with its own trademark stamped on it. It's exciting and revived when it could have been bland or overwrought, subtle and shaded when it could have been loud and cluttered.
And for those of you who are great fan's of the original, relax, this film does nothing to insult or harm the classic thriller.
It couldn't even harm a fly...
No comments:
Post a Comment