Psycho (Gus Van Sant, 1998)

[Michael]

Beause of this thread, I decided to revaluate Psycho. Nine years ago, I thought it was a blasphemous shit - infuriating and hilariously awful. But today, my perspective has evolved completely. It was really fun watching a gay director's Psycho through my gay eyes. I forgot how beautiful Vince is... and so is Viggo. The color scheme, the costumes and everything about the film was simply gorgeous.

True that Anthony Perkins is unbeatable but I still think Vince offered a sublime presence in the film...he was so beautiful, just look at the way he climbed up the stairs, van Sant's framing of his perfect ass .. I was like "you can come to my shower anytime!".

I'm glad you guys convinced me to revaluate Psycho. The whole thing felt like a dream.

[Polybius]

I do like the film, though - but more as a piece of bonkers conceptual art than a feature film proper.

I've read similar descriptions of Lynch's Dune.

[colinr0380]

True that Anthony Perkins is unbeatable but I still think Vince offered a sublime presence in the film...he was so beautiful, just look at the way he climbed up the stairs, van Sant's framing of his perfect ass .. I was like "you can come to my shower anytime!".

OK, OK, I'll concede on this point...everyone in the remake has very nice, pert buttocks!

davidhare and David Ehrenstein got me to watch this again as well, and I've taken this as a push to rewatch all the other films. I especially like the nun plummeting off the belltower at the opening of Psycho III as a fun Hitchcock homage!

Mortensen is surely an improvement on the plank-like John Gavin.

I would like to defend John Gavin's performance, which I think was kept purposefully neutral as the impulsive girlfriend and pushy sister are the people who make all the decisions and push the plot of the film forward, perhaps more than Norman does himself outside of his murders (and keeping with the female-centric nature of the film that is really all his mother's doing!).

There is a very good moment in Psycho II when Vera Miles returning as Lila Crane turns out to have married Sam and that he has died in the time before the film starts. One of the major twists in the second film is that:

Spoiler

Lila is getting her daughter to ingratiate herself with Norman and then drive him mad again by doing things like dressing up in the mother's clothes

It seems that with Sam gone, Lila has let her sister's death take over her life, and by tangling her daughter up in her scheme for revenge interesting parallels to Mrs Bates and her treatment of Norman arises.

Spoiler

It also means that with Lila's and her daughter's deaths Norman could be seen as being indirectly responsible for killing off the entire Crane/Loomis bloodline!

Sadly the music in Psycho II doesn't even begin to stand up in comparison to Psycho, but then what could?

I'm afraid I still don't like the remake! But alongside the buttocks (which I think is a nice take on the "and you don't have your shoes on" scene from the original) I did like the opening long shot into the hotel room (but at the same time I didn't feel any real dissatisfaction with the dissolves that were in the original).

The other moment I thought worked quite well was when the cop finds Marion asleep in the car and instead of having to wind the window down by hand there is the whine of the electric window in the new film!

The metaperformance davidhare was talking about - it seemed watching the remake that the actions of the original were being replicated, but always with an extra layer of extra action on top (such as Lila wearing her Walkman wherever she goes, Norman's giggles at the end of most sentences) and that this 'extra layer' extends to every aspect of the film from the colour scheme to that spider that crawls over the corpse of Mrs Bates after she is turned around to face the camera. I'm sorry, but I still find it incredibly irritating (as if the film is saying "this is scary. No? Then look here is a spider - NOW it's scary!", or "Norman's weird. You modern audiences are too jaded to find him weird? Well, let's have him giggle - NOW you're thinking he's strange!")

(EDIT: Although the new film is probably not intended to scare and the extra layers are intended to add a kind of post-modern irony to each well remembered moment. I'm still not a fan though!)

Perhaps I'm so harsh on the remake because I saw the original at about 11 or 12, one of the first things I saw when I got a television in my room, scared my parents would find out I was watching an unsuitable horror film in the middle of the night, and without knowing anything about the plot of the film! It was a brilliant experience and I think one of the things that made me a film fan. While I don't like Van Sant's Psycho, I do think he has great taste as The Birds is my other favourite Hitchcock film - that and Rear Window!

The recent post about the Hannibal film also reminded me that Julianne Moore did the 'reinventing a role from a classic earlier film' thing twice. I actually think she did an excellent job in that later role (while at the same time feel that Jodie Foster was right to not want to play 'her' Clarice Starling in Hannibal).

[Mr Sausage]

I'm sorry, but I still find it incredibly irritating (as if the film is saying "this is scary. No? Then look here is a spider - NOW it's scary!",

Not to mention Norman's reveal was completely mistimed, and in no way helped by Vaughn's silly, under-the-brows attempt to look menacing. The original scene still has a disturbing impact; the new one is flat and awkward and clearly doesn't trust its ability to shock, hence the spider.

[zedz]

I would like to defend John Gavin's performance, which I think was kept purposefully neutral as the impulsive girlfriend and pushy sister are the people who make all the decisions and push the plot of the film forward, perhaps more than Norman does himself outside of his murders (and keeping with the female-centric nature of the film that is really all his mother's doing!).

An interesting, but probably over-charitable, interpretation. As I recall, Hitch himself was dismayed by the lead in his lead. Still, it does contribute to my relishing of the opening scene (which sort of supports your thesis) in which wonderful Janet is acting for two. He's practically a mannequin that she's forced to manipulate.

Leigh and Perkins are beyond great in this film. She's surely one of the smartest American actresses of the era (just look at how she negotiates the impossible dialogue in The Manchurian Candidate if you need convincing).

There are dozens of 'perfect' performances in Hitchcock's films, but I don't think there are that many independently great ones (i.e. performances that live and breathe beyond the mechanism of the film rather than just serving that mechanism with style and precision), and this is a rare instance when two happen to coincide. The only other example I can think of is Cotten and Wright in Shadow of a Doubt.

[Polybius]

The recent post about the Hannibal film also reminded me that Julianne Moore did the 'reinventing a role from a classic earlier film' thing twice. I actually think she did an excellent job in that later role

Yes, she did. She made it her own.

(while at the same time feel that Jodie Foster was right to not want to play 'her' Clarice Starling in Hannibal).

I agree in the abstract, but I've always felt, and maybe this is just a faulty perception on my part, that she was at least a bit churlish about it. Her refusals to discuss the matter in anything other than a pro forma fashion strike me as less of her legendary willfullness and more as pettiness, which is regrettable from someone of her talent.

[colinr0380]

An interesting, but probably over-charitable, interpretation. As I recall, Hitch himself was dismayed by the lead in his lead.

You are probably right! I think I would describe Gavin's performance as competent rather than fantastic. However could the casting of Gavin have taken into account his 'limitations' and the way it would play in the film? (or could Hitch's dismay at his actor have affected the way Gavin was used? I think in the final film there are at least three other actors before him who could be thought of as the lead!). It does seem that Hitchcock was often able to get the best from 'poorer' actors - wasn't Tippi Hedren criticised for her skills at the time she made her films for Hitch? And yet I couldn't imagine her role in The Birds or Marnie played by anyone else.

(EDIT: Strangely though I could imagine Anne Heche as a kind of update of Tippi Hedren, which could suggest the Psycho remake was an interesting experiment in putting a Hitchcock blonde with different style, temperment and mannerisms from one film into another and seeing how it would play. Imagine Grace Kelly in The Birds! I'm not sure Kelly would be able to become as passive as Hedren does in the end, or be as shallow in the beginning, and therefore the whole film would change. Or perhaps I'm thinking too deeply about things now!)

Is there something to be said for having a callow or even uninteresting character in a film? It might be a filmic shorthand for grounding a film in a kind of 'reality'. One of my major criticisms of the remake is that everyone is 'on' all the time, constantly adding their various quirks, ticks and attitudes to their playing, and as someone I saw the film with said afterwards "it all got too much after a while"!

One or two characters playing to the hilt and grabbing the attention (and the film) can usually work, but when everyone is doing it the peaks and valleys of a film seem to just get levelled out into a continuous noise.

I might suggest that Gavin's absence is something that really lets Perkins and Leigh shine, as we aren't worried about what the boyfriend is doing because his character has barely registered with us - it gives the other two actors an intensity in their scenes together because we are totally with them rather than wondering about Sam (and of course Lila hasn't been introduced as a character before then so she doesn't impact the earlier scenes in anything more than a line of dialogue about how she is out of town for the weekend).

It also adds even more to the shock of the murder scene as not only has the person the audience has been so involved with (to the extent of hearing her thoughts) been wiped out, but we then have to face the prospect of being stuck with the boring boyfriend! That is yet another way that the shower murder scene is so audacious, along with the scene itself and the long, silent clean-up afterwards. Luckily we are saved from that prospect by the late in the film introduction of Lila and the PI, but we do get the horrible moment when it is just Sam and Norman left in the film! (that I think is one of the things that pushes us to identify with Norman next, along with Perkin's amazing performance)

I just remembered another moment from the remake I liked. As with most of my favourite scenes it comes from the beginning of the film and I think really captures what Van Sant was attempting. Marion's workmate in her office. It was fascinating to see the more ditzy and self-absorbed, but not malicious character of the original be completely transformed in the remake into, well, a bitch using exactly the same dialogue but with a change of emphasis in the way it is said!

(EDIT: However that is still a reduction in the remake from the more complex emotions the workmate inspires in the original!)

[Michael]

OK, OK, I'll concede on this point...everyone in the remake has very nice, pert buttocks!

Well van Sant didn't frame and photograph any of the women's asses in the same way as the guys'. That's the magnificent difference. To get your butt like Vince's, get a pair of these sandals.

[David Ehrenstein]

No, but he was very beautiful. Reason enough to make him a star.

[Michael]

No, but he was very beautiful. Reason enough to make him a star.

I agree. I always find it impossible to peel my eyes off him not only in Psycho but also in Imitation of Life.

[Magic Hate Ball]

But only (apropos the cows) if you added "more cowbell" to the score.

I'd love to hear the Psycho theme on cowbell.

clonk clonk clonk clonk CLONK CLONK CLONK CLONK CLONK CLONK CLONK CLONK CLONK CLONK CLONK CLONK!

[flyonthewall2983]

I'd love to hear the Psycho theme on cowbell.

clonk clonk clonk clonk CLONK CLONK CLONK CLONK CLONK CLONK CLONK CLONK CLONK CLONK CLONK CLONK!

I was in a pissy mood until I read that. Thank you.

[Polybius]

As the world's foremost Will Ferrell hater, I have a serious predisposition to hate any joke that centers around cowbells, but that was damned funny.

[s.j. bagley]

It was really fun watching a gay director's Psycho through my gay eyes.

i'm glad i'm not the only one who feels that way. usually when i bring it up i get cold stares.

[sevenarts]

It was really fun watching a gay director's Psycho through my gay eyes.

i'm glad i'm not the only one who feels that way. usually when i bring it up i get cold stares.

Maybe it's just because I'm not gay, but Van Sant's Psycho seems to me way more interesting to read about than to actually watch. I've greatly enjoyed the commentary, by David E. and others here, about the film's gay subtext and use of color, and I can easily see everything they write about myself when watching the film, but for me it doesn't quite work as well up on the screen as it does in their writings. It just doesn't go far enough, for me, in subverting the original text. Its subversions are too subtle, too minimal, to make the massive changes some have claimed for the viewing experience, and the result is that it just seems to me like an inferior copy of the original with some interesting quirks thrown in. I do think it's a fascinating formal experiment, and the queasy, neon-bright color schemes are often a real delight, even if they do undermine the horror and replace it with a campy wink. The occasional unrelated frames intercut into the murder scenes are a perfect touch, as well, a really brilliant and genuinely funny commentary on the famous shower scene montage with its rapid cuts. I just wish there was a lot more of that kind of witty subversion in the film, because too much of it is played like a flat imitation of the original with much lesser actors in the initial two lead roles.

[Lou Ming]

I only saw it once, in the theatre when it was initially released. All I remember was it was an underwhelming experience, but not horrible. I was way less into film theory and critique at the time, and I'm not a gay man, but for the average viewer, who would see it only once as I did, the film left no more lasting impression than the buttery grease on the fingers.

[David Ehrenstein]

I don't think Gus was out to "subvert the original text" at all. He just added a layer subtext to it -- primarily through color.

Hitchcock made Psycho in black and white both to save money and because he thought seeing the blood in color would be far too gory for audiences. Now we've seen oceans of blood in horror flims. But as Chris Doyle is DP, that red is very pretty as is much else. The thing that stands out most for me is the very pretty paper umbrella Anne Heche uses as a sun shade when she trades in her old car for a new one. Chris Doyle obviously gave it to her.

[David Ehrenstein]

Also of interest on the Gus Psycho DVD is the "making of" featurette The Psycho Path, directed by D.J. -- Gus' ex-boyfriend.

[colinr0380]

No, but he was very beautiful. Reason enough to make him a star.

I agree. I always find it impossible to peel my eyes off him not only in Psycho but also in Imitation of Life.

It is strange to turn a thread about the Psycho remake into a discussion of the (lack of) qualities of one of the actors from the original film, but funnily enough I was just rewatching Spartacus last night and Gavin barely makes an impression in his scenes as Julius Caesar (rightly so, since he is a peripheral character in this story) and is barely noticeable amongst all the other big names stuffed in there (although John Dall from Rope is excellent in his one big scene opposite Olivier).

However the filmmakers obviously knew the best way to show off their stars various 'talents' since Gavin has a big scene in the Roman baths with Charles Laughton, and plays it stripped to the waist showing off his best features while Laughton is bundled up to the neck in his towel!

[colinr0380]

I don't mind Spartacus too much even though it does have flaws (and I feel its position in the Criterion Collection is defensible for being an example of those enormous Hollywood epics), but the disc really takes pride of place on my shelf for Ustinov's laugh out loud impressions of Laughton and Olivier in the commentary, especially the section in which he describes how Laughton would be completely wrong for any naval adventure more modern than the Bounty by doing an impression of Laughton shouting "Fire the torpedos!"

[MichaelB]

(and I feel its position in the Criterion Collection is defensible for being an example of those enormous Hollywood epics)

...not to mention the only Kubrick film Criterion were ever likely to get their mitts on (at least for a DVD release).

[Michael]

Whether Gavin is a good actor or not, he's very easy on the eyes (at least my eyes) and that can be enough, more than enough, no? Surely, he gives strangely "transparent" performances (with beautiful fronts) but I think they are perfect for films, such as Psycho and Imitation of Life, going after the American superficiality.

[Michael]

Nice tits John!

Indeed!

[Polybius]

This is the part of the discussion where I usually stick up for Spartacus as being more literate and politically sophisticated than the usual run of epic Classic world films of the time. I'll just mention it and leave it at that.

For big, loud, epic, campy fun, nothing approaches Ben Hur.

Of course, it's made all the funnier by the now-known subtext that Gore Vidal included in his rewrites to explain the dynamic between Messalah and JB-H, especially poor Chuck's obliviousness then and obdurate refusal to admit it now.

Even with it's shallow Christianity and inherent silliness, it's a lot of fun to watch as a period melodrama, a technical exercise or an example of camp. Or some combo of the three.

[Polybius]

In Vidal's telling of the story, Boyd picked up on the subtext immediately and played it to the hilt in rehearsals while Heston blathered on, oblivious.

I'm largely in agreement with your assessment, but it's particularly egregious in this script. All the more surprising in that it's ostensibly a work that affirms faith.

It almost seems like Judah meets Jesus and gives him water that time solely to set up a quid pro quo situation for him to call on later to cure his Leprosy-stricken sister and mother. That's not just shallow, it's borderline sacrilegous.