Psycho (Gus Van Sant, 1998)

[Herman Witkam]

"....." who shot his great Psycho remake.

ahum

[Herman Witkam]

Are you in any way familiar with Doyle's work? Or van Sant's?

Does your "ahum" indicate blithe dismissal?

Prends garde Pet.

Dismissal. I love Van Sant's Elephant, and I really love Christopher Doyle's work with Wong Kar Wai (and I'm looking forward to seeing the latest endeavours of all of these), but simply shamelessly remaking a film like that seems rediculous to me. Just an opinion...

[MichaelB]

Dismissal. I love Van Sant's Elephant, and I really love Christopher Doyle's work with Wong Kar Wai (and I'm looking forward to seeing the latest endeavours of all of these), but simply shamelessly remaking a film like that seems rediculous to me. Just an opinion...

Gus Van Sant's Psycho is many things - deranged, misguided, weirdly fascinating - but I absolutely wouldn't call it "shameless".

In fact, for me part of the problem was that Van Sant was clearly so much in awe of the original that he didn't dare deviate too much from the Hitchcock template, and moments like the strange flashes of cows at Arbogast's death (if I'm remembering it correctly) were sadly too few on the ground.

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

[David Ehrenstein]

And I particularly loved Doyle's acid green etching into pieces and bits like the CUs of the fly, or (indeed!) Gus' flash moments of naked women etc) into William H Macy's Arbogast backwards scene.

And I love the butterfly tattoo just above Viggo Mortensen's butt crack.

Gus' Psycho is the only avant-garde film made by a major Hollywood studio. It is a pure surrealist object.

Not a narrative -- an object.

[Nothing]

Gus' Psycho is the only avant-garde film made by a major Hollywood studio. It is a pure surrealist object.
Not a narrative -- an object.

I dunno, you could say the same thing about Resident Evil...

[colinr0380]

While I appreciate some of the stylistic touches Van Sant brought to his remake of Psycho, I still can't get past the way the fantastic original is tarnished by the crazy performances from actors who can normally give a decent performance (I'm especially glad that Anne Heche got a nice, if small, role in Birth that reminded me of her talent that I had not really been able to appreciate after the disappointing Volcano and Six Days, Seven Nights lead roles that came before the impossible task of taking on the Psycho remake seemed to push her out of the spotlight for a few years). Even if I might agree that Van Sant brought a new style to an old film I'm still left with the feeling that he left his actors high and dry and having to resort to broad mugging to get by while he tinkered with dress colours.

However thinking of it as an avant garde surrealist object I wonder if this was Van Sant's comment on the remake hungry studio executives who wouldn't go for an original film with surrealist touches but who would immediately ask how many millions he needed if he said he wanted to remake one of their classic films? (I have much more respect for, and enjoy much more, his later Gerry, Elephant and Last Days for being original works which incorporate these touches) It seems as if he is rubbing the audiences noses in the fact that this is a pointless exercise, and in a way I bracket the film with his virtual remake of the pupil/teacher relationship film Good Will Hunting in Finding Forrester. I think I might be more appreciative of surreal tricks used to spice up Psycho if Van Sant had also used them in Finding Forrester but he told that film relatively straight, which made me feel that he had more respect for the integrity of his own work and his own previous material than he did for Hitchcock's where he felt able to go to town on hyping up dialogue exchanges, making the masturbation at the peephole scene incredibly obvious and wrecking the shock of the final sequence by having Norman slink into the light with a camp wink rather than come screaming into the cellar so fast there is barely time to register it is a man in a dress until he is wrestled to the floor (and by doing so also wrecks the way that Lila's scream on seeing the dessicated mother transforms into Norman's own scream as he attacks her).

Perhaps Van Sant was intentionally making every classic moment play poorly or incompetently to distance the audience and make them concentrate on the visuals or the experience of watching a new film filtered through the memories of the original, but even if he was I feel sorry for anyone whose first experience of Psycho was through seeing this film rather than the 1960 original (even if I probably shouldn't feel sorry for anyone who has never seen or avoided seeing the original film because they 'don't like black and white' or 'don't watch old films' etc! ). The only value I can see in it is for the various stylistic touches that can only be appreciated in how they differ from the original and that seems to make the film the only remake that necessitates having seen the original beforehand to appreciate it on any more than the 'terrible film' level (which I suppose is something of an achievement and perhaps another sly comment at the remake culture!)

I think another reason why I judge this film so harshly is that Psycho, like Alien (which had also been tarnished by the Resurrection film the year before), had fared quite well in the sequel stakes, with Psycho II being worthy of comparison with the original and even the more slasher oriented third (that was directed by Anthony Perkins) and made for TV fourth having some merit. It was a little annoying that it took a completely unnecessary 'reimagining' to do the damage that the sequels weren't able to do!

While I could maybe shift the blame from Van Sant to the executives desperate enough for a Psycho remake that they pushed this project through, I just can't help but wish he had chosen someting else to remake, perhaps something that was bad originally and might have responded well to the additions. Hell, even that later remake of The Ladykillers might have worked better with ramped up performances and visions of cows or naked women as each member of the gang got bumped off!

[Herman Witkam]

Gus Van Sant's Psycho is many things - deranged, misguided, weirdly fascinating - but I absolutely wouldn't call it "shameless".

In fact, for me part of the problem was that Van Sant was clearly so much in awe of the original that he didn't dare deviate too much from the Hitchcock template,

That's why I would use the word shameless.

It's a bit like making a written score of a well-known piece of music in my own handwriting and selling it as my own work.

[Herman Witkam]

EVen Danny Elfmann's superb rescoring is around half a beat faster.

That's what bothered me the most, the score. The original score by Bernard Herrmann is a jewel, and one of the most significant film scores of the 20th century, coming from one of the most creative director-composer relationships (until Torn Curtain, that is). It was probably Danny Elfman's childhood dream to re-score Psycho, but Elfman has already incorporated a lot of Bernard Herrmann into his style of music, so there's really no need for all this.

I'm getting rather sick of Hollywood's repetition schemes...

[tryavna]

It's a bit like making a written score of a well-known piece of music in my own handwriting and selling it as my own work.

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

In general, I like Van Sant's work, but it's hard to ignore the fact that he made two really lousy films back-to-back: Psycho (an unnecessary remake of the original) and Finding Forrester (an unnecessary rehash of Good Will Hunting). Maybe he just needed to get those out of his system before he turned to much more interesting fare with Gerry and Elephant.

[toiletduck!]

That's why I would use the word shameless.

It's a bit like making a written score of a well-known piece of music in my own handwriting and selling it as my own work.

It's shameless if done purely for commercial purposes, but van Sant is far from a corporate whore.

-Toilet Dcuk

[MichaelB]

That's why I would use the word shameless.

It's a bit like making a written score of a well-known piece of music in my own handwriting and selling it as my own work.

Yes, but Van Sant didn't, did he? He bent over backwards to credit Hitchcock at every possible opportunity - not least because he was well aware that his film only truly "works" if you've not so much seen the Hitchcock original as studied it frame by frame.

To me, shameless behaviour - at least with regard to remaking someone else's work - would be to big up your own contribution while dismissing or minimising (or failing to mention) the original artist's.

For instance, here's a genuine example: I once watched a television programme about up-and-coming ad directors, and one (I forget his name) was explaining where he got the idea for a particular award-winning commercial from - he described the moment of inspiration in some detail. However, what he didn't say was "I ripped off the entire thing, pretty much shot for shot, from the French short Foutaises, which had achieved a minor cult following a couple of years earlier", despite the rather overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Now that's shameless.

[Antoine Doinel]

This is a very interesting thread about a film I haven't investigated yet largely because I'm put off by the entire exercise.

However, it seems that people are reading a lot into Van Sant's intentions whether they are actually there are not. Aside from making it more than abundantly clear that his film was a frame-by-frame remake (I would love to have been in the meeting where Van Sant sold that idea), has Van Sant gone on record regarding the more surreal, avant-garde or activist themes being hoisted on Psycho?

[David Ehrenstein]

I dunno, you could say the same thing about Resident Evil...

Jamais de la vie!

The Psycho remake wasn't pushed through by the executives. It was Gus' idea from first to last. He's a conceptual filmmkaer -- not a storyteller -- as Gerry, Elephant and Last Days make quite clear. His Psycho is of a piece with those films.

[miless]

In general, I like Van Sant's work, but it's hard to ignore the fact that he made two really lousy films back-to-back: Psycho (an unnecessary remake of the original) and Finding Forrester (an unnecessary rehash of Good Will Hunting). Maybe he just needed to get those out of his system before he turned to much more interesting fare with Gerry and Elephant.

I find it hard to ignore that he made Even Cowgirls Get The Blues...
what a terrible film... it really is no wonder that it's nearly impossible to find.
(other than Psycho, FF and ECGtB Van Sant has had a very distinguished career)

[Nothing]

I dunno, I think Gerry announced a new Van Sant. He was pretty much a narrative filmmaker before that.

Arguably, in all its utter horribleness, Resident Evil is far more about concept - ie. recreating the feel of being inside a video game - than it is about the usual Hollywood tropes of narrative and character. Erm, anyway.

[Herman Witkam]

Actually, the main reason why I dislike this whole film is that I saw it before I ever saw the original one (Let's say I was young and naive ), and that it took me quite some re-watching of the original version to get this one out of my head.

I'm getting started on writing my own Beethoven's 5th.

[Antoine Doinel]

Arguably, in all its utter horribleness, Resident Evil is far more about concept - ie. recreating the feel of being inside a video game - than it is about the usual Hollywood tropes of narrative and character. Erm, anyway.

I think Resident Evil was far more concerned in making sure Milla Jovovich looked hot while blowing up stuff and killing alien zombies.

[Ste]

My friend James sings the tasty cover of Talking Heads' "Psycho Killer" on the soundtrack. Worth hearing for people who enjoy hearing that sort of thing.

[patrick]

From a reverseshot.com interview with Doyle:

RS: I'd like to talk about Gus Van Sant's Psycho remake, on which you worked. Would you agree that contemporary cinema is, to a great extent, defined by an appropriation of other cinematic traditions, genres, visual styles? Wong Kar-wai once said that current filmmakers no longer make original works of art, they recycle what has been done before.

Doyle: No. I think the only time I see films is on planes. I take a lot of planes, so I do manage to see lots of films. But to me film is not the basis of my life, my creative energy comes from other things, usually music, or people, or the way in which I live. The people who decide to work with me know that. Therefore, what you mention is their job. Gus Van Sant knew that. Psycho is not a film but a conceptual artwork. I don't think you need to see the film. It's just a concept, a very expensive one. It cost $20 million to make and $40 million to promote. If you went to Hollywood, and tell them let's do some performance art, they wouldn't give you 60 million. They did in this case. My role in Psycho was not to know, not to remember the original film.

Even Cowgirls... is amazing because it's one of the few films that I can't find anything positive to say about it. Amazingly, it rents a lot at the video store and people actually seem to enjoy it.

[colinr0380]

I think this essay was a very good examination of the film.

[neuro]

I've defended Van Sant's film here on the forum in the past, and while my appreciation of the film is more along the lines of Mr. Ehrenstein's description of the film as an "art object," my favorite excerpt concerning the film's true objective is by Lisa Alspector of the the Chicago Reader:

According to an on-screen title, this adaptation of the 1960 Psycho is set in 1998, but the gentle incongruities among the costumes, dialogue, and social mores make the movie resemble a dream. Plays are created in hopes that they'll be staged by many directors; only convention has persuaded us to think of movies differently -- remakes are often evaluated as if originality were somehow quantifiable, absolute, or the necessary objective of art. With this thriller -- which is innovative in the extreme to which it takes the practice of copying -- director Gus Van Sant reminds us that all forms can be used as blueprints and that hommage may be a euphemism.

[Highway 61]

I really hope this thread has prompted sceptics to watch Psycho again!

It really has, actually. I'm a Van Sant skeptic, or at least, I didn't care for Elephant and Last Days, so all the recent talk of his genius seems premature to me. Plus I live in Portland, and now that The Simpsons suck, Van Sant has become the city's cultural icon, which means I'm bombarded with excessive Van Sant praise anytime I mention to someone in the city that I'm a movie lover, forcing me to go through the awkward discussion about how his work doesn't do much for me. Not the best reasons to dislike the guy's work, I realize.

The excitement shown here for Psycho, however, has peaked my interest in his work for the first time in years. The more I think about the remake, the more I realize that Psycho--whether it's a masterpiece or a disater--is one of the most fascinating movies made in my lifetime. The DVD must be available for cheap, so I suppose I'll pick it and up rewatch it next week.

And incidentally, I always loved Universal's one-sheet for this movie. The poster just drove home what a cultural staple Hitchcock's original is.

[sevenarts]

I just wanted to say thanks for this thread. I'm a big fan of Van Sant's Gerry/Elephant/Last Days trilogy, but I've long put off watching his Psycho remake, tending to mentally file it with the paying the bills crap he's occasionally required to do. Really, Good Will Hunting is intolerable, and the only thing worse than its very existence is the fact that it's so acclaimed and most people probably only know Van Sant, if they know him at all, from it. But I'll certainly be watching his Psycho now.

[Antoine Doinel]

I think this essay was a very good examination of the film.

Great link! While it's a compelling analysis of the film, I'm not sure I want to sit through the execution of the concept. Perhaps I'll rent the DVD and cherry pick some of the key scenes that I remember just to get a taste of what Van Sant was trying to do.

And great thread --- it's always exciting when these kinds discussions unfold on these boards.

[zedz]

I see Psycho as the filmic equivalent of a cover version of a classic song - or perhaps more the point, a new performance of a work from the classical repertiore - either of which is a radically different conception of The Remake than what normally comes out of Hollywood (which is based on dressing up a pre-tested, generally plot-based hook in the latest finery). It's a project that works best as a piece of conceptual art probing notions of authorship and the aesthetic nature of the original work. Isn't it more appropriate to respect the 'score' of a classic like Psycho than to try and outdo it in a different fashion?

That said, I like how van Sant's personality creeps into the corners of the film, and how he makes choices that throw the original into relief, such as reversing the strong / weak casting of the female leads (Leigh vs Heche / Miles vs Moore). Perkins is unbeatable (but note how Van Sant riffs on the theme of his gayness in the casting and performance of the female leads), but Mortensen is surely an improvement on the plank-like John Gavin.