Psycho (1998)

The most dramatic difference between Alfred Hitchcock’s “Psycho” and Gus Van Sant’s “shot-by-shot” 1998 remake is the addition of Norman Bates having too much fun spying on Marion Crane getting undressed. Roger Ebert mentioned, “That's appropriate, because this new "Psycho" evokes the real thing in an attempt to re-create remembered passion.”

Curious, how similar the new version is, and how different. If you have seen Hitchcock’s original, you already know the characters, the dialogue, the camera angles, and the surprises. All that is mission is the tension – the confidence that something urgent is happening on the screen at the very moment. The movie is a helpful experiment in the theory of cinema, because it demonstrates that a shot-by-shot remake is pointless. Genius apparently lives between or beneath the shots, or in chemistry that cannot be timed or counted.

Film students will note the differences. The opening shot is now an unbroken camera move from the Phoenix skyline into the hotel room where Marion Crane (Anne Heche) is meeting with her lover, Sam Loomis (Aragorn from “Lord of the Rings,” Viggo Mortensen).

There is a shot of Loomis’ backside, and when he turns toward her, a quick downward look of appreciation by Marion. In the scene where Marion packs while deciding to steal the money, Heche does more facial acting than Janet Leigh did in the original – trying to signal what she’s thinking with twitches and murmurs. Not necessary.

Ebert mentioned, “The highway patrolman who wakes her from her roadside nap looks much the same as in the original, but has a speaking voice which, I think, has been electronically tweaked to make it deeper--and distracting.” We never get the chilling closer shot of him waiting across the street from the parking lot, arms folded on his chest.

When Marion goes into the “parlor” of Norman Bates, played by Vince Vaughn, the stuffed birds above and behind them are in vague soft focus, so we miss the feeling that they’re suspended to fly down. There is a clearer shot of “Mrs. Bates” during the knife attack in the shower, and more blood.

As for the scene of Norman having too much fun while spying on Marion through the peephole between the parlor and Room No 1: Even if Hitchcock was hinting at a love interest starting in his 1960 version, it is better not to represent it literally, since the shaking of Norman’s head and the humid off-screen sound effects encourage a laugh at the exact moment when one is not wanted.

Every single one of these details would be irrelevant if the film worked as a thriller, but it doesn’t. One problem is the casting of Vaughn in the Norman Bates role. He isn’t odd enough. Norman’s early dialogue often ends in a nervous laugh. Anthony Perkins, in the original, made it seem obsessive, sounding up out of some secret pool of madness. Vaughn’s laugh doesn’t seem automatic. It sounds as if he intends to laugh. Possibly no actor could have matched what Perkins made so memorable, which is one of the unique creations in the movies, but Vaughn is not the actor to try. Ebert speculates, “Among actors in the correct age range, my suggestion would be Jeremy Davies, who was the frightened Corporal Upham in "Saving Private Ryan."”

Anne Heche, as Marion Brace, lacks the earthly quality and the devious indifference that Janet Leigh brought to the original film. She is less important. Van Sant’s decision to shoot in color instead of black and white completes the process of de-romanticizing her. Ebert mentions, “She wears an orange dress that looks like the upholstery from my grandmother's wing chair.” Viggo Mortensen is also wrong for Sam Loomis, the lover. Instead of suggesting a straight arrow like John Gavin in the original film, he brings a suggestion of vague creepiness. The only new cast members who more or less get the job done are William H. Macy as the private eye Arbogast, and Phillip Baker Hall as Sheriff Chambers. By having a psychiatrist, played by Robert Forster, reproduce a five-minute speech of medical analysis at the end of the film, Van Sant demonstrates that a completely unnecessary scene in the original, if reproduced, will be completely unnecessary in the remake as well.

Ebert ended his review by saying, “I viewed Hitchcock's "Psycho" a week ago. Attending this new version, I felt oddly as if I were watching a provincial stock company doing the best it could without the Broadway cast. I was reminded of the child prodigy who was summoned to perform for a famous pianist. The child climbed onto the piano stool and played something by Chopin with great speed and accuracy. The great musician then patted the child on the head and said, "You can play the notes. Someday, you may be able to play the music."”

Simply put, this remake shouldn’t even have been made. I made the mistake of watching this on NetFlix when I thought it was the original. Boy was that a big mistake I ever made. Just don’t watch this movie, watch the original, which holds up very well to this day, and is still just as scary. Avoid this remake at all cost because it doesn’t hold a candle to the original.

Now, there are two movies that I’m going to review tomorrow for “Halloween Month,” that I feel are related to “Psycho.”