CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › PSYCHO IS FIFTY YEARS OLD TODAY
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

PSYCHO IS FIFTY YEARS OLD TODAY

post #1 of 94
6/16/10 at 4:40pm
Thread Starter 
I like what John Carpenter said: That spooky, gothic house standing behind the plain, flat modern motel is a perfect visual of older horror passing the baton to modern horror.

Horror changed rapidly and permanently in the 70s, but Psycho was the vanguard and the harbinger. It's still one of my favorite movies ever. It's nice to try to imagine watching the movie without knowing the twist, but lucky us, the script is even better after you know.

Kim Morgan did a nice write up today.
Reply
post #2 of 94
6/16/10 at 4:42pm
Yeah, you have to wonder what it would have been like to watch it and not know it. It's such a part of our culture that when i watched it for the first time a few months ago (i know, shut up) it kinda lessened the experience a bit. Even if the craftsmanship in display still amazed me.
Reply
post #3 of 94
6/16/10 at 4:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
I also dug Morgan's write up. Not only an affectionate love letter to Hitch's masterpiece, but a pretty brilliant defense of Van Sant's remake.
Reply
post #4 of 94
6/16/10 at 4:59pm
The first time I saw Psycho was around Halloween '96. They were playing it on TV in front of the sequels as part of a Halloween marathon. I remember being floored by the technical prowess on display. There had never been anything like it before and in narrative terms, not much like it since either. Would've loved to know what it's like to watch the film without having heard so much about it beforehand.

I like the write up, but I think Morgan holds the remake in far too much esteem. It's an interesting intellectual exercise at best
Reply
post #5 of 94
6/16/10 at 5:05pm
Thread Starter 
I think her thesis boils down to "it's the kind of audacious exercise the guy who made Rope would probably get a kick out of." Can't really argue with that.
Reply
post #6 of 94
6/16/10 at 5:17pm
It's extremely audacious and certainly doesn't irritate me the way some remakes do, I'm just not sure I'll ever fully understand Van Sant's motivations in making it.
Reply
post #7 of 94
6/16/10 at 5:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
I think her thesis boils down to "it's the kind of audacious exercise the guy who made Rope would probably get a kick out of." Can't really argue with that.
Hitchcock would be absolutely pissed at how sacrosanct his films have become. Of course, he'd be kinda pissed at how stagnant Hollywood movies have become in general.
Reply
post #8 of 94
6/16/10 at 5:25pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evi View Post
It's extremely audacious and certainly doesn't irritate me the way some remakes do, I'm just not sure I'll ever fully understand Van Sant's motivations in making it.
What she brings up is something I've never done: look at Van Sant's remake within the context of the 2000s remake glut. I'm not giving Van Sant some kind of pass; I think he followed the set of rules he made for himself on the remake, and made nearly every wrong choice imaginable between the lines, but his stunt is some kind of statement. I wonder if it would have been seen as such a bit more had it been released after this past decade instead of in front of it.
Reply
post #9 of 94
6/16/10 at 5:27pm
Such a brilliant movie. One of my favorite things about it is how well structured it is. Not only does Janet Leigh getting killed in the middle of the movie shocking, but it forces the audience to shift alliances and make Norman the new protagonist, and even cooler, structurally, the movie is literally schizophrenic: the first half is female, the second half male.
Reply
post #10 of 94
6/16/10 at 5:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
I wonder if it would have been seen as such a bit more had it been released after this past decade instead of in front of it.
Like Haneke's remake of Funny Games?
Reply
post #11 of 94
6/16/10 at 5:38pm
Something like that, but I think it's different when a filmmaker remakes his own work.

EDIT: though I should add that I haven't seen the Funny Games remake yet.
Reply
post #12 of 94
6/16/10 at 5:41pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
Like Haneke's remake of Funny Games?
Exactly. With Funny Games there's a lot less "what's the point?" and an inherent understanding that the carbon copy is part of the filmmaker's statement. Van Sant muddied the waters by tackling someone else's film (let alone Alfred Effing Hitchcock's most loved work).
Reply
post #13 of 94
6/16/10 at 5:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tati View Post
Yeah, you have to wonder what it would have been like to watch it and not know it. It's such a part of our culture that when i watched it for the first time a few months ago (i know, shut up) it kinda lessened the experience a bit. Even if the craftsmanship in display still amazed me.
One of the good things about Psycho is that while the first murder is too famous to be shocking to anyone, no one really talks much about the second one so it caught me off guard first time I saw it. Great movie, though I've always thought the final act was a bit lame compared to the rest.
Reply
post #14 of 94
6/16/10 at 5:58pm
Kim Morgan's read of Vaughn's performance was particularly impressive and spot on.
Reply
post #15 of 94
6/16/10 at 6:02pm
I haven't seen the movie in about a year, but I always thought he was just bad. Distractingly so. It kind of fucks up Van Sant's whole thesis. I think. I'm not sure what his thesis is. But it takes me out of the whole experiment in a way that Anne Heche's performance does not.
Reply
post #16 of 94
6/16/10 at 6:06pm
I always thought Ed Norton could've done a great job as Norman back then.
Reply
post #17 of 94
6/16/10 at 6:08pm
Thread Starter 
Van Sant went too far with a certain choice that made sense on paper: you can't cast Norman as sympathetic, because the audience KNOWS; the casting of Vaughn (and his performance choices) is all about the audience knowing. And the film fails because it's a too-similar imitation grafted onto a winking, meta remake. Pulls it in different directions.
Reply
post #18 of 94
6/16/10 at 6:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post
I always thought Ed Norton could've done a great job as Norman back then.
But see ya can't top what Perkins did in the original. The more interesting thing was to interpret Norman Bates differently.

(Or what Phil said)
Reply
post #19 of 94
6/16/10 at 6:27pm
Everyone should read David Thomson's Psycho and the Moment of Murder, which is a fascinating, detailed look at how Psycho conditioned audiences to accept more graphic violence on screen and even whet their appetite for it.
Reply
post #20 of 94
6/16/10 at 6:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
Van Sant went too far with a certain choice that made sense on paper: you can't cast Norman as sympathetic, because the audience KNOWS; the casting of Vaughn (and his performance choices) is all about the audience knowing. And the film fails because it's a too-similar imitation grafted onto a winking, meta remake. Pulls it in different directions.
It's funny because I remember when the remake came out. I was working at a movie theater and first getting into Hitchcock. All the promotional material kept stressing "shot for shot remake" so much that I wondered if Van Sant was going to pull a switcher, lure the audience into thinking that it would be exactly the same, and then surprise them by having Marion or Mother be the killer...(not great examples). But the idea seemed very Hitchcockian: talk about playing the audience like a piano. When I saw the movie I was pretty disappointed. I felt like Van Sant made it to highlight Hitchcock's brilliance, and also to say "You can't make movies like this anymore."
Reply
post #21 of 94
6/16/10 at 6:49pm
I wonder what Morgan thinks of the remake's weird cutaways during certain murders. Just really odd touches.
Reply
post #22 of 94
6/16/10 at 8:02pm
That's what I can't understand. Why he went the "shot for shot" route in the dialogue scenes, but when it came to the murder scenes we get cutaways to women in S&M masks, and cows in the middle of a highway. Seemed to fly in the face of his whole 'exact remake' mission statement.
Reply
post #23 of 94
6/16/10 at 8:05pm
Thread Starter 
I think the reaction might have been the desired one. Literally NO ONE on board with the shot for shot idea, then audiences getting grouchy that he actually DIDN'T copy the film exactly.
Reply
post #24 of 94
6/16/10 at 8:14pm
You just wrinkled mah braaaaain!

Interestingly, even without those cutaways, it still wasn't shot-for-shot. Van Sant still used camera advancements at that time to pull off that opening shot that was done with crossfades in the original. I guess that's nitpicky, but I don't consider it shot-for-shot. Hahaha.
Reply
post #25 of 94
6/16/10 at 10:56pm
How exactly you can claim to be a fan of film and not love the hell out of Psycho is beyond me. I'm pretty excited actually, in honour of the anniversary, to open the Melbourne International Film Festival next month look what we get...



In this 50th Anniversary screening a specially cut digital print of Hitchcock's suspense masterpiece plays on the big screen in the glorious Regent Theatre with Herrmann's iconic score performed live on stage by The Bates Motel Orchestra.
Reply
post #26 of 94
6/16/10 at 11:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
You just wrinkled mah braaaaain!

Interestingly, even without those cutaways, it still wasn't shot-for-shot. Van Sant still used camera advancements at that time to pull off that opening shot that was done with crossfades in the original. I guess that's nitpicky, but I don't consider it shot-for-shot. Hahaha.
To be fair what Van Sant did was Hitchcock's original intention.

I believe Van Sant is quoted as saying when someone asked him why he did it, "So no one else would." I have to agree with this. Yes, it is incredibly stupid to remake Psycho, but if you are going to do it at least turn it into an experiment.
Reply
post #27 of 94
6/16/10 at 11:37pm
I think that was Rob Zombie's stated intention on the Halloween remake. "I figured, someone's going to remake it, if someone's going to screw it up, I'd rather it be me."

Van Sant's turned out better.
Reply
post #28 of 94
6/16/10 at 11:40pm
I remember Zack Snyder saying the same thing about making Watchmen. Anymore directors start using that rationale, I'm gonna have to treat it as a evasive maneuver cloaked in self-deprecation.
Reply
post #29 of 94
6/17/10 at 12:01am
Tarantino said at comic-con a couple years back that he was more interested in Van Sant's Psycho than the original, so that's out there.

The original is one of those films that as ruined for me early on, and I've always tried to appreciate. I like it, but my brother saw it before me and spoiled it when I was eight (?). Still, pretty amazing.
Reply
post #30 of 94
6/17/10 at 12:09am
It doesn't surprise me that Tarantino would say that. The man just watches films on a completely different level compared to mere mortals.

Not to make any sort of value judgment on either film... but my friend did the same thing your brother did to you with The Usual Suspects. Because of that, I've never really been able to appreciate that film.
Reply
post #31 of 94
6/17/10 at 12:11am
I actually count myself as lucky that I didn't see Psycho until my early twenties - I know I know - but honestly it let me appreciate the film a helluva lot more than I would have had I been a kid.
Reply
post #32 of 94
6/17/10 at 6:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte View Post
Tarantino said at comic-con a couple years back that he was more interested in Van Sant's Psycho than the original, so that's out there.

The original is one of those films that as ruined for me early on, and I've always tried to appreciate. I like it, but my brother saw it before me and spoiled it when I was eight (?). Still, pretty amazing.
He's also said on a few occasions that 'Psycho 2' is more interesting than the original, which I kind of agree with.
Reply
post #33 of 94
6/17/10 at 11:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by James View Post
He's also said on a few occasions that 'Psycho 2' is more interesting than the original, which I kind of agree with.
No.

Let's not take Tarantino as a hallmark of good taste. I love his movies, but he likes some bizarre shit. Anything Else is one of his favorite movies the past fifteen years. He's also long said that he's not really a Hitchcock fan, so of course he likes the remake and Psycho 2 more.
Reply
post #34 of 94
6/17/10 at 11:03am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post
How exactly you can claim to be a fan of film and not love the hell out of Psycho is beyond me. I'm pretty excited actually, in honour of the anniversary, to open the Melbourne International Film Festival next month look what we get...



In this 50th Anniversary screening a specially cut digital print of Hitchcock's suspense masterpiece plays on the big screen in the glorious Regent Theatre with Herrmann's iconic score performed live on stage by The Bates Motel Orchestra.
This is pretty awesome. The 50th anniversary blu-ray hits in the fall, btw.
Reply
post #35 of 94
6/17/10 at 11:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post
No.

Let's not take Tarantino as a hallmark of good taste. I love his movies, but he likes some bizarre shit. Anything Else is one of his favorite movies the past fifteen years. He's also long said that he's not really a Hitchcock fan, so of course he likes the remake and Psycho 2 more.
Psycho 2 had a shot of Meg Tilly's ass, so take that into account for QT as well.
Reply
post #36 of 94
6/17/10 at 11:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post
One of the good things about Psycho is that while the first murder is too famous to be shocking to anyone, no one really talks much about the second one so it caught me off guard first time I saw it.
It's one of those few horror/suspense moments that catches me off guard every single time. Very few horror/suspense flicks have that effect. More than even the shower scene, even though we know its coming, there's absolutely no glamour or foreplay to that murder. It happens before we even register "Mother" just walked out of her room. I don't even know if you could pull that kind sudden burst on a modern audience anymore.
Reply
post #37 of 94
6/17/10 at 11:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post
I actually count myself as lucky that I didn't see Psycho until my early twenties - I know I know - but honestly it let me appreciate the film a helluva lot more than I would have had I been a kid.
For some weird reason I happened to watch both The Birds and Psycho in a short period while I was very young. They both frightened me to a degree that I don't think they would if I caught them after having already watched all the films they inspired. In a visceral level I think that my reaction to them was closer to the one audiences had when they were first released. Whenever I hear stories about the audiences' reactions to Psycho I instantly flash to the still vivid in my mind nightmares that Mrs. Bates' corpse reveal gave me. Later viewings helped me appreciate them in a more cerebral way but I wouldn't trade that first unprepared, accidental time.
Reply
post #38 of 94
6/17/10 at 12:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Clark View Post
It's one of those few horror/suspense moments that catches me off guard every single time. Very few horror/suspense flicks have that effect. More than even the shower scene, even though we know its coming, there's absolutely no glamour or foreplay to that murder. It happens before we even register "Mother" just walked out of her room. I don't even know if you could pull that kind sudden burst on a modern audience anymore.
We have a flight of stairs of my house that everytime I walk up them I feel like I'm about to be slashed across the face as soon as I reach the top. I've never had a thought about someone attacking me while in the shower.
Reply
post #39 of 94
6/17/10 at 8:42pm
Not a shot or moment wasted. The tension is palpable. Hitchcock was the master of suspense and storytelling. I still get a feeling of nervousness while watching it. One of the most gorgeous black & white flicks I've ever seen. Bernard Herrmann's score is awe-inspiring.

The opening shot is the very definition of cinematic art.

Top 10 film for me.
Reply
post #40 of 94
6/18/10 at 8:22am
I think the first time I was really aware of filmmaking was seeing this movie in my teens, not just the shower scene but touches like the dissolve from Norman's face to the chain pulling the car out of the swamp. Later on I came across one book or another that mentioned that.

I also think Van Sant envisioned his film as the remake to end all remakes. An art installation about the pointlessness of remakes. Sadly it didn't work. I didn't care for the remake — it would've been more interesting if it deviated wildly from the original story halfway through, therefore catching audiences leaning the wrong way the way Hitch did in 1960 — but in a world where Psycho IV: The Beginning exists, it's hardly the worst thing ever done with Norman Bates.

Vaughn was definitely interesting casting, though. Jeremy Davies would've been absolute on-the-nose casting; perhaps too on-the-nose. The rest of the new cast kind of walks through the old script, and you realize that the scenes not having to do with Marion or Norman are pretty bad as written, actually.
Reply
post #41 of 94
6/18/10 at 8:30am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Blank View Post
I think the first time I was really aware of filmmaking was seeing this movie in my teens, not just the shower scene but touches like the dissolve from Norman's face to the chain pulling the car out of the swamp.
I swear I read somewhere that only some prints had the faint hint of mother's face over Norman's face in that last shot. If true, I love that Hitchcock did that, but am very glad that's the print used for home video:




And I have to admit, I now want to see if Van Sant did the same thing.
Reply
post #42 of 94
6/18/10 at 8:32am
Holy shit! I honestly never knew about that.
Reply
post #43 of 94
6/18/10 at 8:42am
Really? It's like the most badass shot of the movie.

Can anyone more film-literate than me explain why dredging up the car is so amazing that we have to deflate the ending by not just cutting/fading to credits after Norman's skullface?
Reply
post #44 of 94
6/18/10 at 8:58am
Quote from Cinematic Thinking:

"The last scene, of Marion's car being pulled from the swamp, suggests just the beginning of the process of dredging the swamp for others."

Just one interpretation, I guess.
Reply
post #45 of 94
6/18/10 at 9:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luca S. View Post
Can anyone more film-literate than me explain why dredging up the car is so amazing that we have to deflate the ending by not just cutting/fading to credits after Norman's skullface?
Well it's all a matter of opinion really but I've always been fine with it, especially the way the music kicks in and how the skull is slightly hidden in the crossfade.

As for why they chose that shot, I'm guessing it was to punctuate Norman's 'wouldn't hurt a fly' remark, and also to bring things a full circle by showing us what Marion was getting up to at that point.
Reply
post #46 of 94
6/18/10 at 9:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Blank View Post
Quote from Cinematic Thinking:

"The last scene, of Marion's car being pulled from the swamp, suggests just the beginning of the process of dredging the swamp for others."

Just one interpretation, I guess.
That's kinda lame, but I guess I should take into account that this was 1960 and people needed shit spelled out a little more.

I mean, people today wouldn't need a five minute explanation of what schizophrenia actually means AFTER the climax, for example.
Reply
post #47 of 94
6/18/10 at 9:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post
No.

Let's not take Tarantino as a hallmark of good taste. I love his movies, but he likes some bizarre shit. Anything Else is one of his favorite movies the past fifteen years. He's also long said that he's not really a Hitchcock fan, so of course he likes the remake and Psycho 2 more.
Psycho 2 would be looked upon far more kindly had it not been a sequel to Psycho.

In my own defence, I'd seen bits and pieces of Psycho countless times before actually seeing the whole thing, and the overall effect was lessened on me. I genuinely wish I could've seen the film cold. That's not to say I don't recognise the mastery on display, but as an experience I found the sequel more satisfying (Bear in mind I've only seen it once, and with low expectations, so that might effect it).
Reply
post #48 of 94
6/18/10 at 9:58am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luca S. View Post
Really? It's like the most badass shot of the movie.

Can anyone more film-literate than me explain why dredging up the car is so amazing that we have to deflate the ending by not just cutting/fading to credits after Norman's skullface?
There are no credits. Seems to me like a perverse little joke on Hitchcock's part about poor Marion Crane:

Reply
post #49 of 94
6/18/10 at 10:04am
Oh my. Yeah, old timey movies used to have all the credits up front. I forgot! Oh well, it's been a few years.

I am now very impressed at Hitchcock telling his audience LOL REMEMBER DAT BITCH
Reply
post #50 of 94
6/18/10 at 10:09am
Thread Starter 
The trunk of the car also has the money in it, which was what we were following for the first 40 minutes of the movie. Closure!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › PSYCHO IS FIFTY YEARS OLD TODAY