FRANCHISE ME: PSYCHO (1998)

I've sometimes tried to look at the Gus Van Sant's Psycho remake in the same way as you look at any odd performance of Hamlet. Doesn't mean its any good, but just for fun. De Palma often deflects criticism that he rips off Hitchcock by saying that the material is so archetypal, that what he's actually doing is using tropes drawn out by the language Hitchcock developed. You can call bullshit on that if you want to, but that's from the horse's mouth.

What I sometimes feel Van Sant was doing was asking that if you can do Hamlet proper, fifty-three million times because the spine of the thing is so strong, then why can't you do Hitchcock? The answer to that may be because Henry Irving didn't necessarily have to worry about the last guy, nor did Olivier have to worry about Irving, etc, but once you once you apply the level of the permanence to it that cinema creates, you open yourself up to comparison.

Of course, it doesn't help that you cast Vince Vaughn for reasons known only to God.

I will say that I probably wouldn't mind seeing another take on the novel, but with the balding, middle-aged pervert Norman as apposed to Perkins' slender, empathetic twink Norman. Joseph Stefano couldn't sympathize with a character who wasn't sexually attractive, hence the change, but I think there's a whole other movie hidden beneath a reconsidered Norman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

 

I will say that I probably wouldn't mind seeing another take on the novel, but with the balding, middle-aged pervert Norman as apposed to Perkins' slender, empathetic twink Norman.

 

 

Paul Giamatti or PSH as Norman!

...or Terry Crews.

I'm currently reading Block's PSYCHO trilogy. Great stuff. Though I'd still be inclined to edge towards a Perkins type. And I don't mean physically, necessarily. But just younger and less physically pathetic than Bloch's Norman. That said, if someone did a straight adaptation of Bloch, I wouldn't be disappointed either. Now that I'm thinking about it, meeting somewhere between Hitchcock and Bloch would be interesting. Either older (but not fat and bald) or young but chubby and balding.

PSYCHO '98 is pretty redundant, given that we already had a stronger, "postmodern" remake of Hitch's PSYCHO in the form of De Palma's DRESSED TO KILL.

I proofed that post twice and still missed like three typos. Ridiculous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

I proofed that post twice and still missed like three typos. Ridiculous.

Welcome to my world. That happens to me with every article.

Was Julianne Moore trying to play a teenager in this? She was weird.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMR 

Was Julianne Moore trying to play a teenager in this? She was weird.

I remember hearing (I believe from the audio commentary on the DVD) that she was playing the role as a lesbian.

I actually really love Vince Vaughn's Norman Bates. It's audacious casting. I like that he has a physical presence that is somewhat imposing. It's radically different, but works. I think he pulls off awkwardness and strangeness that is still kind of sexy, and in his scenes with Heche you get a sense of slight mutual attraction. It's because of this attraction that it shocks when there is brutal murder, but you believe him an innocent covering for his mother. (a horny creep, but innocent of murder).

As the movie plays out, Vaughn's Norman does come off as smarter and more darkly sly than the Perkins' original -which I like- and because of his size there is indeed a camp factor  that comes into play when the twist is revealed, but only so much of a way that adds to enjoyment of film.

Was all set to purchase the dvd from Amazon, and discovered that this was on Instant, so I saw it earlier for the first time since summer of 1999 when I rented the video tape. Feel pretty much the same way now at 27 as I did at 15. It's a decent movie, but it's not spectacular. I do side with Joshua on the superb casting (always loved William H. Macy as Arbogast) and that Vaughn is infinitely more creepy and unsettling as Norman Bates. A complete 360 from Anthony Perkins who honestly seemed like a good and nice guy. Vaughn just comes across as such a degenerate crazy, that it's hard not to think that there's something going on at the motel.

His performance is still pretty fun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dross 

I remember hearing (I believe from the audio commentary on the DVD) that she was playing the role as a lesbian.

A wicked retawded lesbian maybe. That hilarious walkman line was the point in the film where I rolled my eyes so hard that I hit my head on the theater seat in front of me.

This movie is a total blown missed opportunity. How wonderful would it have been if the first half was shot for shot and the second half fucked with the audience by going in a total different direction? That would have captured the spirit of the original more than trying to bring it back to the dead via catching lighting twice in a bottle. Just, awkward and totally unnecessary. The strange touches Van Sant does decide to add are just tasteless (Norman masturbating, the weird cuts to birds and weather during the shower scene murder, etc). For some reason, I do like the last unbroken shot though. Isn't that a Van Sant staple? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker 

This movie is a total blown missed opportunity. How wonderful would it have been if the first half was shot for shot and the second half fucked with the audience by going in a total different direction?

Rob Zombie tried that with Halloween but in reverse.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by User_32 

Rob Zombie tried that with Halloween but in reverse.
 

 

Which of course made the first half meaningless, as none of the extra time spent with Michael had any impact on the last hour.

I'd find a macabre pleasure in a shot-for-shot remake up to the point where Marion grabs the knife out of Norman's hands, kills him in the shower, then has to deal with both the theft and his murder for the next hour.

Completely agree with Josh's assessment, especially the Vince Vaughn factor.

If this were made today, Andrew Garfield wouldn't be a bad choice for Norman.

I remember being incredibly bored by this when I saw it in theaters - the novelty wore off about ten minutes in, and I absolutely hated EVERY change he made, especially the "subliminal" inserts during the deaths - but being really surprised at how the story still works. The teenaged audience I saw it with in rural Illinois had clearly never seen the original, and was completely on Norman's side during the whole second half. They also laughed uproariously at the "Did he kill my sister?" "Yes. (totally uncaring) Sorry."

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Paul Giamatti or PSH as Norman!

I was thinking exactly the same!

P98 is a wax museum without a pulse.  Moore and Macy are the only ones trying to do anything interesting and succeeding.  It's a waste of time and money.

I just remember the interviews from 1998 with a Universal exec (clearly high on cocaine & a mass "This idea is so stupid, it's gotta work!" studio euphoria) who'd said that Psycho WOULD make money because the curiosity factor was so high.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Paul Giamatti or PSH as Norman!

 

...or Terry Crews.

Goddamit Joon, you made me spit tea all over my laptop!

I can't help but think that Van Sant was influenced somehow by Cindy Sherman's "Untitled Film Stills" series, wherein the photographer cast herself in non-existent noir roles, many of them very Hitchcockian.

 I think he was operating in the realm of 'Art' (capital a) as opposed to the 'art of cinema', and wasn't concerned so much with popular opinion as it is expressed in box office.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

Which of course made the first half meaningless, as none of the extra time spent with Michael had any impact on the last hour.

 

I'd find a macabre pleasure in a shot-for-shot remake up to the point where Marion grabs the knife out of Norman's hands, kills him in the shower, then has to deal with both the theft and his murder for the next hour.

 

I was thinking of something even more drastic. The shower scene comes. The exact same shots and set-ups. And then...there's just no murder. The audience would go crazy and the suspense would build out of control. "If not now, then when?" I don't have a whole story planned for after that, but maybe this Norman is better at suppressing "Mother" than the other Norman. Or maybe in this version, "Mother" is real (I know, that's an idea they kicked around in the sequels). I just think that for that experiment to work, it'd be more in the spirit of the original than what we got.