Welcome to Wild Card Wednesday. Today’s blog is an installment of the original vs. remake series I do with Tiffany A. White. This month’s movie is Psycho. To shake things up a bit, I decided to do the remake, so Tiffany will do the original on Friday.
For anybody who doesn’t know Psycho at all, lets start with the simple stuff.
Homemade summary:
Marian Crane steals a large sum of money from her employer with plans of using it to help her and her boyfriend start a new life together. Her plans go awry when she checks into the Bates Motel and is killed in the shower.
Marian’s sister and a private investigator trace Marian to the Bates Motel. Will they find out what happened to Marian before the same thing happens to them?
The origins of Psycho:
The original 1960 Alfred Hitchcock version of Psycho was based on a book by the same title by Robert Bloch. Mr. Bloch’s book was loosely based on Ed Gein’s murders and grave robbing. I will talk about Ed for my Freaky Friday post, so we won’t go into great detail about Ed Gein here.
The remake:
Let me say up front that the remake did not grab me. I strongly prefer the 1960 Alfred Hitchcock version.
The Psycho remake was released in 1998. It was directed by Gus Van Sant. One of the few things I loved about this film was the cast. Sure Vincent Vaughn starred as Norman Bates, but the supporting cast was amazing.
We’re talking Anne Heche, Julianne Moore, Viggo Mortensen, William H. Macy, Phillip Baker Hall, and Robert Forster. Flea (from the Red Hot Chili Peppers) even had a cameo. James Remar, who plays Dexter Morgan’s father on Dexter, also had a small part.
Look, it’s Flea!
The remake recycled a great deal of the Hitchcock original. The movie itself was pretty much a shot-for-shot remake of Hitchcock’s 1960 masterpiece.
Hitchcock’s lighting style and editing techniques were used. The original score by Bernard Hermann was re-recorded in stereo with a new arrangement by Danny Elfman.
Watch the trailer:
The movie itself felt like something from the 60s. Had 1998 not flashed across the screen as the movie began, I would have thought the remake was set in the 1960s.
Sets and clothing styles had a retro look. William H. Macy as Milton Arbogast looked more like a 60s era private detective with his hat and suit than a professional in the late 90s. In addition, the sign in process at the Bates Motel was something I haven’t personally seen since the 1980s–the early 1980s.
Even the values and mores of the characters didn’t quite work for the late 1990s. This one is harder to explain, but I’ll try. When Marian Crane steals the money, her boss–instead of pressing charges–sends Marian’s sister to find her and talk her into coming back. That seems more like a kindness from a bygone era.
Check out the outfits in this pic:
So what was new in the remake?
Well, it is in color. And modern filmmakers can show things filmmakers in the 1960 original couldn’t…like Norman Bates (Vince Vaughn) masturbating as he watches Marian Crane (Anne Heche) through the peephole.
Other than that, the money Marian steals is $400,000 rather than the $40,000 in the original.
And there is that scene that shows Viggo Mortensen’s naked behind. That in itself is almost worth sitting through the rest.
Another thing that was new to me was that the movie’s pacing felt slow. The original has never felt slow, probably because I watched it expecting the pacing common in movies made in the 1960s.
But the remake was made in 1998. I think I went in expecting that it would hold up to the pacing expectations of a thriller or horror film made in the late 1990s. It didn’t, though.
Bottom line? Skip it. You can see all the people involved doing better work elsewhere.
Watch Julianne Moore, Phillip Baker Hall, and William H. Macy in Boogie Nights. Watch Robert Forster in Jackie Brown.
Watch Viggo Mortensen in A History of Violence. Watch Anne Heche in HBO’s original series Hung. See what a talented director Gus Van Sant is in To Die For and Drugstore Cowboy.
But…put the 1960 Alfred Hitchcock version of Psycho on your movie bucket list. It is worth your time.
Be sure to stop by Tiffany A. White’s Ooo Factor on Friday to see what she thought about the original.
Floor is open. Have you seen either the remake or the original Psycho? Which one did you prefer?
on ,
Stacy Green said:
I’ve actually seen both of these movies (for once). I loved the original Psycho. Anthony Perkins was so very good, and the black and white gave it such a haunting feel. As you mentioned, the cast of the remake was very good, but what bothered me is that they simply remade it. I mean, if you’re going to be bold enough to remake a classic, then why not REMAKE it? Bring it into the era while still keeping the same bone-chilling suspense. But maybe I asked for too much.
And completely agree about Viggo’s naked behind. Glorious.
on ,
Catie Rhodes said:
I feel the same way you do about them just remaking it. While I was doing my research, I read that Gus Van Sant’s reasoning for just remaking the movie was that he wanted to do for Psycho was different casts have done for long-running plays that are performed live before an audience. It is suspected it didn’t work as well because the original master of the 1960 is easily accessible and anybody can watch it anytime.
I’ll be honest here. My problem with most of these remakes is that they are just carbon copies of the original with different actors and actresses and newer music. One of my favorite remakes is Against all Odds (which is a remake of Out of the Past) because it is a real remake. The story was actually updated and it didn’t feel like a cheap rip-off of the original.
Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
on ,
Jess Witkins said:
The original is so timeless, it’s hard to ever love a remake more. But you had me cracking up cause I didn’t even realize all the funny nods to the 60′s. The clothes primarily! Spot on!
But I suggest people read the book too. It was a really creepy read and in a way you get so much more of Norman in the book.
Looking forward to your Friday post! We have our share of creepy eepies in Wisconsin and Ed Gein was one of them!
on ,
Catie Rhodes said:
Glad you agree about the weird nods to the 60s. I kept reminding myself that 1998 did flash across the screen in HUGE bold letters before the movie started. I almost think it would have been better if they had tried to make the 1998 Psycho a period piece. Like The Killer Inside Me.
I do want to read the book. It is has been in my TBR pile *forever*. That you say it’s good really pushes me to read it.
I can’t wait to see your comments on Friday’s post. I hope you’ll stop by to share some Ed Gein stories from a Wisconsin native’s perspective.
on ,
Jess Witkins said:
Well, we didn’t go to the same parties or anything!
on ,
Catie Rhodes said:
Of course not…unless you have parties in the graveyard. LOL
on ,
Jess Witkins said:
Well now that I have done!
on ,
Dave said:
The original is such a great movie. Having one of the main characters knocked off so early in the story had the viewer feeling a little lost, a little despair, and somewhat confused. It was a brilliant Hitchcock twist. She makes a moral decision to redeem herself and then she’s dead. The dialogue between Anthony and Janet was uncomfortable and tense. Most gory flicks have much less impact than the shower scene……..and it was done in black and white. The movie is a masterpiece. I would rank it up there with “North by Northwest”.
Did you know…….There is models kit available of the Bate’s house.
http://www.haunteddimensions.raykeim.com/index660.html
on ,
Catie Rhodes said:
Okay, that model house is a Psycho nerd’s dream. How very neat.
I remember watching the original Psycho for the first time. I had a hard time switching gears after Janet Leigh died. But, as the years have passed, I see the mastery of Hitchcock’s storytelling behind the whole thing.
Funny you should mention North by Northwest. That is my husband’s favorite Hitchcock movie. My favorite is Rebecca.
Thanks so much for your comment.
on ,
Tiffany A White said:
It has been years since I watched the remake… I forgot so many stars were in it! I mean, I did remember the great Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche, but Viggo and his butt? James Remar (love him BTW!!)? And William H. Macy? Wow…. I know you say to skip it, but I think I need to go back and watch it again at some point.
on ,
Catie Rhodes said:
If you watch it just to see the actors in it, I think you’ll have a good time. By thirty minutes into the movie, all I was doing was rating the performances of the different actors. Some of them have really honed their craft over the years.
on ,
Emma said:
I haven’t seen the original and I wasn’t impressed with the remake, felt it was really slow. Maybe I’ll take the time to check out the Hitchcock movie someday.
I agree with you re Viggo, yum!
on ,
Catie Rhodes said:
You should definitely try out the original someday. The pacing will be slower than what you are used to because his movies span from the 1920s to the 1970s. Pacing has just gotten faster and faster as the years have passed.
What was acceptable 35 years ago is now considered droll or cliché. But the thing is, Alfred Hitchcock’s work transcends that…if you go in with the right attitude. Which is, this is going to be different than going to watch a new release at the movie house.
My personal favorite Hitchcock film is Rebecca. So you may want to start there.
on ,
Emma said:
Thanks. I will.
on ,
donnagalanti said:
Indeed the only good reason to see this would be for Viggo’s nekkid buns! And I strongly dislike Vince Vaughn -so that in itself would have me avoiding it. Seems to be a year of remakes nowaways- mostly from the 80s (even though this was done in the 90s). Love William H Macy – but he deserves better than this!
on ,
Catie Rhodes said:
I dislike Vince Vaughn, too. However, I saw him recently in a movie called Return to Paradise. It was also made in the late 90s before his career really took off. I was intrigued by the character he played and wondered what he’d be like as Norman Bates.
I don’t know about you, but I am usually pretty turned off by the remakes. Most seem to be attempting to cash in on a particular movie’s following.
And, yes, William H . Macy deserves better than the Psycho remake. But so did Viggo’s buns.
on ,
Reetta Raitanen said:
Strange call that they decided to set the new version to 60s and keep the exact same pacing. If I want to see a remake, I’m expecting a modern take (or entirely different setting) and some new angle on the old movie.
on ,
Catie Rhodes said:
I am still not sure their intent was to set in the 60s. After all, they flashed 1998 across the screen as the movie began. But, then, the movie started and it was like it was set in the 60s. Mind boggling, I tell you.
But I’m like you. I wanted to see a new angle. Perhaps an even darker film. That wasn’t the case at all.
on ,
Rhonda Hopkins said:
Loved the original. Anthony Perkins is just so creepy good; I’ve seen it numerous times. The pic above is just classic Norman. I haven’t seen the remake. Or if I did, it didn’t leave an impression on me. I can’t wait until Friday’s post about Gein.
on ,
Catie Rhodes said:
Anthony Perkins was so creepy in that role. It was probably not his intent, but that certainly became his signature role. Do come back Friday for Ed Gein. But do not come with the intent of eating while you read. It’s some heavy stuff.
on ,
sandylrowland said:
Why remake something that’s flawless? And then to copy style, frame by frame, until it reminded me of home work in a film class, so not good. I agree, the thrill in this thriller never took off.
on ,
Catie Rhodes said:
No, it most certainly did not. You know what’s funny? Before I sat down to watch the entire movie, I had caught bits and pieces of this at different times and thought it looked interesting. But as a whole, it was not too awfully impressive.
on ,
Donna Coe-Velleman said:
I’ve seen both but it was so long ago I don’t remember the remake – even Viggo’s buns! Oh well. Anthony Perkins made that part and I feel sometimes you should just leave things be. Just like, for me, no one can sing Some where Over the Rainbow like Judy Garland nor should they try.
on ,
Catie Rhodes said:
I agree. Some things should be left alone. Not out of purity, but because they just can’t be topped. Though as I type that, I’m not sure Van Sant’s intent was to top Hitchcock’s masterpiece since the remake was imitative.
Guilty confession: My favorite version of “Somewhere over the Rainbow” is Israel Kamakawiwoʻole’s.
on ,
Cheryl Norman said:
I saw both versions. The problem I had with the remake is it was almost the same, word for word. It brought nothing new to the Psycho experience. At the end, I thought “Why did they bother?” Remakes I’ve loved include Oceans Eleven, The Italian Job, and The Inlaws. Remakes I don’t recommend include True Grit (yeah, it followed the book, but…) and War of the Worlds.
on ,
Catie Rhodes said:
I agree with you, Cheryl. As I watched, I kept wondering why bother remaking to do a carbon copy. My problem with the True Grit remake was that I couldn’t understand what anybody was saying. I’ve not seen the War of the Worlds remake.
Remakes I liked: Cape Fear and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (thought the character development was better in the remake, but the remake wasn’t as scary), and Against all Odds. I didn’t realize Oceans Eleven was a remake until I’d already seen the remake.
A remake I’d like to see: The Bad Seed. Supposedly Eli Roth was set to do a remake of this one. I’d love to see his interpretation.
on ,
Julie Glover said:
Psycho is not my favorite Hitchcock movie; however, I still think you gotta have a lot of chutzpah to remake any Hitchcock. It’s like presenting your own version of the Mona Lisa. What a shame that they didn’t do their own thing, though, with a nod to Hitchcock somewhere and leave it at that! I’m glad you covered this movie because I wondered about it when it came out (which yes, I remember).
on ,
Catie Rhodes said:
I tend to agree with you. Remaking a classic takes big brass ones. Doing a shot-by-shot remake takes salt I can’t imagine. When something is done as well as Hitchcock did his films, simple imitation will get you nowhere. I would think you’d have to add your own twist and make it something new.
For what it’s worth, I thought Rob Zombie’s remake of Halloween was really brave and original. It did not hit the spot like the original did, but I admired that he’d made an effort to make it his own.
I think that’s what turned me off with the Psycho remake. Not only did the movie not show me anything new, it wasn’t as good as the original.
Pingback: Ed Gein: The Man Who Changed Horror | Catie Rhodes
Pingback: Friday FabOoolousness – “We All Go a Little Mad Sometimes” | Tiffany A White's Ooo Factor
Pingback: I Know Whodunnit | Julie Glover, Writer