Psycho (1998)

365 Films

Entry #64

Psycho (1998)

Directed by Gus Van Sant

For several years I thought I had the perfect explanation for why Gus Van Sant’s shot for shot Psycho remake was worthwhile.  “It’s like a post modern experiment…man!”  I’d offer to a sea of disapproving eyes.  “He made it precisely so that it would fail.  To prove that you can copy something note for note and still not capture the essence of what made it special in the first place.  He’s proven that remakes are worthless…man!”  I cobbled this together from some vague, off-hand remarks Van Sant made in interviews combined with the fact that when I first saw the new Psycho, I had become quite endeared to Mr. Van Sant and refused to believe somebody so talented would make such an inferior product.  Time has passed and I no longer hold my bull-headed positions pertaining to the worthiness of this film.  There is a very simple and direct answer that nearly destroys my entire position: it’s not a shot for shot remake.  Key elements in the movie have been altered not only for the late 90’s setting, but also stylistically in terms of its presentation.  Major decisions were also poorly handled in terms of casting, which is the film’s real fatal flaw.  Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche were nobody’s first choice to fill in the iconic performances of Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh yet in their defense, it seems as though they were cast out to sea without a life preserver.  As if Van Sant never bothered to share with them what he was trying to do in the first place.  I say all this as a way of a disclaimer stating I have no intention of trying to convince anybody that this is a picture worthy of re-examination or a better reputation.  It’s a failure through and through, to be sure and there’s really nobody to blame for this except Van Sant.  Good Will Hunting blew open several doors of opportunity for him and with all that cache he attempted this as his follow up?  But that is precisely the reason I am including it on this list.  One of several reasons actually, the most significant of which hangs around my neck like an albatross of shame and embarrassment: I had not seen Hitchcock’s version prior to seeing this one.  There, I said it, get out your pitchforks and start storming the barn with torches, I am 100% guilty of this cinematic crime.  The other is that this film first introduced to me to the idea of a subversive experiment masquerading as a wide-release major studio production.  Van Sant copied not just the film, but also the pomp and circumstance of the release surrounding it, including not screening the film for critics and following Hitchcock’s rules about not letting late attendees into the theater.  Although it can never be proven, one can’t help but think Hitchcock himself might have at least been tickled by the idea of a shot for shot remake of one of his own films.  The man was as merrily a cinematic prankster as they come (more on him later of course).  Therefore it soon followed that I became as fascinated by Hitchock as I was by Van Sant, I can’t deny where I got my first exposure, can I?  I might never be able to excuse Van Sant’s Psycho but I will never be able to entirely dismiss it either.  Even though the argument doesn’t entirely hold up and Van Sant himself has admitted other reasons for his decision (one of which is an attempt to make the film more accessible to the modern audience…ugh), Psycho remains a fascinating experiment in the mysterious process of filmmaking.  It helped me understand that sometimes a cinematic enterprise need not be taken at face value, and that sometimes major studios spend an absurd amount of money on projects that have absolutely no reason for existing.  There’s never an easy way to learn that lesson and Psycho is proof.