For almost four decades the very concept of motion picture suspense has been synonymous with the title Psycho. When Alfred Hitchcock originally made Psycho in 1960, it was the most frankly sexual and violent motion picture ever made by Hollywood, frighteningly so. Audiences were stunned by the stark portrait of a maniacal killer, and thousands thought twice about their personal hygiene choices after the relentless experience. Since then, the techniques Hitchcock used to compel viewers to the edges of their seats have been often imitated yet nothing could ever usurp the first-time viewing of Psycho. In fact, the movie was recently named the second most scariest movie ever made in a TV Guide poll and was chosen by the American Film Institute for its list of the 100 most important American movies.Psycho penetrated deeply, indelibly, under the skin of all who entered the lurid yet undeniably alluring world of the Bates Motel, overseen by its unusual owners Norman Bates and his elderly, domineering mother. This effect was entirely due to the taut, suspenseful screenplay by Joseph Stefano and the masterful filmmaking of Hitchcock, whose voyeuristic camera, staccato cuts and willingness to plunge fully into the darkest recesses of human psychology made the film unlike any cinematic experience that had come before. By all accounts, Psycho was then and remains today a masterpiece. So why would anyone mess with it?
Director Gus Van Sant has stood up to one of the biggest taboos in contemporary filmmaking by recreating the motion picture Psycho. Although it has never been done before, Van Sant was intrigued by the notion of taking an intact, undeniable classic and seeing what would happen if it were made again-with a nearly identical shooting script-but with contemporary filmmaking techniques.
Part tribute to Hitchcock, part new introduction for younger audiences, part bold experiment, the recreated Psycho is not even remotely intended to supplant the 1960 masterwork. Rather it is a fresh look-a sort of inquiry into what happens when someone from a new generation wields the same razor-sharp blade.
Gus Van Sant has had a Psycho fixation for a long time. It all began when he started thinking about the notion of Hollywood remakes. Van Sant noticed that, almost without exception, only those films that had fallen out of popularity, relegated to lonely midnight movies and late-night cable, were ever remade. Big, enduring classics were rarely tackled, except in cases where they were altered beyond recognition.
Van Sant, known for his bold choices in filmmaking, wanted to take on the challenge of truly recreating an incredible, landmark movie, in the same way that different directors repeatedly tackle the material of Shakespeare's Hamlet because it is so rich and resonant. He chose the ultimate American classic: Psycho, a film that had been far ahead of its time in 1960 and still surprises viewers today.
The initial reaction from almost all quarters was astonishment: "Why on earth would you want to do that?" Some thought it outrageous, others thought it sacrilege.
But Van Sant had an answer.
"I felt that, sure, there were film students, cinephiles and people in the business who were familiar with Psycho but that there was also a whole generation of movie-goers who probably hadn't seen it," he says. "I thought this was a way of popularizing a classic, a way I'd never seen before. It was like staging a contemporary production of a classic play while remaining true to the original."Like many film-watchers of his generation, Van Sant first saw Hitchcock's Psycho on television. It wasn't until years later that he got the opportunity to enter the full-scale nightmare on the big screen, and then only because he was a film student. He wondered if millions of potential Psycho viewers of the future would ever have a chance to check into the Bates Motel on the big screen, and if they would increasingly be put off by the film's 60s-era film stock, fashions and mores.
He continues: "There is an attitude that cinema is a relatively new art and therefore there's no reason to 'restage' a film. But as cinema gets older there is also an audience that is increasingly unpracticed at watching old films, silent films, black and white films. Psycho is perfect to refashion as a modern piece. Reflections are a major theme in the original, with mirrors everywhere, characters who reflect each other. This version holds up a mirror to the original film: it's sort of its schizophrenic twin." As Van Sant began to formulate his argument for a 1990s Psycho recreation, the reaction from Universal Pictures (which owns the material), the Hitchcock estate, screenwriter Joseph Stefano and Van Sant's new producing partner Brian Grazer of Imagine Entertainment, began to bolster his ambitions. Grazer was one of the project's earliest champions, having had his own fascination with it.
Says Grazer: "I always saw Psycho as being the first truly scary movie that operated independent of time. It doesn't deal with trends or fashions; the drama, suspense and horror work independently of any particular era. I liked the idea that Gus would follow Hitchcock's lead taking the same script, the same basic plans for the sets, the same schedule and infuse it with a new sensibility, with different actors."
"Of course in theatre, that happens all the time because it's not only the production we value but the play itself," he continues. "Restating it offers people the opportunity to re-experience a great work. And now we're experimenting, trying to do the same thing with a film."
Adds executive producer Dany Wolf: "Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho is something that's precious to everybody here and something Universal is very proud of. But it seemed possible to do this and at the same time be very reverential in our treatment of the film."
But the real test for Van Sant came in approaching those who had worked with Hitchcock in 1960. Would they call foul and protest? Patricia Hitchcock O'Connell, the director's daughter who also acted in the original film and serves as technical consultant on the current one, set the tone by opining: "I think it's very flattering. I know my father would be flattered that Psycho is considered such a great movie that it deserves to be remade. My father always made his pictures for the audience. He didn't make them for the critics. He didn't make them for himself. His number one reason was the audience and audiences don't change."
She adds: "Of course every director has his own style. I think Gus' style is great and I think my father's was great. Seeing Gus remake my father's picture in his own style has been fascinating to watch."
As for others, typical of the reaction was this from Marshall Schlom, the original script supervisor. "When I got the call," recalls Schlom, "I just didn't really believe what I was hearing. Gus Van Sant wanted to do an homage to Hitchcock. The film was essentially going to be the same film we shot, just brought up-to-date. I thought of it as an indication of how much this film has meant to people. It will offer young people today an opportunity to see it and maybe they will also go back and watch the original."
He continues: "When we were shooting the film in 1959, we didn't know we were making a classic. It didn't cost much money. Mr. Hitchcock made it with his television film crew. It didn't seem to have the magnitude of Rear Window or North by Northwest. It was just a little picture. And you should see it in those terms-just as if you were being led down a garden path beautifully by a man who wants to tell you a story."
To go for that same purity of experience audiences received in 1960-being led down the garden path to somewhere chillingly dark and horrifying-Van Sant hoped to use Joseph Stefano's original shooting script. But the question remained: would the writer of one of the most analyzed, imitated and psychologically rich scripts ever in American cinema be interested in a revisitation of his work?
http://www.psychomovie.com/production/productionwhy.html
No comments:
Post a Comment