In an old blog, I chewed out Gus Van Sant for that remake he did of the classic in which we all love. To my self, I noticed it's been awhile that I even seen the film. Now, before I get chewed up for being a jurk. I must say I was at the age of Freshman year in high school when this remake came out. Like everyone else, I was dissppionted in this film. Honest though, my opinion has changed. So I have made this blog, in hope to justifed myself and maybe both movies. Your opinion is valued here.
With that said, I have to compare and contrast both the 1998 remake version, by Gus Van Sant which was a train wreck in the theaters. To the 1960 version by Alfred Hitchcock, the Master of Supense. I didn't get it at the time,when I first saw it because I though it was a rip off from camera shot to camera shot. But how wrong I was. There was alot more I never noticed till now and I have to bite my own tounge for saying the things I have said. Remember this was a film which was very hard to LIVE UP TOO !
What were some of the things that both films had in common. Well, the novel was still made by Robert Bloch. Universal still owned the rights to it. Screenplay was by Joseph Stefano. Even to the mirrors, and the soap wrapper goof sence. Those things have not changed. They were the same. take by take.
As for the contrast, I was shocked to see and say this. Maybe you guys who read this will be too. The difference, " There's a DIFFERENCE? " I could hear you guys asking yourselves, which I did the same. Besides COLOR vs BLACK AND WHITE. The house, as we all know is this dark and creepy. Something out of a Vince Price movie. While, the house in the remake. Was lit and look sort of Vacant, but still not as scary. More farm like.
Let's shoot for the cellar, working from the bottom up. In the version from Hitchcock, the discovery of Norman' s Mother took place in the fruit cellar. But in the reamke it was in the Taxidermy Room. What about the scream heard around the world. No contest there. Janet Leigh is the winner in this one. But why? I always wondered. Was it because of her beauty? Or the set of lungs.
No that was not my case. It was believeing Anne Hache. Not for the shower sence but the way she actted. Not like back in the 1960 version where times where different then. Slower and women were much more sweet and tender. That's when it dawned on me. The times. What an airhead I am. The time change, Van Sant took the prespective from the times of the 1990's.
There is the difference. BIG DIFFERENCE. Another thing, camera angles and steady shots. Van Sant, in the very beginning. Had a very steady glide which slowly zoomed to the motel room. While in the, Hitchcock version it it zoomed down and chopped right off. Zoomed down and chopped right off. Zoomed right in and chopped right off.
As for the actting, we know that no one can replaced Anthony Perkins. Or Janet Leigh. But what about the other actors? Back in the 1960's version, like I said before times were more tame. At least that's what they wanted the movies to show and protray. In the late 1998 version. Ha ha ha! Women have came a long way from that time. They are tougher, hard core exterior. To make sense, a certain complex to themselves.
Like the actor, Jullian Moore who played Lila Crane. Big difference then from Vera Miles. She was timmed and helpless but had to know the truth. Needed a strong man to save here if you remember her proformance as she scream finding Norman's mother. As for Juillian, the scream and then from the rage of anger. She let all go and kicked Norman Bates Right in the face. I even felt that one !
Or the chacter of Arbogast, played by William H. Macy. In my opinion, I liked him better. there was a sweetness to him. He did care and you can see that in the actting of the chacter. With the version of the 1960, Martin Balsam was more like a gangster from the 1930's. Or what about Mr. Cassidy, Chad Everett played perfectly. He was rude, very dirty and cheap. But somewhat believeable.
Let's try Marion Crane, just for grins. Janet Leigh, played such a great role. Something that many women would have loved to play. The sweet and inncocent, and protrayed such with a confindant manner, but having grace. With Anne Hache, she was sarcastic, complexed,looked like the women that would take 40,000.00 dollars. I saw nothing that I loved about her, with that said when the shower sence came I felt like Krama came back to her.
Another part in the beginning would be in the Hitchcocks version, you could tell that Marion Crane is in love with her suitor. Hard core love, a barsneed. As for the Van sant version, nothing but SEX. Isn't that the way times are now? Always about sex, no time for love. Makes you wonder about these time we live in today. Is there ever such a thing called LOVE?
Anyway, the one thing that makes me laugh all the time is Norman Bates in DRAG !!! LOL !!! Oh crap, either Anothny Perkins. ( Who was most likely Used to it ! ) Or Vince Vaughn. Both make me laugh hysterically. I can't stop laughing. No matter what or how many times I do see it. Someone please call Carson Kressley ! Norman Bates needs a makeover.
Either which version I see, My heart still stays with the classic. I think it's the magic of the times. Maybe I'm a true Romantic, maybe it's because times are more sinster. Maybe reality just hit to close to home with the Van Sant version. I can't say what. But I do know one thing. I'm not going to be so hard on Gus Van Sant anymore.
I am so sorry for ripping on your film which was very hard to live up to. Also I do see something that you did do. You kept up with the times, and you made the women more empowering. Something that most women would love to see in many films. Also I have to say this, To Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh, Always in Memory. Rest In Peace.
Would love to hear your opinions and comments.....
Bloody Blogs,
Alex
Shared on
Alex 9
Add Comments
Comments (6)
Read More