For me, this remake fails tremendously. It sets out to introduce Hitchcock to a new generation by making a shot for shot remake. I think it also sets out to modernize anything in the story that might not work now. Yes, the casting may not have been perfect in many roles, but Gus Van Sant takes most of the blame for film's pitfalls. What is created is a dull, rushed, shot for shot remake with good ideas few and far between.
The pacing of the film is the first thing that hurts the film. One great thing about the original was it's ability to keep a tension throughout the film, but the remake has sped up different scenes. I'm not really sure why it has sped up certain scenes, but it keeps the film flat and doesn't allow for suspense. It doesn't make any sense that a shot for shot remake would try for such a different dull pace.
There are many ways the film is modernized. One way Van Sant has updated the film is by creating more of a concrete story for Marion and Norman. The original keeps many things in their relationship and in Norman secret. Anthony Perkin's iconic character is so creepy because of his awkward mystery. Instead of failing to mimic that character one of the only wise decisions was made. Vince Vaughn's Norman is given a more definite character. He comes off meaner and more desperate. Thus, there is an active decision made to remove any surprise. We know what Norman is like don't try and hide it, but this is certainly a poor substitute for the suspense and mystery created in the original.
Van Sant has also made some updates that aren't as well thought out that are the real mistakes of the remake. For example, the sounds added to the parlor scene and the bedroom scene add nothing good. Also, the images added to both murders make little sense. The scenes are some of the most loyally shot scenes in the remake, but Van Sant has added images that I guess accentuate the murders. It's like he wanted to stay loyal to the original and fart on it at the same time. I mean, if he wanted to do something like that he should have modernized it completely. He does it with the end of the film. Norman beats Sam over the head with a golf club. Then, he dives at Lila viciously, and she kicks him in the face. Why not do this to the two murders. I was dying to see mother dive into the shower and hack Marion apart. It would have modernized the shock in the original for today's audience.
Even if a director had a new vision for the script there is little it could accomplish. I don't think there is any way a remake of this film can be a real success. It will never come close to the original. At first, I thought a shot for shot remake was the only way to remake it, but it turned out to just lend itself to constant comparison to which it receives the shorter end of the stick.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I completely forgot about the hit with the golf club and the elongated Sam and Lila vs Norman fight (I expected Jigsaw to show up in the basement, "Do you wanna play a game?). Honestly, I didn't even think about changing the level of attack in the shower scene. In some senses I feel like the shower scene is put on the pedestal so high that changing it any more would have left people mad. The Arbogast murder could have been changed a lot.
Wheile I think you're being a bit harsh on Van Zant (don't think he intended to "fart" on the original), you're still dead-on in your assessment of the film.
Honestly, if I saw the remake first, I never would have wanted to see the original.
in reference to the images in those murders and the "sound effects" throughout the film i think all he does is fart on the original. I don't even think Gus Van Sant himself could argue he was adding anything good to those scenes.
I like your criticism about the murders: if he was willing to update the actual nature of the final near-murder (the Lila, Sam, Norman scuffle), then why not update the content of the other two murders?
I agree with raptor-whatever that you need to do more than assert that Van Sant was trying to fart on the original. His approach to Hitchcock's film is near-worshipful, so I don't think he's trying to be insulting or destructive. Surely he must have thought his little inserted sounds and images were an enhancement, but to what end?
Post a Comment