OCTOBER 1998:

PSYCHO-TIC

It's Halloween time again, which means terror stalks the multi-plexes in the form of all the inevitable SCREAM rip-offs we knew were coming our way: URBAN LEGEND, I STILL KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER, THE NEW HOLLYWOOD SQUARES (Okay, okay - THE NEW HOLLYWOOD SQUARES is a TV game show... but scary is scary, folks! Though isn't it heartwarming that Whoopi Goldberg has finally found her rightful place in showbiz as the new Paul Lynde?). But none of these make-believe Hollywood stories are as scary as a real Hollywood story that's been unfolding all Summer, and will be sprung on us this December. Yes, you know what I'm talking about - I'm talking about the brilliant decision to remake PSYCHO.

As though we needed any more proof that Hollywood thinks we're dumbasses, the 'creative' team (and boy do I use that term loosely) behind the new PSYCHO are literally remaking the original - using the same script, and even copying Alfred Hitchcock's storyboards shot-for-shot! These people are so shameless I suspect they'd have dug up Anthony Perkins for a cameo as 'Mother' given half a chance! Y'know, I've never understood the thought process behind remaking classic films. I mean, what's the point? These films were made as well as they could be made and became enduring, beloved icons of the cinema... and some asswipe who's directed a couple of mildly successful features is gonna improve on it? Puh-leese! And what's this 'shot-for-shot' crap? If they were rethinking Robert Bloch's book, or putting a new spin on the story, well... I'd still think they were idiots, but at least they'd have some small creative foot to stand on. As it is the only breathtaking deviation from the original is that this version will be shot in color. Terrific! Doesn't it just figure? The one creative decision they make is wrong! Christ, at least when Ted Turner ruins a classic black and white film by colorizing it it's still the same film! Arrrgh! And the term I've heard most often from the filmmakers to describe the new PSYCHO isn't 'remake', but 'exercise'. As in, "It's an artistic exercise". Gosh, I never really thought of masturbation as 'exercise' before, but I guess if you feel guilty enough about jerking-off you'll come up with any rationalization you can think of.

And here's another thing - are you gonna get as excited about
seeing Anne Heche in a bra as you did Janet Leigh? Didn't think so...

Okay... I'm gonna calm down now. No sense giving myself an aneurysm over a Brian Grazer-produced film, for chrissakes. Must... make... rational... arguments.

Alright then - how's this for a rational argument: They're making a shocker which isn't gonna shock anybody. PSYCHO's strength when it was released in 1960 was that movie audiences hadn't seen anything like it before. From Janet Leigh's death a third of the way through the film, to the shocking reveal that the murderous 'Mother' was actually a stuffed corpse while the real killer was sweet, put-upon Norman Bates, who we'd grown to sympathize with - the movie kept audiences unfamiliar with such subject matter off-balance and horrified. Criminy, PSYCHO was even considered shocking because it showed a TOILET! It's no wonder Hitchcock and scripter Joseph Stefano felt obliged to include a ten minute psychological profile of Norman to explain to audiences why he did what he did - which nowadays any six year-old who watches the news can explain to you. So what exactly are today's audiences supposed to be shocked by? In the years since PSYCHO's release, we've seen a string of increasingly violent, prolific screen (and real-life) killers that make Norman Bates' crimes seem downright quaint in comparison. Sheesh, I doubt Norman would even qualify for a spot on 'The Jerry Springer Show'! PSYCHO's very effective ad campaign stated that no one would be seated after the movie started, because you had to see it from the beginning to savor all the twists and turns. Well now we're expected to step into theatres forty years after the movie's started. The effect isn't gonna be the same, boys and girls.

Looky, here's a shot of Vince Vaughn and the new PSYCHO house!
From the looks of this, Vince is playing Norman Bates as a computer nerd.

But this is all just window dressing, I think. Sure I'm angry they're remaking a classic film they have no reason to fiddle with. Sure I think they're hiding behind a lot of bullshit about 'artistic exercises' and 'tributes to Hitch'. (You want to pay Hitchcock a real tribute? Acknowledge that he did it best and leave it alone.) And I definitely think it's pathetic that they're remaking the film with no deviation from the original, making this possibly the most shameless piece of hackwork in Hollywood history. I mean really, even the people who make titty movies for Cinemax figure out their own shots. What this is really all about for me is the continuing decline of creativity in Hollywood. It's been grim to watch every TV show made in the last thirty years get the big-screen treatment, but at least those films tried to do something new with the subject matter. This remake of PSYCHO tosses all creativity out the window. Hell, it tosses it out the window, jumps on top of it and stomps it into the dust. That director Gus Van Sant is respected in many circles for his work on DRUGSTORE COWBOY and GOOD WILL HUNTING (and despite EVEN COWGIRLS GET THE BLUES) makes things worse, because it means the press will have to take this remake seriously, and not be able to just write it off as the sad, useless waste of time and money that it will inevitably be. I think it's telling that by not changing the script or shot list, all the filmmakers are doing is shooting the movie - the part of the process that Hitchcock himself considered the least creative.

Smack Yoda to uncross his eyes and return to the SPEW archives!

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page!