How Gus Vant Sant’s ‘Psycho’ Compares to Alfred Hitchcock’s – Armessa Movie News

Gus Van Sant‘s 1998 remake of Psycho is one of the strangest “blank check” type movies from an important American auteur. Fresh off the breakout success of Good Will Hunting, Van Sant had the clout and resources to realize any dream project, and he chose to remake one of the most important and influential horror films of all time. While that part isn’t so strange, the fact that he decided to remake the film shot-for-shot in color, and even going as far as to mostly keep the same dialogue has flabbergasted audiences since its release and remains a curiosity (maybe even a novelty) in what is otherwise a nearly flawless career.

Gus Van Sant’s ‘Psycho’ Is Surprisingly Competent

Despite starring a cast essentially comprised of the most talented and recognizable actors of the era, including Anne Heche, Vince Vaughn, Viggo Mortenson, Julianne Moore, William H. Macy, as well as several beloved characters actors such as Robert Forster and Philip Baker Hall, Gus Van Sant’s Psycho rings hollow and begs the question “why”? The film sought to do and show that Alfred Hitchcock wasn’t able to do in 1960 but only proved further the tired old adage that less is often more. It would be like someone wanting to remake Jaws with more shots of the shark as was originally intended. In the case of both the original Psycho and Jaws, restrictions led to innovation. Like Steven Spielberg, Hitchcock understood the value of prioritizing the movie that the audience is seeing in their heads, even if it’s different from the one they’re seeing onscreen.

It would be less evident that it was indeed the forced restrictions that Hitchcock had to face with contemporary censorship that helped to make Psycho what it was if Van Sant’s interpretation was a complete disaster. However, the 1998 film is more than competent on almost all levels, from acting to cinematography to direction. There isn’t one glaringly bad aspect of the film that holds it back, yet it still lacks the punch and atmosphere that the original film retains 60 years later. Heche is perfectly acceptable as Marion Crane. She’s likable, and her motivations are understandable, much like Janet Leigh in the original film. Vaughn also pulls off the enigmatic creepiness of Norman Bates, even if his performance isn’t nearly as charming as that of Anthony Perkins. Macy is a particular standout as Detective Arbogast, whose tense onscreen chemistry with Vaughn is one of the highlights of the film.

RELATED:

The 10 Worst Movie Remakes of All Time, According to Reddit

The film also looks beautiful. Van Sant whose films often utilize color palettes that heavily reinforce the themes and tone. Whether it’s the subtle vibrancy of To Die For, which emphasizes the vapid plasticity of fame, or the warm autumnal colors in Good Will Hunting reflecting the film’s gigantic bleeding heart, Van Sant seems to have a deep understanding of setting mood and tone through his film’s visuals. Psycho is no different with a neo-noir bent to the cinematography. Much of the film also has a vintage look, likely aiming to capture the technicolor style of the era of the original. There are several backdrops that look like matte paintings, or which are at least trying to capture the look of them.

‘Psycho’ Can’t Justify Its Own Existence

There aren’t many moments when the film lets its hand slip, and it devolves into unintentional campiness or completely loses its footing. There isn’t one major glaring issue in either its filmmaking or construction that holds it back from matching the original. Instead, its biggest flaw is that it is constantly trying to justify its existence when every single re-imagining of every iconic scene just reminds the viewer that the original film exists and that it was done more organically and more stylishly. Throughout its entire runtime, Van Sant’s Psycho simply fails to justify its existence as little more than an experiment. It proves that he is a stylish and competent filmmaker, something we already knew from his past five films, and which has been reinforced over and over again over the past 25 years.

Van Sant’s Psycho also comes across as deeply disingenuous in nature. The film knows that you know what’s going to happen, making the actual drama of the film come across as cheap. There is no genuine tension because the movie doesn’t have an identity separate from the original. Down to the score, the film seeks to recreate every single important moment from Hitchcock’s classic. A big part of the appeal of re-watching a film like the 1960 original, is that it at least reminds you of the first time you saw it and were shocked by the twist. It’s so expertly crafted that even modern audiences who don’t already know the twist through cultural osmosis still have the pleasure of having the rug pulled out from under them. The function of Van Sant’s Psycho is essentially to remind you of the first time you saw another movie. The movie operates under the assumption that you have seen the original. The dialogue doesn’t make any sense unless you have seen the original, as it is incredibly dated and doesn’t match the contemporary setting of the original. So many details of the movie don’t work unless the viewer has already seen Hitchcock’s film.

Gus Van Sant’s ‘Psycho’ Was Never Going to Be as Shocking as the Original

Much of the shock of seeing the original Psycho in 2023 comes from the realization that a film with this level of violence and sexual content, though implied, came out in 1960. The original is an excellent character piece that examines repression in the character of Norman Bates. It is thus extremely appropriate that the movie utilizes a level of restraint in what it shows, even if it was unintentional. The blood, implied nudity, and highly implied sex in the movie are all still shocking because modern audiences aren’t used to seeing a film with such classic aesthetics and sensibilities containing said content. The remake doesn’t pack the same punch as there was nothing revolutionary about showing blood or nudity in 1998. The movie is relatively tame considering that it came out during the decade serving as a renaissance for erotic thrillers.

Gus Van Sant’s Psycho is by no means a bad film. It has plenty of admirable qualities, from a stacked cast to great visuals. However, it was always going to be doomed to pale in comparison to the original, a film whose success and influence cannot be replicated. The movie recreates many of the classic’s iconic moments with style, though many choices (such as the out-of-place dialogue) hold it back from being more than the sum of its parts. Gus Van Sant’s Psycho is a mildly interesting experiment at its best and a frustrating vanity project at its worst. The movie was always going to be superfluous, but it could have been a lot worse.