1. What are the four ways Leitch argues that Van Sant’s Psycho is unusual? And what “yawning fallacies” are suggested by Van Sant’s approach to the project? What are some of the logistical problems Van Sant faced in remaking the film in the 1990s?
The initial difference that has been pointed out is that, unlike most remakes, Gus Van Sant’s intentions were paying homage to Hitchcock, as opposed to simply re-doing Psycho in hopes of a better version. The second was Van Sant’s fearless approach to the marketing of the film, advertising with a poster that revealed the early murder of the films heroine, an act that originally took audiences by surprise with the original. Van Sant assumes audiences already know Marione is killed halfway through, but just in case they do not, the advertising is sure to clear up any sense of surprise. Thirdly, Van Sants approach to “remakes” differs in that he literally remade Psycho—shot for shot and line for line—which in itself is something original. Van Sants desire is to recreate, not reinterpret. In doing so, his fourth unusual approach is that he recreated the filmmaking process of Hitchcock, and went on to advertise that echoed style of filmmaking, in turn creating a film that “uniquely wasn’t Hitchcock’s Psycho”. Two of the yawning fallacies concerned Van Sant’s classification of the film as as being exactly like the original, yet completely different, in terms of its textual, cultural, and technical characteristics. Think about it; its in color, the actors are different, and it takes place in the the 90’s. Those changes were the logistical problems that were addressed when the film was remade for the 90’s.
2. What is the key difference for the audience’s experience of the shower scene in Van Sant’s Psycho? How is this similar or different from general genre expectations and conventions inspired by Hitchcock’s Psycho?
Audiences have a different experience in watching the remake because they have the knowledge that the famous shower murdering scene is coming. Where the original gave audiences an element of suspense, the remake has no way of giving that entertainment. It stays true to its intent of paying homage by reveling in the fact that there is no way for Van Sant to surprise us, for Hitchcock already has.
3. What are some of James Naremore’s objections to the Van Sant Psycho, particularly in the area of casting and performance? How does he use the story of the Royal Cook to explain his critical position?
Naremore is dissatisfied with both performances of Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche. While Vaughn imitates the original character created by Perkins, Heche instead tweaks Leigh’s original character, in turn creating her own updated version of Marion. Naremore considers these choices made by both actors to be “bad choices” as Vaughn is creating nothing while Heche isn’t remaining faithful to the concept of a remake, or in this case, a direct recreation. It is also noted that Heche created a new character to make Marion’s murder more ironic when, in reality, the murder is ironic enough considering the audience completely expects it. Using the story of the royal cook, Naremore concludes that no matter how hard any of them tried, including Van Sant, this new version of Psycho just could not create the same effect of the original.
4. What are some of William Rothman’s objections to the Van Sant Psycho, particularly in terms of the relationship between Hitchcock’s stylistic system and the creation of meaning? How does Leitch question some of Rothman’s assumptions about style and meaning? What are Timothy Gould’s objections to Rothman’s critical assumptions?
Hitchcock used camera gestures to create suggested meaning, meaning that is apparently stepped on with Van Sant’s choices pertaining to camera work. Van Sant’s camera work is seen as imitation rather than genuine gesture through original creation. The latter of the two obviously carries a stronger meaning, which in this case of recreation, cannot be achieved. Leitch poses the question, however, “How could Rothman tell whether Van Sant was, or had become, such an author?” It is interesting to consider that maybe Van Sant’s style of authorship is coincidentally similar to that of Hitchcock’s. Rothmans argument examines Van Sant’s remake directly through a lens of Hitchcock’s Psycho, in turn making it impossible for Van Sant’s Psycho to be seen as a Van Sant film.
5. Why is Hitchcock’s status in academic film studies particularly unique? What parallel does Leitch make between Naremore’s viewing of Van Sant’s Psycho and Leitch’s students’ viewing of Hitchcock’s Psycho?
Naremore, who saw the original Psycho upon it’s release, perceived it as scary and something fresh while Van Sant’s Psycho is perceived to be completely academic and not at all scary. This perception is contrasted with contemporary screeners of Hitchcock’s Psycho who find the original to be far more academic than its successor. Leitch discusses that there is no good time to watch Psycho because if one watches it today, they would have already been jaded by the other horror movies on the market. On the contrary, if one were to view Hitchcock’s Psycho on opening night, the suspense would be enjoyed at the expense of being blind to Hitchcock’s irony which isn’t revealed until later years when everyone has seen Psycho.
6. Why does Leitch suggest that perhaps Van Sant “out-Hitchcocks Hitchcock”?
Van Sant was not creating an image of Hitchcock, but instead was creating an image of modern “Hitchcocks”.
No comments:
Post a Comment