Someone has posted on YouTube a compilation of the shots that make up Hitchcock's and Van Sant's shower scenes. After you watch the video concoction, post your reaction
-- first, to the idea of remaking Hitchcock's Psycho, a film that has been analyzed over and over by film scholars for nearly 50 years now. Should a filmmaker even attempt to recreate such a classic film?
-- and second, to the notion of remaking films altogether. In other words, what is your opinion regarding Hollywood's film-to-film remakes (e.g., 3:10 to Yuma, Cheaper by the Dozen, 101 Dalmatians, Bad News Bears, Cape Fear, superhero films)? Is this a form of plagiarism, or is merely someone paying homage to earlier works? (Or perhaps it's just an easy way to make more money)?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the trailer of Van Sant's film, if you're interested in exploring it further.
I see no reason why a classic film like Psycho, or really any film that was good in the first place should be remade. The film Psycho has been praised by critics and viewers alike for about fifty years now. It is a great work of film and therefore has no reason to be remade. People enjoyed and still enjoy watching the original Psycho, that is a testament to how good it is, and to tamper with that is to simply vandalize a classic film. Gus Van Sant probably had every intention of paying homage to Hitchcock through this remake while bringing a classic film in to the modern age, but to me it comes across as unoriginal and unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteIn truth, I really do not care for most remakes of films. I think that in some circumstances that people are attempting to pay homage to earlier works, but this idea is usually lost because of the poor quality of the remakes. Most of the time remakes appear to be the result of unoriginal and uncreative filmmakers who want to cash in on old classics. I would not say that this is necessarily a form of plagiarism, however I think it is distasteful and shows a lack of originality and talent when a person needs to take the idea of someone else because they cannot come up with a good idea themselves, or takes the idea of someone else purely to make money.
There are two types of remakes, those that are indirect (which is a remake of a film with a totally new vision) and those that are direct. The Psycho remake is a direct remake. The only reason I can see for a direct remake (within the same region as the original film) is to "keep it alive" so to speak. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to go out and watch a classic film. It is up to Hollywood to recreate these classics for new audiences.
ReplyDeleteI am not a fan of remakes, but I am also a film student. I go on my own to see the classics. I search to watch those hard to find and much appraised films. If the film industry would only refurnish all of these classics and bring them back to the screen! However, Psycho is not at all hard to come by. So why the remake?
The film business is very much a business. Remakes of classic films will pull in both the crowds, those who have seen the originals and those who haven't.
About half of the time I am speaking with someone who is opposed to remakes I have noticed comments such as, "I will probably end up seeing it anyway... just to see what they've messed up," and, "I'll see it for the laughs." I have also noticed that often people are more excited about a film once they have learned that there was "an original".
So I do not view it as plagiarism or a homage (simply because I cannot consider an entire re-doing of a body of work to be a homage). I find it a bit annoying, but no more so than other current things in the cinema world today.
As a film student I have realized my love for film makes me appreciate small details that nobody else notices that really say a great deal about what was going on in an artist's mind and the world around him. Remakes often leave out the seemingly unimportant details because most remake director's are trying to appeal to a new era of movie-goers. The DAWN OF THE DEAD remake for example was a complete abomination of the original in my mind. Until however I realized that Zack Snyder's remake of the George Romero classic had multiple changes made only to make it more of a commentary on the current problems in the United States. George Romero put an emphasis on the shopping mall and showing how the consumerism of the 1970s was devouring the country and on the other hand Snyder laid emphasis on the grouping and speed of the zombies and how we could relate to the terrorism on the home front. I still find remakes upsetting but realize that modern directors recreate classic films to relate to our current dilemmas. This is so that brain dead viewers don't have to imagine what a film is trying to say about past events even though it stand up to the test of time. An exception to this rule in my mind is CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY. Tim Burton decided to redo WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY only because it strayed from the book and he felt it was important to make a true to the book story. This backfired on Burton however because needless to say nobody reads books anymore and most people thought that the "original" was a classic.
ReplyDeleteOverall I believe remakes are not all bad. A movie is remade to cater to a new audience, even if it is an audience that needs their heart spoon-fed to them, and should be attempted because maybe it will be better than the original like CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY or maybe even perhaps 3:10 TO YUMA that turned out to be a stunning remake as well. Also I find some humor in an attempted remake of a classic that fails miserably due to the lack of skill of the new artist (THE INCREDIBLE HULK and KING KONG, not one of Peter Jackson's best).
Remakes are an atrocity to everything film stands for. Some may say that "imitation is the highest form of flattery" but I view it more as a slap in the face. It is really someone else saying "Hey, your version was good, but it needs to be updated. I can do it better." I love Gus Van Sant's work but to do a shot for shot remake of PSYCHO is pointless. It's a waste of film! Vince Vaughn is no where near as talented as Anthony Perkins. Anne Heche is no where near as attractive or talented as Janet Leigh. The music was the same. So if you are trying to do a shot for shot remake with a cast that doesn't hold a candle to the original and contains the same score, why even bother? THERE IS NO POINT!!!!!
ReplyDeleteApparently, OLDBOY (Chan-Wook Park, 2003) is being remade as an american film. Talks are that it will be directed by Steven Spielberg and star Will Smith... WHY!!!??!?!? With the censorship laws in America as strict as they are, I feel like they are going to cut things down. But why is it that if a foreign film gets popular, America has to jump on? I think that good remakes are few and far between. Take the original TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE versus the remake. I liked the remake more only because, when watching the original, I found it to be vulgar and I felt incredibly disgusted and unsettled by violence against the kid in the wheelchair to the point where I really didn't want to watch it anymore. I had no problem with the remake except for the fact that with these new remakes of old horror films (IE FRIDAY THE 13TH, TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, etc) it seems like they are just trying to update them with more nudity and more gore. Which again, is pointless.
I view remakes the same as I do Zack Snyder's career: You are taking credit for someone elses work. Zack Snyder basically gets called a visionary genius for adapting the work of graphic novels. Remaking films, you are taking the work that someone else has done, and just adding your own minuscule spin on it. "LOOK, I ADDED BOOBIES!" then, as the kids leave the theater to enter mommmy's Plymouth Voyager, they will bray about how much better it was than the old one and the ones who know anything about film will try to impress their friends by saying "God, Michael Bay is such a better director than that turd who directed the original."
And while we are on the topic, Michael Bay needs to retire. He has a production company which ONLY does remakes. RRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!
Long Story Short:
I hate remakes.
I hate Zack Snyder.
I hate Michael Bay.
Remaking this film in color is not necessarily a bad thing. In the age where a good majority of films are color, remaking the movie, Psycho, in color would give it a new twist. However, remaking the film with a new cast ruins the image the original gave with the individual character's reactions, postures, and facial features.
ReplyDeleteSome movies, on the other hand, are okay to remake because it gives to the audience a new way to think about the meaning and potrayal of the film. For example, 101 Dalmatians was turned into a film with a realistic settings from an animated one. With the dogs unable to talk as they did in animation, it gives the audience a sense of how intelligent animals are instead of having to animate in sounds. Using the same plot and/or narration as another film can be seen as plagiarism, but in the actually film, a director can insert their own twist into the gestures and poses of the characters instead of doing a direct copy. Some are good, others are just horrible, but the industry of film is always trying to create new techniques and acting methods, even if it means redoing an old black and white film.
While I respect the opinions of my fellow students, I have to be honest when I the prospect of movie remakes doesn't really bother me at all. Now, this is not to say that I support remakes, it's just that I don't really care. If someone wants to remake a film and add all kinds of boobies and doodads and dream sequences, go right ahead. I'M not going to watch it, the American public generally won't watch it, these remakes (including the PSYCHO, the film in question) tend to bomb.
ReplyDeleteMy feelings towards remakes are the same as my feelings toward cheesy romantic comedies or CGI animal movies: if someone wants to drop ten dollars on it at the theater, go right ahead. I'm not going to go see it, in fact, I'm not going to even THINK about seeing it. I will wait for the two or three months it takes for the film to end it run in theaters and then, chances are, I'll never hear from it again. If Gus Van Sant wants to remake PSYCHO, then he can do it. Chances are, I will never see his version, and truth be told, I forgot that he even made one. I think a lot of my overall disinterest in the concept of film remakes is that they tend to remake horror films, which I don't really watch anyway.
Of course I have seen "remakes" that I have liked, I think that Tim Burton's CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE factory was a superior version, but I don't really count it as a remake, as it is a completely different movie from the "first one".
Remaking films is tricky business to me, u have the pressure of making sure if lives up to it's original and at the same time i guess you have the pressure of intersecting your own original ideas into the film and hoping it does not throw the feel off. In the remake of PSYCHO, the director (Gus Van Sant)i feel failed and succeeded in this process. While i don't remember much of the re-make (due to me not really liking the film), i do feel that he did accomplish recreating a very accurate shower scene, the fact that it is in color is ok and gives it the "new age" feel.The script was identical and,if i'm not mistaking,the house and motel were exact replicas of the originals. His flaw (a major one to me)was casting Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates (i mean come on really!). Up until this movie, i do not recall him (Vaughn)ever making a "serious" movie (meaning something that's not comedic). I was talking to a cat at work and we were discussing this movie (PSYCHO remake), and we both agreed that Jim Carey could've did well playing the part of Norman (for one he kinda resembles the original Norman Bates character and for two, after seeing 23, he has the capabilities of "crossing over" to a character of this nature......i would even say Robin Williams would've gave a great performance after seeing him in 1HR PHOTO and INSOMNIA, but i guess his age wouldn't go over so well). Now in making remakes all together, i feel directors are losing their "original ideas". Some remakes are good while others are just plain terrible (SCARFACE-good, did not have the same plot, but was still based in the crime film genre, THE WIZ-bad, had good points and the fact that it was an african american version of THE WIZARD of OZ was cool, but Michael Jackson as the scarecrow and me at the time not really caring for musicals just didn't appeal to me......maybe if i watched it now i might have a different perspective on the film because i grew to like "certain" musicals). We are in a time were "old school" things from clothes to cars are being brought back w/ modified "new school" ideas, so i guess movies are also following the trend, but some things should stay in the past because we "new age" people often tend to mess it up!! Some directors wanna give praise to a legend and redo their films, but if the legends were still alive and had a say so, they might backsmack some of these fools for attempting to do what they did and tell them to get their "own" ideas (that's just my take on it)!!!
ReplyDeleteI honestly don't see the point in shot by shot remakes in the first place so I'm already against the remake of Psycho to begin with. When they remake movies like this the filmmaker often fails to capture the original spark of the previous film. For example, Vince Vaughn may be an okay comedic actor but he didn't even come close to Anthony Perkins unnervingly creepy,and somewhat likeable Norman Bates. Also there is no point in remaking these movies because they are essentially the same film as the first video shows the only real difference is that there was color.
ReplyDeleteThere is one more problem I have with remakes is that sometimes the social and political atmosphere is not the same for the remake. For example, Last House on The Left gained fame as an exploitation film that goes as far as any film could go. However horrifying the scenes in the film are there are some good qualities. Social satire, speaking out against the violence in Vietnam, drug use, and the hippie movement lace the original and unfortunatly are left out of the remake. While the original was speaking out against violence, the remake was promoting violence for violence sake and that its okay to kill people that hurt you. I find that some situations may call for a remake (I haven't found one yet but I still have hope) but most don't and Hollywood should just come up with new ideas than regurgatating old ones.
It seems like most people would look at a movie like PSYCHO and say it was such a well made movie that it should never be remade. I disagree. People and wirters reuse ideas and topics all the time. Anyone can look at anything and see that there was inspirations from somewhere. SO it seems like a great homage not only be inspired but to directly copy something. This is becasue also it is film, and in film it seems like a very interesting to take classics that say many people would be oblivious to due to age or time, and see what kind of spin or take they can put on a film with contemporary film techniques and styles. This only seems to be paying tribute to a great film and doesnt take away from the orginal itself.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes it does seem like an easy money making technique to reuse old movies into remakes but that does not take away from the interest it creates. I like to see what modern HW can do with a old classic. It shows what such a good narrative and innovative film could becoem with new features added to it. And if it was that bad a movie to begin with then it is defitnetly a better idea to remake. Otherwise complaining about a remake because the original is perfect doesnt make sense. To pay tribute a movie that was so good by remaking it only invokes the old cliche of the best flattery being imitation. Also it has a reciporcal efect of helping theold film. It will garnish interest in the franchise and thus only provide the opportunity for more people to gain interest in the original.
I don't think that Psycho should have been remade. The original film is excellent and artistic and unlike Broadway musicals you can watch the original casting within the confines of your own home. The only major difference is that the modern Psycho is in color, but that does not change the artistic value (directing, cinematography, acting) and is not a strong enough reason to remake the film.
ReplyDeleteSo why remake films? I believe that Hollywood remakes films that have had success in the past to generate money. Think about it, a film that has already done exceptionally well runs a lower risk of flopping then a brand new film. I am against this, however, I am not against all film remakes. Some films were not like Psycho which was a film that required little technology and a lower budget, and remaking some films could allow us to apply modern technology to a film that's ideas and visuals were limited by it. However, I do not think this is the case with Hollywood. I believe that as unfortunate as it is movies are remade to simply generate profits .
The first time I saw the movie Psycho, not only this movie was kind of freaking me out on some scene such as the shower scene, but I can see why this movie I consider to be a major classic. I knew that there was a remake of Psycho and I haven’t seen the remake but I really don’t think that there shouldn’t be a remake of this movie. The original movie should be and only be a original, no remake of this movie, just keep it as an original.
ReplyDeleteI think making remakes of classic movie is not I consider a thing to do, but the remakes changes from the original. But I think I know the reason why Hollywood makes remakes of classic. Either it’s to bring the classics to a modern day audience, so these movies can be remembered for all time and to bring to an audience that haven’t seen the classic can see it and be amaze by it. An example that I think of would have to be King Kong, that movie was remade like three time, and it may have changed from the directors but it brought back the classic to the modern day audience. That why I think why Hollywood remakes classics
With a classic like Psycho, a remake is unnecessary, especially a shot for shot remake. From looking at the trailer it looked like it was a look into the psyche of Norman Bates, which would be a good movie. But instead it is a color duplicate of the original, which is something we do not need.
ReplyDeleteRemakes in general are not a bad idea if done right, but unfortunately there are more bad than good. A good example of a remake is 3:10 To Yuma. The original spent the majority of the movie in the motel room and the conversations between the two characters. The remake spent the majority of the time on the trip between the towns that in the original took about thirty seconds of screen time. The story is essentially the same but the focus of the story is different and is almost a different movie. If the remake tells a different version of the story or tells a different point of view, it can be a good movie. But if it is made to be modernized like Bad News Bears or Disturbia (Rear Window) than it can just be awful. This is done to make money and an easy way to make a movie, because it had been established that that particular story can be successful. But it does show how good the original is sometimes. With regards to superhero movies, there is no one author with those. There is a creator, but there have been so many people who have written a Batman or Spiderman comic so taking it to the screen is the same, it is just another writer telling a story of a popular hero.
I believe that a film such as PSYCHO is a classic, and a perfect film of its form. That being said I believe that it should not be remade. Remaking a film is just copying what the director did years before but just making it more modern. This is wrong in my mind, and just a scheme to make money. Now I see that as time passes, audiences lose interest in older films. Such as the older PSYCHO, younger audiences these days wouldn't generally take interest in watching it since its in black and white and just has an older feel. So when they remake films, they integrate the modern technologies, such as color, and recast with popular celebrities to attract today's audience. Even though it might be a successful idea, I still believe that it is wrong to mess with a film that is such a classic and remarkable film.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion classic films like PSYCHO should be remade. I don't see any problem with it at all. Alfred Hitchcock PSYCHO is classified as one of the best and that is a great accomplishment.
ReplyDeleteWhen we talk about Hollywood and film-to-film remakes most of them are not better then the original piece of work. I think that most the remakes lack attention and quality that it's previous maker paid more attention to. Directors are always trying to look for a film that they can remake because they think that if it was a big success then, it would be a big success now. In doing so they fail most of the time. A film just isn't one of the best if it does good in the box office... for example Citizen Kane wasn't a big hit in box office and it is one of the most prized films of it's time. If directors make a remake they need to make it something special just like the original or the film will not be a success.
Remakes can go both ways. For instance, the remake of CAPE FEAR with Robert DeNiro is as good or better than the original with Gregory Peck. On the other hand, remakes like ROLLER BALL are useless and unnecessary. As is the current trend of remaking horror movies i.e. FRIDAY THE 13TH and HALLOWEEN, though more gory and better effects, whats the point??
ReplyDeleteI think directors who remake a film to pay homage to something that affected them profoundly is at times acceptable, but remaking movies strictly to make some scratch is ridiculous and i wouldnt waste my time or money. I pray that some arrogant, self absorbed directory doesn't try and remake THE GODFATHER or ANIMAL HOUSE. So in my opinion it goes either way, sometimes its ok, most times no. Directors need to get creative, rather than subjecting us to something that was profound in the 1970's, times have changed.
I think that its okay for the film to be remade. Though you aren't going to have the same feel as you would in the original. I think that if PSYCHO is remade, it will expose some that may have not been to interested in it before. Frankly, I never enjoyed watching black and white films, so I would have never seen this if I hadn't taken this course. If they remake it in color, then there will be more people who will be interested in it, and thus, more success for Hitchcock.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is okay to remake films. Essentially what you are doing is exposing a new age group to older films. Yes they may be perfect, but wouldn't you want to enthuse more people about watching them? I think that that is what newer film makers are doing. Think about the idea musically. If bands didn't use other bands styles, or rhythms, there would be absolutely no growth in the music scene, so I believe the same holds true for the film industry. Essentially what the film industry is doing is exposing and inspiring newer viewers.
I don't think that a film like PSYCHO should be remade, especially if they are going for a shot-for-shot remake. It just doesn't make sense. I've already seen that movie. If someone is going to attempt to remake a classic, or any movie, they should have something new to bring to the film. Making an almost exact copy of a film just seems lazy to me.
ReplyDeleteIt has been said that there are only seven basic plots and all the remakes out there are proving this. I think that remakes fill a basic necessity in Hollywood and that is the need for profit. It doesn't take as much money to remake a film as it does to make an original one. Take for example the recent rash of horror remakes. In the first part of 2009 there were two horror remakes: FRIDAY THE 13TH and MY BLOODY VALENTINE. Both movies costed less than $20 million and were able to make that back on their opening weekends. I'm not opposed to remakes, in fact, I embrace them. I love watching movies and just because it's not an original movie does not mean that I'm going to turn my nose up at it. For all I know the remake could be ten times better than the original.
I do not think it was a good idea to remake PSYCHO because like most people say it is a classic and perfect the way it is. The reasoning behind making the movie again is probably not compelling. I do not know the real reason why, but my guess is to get money and to draw interest to old films.
ReplyDeleteRemaking films all together is quite complicated. There are legitimate reasons for some movies to be remade and it is understandable in other cases. I do not believe it is plagiarism as long as the original creators are credited. The film 101 DALMATIONS was remade for what I to believe to be good reasons. It is live action instead of animation, which brings technology into the picture. As time goes by technology gets better, and this enabled Disney to recreate it in real life. Technology can also help to remake movies in a different time period with better depictions of the story. These would be films with major special effects and stunts. When it comes to superhero movies, THE INCREDIBLE HULK was remade because the first version was bad and the creators wanted to correct their mistakes. They wanted to pay homage to the classic comic. It is exploitation of someone’s successful art when movies are remade because they had good quality and had high profits. The film industry cannot be running out of ideas for movies. They just want to be secure in their investments. This means recreating already popular movies to bring in profit rather than taking risks with new inventive stories.
WHY ARE THEY DOING IT?
ReplyDeleteI don’t think any filmmaker should try to recreate the move PSYCHO. This movie marked the movie industry and history, becoming a big classic in Hollywood. When a movie is remade it loses its touch, it doesn’t really matter if the remake is “exactly” the same as the original, because it really wouldn’t be. It would lose details that the director wanted to be in the original film.
I think that Hollywood’s film-to-film remakes are just an easy way to make money, because many people go to the movies, and it doesn’t matter if the film is new or old, they just go. It may also be a form of plagiarism but I mostly think that it’s just an easy way to make money, because when Hollywood remakes a film, they already have the main idea set up for them. Which means that there’s less work to do with the film, which helps them create the film in less time and make more money?
I feel our perception of a remade film implies that you will be seeing the same film as before. Though it is true in a sense that it is the same story it isn’t the same work of art. It also depends on the on how renowned the film is. If it was garbage to begin with it wouldn’t be a problem to make your own interpretation of the story more appealing to the masses. If the movie is viewed to the public as classic cinematic gold, then the artist(s) must be prepared to face an already bias opinion of the movie and try to make the public appreciate it as much or more then it already was. I feel many fail because they try to “remake” the original film. It’s impossible. Times will always change and so will people. I fEel HW likes to make money so yeah they’ll put up for a lot of bad films to try and make that profit.
ReplyDeleteAfter viewing the trailers, I must say that I find it somewhat insulting for "Pyscho" to be remade like this. The trailer's basically is telling us that every single shot that made Hitchcock original work iconic was cloned from top to bottom and the only real difference is the cast. That it and from looking at the trailers, I think even for a direct to DVD release, this remake looks to be a waste in time, money, and talent.
ReplyDeleteThat aside, remakes in general should only be applied to !!!CERTAIN!!! science fiction films and only because the updates for special effects. They also should only be done in that style by a director and studio who would know what they were doing.
A good example would be "War of the Worlds" The very first film adaption of H.G. Wells book was done in 1953 and to me, I think it was the best one to date. Fast forward to 2005 where you have the Spielberg War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise, and two other independent, direct to video adaptions all release in the same month.
All three remakes have added special effects to the aliens/martians invasion was carried out from tripods, to crab like walkers. This may be quite impressive and all to see technology catch up with film making on how the aliens vehicles are portrayed, but it can't necessairly help advance the plot any further, and in almost all cases, it usually backfires resulting a flop in the plot and the film itself.
Other than that, I only see remakes as a way for Hollywood and some independent companies to make money off of popular ideas. Instead, the studios should just take certain ideas from remake and adapt it into something new just the way "Star Wars" and "The good, The Bad, and The Ugly" did on previously done films. Much better then recycling movies over and over again.
'Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination...And don’t bother concealing your thievery—celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: “It’s not where you take things from—it’s where you take them to." Jim Jarmusch said that and i really could not agree more. On one hand Micheal Bay should be slowly and brutally slain for what he has done, yet sadly many love him. I dont hate remakes as a whole, i usually support them due to the fact that someone may see a remake and decide to watch the real film...or not, its not really my problem. I do however know that people miss out on some of the best films due to bad dubbing or not reading subtitles, and sometimes this can help that. The Fly by Croninburg and The Thing by Carpenter are just a few that i think became much better on the remake.Also, i would love to point out that Hitchcock did a remake of his own film The Man Who Knew Too Much, and even The Maltese Falcon we know and love was a remake. My point is remakes can kick ass, unless people like Bay get to them.
ReplyDelete