Famously Bloch's Norman Bates is 40-something, fat, spectacled, not at all the slender, beautiful 20-something Anthony Perkins.
Opening next week, Girl on the Train is (I gather) rather similarly based on a twisty (unreliable narrator? split-personality?) thriller whose lead character, Rachel Watson is an alcoholic, fat and unattractive, not slender, beautiful, future-Mary-Poppins, Emily Blunt. Blunt keeps the alcoholism, of course, and will be not-pretty-for-her, grunged up, with unwashed hair etc..
Well, I like tricksy thrillers - I'm hoping for Gone Girl 2 - and assuming that the reviews aren't horrible (it's a slight worry that there aren't any laudatory early reviews yet) I'll see Girl On The Train soon, and will report on any further points-of-comparison with Psycho then.
Still, I'm already intrigued in a 'How the world has changed' way with how Emily Blunt is asked in every interview about the change to her movie-star-self from the book's Rachel Watson and how every preview article (the NY Times has has several at this point!) brings up the change from the book. I'm pretty sure that Psycho wasn't criticized on this front in 1960 and that Perkins wasn't grilled at every turn for not being fat and 40 etc. People are *much* more sensitive now about every darn thing and almost every writer likes to have an angle that announces their superiority to their topic.
Famously Bloch's Norman Bates is 40-something, fat, spectacled, not at all the slender, beautiful 20-something Anthony Perkins.
---
And while that IS famously, it remains a pretty spectacular "producer's decision" by Alfred Hitchcock. Most filmmakers likely wouldn't have had the literal vision to so change the character -- and thus to change the sympathy level accordingly. "Reversibly," Hitchcock had reportedly been thinking about casting Anthony Perkins in SOMETHING ever since he saw him play a mental-breakdown ridden ballplayer in "Fear Strikes Out."
---
Opening next week, Girl on the Train is (I gather) rather similarly based on a twisty (unreliable narrator? split-personality?) thriller whose lead character, Rachel Watson is an alcoholic, fat and unattractive, not slender, beautiful, future-Mary-Poppins, Emily Blunt. Blunt keeps the alcoholism, of course, and will be not-pretty-for-her, grunged up, with unwashed hair etc..
---
Well, I like tricksy thrillers - I'm hoping for Gone Girl 2 -
---
I've been thinking of "Gone Girl" and your regard for "Gone Girl" as this new movie approaches. Same general fall release date. Same "from the popular novel basis. Same tilt towards the female side of the story (I think.)
I regret that "Gone Girl" never got me as it got others but I had some real trouble with the plotline and how the villainess turned out to be just the wrong type for our times -- a woman who framed men for rape and assault and killed them using the same excuses. But perhaps that was daring in its own way.
In comparing either "Gone Girl" or "Girl on the Train" to Hitchcock, the thing to remember about Hitchcock was: he was ultimately a great ACTION SET PIECE director. Whether it was the plane crash in Foreign Correspondent or the berserk carousel in Strangers, or the crop duster in NXNW or the bird attacks or even the staircase murder in Psycho, Hitchocck had a sense of "bigness" and motion that is more in the wheelhouse(today) of the summer action blockbusters than the novel-driven "suspense drama" of "Gone Girl" or "Girl on the Train." These newer films only have Hitchcockian themes and premises in common with him, to me. But I'll be seeing Girl on the Train.
---
and assuming that the reviews aren't horrible (it's a slight worry that there aren't any laudatory early reviews yet)
---
Always notable, isn't that?
I'll see Girl On The Train soon, and will report on any further points-of-comparison with Psycho then.
---
Please do. As shall I if I see it.
I'm reminded of the phrase, "Every movie made since it has something of Psycho in it." Someone wrote that on the 50th Anniversary of Psycho in 2010.
---
Still, I'm already intrigued in a 'How the world has changed' way with how Emily Blunt is asked in every interview about the change to her movie-star-self from the book's Rachel Watson and how every preview article (the NY Times has has several at this point!) brings up the change from the book. I'm pretty sure that Psycho wasn't criticized on this front in 1960 and that Perkins wasn't grilled at every turn for not being fat and 40 etc. People are *much* more sensitive now about every darn thing and almost every writer likes to have an angle that announces their superiority to their topic.
---- ---
One wonders if today...that kind of change might draw some "outrage" in some quarters. We do seem to live in an age where everything is an outrage to somebody.
I suspect had Perkins replaced the heavy Norman in Psycho today...somebody would protest the change.
And am I to understand that more perfect casting for the part in " Girl on the Train" would be...Lena Dunham?
America culture is forever changed.
Tim Burton's got a new film out this week and he seems to have gotten HIS media firestorm by not properly explaining to an interviewer why his films have "nearly all white casts." Now, Samuel L. Jackson is in his new film, Billy Dee Williams was in Batman, and Planet of the Apes had the actor from The Green Mile(Michael Clarke Duncan) but...its not enough.
And am I to understand that more perfect casting for the part in " Girl on the Train" would be...Lena Dunham?
From what I've read, the book character sounds be both physically bigger and older (a divorcee) and more downtrodden/less chic/NYC than Dunham currently radiates. Mid-'90s Camryn Mannheim is kind of what I'm hearing.
Tim Burton's got a new film out this week and he seems to have gotten HIS media firestorm by not properly explaining to an interviewer why his films have "nearly all white casts." Now, Samuel L. Jackson is in his new film, Billy Dee Williams was in Batman, and Planet of the Apes had the actor from The Green Mile(Michael Clarke Duncan) but...its not enough.
I vaguely heard about this... I didn't realize the complaint had spread backwards from his new film to his whole filmography!
Girl on a Train is based on an international bestseller so it's natural that audiences bring preconceptions with them. The novel Psycho was relatively obscure, and there was no book tiein at the time of the release.
Which is standard modus operandi for Hitchcock, he preferred his films not be based on well known books (Topaz is a notable exception). After reading Psycho, he probably wished he could buy up every copy of the book in print to keep readers away.
Girl on a Train is based on an international bestseller so it's natural that audiences bring preconceptions with them. The novel Psycho was relatively obscure, and there was no book tiein at the time of the release.
Good point. Insofar as 'best-sellers' follow a different set of adaptation rules/expectations, to that extent there's no real comparison between Psycho's and GOTT's film receptions.
Anyhow, the review embargo has been lifted today....and the reviews are tepid so far (I'm just looking at summaries/first paragraphs to avoid spoilers). I'll wait for the elite critics to start chiming in but GOTT is starting to look like something that I'll be happy to watch cheaply at home in a few months. Damn.
reply share
Girl on a Train is based on an international bestseller so it's natural that audiences bring preconceptions with them. The novel Psycho was relatively obscure, and there was no book tiein at the time of the release.
---
Yes. Well noted. I recall when the movie Bonfire of the Vanities was released, those familiar with the book couldn't believe that Yank Bruce Willis was cast in a role that seemed tailor made(in the book) for Brit Michael Caine.
And Psycho sure seems to have been "low balled" in 1959. It was part of some sort of "Inner Sanctum Mystery Series" and evidently not highly regarded at all. EXCEPT in the hallways of the publishing company that printed it. AND by the New York Time mystery book reviewer, Anthony Boucher. Hitch read Boucher's one paragraph review of Psycho, read the book and...well, we know the rest.
---
Which is standard modus operandi for Hitchcock, he preferred his films not be based on well known books (Topaz is a notable exception).
---
Yes, with Topaz. As I've noted before, because Leon "Exodus" Uris was the author, his novel of Topaz got a full table display in book departments at department stores. I recall being shocked(even as a pre-teen) that Alfred Hitchcock was going to film one of THOSE kinds of books. Honestly I was expecting "Alfred Hitchcock's Exodus," some sort of all-star three-hour epic. Nope.
---
After reading Psycho, he probably wished he could buy up every copy of the book in print to keep readers away.
--- And isn't that the "urban legend"? That Hitchcock DID have his minions buy up as many copies of the book as possible? This became a scene in the movie "Hitchcock."
The question is: how would he do it? Send minions to every bookstore and department store in the US? Nope. Maybe all across LA and NYC. They were less populated, then.
I'm sure Mel Brooks was aware of this story because it inspired the very in joke in High Anxiety where Harvey Korman suggests buying up every copy of a newspaper.
The same idea was used in the current Florence Foster Jenkins, one of my favorite films of 2016 so far.
I'm sure Mel Brooks was aware of this story because it inspired the very in joke in High Anxiety where Harvey Korman suggests buying up every copy of a newspaper.
--
That's right!
In "Hitchcock," Hitchcock(Anthony Hopkins) actually asks Peggy Robertson to send "her minions" off to buy the books and Peggy says quizzically "my minions?"
In a subsequent scene Hitchcock's romantic rival(Danny Huston) notes that he can't find a copy of "Psycho" anywhere in LA.
I don't hold much faith in "Hitchcock" as too accurate about the making of Psycho, and I again ask(rhetorically): IF Hitchcock wanted all the copies purchased, how would he do it?
I suppose $500 per book store would easily buy up all the copies in 1960; maybe $50 per bookstore is more like it! (If, say, only ten copies were on the bookshelf.) Hell, $25 per bookstore.
But then "minions" would have to be dispatched. Perhaps 10 low level Paramount employees dispatched all over LA's bookstores? And New York's? Hit those two big cities and much of the "Psycho" printing would be gobbled up.
But who knows, honestly? More likely just another great "Hitchcock PR canard" likely created by the great man himself.
---
The same idea was used in the current Florence Foster Jenkins, one of my favorite films of 2016 so far.
--
I've read good things about it, particularly Hugh Grant's "comeback" performance as Streep's understanding husband. I take recommendations on "favorite films" from this board quite seriously. I will try to see it!
FFJ is a sweet and funny nostalgia trip to New York in the 1940s. Grant is terrific as the husband whose mission in life is to protect Florence from discovering that she's a horrible singer, such as, by buying out the newsstand when a paper contains negative comments. He should be a contender for BSA.
Grant is terrific as the husband whose mission in life is to protect Florence from discovering that she's a horrible singer, such as, by buying out the newsstand when a paper contains negative comments.
---
Ha. Yes, I've read some details on the plot, and it all sounds very unique...how to let a woman sing badly in public without her catching on that she sings badly.
--
He should be a contender for BSA.
---
I have a feeling it is in the cards. Much has been made of Grant's "being away for awhile" in general and not getting a good role like this in years. Its the old bromide,"It isn't the performance that wins the Oscar, its the role."
---
Shifting from the funny to the tragic(but such is life) on the topic of "buying all the newspapers":
In "Absence of Malice" (1981), newspaper reporter Sally Field decides it is OK to write about a woman's abortion as a "side bar" to her overall story on Miami corruption. I can't remember why she wants to write on the topic.
Anyway, the woman who had the abortion reads her morning paper , is aghast to read her private information publicized(she's a Catholic)...and walks up her entire suburban block collecting her neighbors papers in her arms to throw them away before the article can be read by her neighbors.
...And shortly thereafter commits suicide.
Well, I TOLD you I'd veer off. I suppose the moral is that any "gimmick" can be for to illustrate both bright and dark aspects of life.
It was rather a tradeoff with my significant o; we did the "guy flick" Mag 7 a few weeks ago and this one is more in the "chick flick" category. At least on a glance.
I had my own reactions to it without reading any reviews, but after I saw Girl on the Train, I went over to the Roger Ebert site(where today a small crew of critics together do the late Roger's work in his stead) and saw that the film had "One and a half stars." That's pretty bad. On the other hand, they gave "Mag 7" only two stars, and that's not much better.
Generally, my favorite films have rated three and a half to four stars in their reviews most years I pick them. Fargo and Sideways are in the four star area; action films like John Wick seem to top out at three stars. I think two stars is too low for the new "Mag 7".
I think one and a half stars is about right for "The Girl on the Train." Well, maybe two.
For watching it, I felt I was watching something along the lines of a "Lifetime movie"(and those have THEIR reputations) with a strain of "Oprah book club" thematics(most of the men in the film are threatening abusers, marital cheaters or disinterested ciphers), and only a so-so commitment to the rigors of the whodunit or the Hitchcock tradition(the latter sounds most nicely in how Emily Blunt, from the window of her daily NYC to the suburbs commute, sees various characters through...their windows.)
It makes "Gone Girl" -- and David Fincher -- and Ben Affleck -- look a whole lot better in that the plot, direction , and male acting in that earlier film which is more nuanced and in-depth than here. And the movies do share one element: a girl is gone.
---
Readers of the book would be well ahead of me, but the film elects to alternate between three women: Emily Blunt -- the "girl" on the train, a mousy, tormented usually drunk protagonist; Haley Bennett(more on HER in a moment), the sexy blond gal with the hunky-muscles husband) and a job as a nanny to -- Rebecca Ferguson, a pretty blonde with her own handsome but not so muscled husband(Justin Thereoux, the somewhat mysterious in real life husband of Jennifer Anniston.) How do all these women interrelate? Well, I guess that's spoilers.
Following the book(I guess), "The Girl on the Train" leaps all over the place in time -- flashbacks, flashforwards, now, then -- and confusion runs rampant. Given that Emily Blunt's alcoholic character suffers blackouts, key scenes collapse into a blur just as something major starts to happen, and the "mystery is solved" simply by Emily FINALLY remembering what happened. And then, we are shown what happened. Mystery over. Seems a bit of a cheat to me, but perhaps the template here is "Marnie," with Marnie finally recovering her suppressed memories of murder.
---
Ms. Blunt gets the central character and the most detailed characterization, and she's good at depicting a woman devastated by her husband's cheating on her and leaving her to move "the other woman' into his marriage and into their home. Its a painful role -- if one in which the things she does alternate from logical to ridiculous in their motivation.
But its Haley Bennett who is going to be the takeaway talked-about star here. I can only figure her SNL hosting job is only weeks away.
I think Haley Bennett is very pretty, and Hollywood just eats those young ladies right up when they get hot. (Margot Robbie is about two years ahead of her.) But Bennett has a problem: she looks a LOT, in certain shots, like Jennifer Lawrence. All the young folk on these boards are saying it, and I guess it is now a gag as well as a statement of fact, "you can get Jennifer Lawrence cheaper if you just hire Haley Bennett."
In The Magnificent Seven, Bennett wore red hair and no make-up and the Lawrence effect was more muted. In The Girl on the Train, Bennett goes blonde with make-up and sometimes, it is as if J-Law herself is in this thing. Though sometimes not -- Bennett's "unique" look is rather slit-eyed and Eastern European looking, in accord with the Russian call girl she played in "The Enforcer."
Can a new star be made to "echo" an existing one. I think its been done before. Marilyn Monroe was copycatted by Jayne Mansfield(low brow) and Kim Novak(high brow, once Hitchocck got her) and Novak maintained a star career of her own.
But often a "copycat star" doesn't make it -- John Gavin was no Rock Hudson; James Whitmore was no Spencer Tracy.
So here's what Haley Bennett does in "Girl on the Train" to separate out from J-Law: Nude scenes. And a lot of them. (Though with certain key body parts obscured.) Sex scenes. And a lot of them(though never for terribly long screen time.)
It is a calculated gamble for a young actress to start her career with nudity and sex scenes. But it can work. It did for Sharon Stone. It did for Jessica Lange(a few years in, in "The Postman Always Knocks Twice.") The trick is to establish yourself with the sexuality and then move on up in "serious roles." Sharon Stone eventually stopped doing nudity.
I think Haley Bennett has a few more movies in the can. The combination of "Mag 7" and "Girl on the Train" has launched her(though neither are blockbusters), we shall see.
In any event, its weird: you want to see Jennifer Lawrence in nude scenes and sex scenes? See Haley Bennett in "The Girl on the Train."
----
"Girl on the Train" has opened lower than "Mag 7," which hasn't developed into much of a hit. I expect both films will make their main money out of theaters-- DVD , cable, streaming, etc.
Given my description above of what happens on screen in "The Girl on the Train," you can see it was a pretty easy watch. But it seemed very slight, very minor in the plotting, and not in the Hitchcock wheelhouse at all.(One thing I noticed is how this film's scenes and build of suspense seemed haphazard and overlong; Hitchocck at his best made sure that every scene was tight and to the point and advanced the story.)
Its funny. In recent years, I have found action movies to like for the year(John Wick) and I have found Westerns to like (True Grit, Mag 7) ..but I haven't really found any thrillers to like. Whether well-regarded high-brow like Gone Girl or this week's Lifetime-ish "Girl on the Train," these newer thrillers seem to be so far removed from what Hitchcock did that I sometimes think the thriller is a dead genre "on its own." In some ways, Hitchcock's era died with Hitchcock. Not only did we lose any more films from him, we generally lost the stand-alone pop classics like Charade and Mirage and Marathon Man and Three Days of the Condor. Silence of the Lambs was 25 years ago!
But hope springs eternal. Here's hoping for someone, somewhere, sometime, to get what Hitchcock got -- tight plots, interesting scenes, Big Suspense and action set-pieces. All in one package.
The Girl on the Train ain't it.
PS. One welcome if somewhat familiar element in "Girl on the Train": Allison Janey as the tough, cynical world-weary police detective who susses everybody out. We just had this part in "Gone Girl" with Kim Pickens, but Janey is more middle-aged and worn, kind of a female version of JK Simmons or William H. Macy...and Janey has a great voice. I did note that Janey's female detective gets all the cop lines while her male partner says nothing and follows her around. The perks of the chick flick thriller, I guess.
It is a calculated gamble for a young actress to start her career with nudity and sex scenes. But it can work. ============================== It particularly worked for Emelia Clarke. GAME OF THRONES was her first big project and she did several nude scenes in season 1 (including the concluding cliffhanger). But in subsequent seasons the emphasis as been on her character's personality.
Still, I'm already intrigued in a 'How the world has changed' way with how Emily Blunt is asked in every interview about the change to her movie-star-self from the book's Rachel Watson and how every preview article (the NY Times has has several at this point!) brings up the change from the book. I'm pretty sure that Psycho wasn't criticized on this front in 1960 and that Perkins wasn't grilled at every turn for not being fat and 40 etc. People are *much* more sensitive now about every darn thing and almost every writer likes to have an angle that announces their superiority to their topic.
---
Returning with a stray "Psycho" thought.
Recall that Norman Bates wasn't the only character radically changed in the trip from novel to screen.
Arbogast, too.
In the book, Arbogast is a tall, tan, stubble-chinned, middle-aged Texan who always wears a Stetson hat that shadows his eyes, and smokes. (Bloch's novel starts Mary Crane out in Texas; hence a Texan private eye would tail her.)
I believe our friend here, telegonus, pegged the book's Arbogast as best played by Malcolm Atterbury, the farmer in NXNW and the sheriff in The Birds.
The change from fat/forty Norman in the book to thin young Anthony Perkins made a certain amount of 1960 box office sense...but what of the change to Arbogast?
We got no proof of nuthin', but the guess is that Hitchcock didn't want a "country Western" version of Arbogast in a movie filled with rural types. He wanted an urbane urbanite who would be well counterpointed with the rural locales of Fairvale and the Bates Motel. That said, it has been said that Joseph Stefano recommended Martin Balsam for the role, so it was Stefano who had the "viewpoint."
But maybe, during their early scripting discussions, Hitchcock told Stefano," I don't think I want the detective to wear a Stetson hat and to be from Texas. Let's make him more urban, for purposes of counterpoint." Stefano wrote that Arbogast and then tried to picture him. Enter Martin Balsam(getting a lot of TV roles and a few movies at the time).
Also interesting: I guess Norman had to be changed, and Arbogast(as a character part) could be changed, but not much could be done to Mary(ion), Lila, or Sam. They were written as pretty young people, the kind of square-jawed well-figured men and women who were to be the leads of tales on screen or the page.
Though I think Mary Crane was a brunette in the book.
PS Speaking of Overweight Norman: A brief point on fat shaming: Its a conflicted world. Reporters are pumping up the less-than-svelte Lena Dunham and Amy Schumer as sexy role models, on the one hand. But restaurant menus, more and more, have the calories listed next to the food. "Count your calories...but its OK if you are overweight." Just an observation. I realize calorie counts help with diets.