MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > The Key Difference Between Psycho and It...

The Key Difference Between Psycho and Its Sequels (and Its Remake)

posted 4 years ago by ecarle (14979)
30 replies | jump to latest

What is the key difference between Psycho and its sequels (and its remake)?

Well, one could say: "Psycho" is a classic masterpiece, and neither its sequels nor its remake, are. And one would be right.

But as a TECHNICAL matter, its quite simple, isn't it?

"Psycho" is in black and white. Its sequels , and the remake, are in color. (As are two TV productions each called Bates Motel.)

And the more you think about that, this is a BIG deal.

Consider: The Godfather is in color, and The Godfather Part II is in color, and they look practically identical in their color scheme of browns, golds, and reds. They came out less than two years apart, and almost look like the same movie in two parts (but hey, they are NOT -- Godfather II made less than half of Godfather I; audiences didn't like it the same at all.) Still...they look pretty identical, of one piece.

Consider: Alien is in color, and Aliens is in color. They came out 7 years apart, but tell stories only months apart(as I remember) and though "one is a horror movie and one is an action movie" -- they pretty much seem of a apiece.

Some say that Godfather II is better than the first, and that Aliens is better than Alien. I don't. But I do agree that these are examples of sequels made at the same(or better) level as their originators, matched as "A" films.

This didn't happen with Psycho. Psycho II came out too many decades after Psycho to really feel like it at all. And Hitchcock didn't make the sequel, he was dead by 1980. That said, while Coppola made both Godfathers, the Alien films had different directors, great ones both times (Ridley Scott, James Cameron.)

Psycho II had ...Richard Franklin. (He didn't make much else.) Psycho III had...Anthony Perkins(who turned in a very intelligent job, but who just didn't have a reputation as a director.) Psycho IV had...I can't remember.

But whereas directorial strength and quality can be argued among the "Psychos" what is NOT arguable is how Psycho stands apart from everything else made in its franchise wake in that black and white look.

And this: a lot of horror movies before Psycho WERE in black and white. Frankenstein, Drac and the Universal monsters. King Kong and The Thing. And the Great Works of William Castle.

But Psycho belongs perhaps MORE to the modern horror generation that it spawned: Rosemary's Baby. The Exorcist. Jaws. Alien. Silence of the Lambs. Psycho is the black and white 'odd man out" in modern horror.

And all the better for it.

A Psycho scholar named James Naremore once wrote that one of the reasons Psycho such a classic is because "no other movie looks like it." Not simply black and white cinematography, but the weird feeling of "an episode of 50s series television" projected in huge images up on the big screen.

Imagine this: after making "Psycho" in black and white in 1960, Hitchcock himself makes "Psycho II" in BLACK AND WHITE...in 1963. Psycho II might have been a classic, that way. Hitchcock's Psycho and Psycho II might have joined Coppola's Godfather and Godfather II as "a matched pair of masterpieces."

But of course, Hitchcock didn't operate in an era where MAJOR films from MAJOR directors got sequels. (Imagine if he did: Rear Window II, To Catch a Thief II, North by Northwest II, The Birds II...like Spielberg after him, he would have gotten even RICHER)

Or imagine this: Richard Franklin(Psycho II) and Tony Perkins(Psycho III) and whoever directed Psycho IV make them all in BLACK AND WHITE. At least the sequels would have been "visually as one" with Psycho. But Universal forbade it(Perkins actually requested to make Psycho III in black and white - he was a smart man and he "got it."

Oh, well, we have what we have and it makes "Psycho" all the more great. Those sequels, those TV series, that remake -- all in color. But "Psycho" and the ORIGINAL story of Norman and Mrs. Bates and Marion and Arbogast and Sam and Lila remains, eternally and alone, the only Psycho in black and white.

The only REAL Psycho.

[–] swanstep (2715) 4 years ago

Alien is in color, and Aliens is in color. They came out 7 years apart, but tell stories only months apart(as I remember)

Oops, nope. At the beginning of Aliens (1986) Ripley is recovered after being adrift in space for 50 years, time enough for her to be only qualified for minimum wage type work and time enough for the original Alien planet to have been settled with terraforming well-underway so that the surface atmosphere is now breathable by humans.

There have been a number of sequels other than Psycho 2 that have crossed the B&W/Color boundary:

The Hustler, Color of Money (I like this more than most do I gather)
Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead (but maybe that's more a reboot than a sequel)
Last Picture Show, Texasville (should have stuck with B&W)
Clerks, Clerks 2 (should have stuck with B&W)
Truffaut's 'Antoine Doinel' films start in B&W with 400 Blows and Antoine&Collette then blast off in color with the much loved Stolen Kisses & Bed and Board (the final film in the series, Love on The Run, is also in color but it contains so much flashing back to footage from previous films in the series that it hardly feels like an independent film, and it's not very good either).

High Noon also got a color sequel in a TV-movie with Lee Majors stepping in for Gary Cooper. (should have stuck with B&W)

I guess almost all the Universal Studios Monsters from Dracula to Creature from the Black Lagoon got sequels but all the notable ones kept their chills in B&W.

Fritz Lang made a bunch of sequels to Dr Mabuse:The Gambler, adding sound to the original's silence. They're all in B&W tho'.

[–] christomacin (4655) 4 years ago

I really liked Psycho II when it first came out, and thought the shovel scene in the parlor was hilarious. Unfortunately, as I've gotten older I don't like the "I'm your real mother" twist ending and find it diminishing the original film. Throwing in this twist didn't feel believable or earned, on top of not respecting the Oepedial overtones and lore of the original film. A smarter approach would have been to make ALL of the killings ambiguous as to who actually did the killing (all Norman, all Lila, or some Lila and some Norman). The ONLY killing in Psycho II we are certain was done by Norman should have been that final scene. The final scene with the "real mother" should have been shot in a more ambiguous way in order to suggest Norman might be imagining it, or that it was the final psychic break before resuming his psycho ways. I think the film might have had a longer shelf life if people were still debating which killings Norman did, or if he did any at all, prior to the parlor scene at the end. A missed opportunity, which is sad because the film had a lot going for it.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

I really liked Psycho II when it first came out,

---

A lot of people did. It was a hit...if not the blockbuster that the original had been. I think one reason that Universal made Psycho II is that they did research which found that a high percentage of people in 1982 KNEW Psycho as a movie or an event.

---

and thought the shovel scene in the parlor was hilarious.

---

It was...when Norman calmly hits her over the head, its like Bugs Bunny cartoon -- and then weirdly brutal as Mrs. Spool jerks up and down a bit in dying.

On the other hand, the very nature of this "shock comedy gag" bespoke of the inability of Psycho II to capture the tone of Hitchcock's original. Simply put, no matter what Hitchcock said, the original was NOT a comedy. It had humor around the edges, but it was dead serious about Norman and his illness.

---

Unfortunately, as I've gotten older I don't like the "I'm your real mother" twist ending and find it diminishing the original film.

---

I thought so then, and I think so now. Always called into question is the idea of : "How sacred is a great movie supposed to BE?" In the 60's and 70s, a lot of film literature arrived, and a lot of film professors arrived, and their goal was to move "the movies" to the level of art. "Psycho" -- mainstream though it was in release -- WAS art, of a sort, and for Psycho II to have Norman commit such a silly(if gross) final murder was a betrayal of the art of the first film.

But aside from the "slapstick murder" we have Mrs. Spool(an otherwise "bit" character in the movie) try to undo the entire legend of "Psycho" with a speech that is like a sillier version of the shrink speech in the original...no.

Psycho III went to the trouble of actually UN-DOING the silly twist of Psycho II...but by then, the sequels had lost any real weight in critical eyes.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Throwing in this twist didn't feel believable or earned, on top of not respecting the Oepedial overtones and lore of the original film.

--

Absolutely. Believable or EARNED. It turned a profound story into a TV movie. I rather find the Psycho sequels to be "fan fiction." Sadly, the final one(Psycho IV) was penned by Joseph Stefano, who wrote the original, but this time had no Alfred Hitchcock to guide him. Stefano posited Norman being released from the asylum, marrying his nurse and living in a suburban home. It made no sense and ran against all of the formality and terror of the original.

I find the screenplay of Psycho III -- by Charles Edward Pogue, who co-wrote Cronenberg's remake of The Fly in the same year (1986) to be much more respectful of and connected to the original, but the movie itself played like a cheap knockoff(despite the intelligent directorial flourishes of director Anthony Perkins...such as a moody shot of him sitting IN the parlor window looking out into the night, as John Huston's "Moby Dick" played on a TV in there.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

A smarter approach would have been to make ALL of the killings ambiguous as to who actually did the killing (all Norman, all Marion, or some Marion and some Norman).

--

Do you mean, "all Norman, all Mrs. Spool?" In any event, I recall the ambiguity to be at least interesting as we had it before the "reveal."

And with "Psycho III," I give them some credit: I wasn't sure if Norman was doing the killings ,and then it turned out , yes, all of them. Which sort of returned us to the original....any hopes that Norman was "normal"...were dashed, and he was revealed to still be the monster he always was. Even if maybe he didn't WANT to be.

---

The ONLY killing in Psycho II we are certain was done by Norman should have been that final scene. The final scene with the "real mother" should have been shot in a more ambiguous way in order to suggest Norman might be imagining it, or that it was the final psychic break before resuming his psycho ways. I think the film might have had a longer shelf life if people were still debating which killings Norman did, or if he did any at all, prior to the parlor scene at the end. A missed opportunity, which is sad because the film had a lot going for it.

---

Good analysis. I don't think the screenwriter of Psycho II had it in him to write something as complex as you are describing. The "twist" in the original Psycho was very simple in the stating, but very complex once you thought about it. Psycho II just couldn't deliver the same "final mystery."

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Alien is in color, and Aliens is in color. They came out 7 years apart, but tell stories only months apart(as I remember)

Oops, nope. At the beginning of Aliens (1986) Ripley is recovered after being adrift in space for 50 years,

---

HA! I'll stick to Psycho...

But lemme tell ya...when I first started on that post, in the back of my mind was "was she frozen for decades? Or was that in Alien III? No, wait, I think it was only a few months....oh, I'll just post it and take my chances." Too lazy to do the research or look at Aliens(which I own.)

--

time enough for her to be only qualified for minimum wage type work and time enough for the original Alien planet to have been settled with terraforming well-underway so that the surface atmosphere is now breathable by humans.

---

Aha. I sort of remember that now. I do remember that Aliens got the cover of Time magazine(back when that mattered for movies and anything else) and so I went to it believing: "Hey, this Aliens movie is a big deal, its not Psycho III(which came out the same summer.)"

The black and white issue aside(more on that below), I think I have always seen the two Godfathers and the two Aliens as perhaps the "most respected original/sequel pair-ups in movies." You COULD say that about Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back, too, but Return of the Jedi messed with that and now we have like 25 of those movies or something. And of course, both Alien and The Godfather went on to IIIs(not good enough) and more with Alien.

Having said that, swanstep -- I expect you may find a few more original/sequel pairups! The Color of Money, maybe?

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

There have been a number of sequels other than Psycho 2 that have crossed the B&W/Color boundary:

--

Aha, swanstep...here, too, "in the back of my mind" I knew that Psycho was not the only one. In fact, I was thinking of The Color of Money. THAT said, Psycho is perhaps the most MAJOR one...such a landmark classic, such a blockbuster and it takes place in a "black and white world" (from Phoenix to the open highway to the Bates Motel to Fairvale) that seems very much its own universe -- no color sequel could recapture it.

---

The Hustler, Color of Money (I like this more than most do I gather)

---

Its odd. I still think that Scorsese almost had a "lost decade" in the 80's between Raging Bull(with DeNiro and Pesci) in 1980 and GoodFellas(with DeNiro and Pesci) in 1990. From GoodFellas on, Scorsese was never "in trouble" as a director again. All his later movies were greeted as major works. But he seemed to flounder in the 80s. The King of Comedy is well regarded, but wasn't a big deal at the time(it wasn't considered in the same league as Taxi Driver or Raging Bull); After Hours was almost a little experiment; The Last Temptation of Christ was crippled in release and little seen.

As for "The Color of Money," it gave Scorsese a major studio(the new Disney), one major old star(Newman), one major new star(Cruise)...and put off somewhat of the air of a "sellout deal" for everybody. The Hustler is in black and white and made only one year after Psycho, but it is of the gritty, hard-edged "real" type b/w movie that was in vogue back then. And it is GRIM. Newman's thumbs are broken, the heroine dies, George C. Scott is pure evil, Jackie Gleason isn't funny.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

The Color of Money seemed(to me at least) far lighter than The Hustler(an 80's problem) and less important in its story. That said, it finally won Newman his Best Actor Oscar(an irony after Hud and Luke and The Verdict) and Cruise began his "career goal" of working with as many "old time prestige stars" as he could (Newman, Hoffman, Duvall, Nicholson, and Hackman, in that order, plus Voight.)

And this: Scorsese directed the "Color of Money" MTV video, cut to Eric Clapton on screen playing "Its in the Way That You Use it" as perfectly timed clips from the movie roll by -- and its a hip, finger-snapping powerhouse. You feel more cool just WATCHING it. (A blurry version is on YouTube.) Indeed, I personally enjoy the music video for The Color of Money more than the movie itself.

[–] christomacin (4655) 4 years ago

Do you mean, "all Norman, all Mrs. Spool?" In any event, I recall the ambiguity to be at least interesting as we had it before the "reveal."

Sorry, I got my sisters screwed up. Anyway, what I meant was "all Norman, or all Lila Crane". Mrs. Spool should have stayed at the diner. I make the same mistake with Mina and Lucy in Dracula movies - or were those two even sisters? I can't remember, he he.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Sorry, I got my sisters screwed up. Anyway, what I meant was "all Norman, or all Lila Crane".

---

Aha...and I got mixed up, too. Indeed, Psycho II suggests for some time that Lila is killing people in order to frame Norman.

--

Mrs. Spool should have stayed at the diner.

--

To properly hide the twist, this character is played by an unknown and is barely in the movie til the end, which I felt was rather a cheat. She's a "nothing" character played by a nondescript actress(I wish the actress no ill will, but there was no power to her at the end.)

--

I make the same mistake with Mina and Lucy in Dracula movies - or were those two even sisters? I can't remember, he he.

--

You got me there. I don't know. They were both pretty as I recall...

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead (but maybe that's more a reboot than a sequel)
Last Picture Show, Texasville (should have stuck with B&W)
Clerks, Clerks 2 (should have stuck with B&W)
Truffaut's 'Antoine Doinel' films start in B&W with 400 Blows and Antoine&Collette then blast off in color with the much loved Stolen Kisses & Bed and Board (the final film in the series, Love on The Run, is also in color but it contains so much flashing back to footage from previous films in the series that it hardly feels like an independent film, and it's not very good either).

High Noon also got a color sequel in a TV-movie with Lee Majors stepping in for Gary Cooper. (should have stuck with B&W)

I guess almost all the Universal Studios Monsters from Dracula to Creature from the Black Lagoon got sequels but all the notable ones kept their chills in B&W.

Fritz Lang made a bunch of sequels to Dr Mabuse:The Gambler, adding sound to the original's silence. They're all in B&W tho'.

--

I put all of your comments in one place again, above, swanstep, because it is a reminder that once "black and white was shut down" in Hollywood (around 1967 in the main; with only occasional allowances thereafter) it was a GIVEN that most sequels to black and white films would be in color. Universal is/was a very conservative studio about dollars and cents, but one wishes the studio chiefs could have seen their way clear to approve ALL black and white sequels to Psycho, just to maintain the look of the films. (Also, with Bernard Herrmann dead in 1975, two of the three sequels didn't have a trademark Herrman score, and Psycho IV simply re-cycled his original score over new scenes. Didn't work.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Other than Psycho, and with The Color of Money to The Hustler, I think the other "betrayal" up above is "Texasville" in color to follow up "The Last Picture Show." "The Last Picture Show" had power(in 1971 when b/w was out of favor), BECAUSE of its black and white cinematography, and doing the sequel in color rather "betrayed the world of The Last Picture Show." I've only seen Texasville once, but I recall its other problem was that Jeff Bridges was now the biggest star, so the story shifted to him, with Timothy Bottoms now minimalized.

One of the saddest things that studio "experts" have been saying -- at least since Van Sant made his color Psycho in 1998 -- is that young people (who are THEY, today") REFUSE to watch black and white movies.

Oh, well. The world does change...

[–] swanstep (2715) 4 years ago

Oh, well. The world does change...

Fincher's new film, Mank (about Hermann Mankiewicsz writing Citizen Kane/The American but apparently expands out into all the Cali Politics that surrounded Hearst in the '30s & '40s) is B&W baby. It's on Netflix from December but will be in theatres in early November.

Obviously Netflix got close to the Oscar motherlode with Roma in B&W a few years ago, but if Mank is good then it may finally be Fincher's & Netflix's time to take home *all* the statues.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Fincher's new film, Mank (about Hermann Mankiewicsz writing Citizen Kane/The American but apparently expands out into all the Cali Politics that surrounded Hearst in the '30s & '40s) is B&W baby.

---

Well just because "youth" won't watch B/W doesn't mean there is still an audience for it.

I want to see that. My kind of subject. Recall that Pauline Kael made a stink in the 70's with an essay called "Raising Kane" that contended Mank was the true "writing author" of Citizen Kane, and not Welles. This humiliated the still-alive-and-not-doing well Welles, and infuriated then-hot Peter Bogdanovich, who believed (yet again) that Kael was only guessing, had no proof, and didn't know what she was talking about.

So...once more into the "Citizen Kane" breach! (I think there was another HBO film on the same subject years ago.)

And I've always loved this one-liner attributed to Mank when the alcoholic writer threw up his fancy dinner at a hostess's fancy party:

"Don't worry! The white wine came up with the fish!"

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

It's on Netflix from December but will be in theatres in early November.

Obviously Netflix got close to the Oscar motherlode with Roma in B&W a few years ago, but if Mank is good then it may finally be Fincher's & Netflix's time to take home *all* the statues.

---

Hmm...an interesting raising of a topic, swanstep:

With re: the 2021 Oscars for 2020 films. A ceremony is scheduled(for way out in April when they used to have it, moved out from February.) To be televised.

But can they REALLY award Oscars this year?

Barely anything has been released to theaters first run. And I can tell you -- "Unhinged" ain't gettin' no nominations. (Tenet, maybe -- technical.)

So we shift to the "good movies" on Netflix. Mank shall be one. "The Trial of the Chicago 7" -- with an all-star cast including two Oscar winners and written/directed by Aaron Sorkin -- is already on Netflix, and IS one.

Interesting: whereas last year, The Irishman was made for Netflix but released to theaters first to qualify for Oscars(and to prop up Scorsese's ego), "Chicago 7" was produced for theatrical distribution and then SOLD to Netflix...which dutifully put the movie in theaters for a couple of weeks, too.

But still...can the Academy allow the 2020 Oscars to be drawn SOLELY from Netflix movies? Recall that last year, Spielberg -- a heavy hitter, no? -- began a "talk campaign" to ban Netflix movies from the Oscars -- they should be up for Emmys, not Oscars, he said.

Irony: even two years ago, in a "normal" Oscar year of releases, Netflix and Roma rose to the top of the nominee list. And "The Ballad of Buster Scruggs" by the Coens got two nominations.

Side-bar: "Buster Scruggs" is my favorite movie of 2018, and The Irishman tied for my favorite of 2019...so I'm in with Netflix. Indeed, because of my "default" regard for the well-written but rather shallow movies of Aaron Sorkin, I just might pick "Chicago 7" as my favorite of 2020, less seeing Mank.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

But on point: are there ENOUGH movies (and actors performances, and actresses performances) in release in 2020 to justify Oscars? I suppose there isn't a "minimum number of required releases" to have Oscars, and usually Oscar races come down to about five movies and their casts, anyway.

I'm thinking three things:

ONE: The Academy HAS to have a broadcast ceremony for 2020 films in 2021. It brings the Academy $75 million in lifeblood dollars and they are trying to open a new museum for the public soon(delayed by COVID?)

TWO: So how about this: SKIP giving awards to 2020 films(they could be allowed to compete in 2021), and make the 2021 Oscar broadcast about "the history of the Oscars." They could show clips from all the Best Pictures, and present "live(socially distanced) or on tape as many living Oscar winning stars and directors as possible.

THREE: The reason the Academy might NOT do a "history" show is that it would prove embarrassing to the meager output of Oscar movies TODAY.

We shall see.

Meanwhile, the "regular" 2020 movie season is close to being a total bust. James Bond got moved from Thanksgiving to Easter 2021 (thus a full year from its intended Easter 2020 release.) That leaves only Wonder Woman II(for Xmas) standing, along I think with some animated stuff. Black Widow and Top Gun and Fast and Furious have all been moved into 2021 -- and personally, I don't see things "back to normal" until 2022.

If Wonder Woman II moves...its over. If she stays...she'll either make giant box office or...not enough.

An interesting and dramatic year across the board, 2020 is...but what it has done "to the movies" is perhaps one of the great injuries of the year. Will they ever REALLY come back? To theaters?

PS. Psycho was in movie theaters this year...and with "new footage." Does that qualify it for an Oscar?

[–] christomacin (4655) 4 years ago

Psycho II suggests for some time that Lila is killing people in order to frame Norman.

Yes, that's true. I believe they should have shot it in a way that suggested any (or all) of the murders before Mrs. Spool's own death could been done by either Norman or Lila, and that we the audience are never really sure. Unfortunately, it was filmed in such a way that there HAD to be a third killer. This was a mistake.

******************

John Badham's 1979 Dracula made it even more confusing by switching out the Mina and Lucy characters.. and the Hammer films didn't seemed to interested in Mina or Jonathan at all, and even killed off Jonathan in the first ten minutes of "The Horror of Dracula". Then Coppola miscast the pair in his version and people REALLY didn't care anymore.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Yes, that's true. I believe they should have shot it in a way that suggested any (or all) of the murders before Mrs. Spool's own death could been done by either Norman or Lila, and that we the audience are never really sure. Unfortunately, it was filmed in such a way that there HAD to be a third killer. This was a mistake.

******************

Yes. All signs pointed to Mrs. Spool. Though recall that -- in a very silly bit -- the "innocent" Meg Tilly(in full Mrs. Bates drag) stabs Robert Loggia's shrink right through the heart "by accident." (Add in Lila and Mrs. Spool and one critic noted: "There are so many people dressed as Mrs. Bates in this thing, I half expected Hitchcock to show up in drag, too.") Psycho II is simply not a good script.

I must say that Hitchocck wasn't much of a fan of ambiguity, at least not in his plots. In Psycho, it could be ambiguous just how much Norman KNEW he was the real killer, but it WASN"T ambiguous that he WAS the killer.

--

John Badham's 1979 Dracula made it even more confusing by switching out the Mina and Lucy characters.. and the Hammer films didn't seemed to interested in Mina or Jonathan at all, and even killed off Jonathan in the first ten minutes of "The Horror of Dracula". Then Coppola miscast the pair in his version and people REALLY didn't care anymore.

--

On "style points alone," I liked Coppola's version and I liked the big fight at the castle at the end(with a Western character wielding his rifle against vampires.) That said, I'm just not well read enough on Dracula to know the story "in full and in detail." It is more complex than Psycho, that's for sure.

[–] christomacin (4655) 4 years ago

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

You're right, and the story was convoluted enough already without throwing a diner waitress into the mix. I see what you're saying about Hitch not being an ambiguity guy. However, I think it would have played better with a more ambiguous "psychological thriller/mood piece" like "Let Scare Jessica to Death" - even if it wasn't 100% Hitchcockian in that regard.

--

Good points. Indeed, Hitchcock rather eschewed too much ambiguity because he was rather a slave to big audiences. But there is an "equal" tradition of VERY ambiguous thrillers and horror movies that are great ones. (I'll offer: "The Shining." Were the ghosts real or in Jack's mind? And who let him out of that freezer? And what did that photo mean at the end?) Psycho II perhaps should have followed that lead.

---

They tried to do a "twisty" Hitchcockian ending and only succeeded in twisting themselves right out of business.

--
Ha. Great point. Psycho has a nice, clean, understandable twist. It doesn't have multiple twists or nonsensical twists. Psycho II ...does.

[–] swanstep (2715) 4 years ago

On "style points alone," I liked Coppola's version and I liked the big fight at the castle at the end(with a Western character wielding his rifle against vampires.) That said, I'm just not well read enough on Dracula to know the story "in full and in detail."

I read Stoker's novel a couple of years before I saw Coppola's film and I was amazed at how well the hallucinatory style of the final act of the movie (as we race back to the castle in Transylvania) captured the feverishness of that part of the novel (never filmed before to my knowledge). The in-camera wizardry of a lot of the FX shots was something to behold. Coppola's script overall added a lot of stuff and nonsense to Stoker but it did most of the big scenes and set-pieces of the novel, especially the ending, proud.

I can recommend Stoker's book as a real page-turner still. You'll finish it in an evening once you start. It's easy to see why it was a smashing success from the day it was published.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Indeed, Hitchcock rather eschewed too much ambiguity because he was rather a slave to big audiences.

---
I had time to think on my contention above, And I was thinking that perhaps the one major time that Hitchcock DID go for ambiguity was with...The Birds.

The ending, in the main...do the birds take over the world, or not? (They COULD.) But also the film-long mystery: WHY are they doing this? (To me the answer is the theme of the film itself: because, suddenly, they want to.)

The Birds did about half the business of Psycho, so perhaps audiences did not LIKE ambiguity.

A minor "ambiguity": In Vertigo, Madeleine entering the McKittrick Hotel and(I think) going to a room from which there was no way out, and yet she's not there when Scottie enters. But there, I think we all figured there was another exit somewhere.

No, for the most part, Hitchcock wanted things crystal clear for his audience.

Hence: the infamous psychiatrist scene in Psycho!

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

On "style points alone," I liked Coppola's version and I liked the big fight at the castle at the end(with a Western character wielding his rifle against vampires.) That said, I'm just not well read enough on Dracula to know the story "in full and in detail."
---

I read Stoker's novel a couple of years before I saw Coppola's film and I was amazed at how well the hallucinatory style of the final act of the movie (as we race back to the castle in Transylvania) captured the feverishness of that part of the novel (never filmed before to my knowledge).

---

I agree...I recall being dazzled by the hallucinatory style of ALL of the Coppola Dracula, but that climax was a "wowser"-- an action sequence with a cowboy on the "anti-Drac" team and also a call back to the kind of "matte painting cliffhanger" look that is immortalized in my mind for all time with the Mount Rushmore sequence in NXNW and later things like the cliff truck chase in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Unlike Scorsese and Spielberg, Coppola never seemed to sustain his auteurship past the 70s. The Godfather is the greatest achievement(it is HIS Psycho, HIS Jaws), then he got respect for The Conversation, a Best Picture for Godfather II(not entirely deserved IMHO; I would have picked Chinatown that year) and then the loss of the 70's except for Apocalypse Now at the very end(an epic, a dream, but kind of a mess -- with the hidden Achilles heels of non-star stars: Martin Sheen wasn't one, and Brando refused to be one.) Still, revered in its own way.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

And after that for Coppola? Experimentation(One from the Heart.) Failure to repeat past glory(The Cotton Club, Godfather III.) So-so films like Peggy Sue Got Married and that one with Robin Williams as the Man Child.

But for all of that wobbliness to Coppola's post 70s career, I remember being really entertained, excited and impressed by Bram Stoker's Dracula. Much as I CAN figure out what Hitchcock did with his camera and his effects "back in the day," I could NOT figure out what Coppola did with HIS camera and HIS effects in BSD.

Indeed, for 1992, three films jostle for competition as my favorite: Unforgiven, My Cousin Vinny(a comedy, yes, but such a GREAT one) and...Bram Stoker's Dracula. (I'll throw in Burton's Batman Returns because I like his work the best in that franchise; but No Joker makes for a hole.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

The in-camera wizardry of a lot of the FX shots was something to behold. Coppola's script overall added a lot of stuff and nonsense to Stoker but it did most of the big scenes and set-pieces of the novel, especially the ending, proud.

--

Ha, I kind of liked that "stuff and nonsense." I will also admit that the Star I Love to Champion That Everybody Makes Fun Of -- Keanu Reeves -- DID seem a bit miscast and surfer boy in his role, but that general likeability he has did help give audiences a "reality anchor" against all the surrealism.

Learning how much BSD DID use from the original novel is educational and interesting.

---

I can recommend Stoker's book as a real page-turner still. You'll finish it in an evening once you start. It's easy to see why it was a smashing success from the day it was published.

---

One of my "third act of life" plans is: to read more books. I used to. Nowadays I'm watching movies and other stuff on cable/streaming, or reading at the internet. But nothing beats a good book. I'm also intent on going back to the classics.

I'll put Bram Stoker's Dracula -- the book, not the movie--on my list.

PS. Coppola's other fine(if not great) late career achievement is his film of the John Grisham novel "The Rainmaker." From 1997 -- that great year that also brought us LA Confidential, Jackie Brown, As Good As It Gets, Face/Off, and that movie about a sinking ship. Matt Damon(properly cast for once) is the lead. It's Grisham's favorite of movies made from his books and it is old fashioned to the max -- big great cast(Mickey Rourke's brief flourish as a sleazy but smart strip mall lawyer is the highlight; Young Charlie from Shadow of a Doubt is a Sweet Old Woman here), courtroom twists and turns -- a movie "the way they used to make them." Recommended.

[–] swanstep (2715) 4 years ago

Indeed, for 1992, three films jostle for competition as my favorite: Unforgiven, My Cousin Vinny(a comedy, yes, but such a GREAT one) and...Bram Stoker's Dracula.

1992 had a lot of really good 'movies for adults' (and mostly studio, decent budgets, all in English):

The Player (awesome, Altman's back baby. Probably my fave at the time.)
Reservoir Dogs (What is this? Do I like this? I do.)
Husbands and Wives (an amazing experience seeing this opening weekend in the theatre in the Jewish neighbourhood where I lived, the same week that news of Allen and Mia Farrow and Soon-Yi broke!)
One False Move (Holy **** that opening!)
Crying Game (Had heard about the 'twist' but it turned out that the film was so much more than that - stunning, haunting)
Glengarry Glen Ross (Brilliant, brutal, opening scene for the ages. Rest of film almost as good. Jack Lemmon awesome.)

All of these films were fun to see with groups of people. You'd come out arguing about them in good ways, and completely psyched about the possibilities of movies. Good times.

[–] L1 (1316) 4 years ago

They just shrivel and tehy stop mattering.
Thats it

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

I do consider both Aliens and Godfather II to be better than the films they are sequels to

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 4 years ago

its pretty obvious and not cause of "black and white"

Pyscho is an actual artistic piece that pushed boundaries made by one of the greatest directors in the world. Hitchcock was an auteur and made incredible films.

sure they would have been "visually one film" with their color, but with everything else nothing alike and not one film at all. the editing, the shots, the mise en scene.. everything is different

[–] janelsenor (2044) 4 years ago

I enjoy Psycho II more than the original.