MovieChat Forums > Ray > Replies
Ray's Replies
Makes perfect sense.
[quote]If i recall he made the first move by striking out with his sword ![/quote]
Yes, but it was her who announced it's finally time to start a fight -- by saying "You and I have unfinished business" and getting her sword ready. And at this moment she was perfectly ready and waiting for him to attack her -- and he knew she was ready. So he knew she would certainly deflect his first strike.
Bill obviously didn't want to fight -- that's why he was deliberately drinking booze in order to be defeated by the Bride as soon as possible.
Sounds like a good idea for a YouTube video: "VENERAL DESEASE prank GONE WRONG!!!".
And they really ended up spending some quality time together.
And just like the Psycho 1998 experiment, the remake of Funny Games was also a failure. It failed to emulate the feeling of the original -- the chemistry was different, that elusive "movie magic" was gone despite re-creating the original film practically shot-for-shot.
[quote]On the DVD of Van Sant's Psycho -- released in 1999 (the movie was from 1998), there is a documentary in which a debate is taken up as whether or not it was a good thing to remake Psycho. Some older film scholars think the idea is terrible ("Why do you re-paint the Mona Lisa?")[/quote]
If I were to compare Psycho to Mona Lisa, then I would say the 1998 version looks like Mona Lisa with unnecessary colorful makeup applied to her face, red nail polish and breast implants... with orange umbrella in her hands.
But despite my endless critisisms towards Van Sant's film, I totally get your fascination with it, ecarle -- because I'm fascinated with the remake as well! Yes, I hate it. Yes, it's sort of painful to watch it. But I keep rewatching it -- because it's a fascinating experiment. This movie is not good -- but it makes the original look even more powerful than it seemed before.
It's a rare cinematic failure that makes me want to analyze it shot by shot, line by line.
And the more I analyze it, the less I want to call it a "shot-for-shot" remake. It's not really. What makes me keep saying that? It's the fact that Psycho 1998 is not the only "shot-for-shot" remake in film history -- there are other films like that, so we can compare Van Sant's daring experiment to other movies of this kind.
The finest example of a shot-for-shot remake ever made is probably the 2007 film Funny Games starring Naomi Watts and Tim Roth. It's an American remake of a highly-controversial Austrian film of the same name from 1997. What's interesting is that the American version was made by the same director -- and it does seem to be a 100% shot-for-shot remake.
You don't have to try hard in order to find differences between the two Psychos (they are too obvious and too many to count) -- whereas the two versions of Funny Games are very identical. They are like twin brothers. Psycho 1960 and Psycho 1998 are half-siblings at best.
[quote] ... many lines were cut, a few lines were changed, a grand total of TWO lines cut from Stefano's original 1960 screenplay were restored ("Bed? Only playground that beats Las Vegas") and ...well, something Norman says to Marion in Cabin One, I can't remember it now.[/quote]
Yes, the remake features an extra piece of dialogue between Norman and Marion in Cabin One:
- You have something that most girls don't have.
- I have?
- There's not a name for it, but, uh, it's something that puts a person at ease.
- Well, thank you again.
This piece of dialogue comes right between Norman asking her to call him "Norman Bates" instead of "Mr. Bates" -- and him offering her to have dinner with him.
[quote]So he made his version in color, but tried in every other regard to match the original "shot for shot, line for line."[/quote]
ecarle, I'm curious to ask you something. Do you ever feel that it's not exactly accurate to call Van Sant's version "a shot-for-shot" remake? The more I hear people calling it that -- the more differences I notice every time I watch the remake.
My point is, if Van Sant's main intention really was to make an identical film, a "carbon copy" -- then he probably could have done much better, because the two films are simply not very identical, they are too different from each other. Right now I'm talking purely about technical differences like mise-en-scene, editing, camera movements, camera positions. In some of the scenes it feels as if Van Sant was purposefully avoiding to match the shot to Hitchcock's vision. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but the problem is that every such difference that I happen to notice -- is disappointing, i. e. pales in comparison.
You probably would think that I also must take issue with those infamous inserts (involving a sheep and a naked woman), but that's not the case surprisingly -- I don't mind them really. As well as the scene where Mr. Bates masturbates -- sure, the movie could have done without that, but I believe many viewers blew that out of proportion. The film has way more outrageous issues -- such as Anne Heche's acting in numerous scenes for example. Seriously, it often looks as if she's hugely delighted and thrilled to have committed a crime -- without having concerns about possible consequences. She seems to be taking it as a silly little adventure. Is she meant to actually have some mental disorder, is she supposed to be a psycho of some sort? Well, then it makes sense.
It's interesting how people still collect VHS releases.
@MizhuB. Sad story, indeed. But you know, many young people really love vintage films. From the 1990s...
Thank you for your insight, highly appreciated. It does look crazy.
ecarle, I feel obligated to say you were perfectly SPOT-ON when you had to say this:
[quote]Anne Heche's portrayal of Marion Crane rendered not only the Marion Crane scenes BEFORE the shower scene, but the SHOWER SCENE itself...very "un-powerful" given how important these scenes were in 1960....largely due to Janet Leigh's performance leading up to the shower scene.
I've always felt that the Heche performance most pales before the Leigh performance on the reading of this line:
"Sam...let's get married!"
In Leigh's reading, it is a sudden outburst of desperate begging...very "1960" perhaps -- but emotional and painful. Marion Crane is around 30, unmarried, poor and "at the end of her rope'(Stefano's term.) Getting married is a big deal to her. (And it if is not such a big deal to women in 1998 -- maybe Psycho should not be made in 1998.)
In Heche's reading, the line is almost playful as if she is saying this:
"C'mon, Sam, what the hell, let's get married, whaddya say, huh?" And when Sam declines, Marion moves on. No big deal.[/quote]
You deserve thunderous applause for this. Very true. This "Sam, let's get married" line is one of those moments where the two films differ the most. In the original this line is crucial -- in the remake it means nothing. Nothing at all really.
<<< I am uneducated on the concept, but is not "camp" a subdivision of gay-themed presentation? >>>
Not necessarily. The term "camp" has several meanings, one of them being "something considered amusing not because of its originality, but because of its unoriginality". It can also be synonymous with "banal", "vulgar", or "artificial". All of those apply to the image of Vince Vaugn in a dress and a wig with a knife in his hand. Painfully campy. Not in a fun way, that is.
First and foremost I'd like to express my strong belief that Van Sant's remake is definitely [i]a crime of passion, not profit[/i].
A famous quote comes to mind: "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". That was the driving force for Van Sant, I'm sure -- to honor Psycho. And he chose the ultimate way to do that: by making his own Psycho. He dared to "experience making Psycho" -- to borrow from you.
I very much agree with your notion about Psycho being the "the experiment that succeeded by failing". I'm grateful this movie was made -- it's an invaluable experiment that showed how elusive "movie magic" really is: even if you use the same script, the same score, the same locations, the same anything -- you just can't step twice in the same river.
The remake was doomed to fail. But let's be honest here: it could fail less badly. WAY LESS badly. It's amazing just how flawed it turned out to be -- considering all the great talents that were involved with this film. Gus Van Sant is a really strong filmmaker, of course. I had a chance to meet him once and he was kind enough to sign my copy of My Own Private Idaho and The Elephant. Haven't asked him any questions about Psycho, though I was tempted to. But I haven't -- as I suspected it could be a touchy subject to him.
Clearly Psycho was his passion project and I would never believe he was ever happy with the final product. How could he be? Almost everyone was miscast -- and he certainly knew that, he's not blind. But it was a major Hollywood production, so I believe he wasn't able to spend more time looking for the right actors -- especially considering that practically half the Hollywood turned down the major roles.
[quote]But I wonder when Sharon gets killed. Early in the movie? Mid-way? Near the end?[/quote]
What makes you think Sharon Tate will be killed off?
I have a strong suspicion that Tarantino will go down the "revenge fantasy" route with this film.
Sharon Tate was gruesomely killed in real life, but at least she would probably get a chance to "get revenge" on the big screen 50 years later. Perhaps she will even be a survivor in this movie. Think about it: that would be a fascinating cinematic gesture and a passionate way to honor the memory of Sharon Tate.
<<< ... and revelations of QT personally spitting in Uma's face for a Kill Bill scene and somewhat strangling Diane Kruger for her Inglorious Basterds death... >>>
Those aren't revelations. It's been widely known since 2004 that QT spat on Uma while shooting the spitting scene. As well as the fact that QT strangled Thurman with a chain. The fact that QT used his own hands to strangle Diane Krueger was another widely known piece of trivia that was made public at the time Inglorious Basterds was released.
It's funny how people were okay with all these things for so many years and loved his movies -- but the minute it became trendy to call QT the biggest mysoginist on Earth, the public suddenly woke up to realize he needs to be crucified, boycotted and forever get raped in hell by the female devils.
Of course QT was unbelievably dumb to pressure Uma into driving that car. Uma was dumb too when she said yes. Two idiots got together: the Greatest Filmmaker to Ever Grace This Planet -- and his Muse Who's Willing to Risk Her Life for Fame.
And now we're supposed to hate on one of those idiots and cry for the other.
The fact that critics voted Vertigo the Greatest Movie of All Time makes perfect sense to me really. It is the "artsiest" film in Hitchcock's filmography obviously. It's visually innonative. It had a significant influence on cinema. It's a mystery full of elusive clues (critics love that; Citizen Kane is also a mystery for example). It explores the theme of voyeurism -- which is the very nature of cinema itself. Of course they chose Vertigo.
They would never choose Psycho -- because of its transgressive subject matter. Even though it was way more influential and groundbreaking than Vertigo. A film that tricks us into sympathizing with a deranged serial killer -- a diabolical trick performed so marvelously -- could never be chosen as the Greatest Movie Ever Made by Sight and Sound critics.
I have a strong suspicion that Tarantino will go down the "revenge fantasy" route with this film.
Although Sharon Tate was gruesomely killed in real life, at least she would probably get a chance to "get revenge" on the big screen 50 years later.
Perhaps she will even be a survivor in this movie. Think about it: that would be a fascinating cinematic gesture and a passionate way to honor the memory of Sharon Tate.
I believe it was just good makeup and proper lighting. Notice that we never see a close-up of her face in this scene. Also, the scene is B&W and rather dark.
Yes, it's curious that it's always Candie who gets asked to do something -- while the other two girls do nothing but look dumb and pretty (all three of them are experts at that, aren't they?).
Candie, Sandie and Mandie -- these are their names.