Unboxing the Psycho Legacy Collection Deluxe Edition
https://youtu.be/M0XG6Y2qwEA
Did we just miss the window in 2019? I still have no idea how regular people can get it.
Did we just miss the window in 2019? I still have no idea how regular people can get it.
--
Nor I...I can't believe that Universal in America won't try to put together the "uncensored" version of Psycho for a DVD release(though I dunno, are DVDs even a thing anymore? ...for streaming release?) At a minimum they could put together one of those set-ups where people can order a "special pressing" of this DVD "on demand." (I have ordered a few movies that way -- "Hotel" of 1967 for one.)
Another issue: how can Universal PROMOTE the uncensored version in the US? "What's in it for them?" I suppose they could run the film on Turner Classic Movies with some sort of special introduction....
---
All that said..what a fun 26 minutes of film. I sort of my felt my "Psycho history" flashing before my eyes: Hitchocck/Truffaut and the Psycho murder photos that terrified me in 1968 when I browsed the book at a bookstore(suddenly a movie that was "taboo" to me was right there on the page.) 1974: Richard Anobile's magnificent "picture book" of Psycho(the cover shot of Leigh in the shower is very "violent" with a knife added to the shot) -- for 8 years(until 1982 and VHS), this was really the only way to have "Psycho in your home all the time." 198-something: the "Cinefantastique" cover story on PSYCHO (Hitchocck in the shower) with Stephen Rebello's "dry run" for his seminal book of several years laster. Yes, other things went on in my life in those decades(and I saw 100s of other movies), but Psycho, every few years or so, got moved up to the fascinating front of the line with each of those landmark books and magazines. (Note: "Cinefantastique" actually did a cover story first on THE BIRDS and it was equally in-depth, though not by Rebello.)
Also:
A great artifact in that Psycho Deluxe set is the reproduction of the 1960 exhibitor's booklet "The Care and Feeding of Psycho" or whatever it was -- with instructions by Hitch on how to "sell" the movie with its twist ending("Please don't give away the ending...its the only one we have") and its "no entrance after it starts" routine. Its a reminder of how FUN movie distribution and promotion used to be. The era of William Castle(all the time) and Alfred Hitchcock(just this once.)
I note that the big box for the whole set gives us the BateS Mansion and the silhouette of Norman Bates as they were for PSYCHO II -- Norman a rather boyish and pleasant shadow of a man -- whereas the promotional photo for Hitchcock's original gave us an ominous "Frankenstein's monster" shadow of Norman on the hill next to the house...much scarier all around.
Hey: all the way back in Hitchcock/Truffaut(1968 is when it hit US bookstores) among the photos of the shower scene, there she is: Janet Leigh in the CENSORED version, showing all that back and side in one photo(that one photo evidently launched a lot of research in later decades -- where was THAT shot?)
And: how about that shot (in the book about Psycho and the shower scene) of Marli Renfro's bare buttocks over the tub at the end of the shower scene. It looks real from the movie shoot, not staged. I can believe that Hitchcock shot that and put it in so as to bargain with the censors -- "I'll take this out if you let me keep the other stuff in."
Also: I love how the unseen pair of hands -- flipping through Hitchcock/Truffaut and the Anobile Psycho picture book, has to work "upside down" from where he is to find the "censored" photos. He's pretty skillful at it.
And finally(for now): Yes, to be a full "Psycho legacy collection," the box set has the sequels and the busted 1987 pilot "Bates Motel." I'm sorry , I just find all those other movies and TV shows as inferior to the much-studied original(just a review of the "every shot is a classic shot" array of shots from Psycho in the various books proves that.)
I give Psycho II points for actually being a small hit, and Psycho III points for more accurately reflecting the original than II, but..they aren't classics. Not by a long shot. Psycho IV is a cable TV movie.
Interesting: I guess no "Psycho legacy" collection will include Van Sant's Psycho? "Too close to the bone," perhaps?
The Legacy Collection does include Van Sant's version. I'll have to get into reading your takes on the books that were included as well as the extra books the reviewer had. It's too much for me to get into at this point. Those seem really interesting for the Psycho buff. I have to admit this movie has been scrutinized like it was under a microscope. Anyway, I thought it was interesting that the reviewer basically got the collection for the uncensored version. For me, I'd be interested in watching Van Sant's version again and the others as well as the extra goodies.
However, I would agree the motive to get the collection is the uncensored version. I think the reviewer meant that was basically it in a nutshell and I think he paid around $150 to get it imported from Germany + s&h. Somewhat of a steep price, but I'd pay that for an unopened US Blu-ray version with the uncompressed mono soundtrack if it was released. Just get the obstacles cleared so you can do that Universal and Hitchcock heirs. It could be a limited release.
Since last we spoke I did find a way to get the uncensored version using BitTorrent. I now can watch it when I want in HD on my PC or notebook, but don't know if the sound is the uncompressed mono. Later, I was able to show it on my projection TV, but the results were not satisfactory.
I think I agree with the viewer that the uncensored version is the best version and I think he said he's seen it around 90 times which is more than twice I've seen it. There was an extra shot he showed from one of his books that was a picture of Marli Renfro's ass in the shower scene. I do not know if this shot was censored, too, or ever shot. Here is a key stabbing scene of her -- http://nightswimming.hautetfort.com/media/01/01/3542988896.jpg. You can tell those stomach and hips anywhere ;) -- https://fittestchickinchristendom.blogspot.com/2012/09/killed-by-death.html
The Phillip Skerry book, Psycho In The Shower (2009) is available from Amazon and is readable/searchable on their website with 'Look Inside'. The alleged out-take of Marli Renfro's body in the shower (a funny shot to my eyes, one that's hard to believe was ever *in* any cut of the film - could it be a miscellaneous on-set photograph of some sort?) is on p.257.
shareThanks for this. That one shot as presented in the review is enough to make a Hitchcock fan do a double take. It made me laugh and I almost fell out of my chair sitting at the computer. If you have the book, is it included like a scene or does the Skerry book present it as something else?
shareI don't have the book, but, seriously, Amazon is your friend: you can use the 'Look Inside' feature to read around the image.
shareThe Legacy Collection does include Van Sant's version.
--
Ooops. I didn't look closely enough, I guess.
And that's a "major add." For the truth is, IMHO, that Van Sant's Psycho is perhaps the ONLY other movie of merit that "came from" Psycho. (The cable "Bates Motel" series is perhaps the other major creation; it had its legitimate following).
Van Sant's Psycho was from an "A list director"(at least then, he'd just been Oscar nommed for Good Will Hunting) with an auteur reputation(in indies), and managed to attract relevant stars like Julianne Moore and William H. Macy(Viggo Mortensen's stardom was just around the corner.) AND: it was a remake of a great story as filmed by a great director, "Shot for shot"(almost.)
I dunno, maybe "Hitchcock" should be added to the collection sometime. NOT an A-list director, but CERTAINLY A list stars in Hopkins, Mirren, and ScarJo.
I'll have to get into reading your takes on the books that were included as well as the extra books the reviewer had. It's too much for me to get into at this point.
--
Well, those books arrived in my life over five decades...it might take awhile to catch up.
There are numerous books on Hitchcock and his filmography, but it seems like Psycho can take up its own bookcase.
The Anobile picture book (magic, it was, in 1974 to have the whole movie to look at on paper.)
Rebello's book, which really got into detail on the production (like Marion's murder being filmed in December of 1959 and Arbogast's in January of 1960, the movie was MADE on the cusp of two great decades.)
Janet Leigh's book on the film(her writing is sweet and quaint; she has a co-author to help write passages, and she got the only "interview" with John Gavin ever, on the film. Its, like maybe, three quotes.)
Raymond Durgnat's "A Long Hard Look at Psycho" - great detail on the movie itself(script versus movie all the way through) and an opening passage where people share "the first time I saw Psycho in 1960."
Phillip Skelly's book on "Psycho and the Shower Scene." He got near-final interviews from Janet Leigh and Joe Stefano before their deaths, MORE "first time I saw Psycho recollections", and indeed the book DOES linger on the shower scene, its making, its impact. (Great photos of first time audiences in '60 freaking out as they watched the film.) This book has "no time for Arbogast," but its pretty good.
And David Thomson's rather wacky "The Moment of Psycho," in which the learned and eccentric writer on film takes a shot at the movie and comes out "not a total fan." There are no photos in the book(just one on the cover of Hitch directing Janet in the shower); its all "Thomson essay" for his fans. He likes what he likes(all of Marion's story), but he does NOT like (1) the movie after Marion's car sinks (less Arbogast) and (2) the idea that "mother takes over Norman" -- he simply doesn't BELIEVE that's what really happens in the story. He simply thinks Norman is the always the killer, as Norman BUT ...he doesn't think that Perkins sweet performance "matches up" with the savage killings. (Uh...that's a contradiction, isn't it?)
Its a wacky theory on Thomson's part -- as if Hitchcock didn't go to all that elaborate trouble to set up THAT twist. And Thomson does other wacky things in the book -- imagining the film if Marion's mother, instead of her sister, arrived to investigate. Or giving Sam a hometown Fairvale girlfriend who was there all along. Thomson writes, "these may seem shocking ideas, but screenwriters come up with them all the time". Yeah Dave -- and they get dumped and fired.
I have to admit this movie has been scrutinized like it was under a microscope.
---
It really has, hasn't it?
I like to amuse myself with a memory of reading a preface to a book about horror movies. The preface talked about Psycho, had three photos(shower murder, staircase murder, mother's skull face) and then the author said "And that is all we will say about the great Psycho, possibly the most analyzed film of all time."
This was in 1979! Decades more of books, articles and films of Psycho were well on their way.
I suppose the question is(always) WHY is Psycho so studied? Oh, I think because it is a short film, and with enough suspense and blood to STILL be relevant today even as it is pretty much "a film school on film."(Montage, camera movement, composition, camera angles, music, acting, writing, editing -- all on display at their best.) Honestly, THESE films have been given nowhere near the study of Psycho, nowhere near the books: GWTW, Casablanca, Citizen Kane...even The Godfather(which is violent and shocking like Psycho.)
--
Anyway, I thought it was interesting that the reviewer basically got the collection for the uncensored version.
--
Well, a true collector will "spare no expense" to have a "compleat collection." The uncensored Psycho perhaps has less than a minute of "new" footage. But without it, one doesn't have "the compleat Psycho."
---For me, I'd be interested in watching Van Sant's version again and the others as well as the extra goodies.
---
Well Van Sant's Psycho illustrates my point(taken up by others) that a remake is better on balance than a sequel. A remake - like a revival of a play -- at least takes up the "great work of art" that is the original. A sequel too often tries to continue a story PAST its perfect ending...with terrible results.
Sometimes.
But sometimes, sequels have been truly great, yes?
Godfather II
The Empire Strikes Back
Aliens
...all three of those films involved the original filmmakers and/or total studio support, they were A movies.
Interesting, though. It seems that even in those cases, only the first TWO movies really "clicked." Godfather III, Return of the Jedi and Alien III just weren't up to their predecessors.
Meanwhile, back at Psycho: Universal rather treated Hitchcock's great original with contempt. Psychos II, III and IV don't have much in the way of budgets(Psycho was "low budget" except when Hitchcock wanted it not to be) , and don't have very good scripts. It was nice to have Perkins back, but he was kind of "damaged goods" by the 80's; he didn't look, sound, or act the same. And with each sequel, the supporting cast was less and less well known.
The corollary to the bad Psycho sequels were the bad Jaws sequels: 2 had Roy Scheider and was a hit, but just not very good(the absence of Shaw and Dreyfuss crippled it, the cast of kids killed it). 3-D was awful. 4 was laughable. (Spielberg had no ownership rights to Jaws for sequels and made sure that never happened again once he had power.)
"Package collections" of Godfather movies and Star War movies and Alien movies are rather A-list -- the sequels aren't THAT bad. "Package collections" of the Psycho and Jaws sequels, well -- a bit embarrassing. But if you are a fan of Psycho and Jaws(I sure am), its nice to know that they were WORTHY of sequels. Topaz, not so much.
Since last we spoke I did find a way to get the uncensored version using BitTorrent. I now can watch it when I want in HD on my PC or notebook,
--
Well, that's cool. You are more technical and enterprising than I am!
--
but don't know if the sound is the uncompressed mono.
--
I wouldn't know myself. I DO know that even way back in the 70's when I first saw Psycho on TV, I was impressed by the richness and clarity of the soundtrack -- how it sounded when--- he actors spoke, the sound effects, and of course, the music. That soundtrack has only gotten better over the decades.
---
Later, I was able to show it on my projection TV, but the results were not satisfactory.
--
Hmm...well, some better version of the uncensored version awaits..
----
I think I agree with the viewer that the uncensored version is the best version and I think he said he's seen it around 90 times which is more than twice I've seen it.
---
He's seen the UNCENSORED version around 90 times? I think I just read that wrong.
I can only guess for me, but I think I decided at one time that it has been once a year since 1970, so that's...coming up on 50 times. Of course, I've seen PARTS of Psycho even more times, thanks to VHS, DVDs and YouTube.
North by Northwest is the same. I watch Psycho and NXNW each year like other people celebrate Thanksgiving and Xmas.
As for other favorites, I'd figure that The Godfather, The Wild Bunch, Jaws, Dirty Harry and LA Confidential get almost annual plays by me. Just not 50 years worth.
--
There was an extra shot he showed from one of his books that was a picture of Marli Renfro's ass in the shower scene. I do not know if this shot was censored, too, or ever shot. Here is a key stabbing scene of her -- http://nightswimming.hautetfort.com/media/01/01/3542988896.jpg. You can tell those stomach and hips anywhere ;) -- https://fittestchickinchristendom.blogspot.com/2012/09/killed-by-death.html
---
Weird, isn't it, how that "stomach and hips" shows up during the shower murder. This area is south of the breasts and north of ...well, you know. Its a precision shot of "nudity without nudity."
John Gavin told Janet Leigh for her book about his coming onto the Psycho soundstage to watch the shower murder being filmed(It said "CAST AND CREW ONLY" and almost forgot he had privileges to go in) and remembers a nude woman talking to Hitchcock. He was nonplussed.
Which reminds me: Burt Reynolds said that Angie Dickenson told him how to relax when filming nude scenes: do like she does: walk out of the dressing room nude and just act natural, talking to everybody, and they'll get used to you, and you'll get used to being nude on set. Easy for HER to say.
Meanwhile , some actresses doing nude scenes have required their male director and male crew to strip down to their boxers and briefs to FILM the scenes. Funny, I think.
Since swanstep takes up the "buttocks photo" in the Skerry book in another post there, I'll got there next.
The Phillip Skerry book, Psycho In The Shower (2009) is available from Amazon and is readable/searchable on their website with 'Look Inside'. The alleged out-take of Marli Renfro's body in the shower (a funny shot to my eyes, one that's hard to believe was ever *in* any cut of the film - could it be a miscellaneous on-set photograph of some sort?) is on p.257.
--
Its an odd shot, the positioning of the camera and the body don't feel "cinematic," but it looks like its from 1960 and the same film stock as the rest of the shower scene. Its a real mystery to me. It might have been a photograph sought by Hitchcock as a "memento" of his trying to beat the censors.
The Van Sant got this shot -- overhead on Anne Heche's body double, buttocks and all, crashing over the tub to the floor -- and personally I think it rather ruins the "abstract" quality of Marion's death fall to the floor, which in the 1960 film is accomplished by that great close up of the shower rings snapping loose and a quick flurry of close-ups of the fall(two? three?)
As for Hitchcock, he finally got his buttocks shot in Frenzy, TWICE -- the female body that floats up on the Thames at the beginning is butt-side up, and a later shot of Anna Massey's body double(after lovemaking) is a rear view nude.
Another "weird" Psycho photo is in Janet Leigh's book(which also has a previously unseen shot to me of Norman in the cell, shot on set.) This photo -- in black and white and rather looking like 1960 - is of a woman's hand gripping a shower curtain, with blood on the hand and wrist. Its a "staged" recreation of Marion's final death grip, with more blood. I wonder if this shot was taken and rejected as too gory for promotional purposes.
Ah, Psycho and its "continuing little mysteries." Who TOOK those photos? And WHY?
I don't remember Van Sant's Psycho as much as Bates Motel; I've seen it once and then bits and pieces of it. The tv series had much more impact even thought it was different from Hitchcock's version. Really didn't have much to do with it while Van Sant's is pretty much the same shots except set in 1998. Maybe Van Sant's actors just do not have the same impact. He has the music from Bernard Herrmann and the same screenplay and writers as Hitch. It could be if you're going to try to imitate the master, then do it right which is hard to do. Thus, it's better to do something different.
I don't think Hitchcock is Universal's property.
I don't remember Van Sant's Psycho as much as Bates Motel; I've seen it once and then bits and pieces of it.
---
Makes sense. Van Sant's Psycho doesn't get much TV play -- I rarely see it in rotation on cable or streaming. But it had a very A-list cast(less Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche in the leads; nobody more famous wanted to take on Perkins and Leigh) and probably the biggest budget of any "Psycho"-related movie ever made(including HItchcock' s original.) I personally like it for what it tried.
---
The tv series had much more impact even thought it was different from Hitchcock's version.
---
It sure was different. You know, I've seen -- partially or all the way through - a lot of cable and streaming series, and its funny how much Bates Motel matches THOSE templates rather than that of Hitchcock's film. Bates Motel is a level down from the best written series(The Sopranos, Mad Men, The Wire, Breaking Bad, Deadwood), but in the ballpark of the more "basic" such series (The Americans, Ozark, Bloodline, Yellowstone.) Its the writing that makes a great series. Bates Motel doesn't have it. Bates Motel is rather "middle of the road" to me. LIke those other "mid-range shows" it has a diverse cast with pretty young women and stubble-bearded young men, some teenagers for that demographic, a few older actors to keep that end covered, some romantic subplots and -- violence, lots of violence.
---
Really didn't have much to do with it while Van Sant's is pretty much the same shots except set in 1998. Maybe Van Sant's actors just do not have the same impact.
---
No, they don't. Vaughn(so funny and/or tough elsewhere) is all wrong both for a Perkins type and "on his own"(he's just too big and menacing from the get-go -- Marion and Arbogast should be intimidated by him.) Anne Heche mugged and played the part "goofy" much of the time, and in a boyish short haircut she lacks Leigh's sensuality(Marion is supposed to be out of Norman's league, not here.)
Julianne Moore -- who hated her part but liked the money - - makes Lila a much tougher, meaner person than Vera Miles. Its off-putting. Viggo Mortensen was too much the hayseed and too romantically interested in Lila this time(a look, an arm around her shoulder.) William H. Macy as Arbogast gave a good "verbal performance"(clear, authoritative line readings like Martin Balsam) but was just too wimpy to be believable as a private eye.
One Hitchcock scholar noted that Van Sant's Psycho proved that it WAS important who played Hitchcock's roles, and that Hitchcock did NOT "finish his movie when he finished his script." Other elements than the script made Psycho great(though it IS a great script, that's for sure.)
---
He has the music from Bernard Herrmann and the same screenplay and writers as Hitch. It could be if you're going to try to imitate the master, then do it right which is hard to do. Thus, it's better to do something different.
--
Well, I for one am glad that if we had to have a Psycho remake, it was pretty faithful (unlike remakes of The Manchurian Candidate and Charade, which threw much of the originals out.) It was an experiment, said Van Sant, to see if you could duplicate a 1960 movie in 1998(but in color and with a different cast and different HOUSE.) It was, says I, "the experiment that succeeded by failing." In other words, it worked because we saw that you CAN'T duplicate a 1960 movie in 1998(at least not a "landmark shocker" but only IN 1960)...nor the public reaction to it.
---
I don't think Hitchcock is a Universal property.
--
You are correct! I forgot that. Fox Searchlight. Moreover, Universal wouldn't allow Fox to use much of Hitchcock's original in Psycho at all -- re-staged scenes were kept to a minimum and script lines were re-written if spoken(we HEAR, in a studio screening room, an alternate version of the Sheriff's House scene; he says "Well, your private detective must have been in the cups to think the mother was still alive"). The famous Psycho house is seen for only about 30 seconds.
I think Hitchcock's survivors didn't like the film's portrayal of a sometimes unhappy marriage between Hitch and Alma, a near-affair on Alma's part, and too much on Hitchcock's drinking. So Univeral wouldn't cooperate.
>>Well, I for one am glad that if we had to have a Psycho remake, it was pretty faithful (unlike remakes of The Manchurian Candidate and Charade, which threw much of the originals out.) It was an experiment, said Van Sant, to see if you could duplicate a 1960 movie in 1998(but in color and with a different cast and different HOUSE.) It was, says I, "the experiment that succeeded by failing." In other words, it worked because we saw that you CAN'T duplicate a 1960 movie in 1998(at least not a "landmark shocker" but only IN 1960)...nor the public reaction to it.<<
I just watched a clip from Gus Van Sant's version. I think it's because we've seen Hitchcock's version so often that Van Sant's version just doesn't stand up. If it was on its own, then it may have been okay as a slasher movie, but still not a masterpiece.
https://youtu.be/kda1MaihJC4
The shower scene looks okay, but still doesn't have the same impact as the audience will compare it since they are the same shot.
https://youtu.be/HMQgFmWhg4M
The shower scene looks okay, but still doesn't have the same impact as the audience will compare it since they are the same shot.
--
One odd thing about both murder scenes in the Van Sant: the famous "Herrmann screeching strings," which are really LOUD in the original ...are rather muted and quiet here. It may be that my TV isn't sophisticated enough to play the strings loudly , but honestly -- particularly when Arbogast gets it in the original -- the strings are loud enough to make you scream and jump without reference to what's happening on screen.
Not so in the Van Sant.
Oh, okay. I thought it was my pc speakers. Also, the soundtrack seems to be off.
shareETA: I found the rest of the youtube Van Sant's episodes one can watch (click on menu on the right) -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKiJ-M4Jg5w&list=PLN5sfBOjXmYh28IVMQ8sonppP1OjMpPR8
shareYou are so spot on in this description. Maybe that's why Van Sant's version never got the air play. I admit that Hitchcock players made his movie so great. Both Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh make this movie believable no matter how many times I watch it. Even the character actors are great from that Arizona rich guy, real estate man, the sheriff, CHP patrolman, used car salesman, and more. I'm fooled into thinking it's those people in real life every time.
I sorta think Van Sant must've pictured this as a homage version, but if I were him, then I would've realized my vision wasn't working. I would ask the actors then how they envision the scenes. He had no screenplay writer nor board person. Then maybe Marion is someone younger and not as formal. The hotel is a cheap looking motel and not downtown. She has a hunk lover, but he's kinda stupid so she has to be the breadmaker. There may be more nudity. Swearing. More slasher violence. It could end up as a schlock film, but a coherent, decent one. For example, we can see that Arbogast is hurt and can't move and he's aghast talking to Norman's mother. He realizes what he's up against, but the audience doesn't. She is more calm in her voice and questions him why he's in her house. She plays with the knife in her hands. However, Arbogast asks the wrong question or somehow sets her off and she does him in. Arrrrggghhh!!!
Maybe that's why Van Sant's version never got the air play. I admit that Hitchcock players made his movie so great. Both Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh make this movie believable no matter how many times I watch it.
---
I've referenced from time to time that several great directors (not Hitchcock) were on record as saying "to get a good to great movie, casting the parts right is key." And that Stanley Kubrick of all fellows, said that The Godfather had the best casting...he had ever seen? Of all time? I can't remember.
Psycho certainly had the greatest casting of Hitchcock's career in Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates. Stewart and Grant and Bergman and Kelly had star careers and other great roles -- but for Perkins, it WAS Psycho.
It transformed that actor as few others had been transformed and as Hitchocck told Perkins, "Tony...you ARE this picture." If Norman isn't someone we like or are drawn to...the twist falls apart(as one critic noted, we don't WANT Norman to turn out to be the killer, so we resist the solution), the story becomes incredibly coarse and cruel.
Hitchcock always and only wanted Perkins for his Norman(even as Norman was obese and forty in the book) -- but he picked Janet Leigh from several candidates. Her "history" was right -- being menaced in a desolate motel with a weird manager(Dennis Weaver) in Welles' Touch of Evil. She'd been treated rough in that movie, in The Naked Spur, and in The Vikings -- so it wasn't quite so shocking as it would have been for fellow candidate Shirley Jones, for instance. Leigh's great chest and sexy voice made Marion sensual indeed -- but Leigh found(as Heche could not) a certain controlled calmness. She had to act without saying a word in a lot of Psycho -- and that's hard.
Even the character actors are great from that Arizona rich guy, real estate man, the sheriff, CHP patrolman, used car salesman, and more. I'm fooled into thinking it's those people in real life every time.
---
I think perhaps this is Hitchcock's greatest supporting cast, too -- one movie earlier he had a LARGER supporting cast in North by Northwest -- about 30 of them, including the boss on Man From UNCLE(Leo G. Carroll) and the Chief on Get Smart(Ed Platt) -- but the 8 or so in Psycho are an indelible part of that movie's bleak, weird America-gone-rancid flavor.
Two miscastings in the Van Sant: Pat Hitchcock's mousy, unattractive secretary becomes Rita Wilson's over-sexed floozie-type. John Anderson's craggy, Lincoln-esque father figure of a used car salesman becomes a young surfer-dude type.
And this: most of the supporting cast in Psycho is composed of men. They rather surround and intimidate Marion in her part of the story, that's where most of them are. But Sheriff Chambers and the psychiatrist loom as authority figures in the second half(scenarist Joe Stefano wanted to write the psychiatrist as a woman, but Hitchcock overruled it -- perhaps because of the sexual information imparted?)
Between Perkins and Leigh at the top, and all that great support in "short parts" beneath them, are the three other major players in Psycho.
Its ironic: two of these players got star billing -- Vera Miles and John Gavin. But the best of the three players had to settle for support billing: Martin Balsam.
In fact, Balsam had to share it with John McIntire: "Co-starring Martin Balsam and John McIntire."
Hollywood pecking order. McIntire gets three scenes in the movie versus all those other "one scene" players.
In the Van Sant, William H Macy got star billing as befitted his recent Fargo Oscar nod...and Arbogast's rightful status as a lead.
--
As for Miles and Gavin, famously Sam and Lila -- a team, a unit, "containers of stress" as some critic put it...they are fine in the picture, right for their roles both as a matter of star casting(Perkins and Leigh are the stars) and cast FOR their parts. Psycho is, top to bottom, properly cast. Even if Hitch might have preferred Stuart Whitman for Sam and Kim Stanley for Lila.
Psycho certainly had the greatest casting of Hitchcock's career in Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates. Stewart and Grant and Bergman and Kelly had star careers and other great roles -- but for Perkins, it WAS Psycho.
It transformed that actor as few others had been transformed
---
I would like to elaborate here on a few other actors who "transformed" that I can think of.
Dick Powell. His face is powdered with rouge as a sickly sweet goodie-goodie in a Busby Berkley musical in the 30s, and he was a singer in the main. Came the forties as a more rugged private eye in "Murder My Sweet," suddenly Powell was tough and cynical. He's wry and edudite in "The Bad and the Beautiful."
James Stewart. Though he made the Western "Destry Rides Again" in the 30s , it took until the 50's for boyish, gangly Stewart to "toughen up" in a series of Westerns where he could be ornery, rageful, and downright psychotic(while actually CRYING in a couple of those.)
Tom Hanks. For much of the eighties, Hanks was handsome enough for young male leads with a touch of goofiness. Silly comedies in the main -- as some critic wrote, "Tom Hanks was pretty much equal with Steve Guttenberg in the 80's."
But then came the Oscar-nommed depth of the literal boy-man in Big, and then -- after a few years in the wilderness -- Hanks came alive in the 90s. Back to back Oscars. Serious roles. He played an astronaut in Apollo 13. He played a WWII soldier fighting the goriest WWII ever shown in Saving Private Ryan. He played Depression-era hitman who scared other men in The Road to Perdition. Etc.
I've referenced from time to time that several great directors (not Hitchcock) were on record as saying "to get a good to great movie, casting the parts right is key." And that Stanley Kubrick of all fellows, said that The Godfather had the best casting...he had ever seen? Of all time? I can't remember.
---
I'd like to elaborate here that while some Hitchcock movies had the best casts in movie history...he sure did settle for less in a number of movies.
Bob Cummings as the lead of Saboteur. (Though I thought first-billed Priscilla Lane was a sexy little number, myself. Really pretty. But Barbra Stanwyck turned it down.)
Joel McCrea and Laraine Day in Foreign Correspondent. McCrea reportedly had dinner with Gary Cooper and some friends one evening and thanked Cooper for his career: "I get the roles you turn down." So it was here. McCrea seemed to have risen in stardom over the years(Sullivan's Travels, FC)...but he wasn't top tier. Gable turned this down, too. And Laraine Day was in for first choice Claudette Colbert.
John Hodiak in Lifeboat(Hitchcock wanted Henry Fonda -- how about James Cagney on loan from Warners, says I.)
Farley Granger and Ruth Roman in Strangers on a Train(so Robert Walker could steal the whole movie.) Hitch wanted William Holden for the Granger part.
John Forsythe in The Trouble With Harry (Grant or Stewart could have played the role, Hitch wanted William Holden.)
Tippi Hedren in The Birds and Marnie(imagine those films with a trained actress with a history and maybe Oscars in her past: Grace Kelly, Eva Marie Saint, Lee Remick, Shirley Jones.)
Frederick Stafford in Topaz (the only "perfect" actor was Yves Montand, but he turned it down.)
Jon Finch, Barry Foster, and Barbara Leigh-Hunt in Frenzy. (Hitch wanted Richard Burton, Michael Caine and Glenda Jackson -- would stars have made this great grotty story BETTER? I'm not sure.)
Bruce Dern, Karen Black, William Devane, and Barbara Harris in Family Plot(Hitch wanted Redford, Pacino or Nicholson for the Dern part, Reynolds or Scheider for the Devane part, and Faye Dunaway for the Black part.)
While I think that Bob Cummings and Frederick Stafford are weak leads in their Hitchcock films, it is just possible that the Frenzy unknowns and the Family Plot lesser knowns WERE perfectly cast for their Hitchcock films. As Hitchcock said, "if you don't have to cast stars , you don't have to compromise the casting.")
I think that Barry Foster and Alec McCowen in Frenzy are perfect representations -- charismatic even -- of their dark/light characters.
And I think that William Devane -- in syrupy, sexy voice and handsome/ugly look -- is as great a villain as Hitchcock ever gave us. Replacing the even lesser Roy Thinnes, who was cast and fired. Devane wasn't star casting -- but he was great casting.
>>Two miscastings in the Van Sant: Pat Hitchcock's mousy, unattractive secretary becomes Rita Wilson's over-sexed floozie-type. John Anderson's craggy, Lincoln-esque father figure of a used car salesman becomes a young surfer-dude type.<<
This is what I didn't get. Van Sant must've realized that the movie wasn't what he visualized shooting it scene for scene. It wasn't a masterpiece so why try to compete against what was perfect? Why didn't he change it up? He did change the scenes a little, so why not change it completely? I mean the actors were not going to be like Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh. Why not let them develop the characters the way they saw them? For example, Vince Vaughn seems more stronger as mother. He could be hit by a golf club and still recover in time to get dressed and get the knife.
I'm not sure what scene he shot first, but after looking at the what he got wouldn't you think he would change the shots? The screenplay works, so why not change the scenes? Let the actors do their parts the way they want to. Maybe that would give the director some new ideas on where and how to direct the movie. I would aim for more of a slasher type movie with more action as well as the drama. The way it was shot scene for scene people could not help compare with what they saw before. Even the critics couldn't help but compare.
This is what I didn't get. Van Sant must've realized that the movie wasn't what he visualized shooting it scene for scene. It wasn't a masterpiece so why try to compete against what was perfect? Why didn't he change it up? He did change the scenes a little, so why not change it completely?
---
Well because that wouldn't fit "the experiment," I guess.
But in making certain radical casting changes , he DID go against the original.
Oddly, sometimes the re-casting is pretty close: Chad Everett as Cassidy has the same seedy sex predator vibe; the highway cop is a robotic dead ringer(the hat and glasses help)
swanstep, I think, made the point that "casting against the original" may well have been PART of the experiment. Give us a big beefy Norman, a boyish Marion, a wimpy Arbogast -- what happens?
---
I mean the actors were not going to be like Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh. Why not let them develop the characters the way they saw them? For example, Vince Vaughn seems more stronger as mother. He could be hit by a golf club and still recover in time to get dressed and get the knife.
---
Er...I think Viggo Mortenson gets hit with the golf club -- an odd change from the original in weapon. In the original , Sam was clonked with what looked like an ornate piece of Victoriana in line with the mansion and parlor. But...a golf club? Norman plays golf -- or hits balls out by the swamp? Maybe somebody left it behind in the room.
As for Vince Vaughn being a bigger, stronger Mother -- yes, that's part of his miscasting. In the original, was irony in the horrible murders being committed by a "little old lady" who turned out to be a spindly young man. Where did he GET that strength? From his psychosis, some have written -- "the superstrength of the superinsane."
BTW, I think Vaughn's size dictated a new type of dress for Mother -- not the tight and flowered gray dress of the original, but a fluffy, flowing, satin thing -- more like a robe. It wasn't nearly as iconic as Hitchcock's "Maude Frickert" gray dress and bunned hair look.
I sorta think Van Sant must've pictured this as a homage version, but if I were him, then I would've realized my vision wasn't working.
---
Well the "homage" goal was pretty precise: to remake a movie with EXACTLY the same script and EXACTLY the same lines, and EXACTLY the same scenes in EXACTLY the same order as the original.
But given that Van Sant may have indeed realized that "his vision wasn't working" Van Sant's Psycho ended up being an experiment in which HE was the subject -- the guina
pig, if you will.
In other words, Van Sant couldn't live up to his own goals. While the scenes in Psycho are in the same order as in the original, lines are often removed(I guess Van Sant didn't like them) or changed ("If it doesn't jell, it isn't aspic" becomes "if it doesn't jell , it isn't jello"). Arbogast's murder followed the general plan of the original, but Van Sant had the man stand still and get slashed THREE times on the face(forming an "X" around his eye), added a POV shot of "shadowy mom" following him down the stairs and -- inexplicably -- inserted abstract shots of a blindfolded half clad woman and a calf in the middle of a road -- to the murder.
And he REMOVED one entire scene from the original : the church scene.
Yes, Van Sant "could not leave well enough alone" with his Psycho, and the film becomes a study of his own creative mind as much as Hitchcock's.
Then maybe Marion is someone younger and not as formal. The hotel is a cheap looking motel and not downtown. She has a hunk lover, but he's kinda stupid so she has to be the breadmaker. There may be more nudity. Swearing. More slasher violence. It could end up as a schlock film, but a coherent, decent one.
---
Well, this would have been a "Psycho" remake more along the lines of the many other remakes we have today: "loose" not too connected to the original.
As landmark as Psycho was for sex and violence circa 1960, it could have been more sexual and violent in 1998. Recall that Hitchcock told Truffaut he thought the opening scene with Leigh would be sexier if she were topless, "her breasts touching his bare chest." Well yeah, sure (Hitch liked to talk naughty a LOT to Truffaut in that book.) Came 1998, Anne Heche still wore a bra for the scene -- but Viggo Mortensen showed off his bare buttocks. Still, they had a chance to stage the scene with Hitchcock's "erotic" idea -- but they didn't.
---
For example, we can see that Arbogast is hurt and can't move and he's aghast talking to Norman's mother. He realizes what he's up against, but the audience doesn't. She is more calm in her voice and questions him why he's in her house. She plays with the knife in her hands. However, Arbogast asks the wrong question or somehow sets her off and she does him in. Arrrrggghhh!!!
---
Now that's a scary idea for a different "finish" when Arbogast lies on his back at the bottom of the stairs. Its the kind of lingering, realistic scare scene that is done sometimes today. When you say "he realizes what he's up against, but the audience doesn't" your idea is that the fallen Arbogast realizes he's facing Norman in a wig, but WE can't see that?
Its an interesting concept.
The truth of the matter is that 1960 required that Arbogast be "below the frame" when the final stabs come down, and I had personally thought the 1998 version would drop the camera down and "allow" us to see the knife going into Arbogast's chest while we watched him scream. I attended the 1998 version wondering -- all through it -- if Van Sant would go for more gore like that.
But for the most part , he did not. Macy's Arbogast dies below the frame just like Balsam's did. Still, Macy gets slashed three times in the face, and two bloody wounds are shown in Heche's back --the remake was a BIT more violent than the original...
I'm not sure what scene he shot first, but after looking at the what he got wouldn't you think he would change the shots? The screenplay works, so why not change the scenes? Let the actors do their parts the way they want to.
--
I think you got a split decision , here.
The scenes weren't changed so as to maintain the "shot by shot, line by line, scene by scene" experiment.
But many of the actors DID do the parts they wanted to. Rita Wilson's Caroline, Vaughn in the parlor scene(much more menacing than Perkins, with less delicacy), Heche in general.
A key acting change:
In the opening scene in the original, Janet Leigh's Marion desperately blurts out "Sam..let's get married!" Its a sudden breakdown from her "cool" way with Sam, a raw declaration of her desperate desire for marriage and "respectability."
Heche --perhaps not wanting to look so desperate for marriage in 1998 -- says the line with a more flippant tone, like:
"C'mon, Sam...let's get married, it would be fun, whaddya say?" (She doesn't SAY that, but its her TONE.)
Maybe that would give the director some new ideas on where and how to direct the movie. I would aim for more of a slasher type movie with more action as well as the drama. The way it was shot scene for scene people could not help compare with what they saw before. Even the critics couldn't help but compare.
--
Van Sant said "I decided to remake Psycho because of its bare bones, simple quality. I think something like North by Northwest would be impossible to recreate in its complexity."
True. The almost flow-chart like simplicity of Psycho is one of its claims to fame. No fat on the thing -- though there's a lot of 'padding" up front with Marions' theft and journey. But modernly, some film scholars like that part the best.
My point is this: its hard to think of any way TO significantly change Psycho.
Famously, the film only has two murders. What if one or two more were added? Perhaps the sheriff gets killed when HE goes out to question Norman. Or Lila DOES get killed in the fruit cellar and Sam arrives too late -- but still captures Norman.
It all seems like an assault on a great classic.
For that's another reason Psycho HAD to be like the original. Van Sant was moving about as high up the "greatest movies list" as anyone had ever gone in remaking Psycho. Casablanca, Citizen Kane and The Godfather are examples that might be "higher" and nobody's looking to remake THOSE.
So Van Sant had to properly honor Hitchcock's vision. And make Hitchcock's movie. Except badly in some weird way.