Thursday, October 4, 2007
Psycho - Blog A-F
Hitchcock - 1960
Gus Van Sant - 1998
Discussion Topic
In 1998 director Gus Van Sant (Elephant) released a remake of Psycho, using essentially the same shots as were used in the 1960 Hitchcock original. However, when we watch the two versions of the above scenes side by side, we see that Van Sant did make some changes to the scene.
Discuss which version of the scene you think is more effective. Talk about the use of color vs black and white, the number of shots used, the length of the shots in each version, and the added thematic elements (weird cutaways) in the 1998 version of the film.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
I think the original version is more effective. The use of color in the second film took away from the reality of the story. When you watch a movie in color that was made in 1998, you can expect scenes with much better special effects, so this movie being in color and having such terrible special effects, gives it a negative aspect.
The strange cutaways in the second film were pointless, in my opinion. It's already a very dramatic scene in and of itself, it does not need any other elements added to it.
As far as the shots between both films, I believe the difference in the length and number of shots do not have a significant impact on either film to make one be more effective than the other.
Although both scenes are similar in certain aspects, they do differ in numerous ways causing the 1960 version to be more effective than the 1998 version. The 1998 version is in color as opposed to the 1960 version being in black and white. Even though the color in the new version has more effect in the sense that there is red blood on the detective's face rather then "chocolate syrup," there is not enough suspense in the scene. William H. Macy walks up the stairs in no time. The shot is short and does not allow the audience to appreciate the suspense of the scene. The shot of the detective walking up the stairs in the 1960 version is much longer and creates a strong feeling of suspense as the audience awaits his arrival at the top of the stairs. The music playing as Norman Bates approaches is much more suspenseful and creepy in the 1960 version. William H. Macy performs very well while falling down the stairs. He yells, screams, and the audience can see the fear in his face as he falls. However, the moment is ruined as the audience is given quick shots of paranormal activity including a naked woman wearing a blind fold and a cow in the street. These quick shots ruin the moment and scene as it leaves the audience confused. The director should not have used as many shots as he did in the 1998 film. Alfred Hitchcock successfully created a frightening experience for the audience, and still today it remains to be a classic.
Definetly Hitchcocks 1960 Psycho was more effective than Gus Van Sants in 1998. First of all the fact that the orginal scene was done in black and white made the scene more dramtic and intense (haunted) vs. the fake look that 1998 color version gave off. Also in the original, the shots focused more on the suspense(of the inspector climbing up the stairs-getting a shot from the back, from the front). In the 1998 Psycho,the scene started at the top of the stairs focusing more on the two flashbacks, and the killing happening abruptly. The shots were lengthier in the original, and seemed to flow vs. the abrupt quick change of shots in the 1998 remake. The added thematic elements(the woman with the black mask, and a dog) in the 1998 version made the scene too fast-paced for me.
In the two versions of "psycho", both use similar shots, but the small differences is what makes one more effective. The black and white version, makes the film more dangerous. The original version, also spends more time showing him walk up the stairs in the shot, creating more suspense, and the high angle conveys a feeling of helplessness. Both used the above shot of the killer coming out of the room, but the newer version was interruped by cutaways during the killing, which distract from the scene and make it less effective.
I believe that the original version done by Alfred Hitchcock was more effective for a number of reasons. The fact that it was in black and white gave it more of an eerie feeling to begin with since the shot was a bit darker. There were more shots used in the 1998 Gus Van Sant remake. I think that this took away from what was happening at a major scene in the film. The length of the shots were a bit longer in the Hitchcock version which gave us a bit more anticipation for what was about to happen again making the scene more effective then the remake. I also think that the thematic elements used in the remake took away from the scene itself. They were a bit of a distraction.
In the original Hitchcock scene, the lack of color (use of black and white) gives me a feeling that the house is dark and dusty. This hints at the fact that Mother died years before. I don't get the same feeling from the updated, color version of the film.
In the Van Sant version, the walking up the stairs part of the scene is much shorter than in the original version. It completely lacks the part where the door at the top of the stairs is opened slowly and the beam of light coming from within is shown. The Hitchcock version is more effective in adding tension and build-up before the initial violence.
The main difference here is in the Van Sant version where some random cut-aways are put in. These scenes include a blindfolded woman and calf in the middle of a foggy road. Both scenes are only shown for a fraction of a second. I believe that this confuses the audience. Some subtext is probably used there but since the timing of the scenes are so short, I don't think that the audience has time to contemplate the underlying message in those images. These messages do, however, help make the length of this portion of the scene longer. This may help off-set the lack of the door opening scene.
Other than those, both films use typically the same number of shots and length of each shot.
The scene in the 1998 remake of Psycho seems more effective than the original. It is more violent. The use of color in the remake allows the audience to see a more graphic version of the murder. There is also more shots in the remake than in the original. In the original we cannot really see the knife penetrating him, we can only hear it. I'm not positive, but I think that the weird cutaways in the 1998 version are flashes of his memory appearing before him. It gives the scene a more creepy and ominous feeling.
I did not see Gus Van Sant's version of the movie, and perhaps if I did my opinion might be slightly different. As I watched both clips, side by side, I feel that the original 1960 Hitchcock original is more effective.
I surprised myself when I found the black and white version to be more effective. Perhaps because I'm so used to color and I would prefer to watch color any day, to follow along with ease and get the full effect. But I felt the opposite with these clips.
I also believe the original to be more effective because there were less shots than in the 1998 version. You are forced to stay with the character from fewer and simpler angles avoiding distraction.
The thematic elements in the 1998 version personally distracted me from what had just happened. Like I said, I did not see the 1998 version and by watching it I might understand the cutaways more. But they were a distraction to me and did not make any sense to me. Because of that, the effectiveness in Hitchcock's 1960 version surpassed that of the 1998 Gus Van Sant version.
I find the original version of that scene to be more effective. There are more dramatic angles in this version when one sees the feet walking up the stairs, or the door cracking open slowly. This version has more shots of the scene, drawing emphasis to it by wanting to show it in many different ways. It gives the viewer a better understanding.
The remake, while keeping with many similar things such as most of the angle shots, also adds to the scene. The cutaways to what appear to be flashbacks the man is having as he is being stabbed and falling, catch the viewer off guard and bring about a different perspective to his death because of it. The fact that this scene is now in color brings about slight differences to the shot, but not many since the colors are muted.
As a whole, I find the original scene to be the most effective version of this film.
I feel like the remake of the scene by Gus Van Sant is more effective. The use of color vs. black and white makes the scene much more dramatic, even though the black and white makes the scene a little more mysterious. In the original version, the shots where the character is walking up the stairs are much longer, and in between the shots of the stairs, there are also shots of the door opening, hinting that something is going to happen. But the character seems oblivious to that fact. In the remake version, the character seems more cautious as he is going up the stairs as if he knows something is going to happen. The shot of him going up the stairs is really short, but the shot of him being stabbed on top of the staircase was much longer than the original, and he was stabbed more times. The shot angle in the remake was more interesting than the original, I would have to say, to make it just a tad bit more intense. First it shot the character from on top of the staircase falling down, then another shot from the bottom of the stairs to show his landing, then from a point of view angle that shows the woman running down the stairs.
I think the 1960 Hitchcock version is more effective than the 1998 Gus Van Sant version. The shots being in black and white gives the scene a more eerie and dark mood, than the shots using color. The use of color, gave the scene a less frightening theme. Also the cutaways didn't provide much value to the scene other than distracting the viewer. Another difference is the length of the shots, the 1960 seemed shorter and to appear to have more action. The 1998 version although seemed to use longer shots, and making it more drawn out.
I believe the original, Alfred Hitchcock’s version of Psycho, has more effective measures in creating a realistic scene. The colors in the 1998 remake done by Gus Van Sant aren’t believable enough, and the black and white picture hides colors and only varies by shades. The shades in the 1960 Psycho film are brilliant; for instance the color of the blood, done by Hitchcock is dark and deep, but in Gus Van Sant’s film it is more of a rose color that attacks me away from the film’s presents. Many things in the black and white film leave your imagination running wild, and that is what most film writers want. In a colored horror film, as Psycho, it just doesn’t seem to mesh as well as in the black and white one does. In the original film suspense is built up by showing the door of the old women’s room crack, if feel this is a huge bonus in adding horror to the film. The remake added slashes to the face which I also felt was unbelievable, one stab as in the original, would knock a man down the stares. An added number of shots seemed to be used in the remake, I feel that typically an added number of shots would add to a film, but in this case I didn’t see the accumulation to the film; more shots might have been used, but I feel they were misused. Also the lengths of some of the shots were increased in the remake; such shots as the stabbing, where the actor was stabbed multiple times. I didn’t think adding length to a scene like this one is necessary. I received just as much by watching the shorter original then the drawn out remake. The original is a great film, and the remake is just a distant second. Things, like added thematic pictures of a woman in her underwear and a blind fold, and a car heading towards a sheep just kill the remake of Psycho. But you can never match an original.
-David W. Aniello
I believe the original Psycho film was much more effective. The way the director used the same shot along with a lengthier cutscene helped create a greater sense of anticipation. Also the black and white tone gives it a more eerie look as oppose to color. The remake showcased many more angles along with various other shots, which took away from some of the anticipation. While both films were excellent Hitchcock's original film seemed to have the upperhand.
The two versions of the movie Psycho were relatively the same but have some distinct differences.
Hitchcocks 1960 version shows a close up on the character with a woman running at him to the "slasher music". He uses less shots switching back and forth between his face and his feet and the knife with no visual image of the killer.
Van Sant's 1998 version gives cuts to the victim making it more graphic and disturbing. The man recives cuts to his face with quick cutaways to random shots of a woman and a deer ending the scene with a blurred figure standing over the man. Van Sant uses more shots to give a sense of what is going through their minds and fills the scene more.
I prefer the color in these types of movies as well as the quick cutaways because it gives the movie more than your typical black and white film. Black and white films give the sense of "old" and don't seem as scary. The color in the film gives the movie more of a realistic "new age" feel.
After watching the two scenes side by side, I believe that Hitchcock's version is more effective than Van Sant's newer version. I was suprised when I came to this conclusion, but I think that the black and white was more effective at portraying the fear felt in the scene then the color scenes. I also think that there were too many shots in Van Sant's version of the scene. All of the quick cutaways seemed to take away from the suspense by adding confusion and ditraction. In addition, the longer shots in Hitchcock's scene lets the audience really absorb whats going on, and therefore builds even more suspense and fright than Van Sant's shorter shots.
I think the scene from Hitchcock’s original Psycho, is more effective then the remake by Gus Van Sant. The black and white of the original has a more effective and dramatic tone than the colored remake. In Gus Van Sant’s remake version there were clips inserted in the middle of the scene which make the viewer focus less on what is actually occurring in the scene. In the remake version, there is also a large amount of unnecessary filming of the woman stabbing the man. In Hitchcock’s original the shot of the man walking up the stairs is much longer than the remake; the added time adds more intensity and effectiveness for what’s to come in the scene. Although Gus Van Sant successfully remade the scene from Psycho, Hitchcock’s original was portrayed in a more effective manner.
Even though the shot were essentially the same the two movies had very different feels. The Original Psycho had a much more foreboding feel to it. You saw the door opening slowly which kept you on the edge of your seat. It had a much slower feel to it. The new version came at you much faster. Everything happened really quickly in some parts and lagged on others, specifically when the Private investigator was getting cut. This type of editing was very different from what happened in Gus Van Sant other movie Elephant which moved very slow. I also don't understand what those flash pictures were or what they were trying to get across. In this short clip the just confused me. I think the color took away from this classic feel of the movie. One shot that i did like was the shot where after the Private investigator fell you saw the "mother" coming at him i felt this added extra sense of fear.
Personally, I don't feel that Gus Van Sant's remake of the Psycho stair seen is comparable to the first Pyscho. Hitchcocks 1960 version seems more realistic even though its in black and white. The fact that it's in color sort of throws off the whole theme of the movie being old, and scary in 60's. The weird cutaways in Van Sant's don't really make any sense to me. I've watched the clip several times and I just don't see where they fit into the movie. Hitchcock's use of far more shots and longer shots is more effective in keeping the audiences attention in my opinion. I personally would choose the Hitchcock version over Van Sant's anyday, besides the 1960's version is a classic!
I feel the original version of this scene is more effective to its audience. I found it to be more realistic with its basic effects and camera angles. The newer version confuses the audiences with its weird cutaways, while the original keeps to the common angles and orientation. The black and white color adds to the effectiveness in that it sticks to the horror theme. The newer version is still good even though its in color, but it loses that effect in the theme.
Based on the clips on this web site, comparing the original version of Psycho to the newer, color version of it, I would say I found little effectivness in changing the film to color. If anything, I actually found it more compelling when it was in black and white. As for camera shots, I have always been a fan of the "rapid-fire" method, if you will, of frames and camera angles, and therefore the newer version was more capivating and convincing to me than the slow, rediculously fake fall down the stairs and the obviously pulled stabing motions. However, considering that neither version looked near as convincing as horror movie effects do today, I would say the original was better because as I said, the black and white helped really set the stage for how dark and sinister the plot really was. I feel that if a director can set a mood, tone, and emotion into an audience just through setting, lighting, and acting, extreme and varying camera angles really are not as important.
The initial stair scene in the Hitchcock version is more effective because of the amount of time used. The longer he walks on the stairs the more suspense it creates. However, I think the rest of the scene is more effective in the Gus Van Sant version. The color makes it more realistic and the quickness of the action makes it more dramatic. I also think that the shadowy figure coming down the stairs after the stabbing is more effective as well.
In my opinion, the Hitchcock version is much more effective then the version Gus Van Sant produced in 1998. Even though the use of color makes the scene more modern I think the original shot has more character. Also, the 1998 scene is a little to long in terms of what is taking place. Hitchcock’s scene is perfectly timed out, neither too short nor too long. Another thing that makes Van Sant’s scene less effective is random cutaways that were incorporated into the shot. I have no idea what those cutaways had to do with the scene or even the movie. All in all, the scene from Hitchcock’s 1960 version is much more effective because of its simplicity.
I feel that the black and white version of Psycho was more effective than the color version made by Gus Van Sant. Alfred Hitchcock's version used longer shots right before the stabbing to increase the anticipation. Gus Van Sant on the other hand just got right into it and also showed the odd cutaways which seemed to make no sense at all. The extra slashes in the color version seemed to be used so that the weird cutaways could be put in. In all the Van Sant version seemed over the top.
I like the black and white version from 1960 better. It is much more simple, with less shots, and straight to the point. People are more focused on the story rather than the images. Furthermore, the colored one from 1998 is too dramatic, and steals from the main idea, which is that the Psycho killed the detective. There was no need to add all these mini shots. I'm not quite sure I even understand what they stood for in the 1998 version of the movie.
I preferred Alfred Hitchcock’s original psycho to Gus Van Sant’s version. Hitchcock used simple shots and even though Van Sant used basically the same shots, he added in new effects. I felt that the new effects, mainly the cuts to random images, took away from the scene in which the stabbing occurs. In terms of the use of colors, I also preferred the black and white however Van Sant used a great range of muted colors to generate the eerie mood. Overall I really enjoyed the way that Alfred Hitchcock presented the original psycho.
I think that the 1998 version is Psycho is more effective for the simple reason, that it's more realistic. The 1960 feature gave a more haunted, eerie feel because of the use of black and white coloring, but seeing the movie today, you just know that its not real. The use of color gave it almost that, "your part of the movie" feel. Less shots were used in the 1998 film, but the viewer was more frightened because of that. The 1960 movie, the shots were drawn out and you automatically knew that something/someone was going to pop out any second, so therefore the viewer can prepare themselves for the scare; not as effective. Also, the cutaways in the 1998 version, just gave the viewer that extra jumpy, woah, feeling. The coloring, length of shots, and thematic elements definitely made the 1998 verison of Psycho more effective for the scare than the 1960 version.
The version I found most effective was the Hitchcock 1960 version. The use of black and white added to the mystery and scary feeling of the movie. It also helped the scene look more realistic by not being able to show the color of the fake blood, you just assume it's real, but looking at the 1998 version you see the color of the blood and can tell its fake. The length of the shots in the 1960 version are longer and add more suspense to them while the 1998 version are shorter and jump right to the point and doesnt really give the audience a chance to feel emotion towards the detective.
i think that the black and white version is way more effective because it takes alot more shots of the scene when he is walking up the the stairs and uses great angles.this brings alot more suspense to the film. unlike the color version its just staright forward and doesnt really keep be interested. i think by jumping around alot and adding those other clips makes the color version less effective and it doesnt capture the scene as well as the black and whit film.
In my opinion Hitchcock's version was much more effective. The use of color in Van Sant's version takes away from the film by making it much less creepy. The weird cutaways in Van Sant's film also affected it in a negative way. I did like the use of shots in Van Sant's film. He used shorter and more shots than Hitchcock. However Hitchcock original was much better as a whole.
I personally think that Hitchcock's version is more effective because it's not as humorous as Van Sant's version. It's supposed to be a creepy scene, a man cautiously climbing a flight of stairs in search of something, and the black and white scene does it more justice. I just think that black and white movies are generally a lot more creepy than color films. As for the length of the shots, Hitchcocks version of the detective walking up the stairs is much more suspenseful then Van Sant's version. In Van Sant's version everything seems to happen right away while in Hitchcock's version, the length of the shot is longer, making for a better outcome. I think that the weird cutaways actually distracted the purpose of the scene. Here your supposed to see Norman's "mother" killing the detective, and then all of a sudden you see a woman and a sheep on a road, and it kind of leaves you wondering what the importance of that was.
I think the original Hitchcock is more effective in portraying the "horror scene." The remake made it seem more of a spoof and definitely was not as effective as the black and white originial. The cutaways were also very random and was that a farm animal in the wild?? It definitely distracted from the scene. The music definitely set the tone and far better in the original.
In my opinion, the Hitchcock version was more effective. Reason being, his scream makes the scene more intense, and the one cut makes the scene more effective. Then when he falls, the fall seems suspended, making it a more powerful scene. The black and white makes it more suspensful and you focus more on what is going on as compared to the color one where you are focused on the surroundings and what the colors in the background signify.
I believe Hitchock's version of Psycho was more effective because Arbogast's walk up the stairs was alot longer of a scene than in the new one adding more time for the viewer to build up suspense whereas in Van Sant's remake their isnt much of a walk up the stairs then the next thing you know Norman's mother was cutting him.
As for the use of colors, Gus Van Sant remade a movie which was made in a time where no color was in films. By duplicating a lot of the scenes using the same camera angles, I beleive that the only way to actually capture the true essence and history of the film was for it to be in black and white, so with that said I feel Van Sant did a less than stellar job in that arena.
As for the wierd cutways, when Arbogast is at the top of the stairs being cut and stabbed I don't quite see what Van Sant was trying to do with the blindfolded women or the cow in the road. I don't feel those were necessary.
These two shots both are very similar but the classic shot in Hitchcock’s version just seems more appropriate and effective to me. Not only is the simple black and white visually simple and stereotypically creepy, the single slice across the face and the limited number of stabs overall give it a more forceful and angry feeling. Its quick sequence is the foundation that can be found in so many psyche thrillers today and is truly effective. Van Sant’s version had more of a jumpy ness to it, but the color, subliminal images, and the drawn out sequence seems to take out so much of the soul, or lack thereof, that the “Psycho” uses to thoughtlessly carry out his deeds.
Each version of the film was effective in pulling off a shocking moment in the film. The original used the technology available for its time to make it seems like the person was actually falling down the stairs. This made one feel horror as they saw the private investigator’s look of terror as he fell down the stairs. What made new version successful in pulling off this scene and making it shocking was the strange cutaways. These cutaways make the audience feel out of place thus giving them an effective scare.
However, both could have used improvement. In the original it would have been better to quicken the shot of the man about to be stab that way the audience would be frightened in an instant. In the updated version, it would have been nicer to see a more believable fall down the stairs. A shot like would have better if he was actually tumbling down the stairs.
Color in the shots really didn’t do much. It would have been better if Gus flickered the color to black and white during these scare moments to add a new level of shock value.
I think that the original black and white version of the scene is more effective in creating suspense. There are many different shots in the black and white version of the scene compared to Van Sant's version. I believe that the number of different shots helps to develop the suspense of the scene. Also, in the black and white version, the length of the shots is much longer. This, again, helps to add to the suspense. In Van Sant's version of the scene, the shots are much shorter and there are a few shots that cutaway from the action. The content of the cutaways are first a cow standing in the middle of a road and then a half nude woman with something over her eyes. This creates an eerie and weird mood in the scene. The shorter length of the shots helps to create confusion, but at the same time contributes to the lack of suspense.
I believe that the orignal version of this film proivides a more drmatic effect that the Gus Van Sant Version. In the remake of psycho although the shots are almost identical the color adds a sense of comfort that the harsh shades of black and white do not adhere to. And with the extra clips it draws the viewer away from what is actually happening by showing flash backs. Also the clips in the original are shorter with harsh cuts not giving the viewer time to know what is going on rather than the remake where the cuts are farther apart.
Hitchcock’s 1960 version is more effective. The black and white color keeps the viewer focused on what’s going on and adds suspense to what is going to happen in the house. The number of shots both directors used was similar. The shots were similar as well but they differed a little. In Hitchcock’s version, there is a shot of the upstairs door opening. That shot added to the effectiveness of the entire scene. As the door is opening, people are wondering what or who was going to come out. In Sant’s version, as the private investigator was going down the stairs there were cutaways of a woman with a blind fold on and a cow in the middle of the road. Hitchcock’s version is more effective because it doesn’t have shots like that to distract or confuse the viewer.
In my opinion, I think the original "Psycho" scene was overall more effective than Gus Van Sant's remake.
One way that the original "Psycho" was more effective was due to the fact that I felt like the black and white set the tone of the movie better. Black and white in my opinion makes the film more suspenseful and dramatic than the colored film in this case. The black and white version present to the viewer s a more gloomy and unpredictable mood.
Another reason why I feel the original was more effective was due to the use of the difference in shot length. For example, in the original the director makes it appointive to make the character’s walk up the stairs very long. By that one shot being lengthier, the suspense level is raised dramatically; because the viewer is able to get more attached to the action that is about occur.
Overall the original "psycho" is by far more effective, and thought out better than the newer version.
I think the original version is more effective because it has a more realistic progression through the time it takes the action to play out. Case in point the creepy cutaways; they give the shot a less dramatic and almost comical feel to the scene, despite the fact that they are supposed to make it scarier. The fact that the newer version is played out in so many different shots it makes it less believable. One thing that really stood out about the newer version my opinion is because of all the cutaways you don’t get the impression that the character is falling down the stairs, rather that he’s just falls to the floor after being slashed repeatedly(which is also different). Another added element of the new version is that you flat out see the blurred out form of a person going to stab the character were as in the older version you only see an arm and the back of the person. The use of color also makes it less believable to our eyes because viewers today are so desensitized to horror in reasonably “real” color that showing it in black and white might have made it more effective.
After watching the two versions, I believe that the original version of the scene is more effective. The black and white adds more shadows and drama to the scene. It is also longer and doesn't have the weird flash backs in it. The music is also slightly different in the original, adding more drama to the scene. The remake was simply not as effective.
There are things about each version that makes them effective. Like the clips of deer in the new version. However, overall the original version is more effective for two main reasons. The first reason that in the original version you actually see the originally stabbing, which adds more effect to the audiance. The second is at the end of the scene, you hear him moan in pain, which also intensifies the level vulgerarity of the scene.
Both scenes are very similar in the way they were shot however the original version was my more effective. The second film just didn't capture the same feeling that you got in the original. It lacked the dramatic effect and also included some very unnecessary cutaway shots. Also I was displeased with the way the actor who was doing the stabbing moved in the newer version, it just seemed sort of fake. All in all the original film captured what was necessary in the scene better than the remake.
I feel that the scene from the original version is more effective. The fact that the movie is in black and white adds to the quality of the scene, making the mood more scary and foreboding. Black and white allows the viewer to focus more on the true meaning of the story and the suspense, rather than on the scenery. The original version is a lot simpler and the newer version takes away from the quality of Hitchcock's work. The 1998 version cuts away from the killing to show random scenes, which distracts the viewer from what is going on. The killing in the 1998 version has more shots and adds more drama than is needed. The 1960 version focuses more on the detectives walk up the stairs, rather than on the actual killing. I think the walk up the stairs is more important because it creates fear and suspense. The second version focuses mostly oon the murder itself, which doesn't add as much meaning to the movie. The original version shows the scene as it needs to be shown, simply and effective.
The remake is less effective than its predecessor. The extra inserts of random immages served no real purpose im my opinion. They only seemed like a failed attempt of a surreal flashing of the killer's psyche. the suspense built durring the walk up the stairs, door slowly opening and use of sound was not present in the remake. The extra stabbing in the remake also made it seem like a B grade slasher film. Alfred got it right.
The remake is less effective than its predecessor. The extra inserts of random immages served no real purpose im my opinion. They only seemed like a failed attempt of a surreal flashing of the killer's psyche. the suspense built durring the walk up the stairs, door slowly opening and use of sound was not present in the remake. The extra stabbing in the remake also made it seem like a B grade slasher film, Alfred got it right.
I think the original version is much more romantic and less graphical. Even though the balck and white version does not allow us to see the red it is very obvious that is what it was. I think the length of the shots were appropriate but could have been longer. This movie somewhat reminded me of European 1990s movies in the way the shots include just enough for you to decipher things but it still leaves room for speculation.
I feel that the black and white version of the clip gives the shot a more suspenseful feel, and he takes longer to move up the stairs which makes us wonder what is waiting for him at the top as the door slowly opens. In the color version, the door opens faster and when the killer runs out to stab him it is quicker and less suspenseful. Also in the color version, you see glimpses of strange images while he is being stabbed and the stabbing does not seem as realistic. Overall, I feel that the black and white version is a better clip of the movie in the aspects of time, suspense, and thrill.
I think that the origional version by Hitchcock was by far more effective. The Black and white color adds to the suspenseful and eery tone to the scene, while the color version doesnt give the same effect. Hitchcock's opening scene, of the detective's slow walk up the stairs creates suspense, since it holds the audience more captive while awaiting the entrance of the person behind the door. In the 1998 version, the weird cutaways of the woman and the animal in the road are just simply confusing. There is no logical reason as to why they were added in, and they are quite frankly unnecessary. Also the quality of the awkward cut across the detective's face makes more sense in a 1960's movie rather than one produced in 1998. You expect that type of effects from old black and white movies, not from 1998,and its what makes the old movies so good. I think we should just stick to the origional 1960 version!
Both versions of the scene from Psycho are effective for the audience, Hitchcock's, however, is more effective than Gus Van Sant's.Van Sant's use of color took away from the effect the audience gets from watching the film, although it is still suspenseful. Black and white some how creates a little bit different mood for the audience and makes it seem like scarier things can happen in a black and white film. Van Sant also added a few shots to the scene and I think they took away from the scene instead of adding to it. As the character is getting stabbed he appears to have some flashbacks from earlier in his life. While this might have seemed like a good idea I feel as though Van Sant added some unnecessary shots thinking they would catch the audience. Hitchcock's version, at its length, leaves the audience wondering what just happened and rather stunned at the fact that someone was just stabbed; as opposed to Van Sant's version that leaves nothing to the audiences imagination. The audience doesn't see anything that has to do with the characters past during the film, so the flashbacks do not really make sense in this shot. I personally think Hitchcock's version is much more effective because it is short and to the point, the black and white also adds more.
The 1960 version of the scene is more effective. The 1998 version adds too many thematic elements that end up just confusing the viewer rather than adding to the mood of the scene. It is hard to know what the cutaways relate to. They really add nothing to murder that is taking place. The colors used in the 1998 scene also add an upbeat feeling. The black and white removes any sense of cheerfulness color brings. It allows the audience to grasp the feeling of mystery and suspense. The lack of color in the 1960 version also adds to the cold heartedness of what is occurring on the screen. The length of shots in the 1960 version are more effective at conveying what each character is feeling while the murder is taking place. Obviously, the guy getting stabbed is in immense pain, as seen by the look on his face as he falls down the stairs. It is very difficult to improve on a classic, and this particular scene in Psycho is a perfect example.
Post a Comment