On Psycho

An article at the Onion's AV Club states that Gus Van Sant's remake of Alfred Hitchcock is one of Hollywood's greatest failures. To be sure, when we talk of failure in Hollywood we are talking about money and when we talk of failure in film we are talking about art, but I am talking of neither.

Psycho'98 may be one of the most important films ever made. And it's only because everyone seemed to miss the point. Maybe because everyone was too busy listening to Van Sant discussing intention.

Where Psycho '98 supposedly failed was in it's inability to resurrect the original despite sticking to the original script and shot selection. Frame by frame it's identical, but as a whole its inferior. And this is important to pay attention to. Not whether or not it's in color or how believable Vince Vaughn is as a "psycho."

What are we talking about when we discuss film? What is the study of and enjoyment of cinema? Gus Van Sant's film asks these same questions and everyone ignored them.

Why ever Pyscho '60 is brilliant it is not in the remake and that totally moves the discussion of what a great film is. Or at least it should have. Because on paper it should have been. And paper is important because films get made because of what they are on paper. And thats how both Psychos got made. Because of what they were on paper. But a film is never its original or shooting script.

We say the director brings a film to life. We talk of her vision. The camera as an eye. Cinema as a visual language. But really, what it comes down to is what something looks like on paper. Psycho '98 truly questions that process.