Hitch

[Bogie1943]

For many years now I have been a huge fan of Hitchcock, I have never seen a film of his that I have not enjoyed. What really makes me ill is the remake of Psycho. This was a pure insult to Hitchcock as his work. I can't remember the directors name who made the re-make, but I know I will never see another on of his films again. Re-making a classic shot for shot, line for line, even the same music is pointless and really just shows lack a real talent in my opinion, what do you think?

 

[Imahomer]

I agree. I've seen many a remake and this one just didn't cut it. I knew what was going to happen before everything happened. I looked at it more as a tribute to Hitch, but it just didn't cut it. That's probably why it lasted just a very short time at the theaters.

 

[havershaw]

Gus Van Sant was the name of the director. I didn't go see the remake, so I can't comment on it - actually, I guess my refusal to see it is a comment on it.

 

[Michael Mallory]

I believe the disastrous remake of "Psycho" was screenwriter Joseph Stefano's last-ditch attempt to prove that he was really the genius behind "Psycho," not Hitchcock and not the author of the source book, Robert Bloch. Stefano adapted Bloch's book and spent the next several decades calling himself "The Author of 'Psycho,'" while trashing the novel at every opportunity. Some of the interviews he gave after Hitchcock's death read like those old Steve Martin comedy routines where he would describe how he convinced, say, Gene Kelly to dance on a rainy street instead of a sunny field of flowers, and was therefore responsible for the success of "Singin' in the Rain." With both Bloch, Hitchcock and Saul Bass -- who caused a stir a few years before his death by actually taking credit for directing the shower scene (he storyboarded it for Hitchcock) -- Stefano apparently felt he could now show the world who was really responsible for "Psycho," so he produced the remake from his original script. The rest, as they say, is history, and to my knowledge, no one has heard from Joseph Stefano since.

 

[mmarosy]

I watched the remake on cable and soon went back to the original to get the bad taste out of my mouth. Not only was it a bad rendition, but they also changed the most iconic thing about the movie, the Bates house... totally not terror inspiring at all. Just bland... like the rest of the remake.

Not to say Hitchcock didn't have his slips... Family Plot anyone?... But even his not so great films out shone this "re-invention".

My all-time favorite Hitch film: Rear Window.

Mike

 

[Michael Mallory]

"Family Plot" was certainly not top Hitchcock -- in particular, Bruce Dern in the Cary Grant/Jimmy Stewart role is a little like casting Adam Sandler in a remake of "Citizen Kane"-- but it had its moments. One has to go way, way back to something like "Jamaca Inn" (1939) to find a real Hitchcock dog.

 

[mmarosy]

D'OH! Forgot about Jamaica Inn. The ONLY Hitchcock (with sound) film I've not seen entirely. I have all but a few of the silents on either tape or DVD and the transfer on the tape of Jamaica Inn was so bad, you barely heard any of the dialog.

Bad movie, bad.

Mike

 

[Michael Mallory]

Not hearing the dialogue is probably the best way to see it. I think one real mark of Hitchcock's genius comes in "Rebecca," in the scene at the boat house in which Maxim is recounting his fight with Rebecca to his second wife. As he talks, the camera takes over in subjective POV, moving around the cabin in sync to his voice, but for the entire story, you never see a person. I first saw "Rebecca" more than 25 years ago, and then saw it again some years later and was astounded by when that scene came up: I remembered it as being physically acted out by Olivier and a woman playing Rebecca! But there wasn't anyone there. That's how effective the camera movement and voice track were: you imagined then "remembered" the scene with real people.

 

[havershaw]

Has anyone been to Universal Studios (in Hollywood) recently? Is the original film house and motel still there? I took the tour many years ago (mainly to see the Psycho house, something I had waited 25 years to be able to see!), and they had built exteriors for Spielberg's The Lost World in front of, and around the lot the Psycho house stands on. So we didn't get to see it!

I'll be pretty sad if I can't see the original house and motel ever again, because the NEW house and motel are there.

 

[mmarosy]

I don't know about the one in California, but the Universal in Florida had it constructed with half the house painted yellow for the Psycho IV (I believe) flashbacks when Henry Thomas played the young Norman Bates.

This was back in 1990. Unfortunately we lost those rolls of film.

Mike

 

[PrettyBigGuy]

Originally posted by havershaw
Has anyone been to Universal Studios (in Hollywood) recently? Is the original film house and motel still there? I took the tour many years ago (mainly to see the Psycho house, something I had waited 25 years to be able to see!), and they had built exteriors for Spielberg's The Lost World in front of, and around the lot the Psycho house stands on. So we didn't get to see it!

I'll be pretty sad if I can't see the original house and motel ever again, because the NEW house and motel are there.

The original house and motel are still there. The new house for VanSant's version is there too. It stands right next to the original. The funny thing is, all they built was the front, one side and the roof!
The last time I took the tour, the tour guide told us that durring the filming of The Truman Show Jim Carrey hid inside the original house and waited for the tour tram to come by. He then came screaming out of the front door wearing a dress and wig and brandishing a knife! That would have been fun to see.
PBG

 

[havershaw]

ahhh, I feel better. thanks!

wonder how long it will take for them to admit that the remake was a flop, and lose the Van Sant sets?

 

[Michael Mallory]

Last time I took the tour I don't recall seeing the Van Sant house. What I find amusing is the extent to which Universal has adopted the film, which was actually released by Paramount. It was shot at Universal by Hitchcock's TV unit because Paramount brass didn't want it made at all, let alone on their lot, and I believe Universal now owns the rights to it, but it is not, strictly speaking, a Universal film. Incidentally, the car dealership used for the scene of Marian trading cars is still there too, on Lankershim Boulevard, just down from the studio.

 

[Bogie1943]

The only complaint I could have about Hitch is his often conveniant endings, if you know what I mean. Some of his films just had endings that were just so easy per-say.:cool2:

 

[Michael Mallory]

You can blame Hollywood in general for easy endings. Even today. Actually, a lot of Hitch's endings were quite subversive. Compare the ostensibly patriotic, but rather unnerving, ending of "Foreign Correspondent" with the rah-rah patriotic endings of any of the wartime Sherlock Holmes films. Then there are the chillingly ambiguous endings of "Vertigo" and "The Birds," and the outrageously Freudian ending of "North by Northwest" (Hitch in an interview: "The train going into the tunnel is symbolic...but don't tell anyone"). Or the subliminal final shot of "Psycho." However, that the wink-to-the-camera that ends "Family Plot" has always made me groan.

 

[MK]

Originally posted by Michael Mallory
.....is a little like casting Adam Sandler in a remake of "Citizen Kane".

That is rich! The scary thing is.....someone might just do it.

As for the Bates building......I seem to recall that is burned in the Oscar fire, but it was rebuilt for the tour.

An ironic tid-bit is that the fire was started by a studio guard....and the company's name is......"Burns Security".

 

[havershaw]

what is the Oscar fire?