Henry suggests that remakes involve notions of repetition and novelty.
In a similar vein, in his review of Constantine Verevis' book _Film
Remakes_, Brian Mcfarlane highlights a few notions that exist in film
studies to discuss the remake:
"... these include Michael B. Druxman’s categories of the disguised
remake (sometimes involving generic shift), the direct remake (which
makes clear its source) and the non-remake (same title, new plot); and
Harvey Roy Greenberg’s acknowledged, close remake (near-replication),
acknowledged, transformed remake (substantial variations) and the
unacknowledged, disguised remake (e.g. studio-era remakes)."
http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/books/06/41/film-remakes-verevis.html
At first glance, it appears that Gus Van Sant's _Psycho_ is a 'direct'
remake, or an 'acknowledged, close remake'. However, Thomas M. Leitch
has highlghted 101 differences between Hitchcock's _Psycho_ and van
Sant's remake ('101 Ways to Tell Hitchcock's "Psycho" from Gus Van
Sant's', _Literature/Film Quarterly_ 28:4 (October 2000) pp. 269-273.
Furthermore, I think that van Sant's _Psycho_ has been defended from the
perspective of Performance Theory (although I cannot remember who wrote
about it).
Warren Buckland
*
*
Film-Philosophy
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|