In a message dated 12/6/98 9:47:15 PM Pacific Standard Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:
<<As for the "Psycho" remake, I agree that having a new director remake an
earlier script may allow for a genuine comparison of directorial styles, but
that;s not what we have here. By completely duplicating Hitchcock's film scene
for scene, shot for shot and even note for note (the differences and/or
additions are minimal), we have a film without a director. Van Sant eliminates
himself from the film altogether.>>
Ahem. In Hitchcock, we have a director who frequently became so bored with
his own works in progress, he would turn his back on the action being filmed
or fall asleep in his chair. So, in the first place, the inventiveness of the
director beyond his brilliant preproduction planning is somewhat in question.
Van Sant strikes me as decidedly more sanguine, not to mention spontaneous, in
his interpretations of the human condition. He does not seem in the least
bottled up with the specific neuroses that made Hitchcock who he was. I would
expect a counterbalancing of the coldly calculated nature of Hitchcock's
story, much in the same way Wayne Wang acted as counterpoint to Paul Auster's
circular, gamelike story structure in *Smoke*, or in the way Lee Tamahouri
breathed some life into Mamet in *The Edge* or James Foley in *Glengarry Glen
Ross*, both of which, on paper, have all the bloodless parlor game playing
that usually goes on in a Mamet script.
And let's not forget the actors--they contribute quite a lot. Even their
identities as 'stars,' or lack of, change the signifiers subtly but
significantly. However much Van Sant has duplicated the original shot for
shot, Anne Heche can never actually *be* Janet Leigh, etc.
I readily admit to having a predilection for giving the Van Sant every benefit
of every doubt. I'm sure it needs that.
Bill
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|