![psycho 1998 universal studios psycho 1998 universal studios](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61ASkzQMkIL._AC_SL1500_.jpg)
For example, the decision to shoot in color and cast (obviously) different actors for the same roles already signals the possibility for dramatic change, but it is up to the director whether to accentuate or downplay these differences. Which goes to show just how nuanced film art is and the countless variables at play in such a multi-faceted and collaborative art. What is fascinating about the film is that even though Van Sant’s tagline of doing a ‘shot by shot’ remake is almost accurate, and the film does remain very faithful to the original’s script, characters, running time, mise-en-scène, etc., it still is and feels like a very different film. In fact, the only reason that Universal studio gave him the large budget necessary to make this film is because his previous film Good Will Hunting made a load of money.
![psycho 1998 universal studios psycho 1998 universal studios](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CQWsRghbmt0/hqdefault.jpg)
Given Van Sant’s previous work, a valid response to this would be to see Van Sant’s remake as in fact a direct critique of this Hollywood mindset that champions ‘safe’ and ‘marketable’ products (sequels, remakes, adaptations of successful comics, television shows, etc.). Some of the audience anger against Van Sant’s remake is directed at the apparent lack of creativity behind such a project by assuming it is a cheap, exploitative consumerist device to capitalize on the “Psycho” name.
#Psycho 1998 universal studios trial
Most people, academics and audiences alike, wondered, why bother? And Van Sant (and others on his behalf) has responded with a bevy of varied reasons: a postmodern recycling/pastiche of a hallowed piece of art which is self-validated by its mere existence an ‘appropriation art’ which guards against the fetishisation of art objects a ‘cover’ version for a generation who never even heard of the original or simply a personal mission on the part of Van Sant (he made an earlier trial run by parodying the shower scene used by the “Our Lady of Laughter Theatre Group in Los Angeles, 1979). But none of the previous directors approached their redux with the same attitude as Van Sant: to remake it with the same basic script, music, characters, mise-en-scène, and shooting style (or as Van Sant himself has half-erroneously stated, a ‘shot by shot’ remake). Hyde, The Thing, The Innocents, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Cat People, Night of the Living Dead) and two other modern classics have been toppled since Psycho, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Dawn of the Dead (not yet released). Horror classics have been remade since the beginning of narrative cinema ( Nosferatu, King Kong, Dracula, Frankenstein, Dr. Much of the reaction surrounding the film dealt not only with the shock of seeing such a heralded horror classic remade, but remade in the particular way it was: without a direct audience friendly reason. Six years old, Gus Van Sant’s remake of Hitchcock’s Psycho has already received its fair share of bemusement and criticism. By Donato Totaro Volume 8, Issue 1 / January 2004 12 minutes (2757 words)