International Festival Psycho 2:2

Hitchcock's Psycho from 1960 and Gus van Sant's remake from 1998 side by side. Seeing them together is a great experience, like looking at an x-ray where the dramaturgy and construction of film making becomes obvious. By the way, the soundtracks are running side by side.

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• International
• Festival
• Contemporary
• Architecture
• Performance
• Psycho
• Kill
• Shower

[FallingRedRose]

It's like Gus had the original playing on the set and was like, "Okay do exactly as the original."

Usually remakes are a bit different but this one is exactly the same.

[TorLindstrand]

Everybody thinks that the version of Psycho created by Gus van Sant is totally bad and not at all as scary as the original but rather few people has consider how psycho it is to do another Psycho, or to return to the scene of crime and reconstruct to whole story again. Gus van Sant must be totally psycho not to mention how psyched one get thinking about a psycho that returns. International Festival totally looks forward to Gus van Sant's remake of his own psycho.

[caroleenap]

hitchcock's one is better. any doubts?

[residentofboxfive]

great way to show the differences and why Hitchcock is a genious. the remake is nothing compared to the original.

[MultiJames95]

I prefer both versions. original and remake. The 1960 is great. The 1998 remake is nice like the original. I also like the two Norman Bates actors, Anthony Perkins and Vince Vaughn. But I say that the original is much better even though in my opinion that the remake is nice and good.

[andenisa]

What was the purpose of showing her in a doggy style position when she died?

[hididdleydee]

@Adler36 Yes, Norman was masturbating. Alfred would have put that in if the times had let him. It's a nice touch (pun intended). It's still WITHIN the same shot. What else would you do if looking through a peephole?

[hididdleydee]

@residentofboxfive A shot for shot remake is NOTHING compared to the original? Shot for shot.....think about it. It was an interesting experiment. The original is better, yes. But since the new one is A SHOT FOR SHOT remake, one can't really say that it is THAT different. Think of it as....a revival of a play. Same text, same blocking, different actors. The original will ALWAYS be better in our minds even if it isn't better.

[ItsCourtenayMmkay]

Movies are supposed to be fun. Movies are entertainment. Why do people have to get all uppity about movies? Everyones tastes are different. That's why another GI Joe is being made. My trash could be your treasure. Don't attack people just because they don't share your taste in films. Attack them because you don't like their face.

[TwilightWeHate]

sure its a classic, but the "special effects" back then make it cheesy and not worth it

[WeirdDizzy]

I like how they both turn their heads at the exact same time

[Moseslawgiver]

1960's version had fantastic acting. All the acting besides Viggo Mortensen in 1998 is shit.

[themirrorsofmymind]

VAN SANT SAYS HE 'REMADE" PSYCHO, NOT BECAUSE IT WAS SO BAD THAT IT NEEDED TO BE REPAIRED BUT BECAUSE IT WAS SO!!!!!!!!!!!! STRIKING THAT HE NEVER WANTS TO HAVE TO LET IT GO! HE WANTS HITCHCOCK'S TECHNIQUE TO BE CELEBRATED AND REAFFIRMED FOR YOUNGER GENERATIONS! Look at all the "Shower Scenes" that are on YouTube! You think all these geeks and nerds HATE Hitchcock! No way! They want a little taste of his style to savor themselves...