![]() The reason the conceit backfires, basically, is that the original depended on narrative surprises that can’t possibly be surprising now on genre conventions that were superseded decades ago and on material considered daring in 1960 that’s long since lost its power even to raise an eyebrow (recall that Hitch’s single most shocking move was to show a toilet flushing, which had never been done in a major studio film). And in some senses, the gambit will earn a justified place in the history books: Not only is it the first such duplication outside the ranks of experimental filmmakers, it also reps a fascinating effort on the part of one important filmmaker to crawl inside the stylistic skin of another - which, if you think of it, is eerily appropriate to Sir Alf. ![]() Van Sant’s publicized intention not just to restage “Psycho” but to duplicate it in scrupulous, exacting detail was a nervy gambit, one that brought an air of pop-art intellectualism and experimentation to what might have otherwise seemed redundantly mercenary.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |