Does anyone really think that Gus Van Sant (and his impressive cast and crew) undertook this crazy project merely to confirm that the art of film works so mechanically? Shouldn’t the same critics who demanded more of these acclaimed artists have granted them in first instance better questions to interrogate and better ambitions to achieve? If, as Tina Hassannia asserts, the “simplistic knee-jerk reaction from most critics proved a disappointing intellectual ceiling in film criticism,” it perhaps deserves acknowledging that Psycho ’98 is not exactly garbed in the dress of an avant-garde work of cinema, being a $60-million dollar, major studio-funded, December release shown in malls and multiplexes across the country, with a cast of bankable Hollywood stars and an ad campaign promoting low-cultural thrills for the music video generation. Go watch the Hitchcock version right now.) While most critics were quick to call Van Sant’s version “an experiment,” few considered it an “experimental film,” with most suggesting that its existence served to answer the facile question of whether a shot-for-shot remake of a classic film would result in a similarly classic remake. (We won’t summarize the film’s plot here – if you haven’t seen Psycho or don’t know what it’s about, you’re probably on the wrong blog. Psycho ’98 is a near shot-for-shot remake of Hitchcock’s original 1960 film. The primary cause of the film’s disfavour seems to be a failure in judging it by a standard appropriate to the film’s true nature.
Psycho 1998 costume designer crack#
It’s a tough nut to crack considering our forthcoming assertion that descriptions of Psycho ’98 as good or bad have little utility in unpacking its value. Gus Van Sant’s Psycho is a truly beloved film in these parts, a fascinating, confrontational, and quixotic piece of filmmaking for which we are perpetually thankful, even though its critics call it an abject failure and its defenders are left cautioning that it’s not as bad as you think. Well, that’s the concern at least, particularly given that this post is not a joke, a troll, or a stunt. … and with this post, the last of MMC!’s credibility was lost forever. PLUS: A booklet featuring essays by film scholars Stephen Jay Schneider, Donato Totaro, and Mark Carpenter.
![psycho 1998 costume designer psycho 1998 costume designer](http://stampbazar.net/gallery/07-06-2021-115437_1788672695.jpg)
![psycho 1998 costume designer psycho 1998 costume designer](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/555f43ace4b09cfed988524e/1607053765480-1K3GSDA78WXN19NG3OPG/007.jpg)
Psycho 1998 costume designer series#
The Criterion Collection, a continuing series of important classic and contemporary films presents Psycho.įew films have been as maligned and misunderstood as Gus Van Sant’s near shot-for-shot remake of Alfred Hitchcock’s 1960 masterpiece, however Van Sant’s retelling is a bold effort to restore Psycho to its filmic roots and a brash statement on authorship, Hollywood entertainment, and the changing nature of cinema.