Cool News
Mr. Beaks Discusses The Style And Politics Of MILK With Gus Van Sant!
SPOILER ALERT !!
In the 2002 edition of THE NEW BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF FILM, critic David Thomson declared, "It's very hard to know who [Gus] Van Sant is, or what he wants to do." Had Thomson held out for GERRY, he could've easily eliminated one possibility: a Hollywood director of mainstream movies.
It's strange to think that this was ever in doubt, but there was that brief, bizarre period in the late '90s when it seemed that Van Sant had lost his way. The trouble started with GOOD WILL HUNTING, a straightforward prestige picture that caught on big time with the public and Academy voters. Gone was the whimsy and audacity of DRUGSTORE COWBOY, MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO and TO DIE FOR; in its place was, well, the kind of shit that wins Best Picture. And while GOOD WILL HUNTING fell short in 1998 to the boat-meets-iceberg epic, Van Sant was still rewarded with his first ever Best Director nomination. Hollywood approved.
But something in Van Sant either disapproved or misread the mood. How else to explain his shot-for-shot remake of PSYCHO, which pissed off film purists and bored everyone else who lied about having seen the original? It remains one of the greatest artistic miscalculations in the history of the medium, and it might've ruined Van Sant had he not retreated to the faux uplift of FINDING FORRESTER. Though there were no Oscar nominations for this Bronx-bound outpouring of liberal guilt (from the writer of RADIO!), the good intentions were enough to reassure Hollywood that Van Sant could play ball if need be.
Then GERRY happened, and, suddenly, Van Sant was reengaged both intellectually and creatively. The quiet, improvisatory, masterfully shot (with cinematographer Harris Savides) ode to the cinema of Bela Tarr may have displeased distributors hoping for a marketable re-teaming of two-thirds of the GOOD WILL HUNTING brain trust, but for those of us who fell in love with DRUGSTORE COWBOY (extra film geek credit to those who were there for MALA NOCHE), it was a stunning renouncement of Hollywood convention. It was also just the beginning of an inspiring (though not always successful) run of films that seemingly severed Van Sant's relationship with the studio system for good. After ELEPHANT, LAST DAYS and PARANOID PARK, why do the "one for them, one for me" dance ever again?
Though MILK is easily the most conventional movie Van Sant has made since FINDING FORRESTER, it at least has a purpose. And since someone was going to make a great big biopic about the first openly gay man to ever be elected to public office in California (and subsequently assassinated along with the then Mayor of San Francisco, George Moscone), better to go with one of the best filmmakers working today than some vision-less hack. Going from a by-the-numbers script by Dustin Lance Black, Van Sant has definitely dialed down the formal experimentation of his last four movies. But MILK is about more than cinema. It's about altering perception and vanquishing prejudice. It's an appeal to the heart at a time when the country (and the world) seems more open to change than its been in forty years.
And in the wake of the Prop 8 victory in California, it is now a political tool.
MILK is a worthy return to the mainstream for Van Sant, but, in talking with him during the Los Angeles press junket less than a week after the election, it sounds like it could've been something much less accessible. And while I did eventually get around to asking the director about the political ramifications of his film, I was much more interested in what could've been and why it ultimately wasn't. Why? Well, in the weeks to come, you'll read plenty about MILK's role (or lack thereof) in reversing the setback of Prop 8. The fact that Van Sant wanted to shoot his movie like a D.A. Pennebaker documentary with old school cameramen... that might get lost in the hubbub.
Mr. Beaks: Ever since you hit that reset button with GERRY, it seems like you've really been on fire creatively. GERRY, ELEPHANT, LAST DAYS, PARANOID PARK: they're all exceptional pieces of cinema. But they weren't given a very wide audience, at least not in release. And now, with MILK, you've made something that feels much more accessible. Was there a natural progression leading you from GERRY to a more mainstream film like MILK?
Gus Van Sant: I think the script was written in a very mainstream way, so just working from the script. Sometimes the numbers of scenes and the days in which you have to shoot a movie dictate a pace: if there's 150 scenes and there's, like, thirty-six shooting days, you have to fit those numbers of scenes into those thirty-six days. It's three scenes a day. So you're not really able to play with them. I guess in the editing room you could, but you don't have the ability to play with time necessarily. You're just trying to get the stuff down that you think you need for the movie. And since the scenes are one page long or less, when you put them all together, it makes a pacing that resembles a regular movie - or a "real movie" as we call it.
And GERRY... (Laughs) some of the shots were five minutes long. That's five, sometimes ten times longer than a scene in MILK. The scene might be that they just walked down the road. It's so different, and it really has to do with the blueprint. It was never really in our concept to 100 scenes. We didn't want to do that; we liked the script the way it was. But going into it, you start shooting in a style where, even if you shot in single takes of every scene, it would still resemble a traditional, more accessible drama. The script dictated that, not really our interpretation.
Beaks: There's not much Bela Tarr in this. He was such a huge influence on GERRY and ELEPHANT. But, reading the press notes, it sounds like you traded Tarr for Frederick Wiseman?
Van Sant: Well, we tried that. But Frederick Wiseman, even on ELEPHANT for instance, was an influence. He also had long, walking shots up and down high school corridors. Wiseman is always on our list. Bela has been on our influence list since I saw SATAN'S TANGO in 2001. [William] Eggleston, the still photographer, is also on our list. And a few other photographers. It's just people that Harris and I both like a lot, and we are always having them influence our ideas.
In this case, it started out to be Wiseman. Does it say that in the notes?
Beaks: Yes, you cited him in the notes.
Van Sant: Well, it started with Wiseman literally. We wanted to shoot in 16mm. And we did hire documentary shooters that had worked along the same lines as Frederick Wiseman. We were even going to try to get Albert Maysles, because he still shoots and, you know, might be able to do it. We were trying to get as close as we could to the real 1960s and 1970s documentarians. [D.A.] Pennebaker. We could've seen what he was up to. We didn't get the main guys, but we did get the guys right under them - which was weird because they make a lot more money than a camera operator does on a Hollywood movie. It was at strange expense. And strange union regulations had to be signed off on. And because we weren't able to use actual 16mm cameras, we realized that our idea was foiled: we wanted to shoot in 16, and we wanted it to be reversal film, and we wanted it to match with the documentary footage that we planned on using. But we were talked out of using the 16mm film. And we thought that would be okay; we thought, "Okay, they'll just work with thirty-five cameras." But that little-bit-larger camera actually affects the way the DPs work. Even though they're doing the same thing, the optics are different; the actual depth of field starts to come in to play. So all of a sudden your film looks like everyone else's cinéma vérité, Paul Greengrass, THE OFFICE television show. LAW & ORDER... it starts to look like all of it. It looks like everybody's 35mm version of a 16mm Frederick Wiseman-style film. So we realized our folly and switched quite drastically into a GODFATHER situation.
Beaks: Was there also a concern that the documentary-style shooting might've invoked the actual documentary [THE TIMES OF HARVEY MILK]?
Van Sant: I was never afraid of that because the documentary is really good. My resource for the style of 16mm, because of the period of time, was Robert Stone's Patricia Hearst documentary [GUERILLA: THE TAKING OF PATTY HEARST]. That was mostly news guys - as was THE TIMES OF HARVEY MILK. But for whatever reason, it had stuff in it that we used as a guide, as well as all of Wiseman's and Pennebaker's films. But we weren't really afraid of [the documentary]; it was never in our minds like "Oh, no, it might look like THE TIMES OF HARVEY MILK!" We even shot interviews with people that we intended to put throughout the movie that weren't used. I was never consciously avoiding Rob Epstein's movie.
Beaks: But shooting in the style that you eventually chose... obviously, working with Harris, it looks amazing. Considering your tight schedule and budget, does he help give the film an extra bit of production value?
Van Sant: Yeah, I think the way he lights and shoots something can really elevate the film.
Beaks: Even though you had to make your days, could you still give the actors some room to play?
Van Sant: When you have a lot of dialogue, all of a sudden improv is not the goal because you need time. And a lot of the times you're barely on time. So once you get the scene, your instinct is to move on. We did try to do something Sean [Penn] told us [Terrence] Malick does, which is do a shot that had no dialogue; you do the same blocking, but don't run the dialogue. We did that, and we used it as a way to have more air: if maybe a scene could work without dialogue, if you needed it that way because the film starts to become too dialogue heavy.
But the improv... there was also another thing besides the Wiseman idea: I thought we would go off the page and do all this amazing stuff. And it wasn't really in the cards. I think part of it might've been the technical nature of the dialogue; it's very politically-oriented. So for the actors to go off the page, it would be hard to, in its place, have extemporaneous political dialogue that would fit in the 1970s and reflect what was going on unless the actors were able to study enough about the '70s to put themselves in that. It was a limitation that we had, so we didn't tend to do what I had been doing before, which was going off the page. I mean, we did when it was small things.
Beaks: So, then, in a way, you were choosing your moments to inject a docudrama feel while making something that would resemble a more conventional biopic?
Van Sant: We abandoned the docudrama feel pretty quickly. We have a little bit of it in there, but we abandoned it in favor of THE GODFATHER.
Beaks: Well, in those scenes where they're sitting around the office batting around ideas, I think you do occasionally get the feeling of something off-handedly captured.
Van Sant: I think that's maybe because we hadn't switched out of the docudrama mode. We shot for a whole week-and-a-half before we abandoned it. There are a few scenes in the shop that are cinéma vérité style. When they first open the shop and walk outside and meet the guy across the street, there's just a lockdown shot before they kiss. I don't know where we were in the schedule. Maybe we changed sooner than I thought.
Beaks: When you change things up like that, how do the actors adjust?
Van Sant: They weren't affected. This was all just the way the camera worked. Their blocking was the same either way. It was more the way we shot the scene.
Beaks: Either way, it must've been nice to have an actor like Sean Penn anchoring all of this.
Van Sant: That must be in the notes, too. The "anchor".
Beaks: I don't think so.
Van Sant: Someone else said that today.
Beaks: (Laughing) Well, it is a cliched way to put it. But he is the film's center of gravity. I especially got that with Emile. I interviewed him last year for INTO THE WILD, and he mentioned that he'd give anything to act opposite of Sean. Sure enough, a few months later, he gets the opportunity.
Van Sant: Yeah, that was interesting. We assumed that they had a teacher-student relationship.
Beaks: What's nice is that even if he was too eager to impress Sean, that would work for the character of Cleve Jones.
Van Sant: Yeah, I think Cleve was like that with Harvey. But Cleve is like that with everybody. He's very energetic. He's expectant.
Beaks: You've known Cleve for a while, right?
Van Sant: Yeah. At this point, fifteen years.
Beaks: And he kind of brought you into the project?
Van Sant: Well, I lived at his house when I worked on the Warner Bros./Oliver Stone version. I moved to San Francisco to absorb the atmosphere of the Castro. I had a few friends there, and one of them introduced me to Cleve. I told him I was looking for an apartment, and he said, "You should rent my apartment." So I moved into his house. He said he was going to be out at Russian River most of the time, and maybe he'd be in San Francisco one day a week. But it felt like he was there a little more. (Laughs) Which was great for me. That was why I was there, really: to talk to people like him.
Beaks: Politically, this movie is not going to avoid being caught up in the whirlwind of the Prop 8 protests.
Van Sant: It feels like the whirlwind is now, and not before.
Beaks: How do you think someone like Harvey would've looked at it? If there was a film nearing release that might've spoken directly to the issue before election day, do you think he would've argued that it should be out there before and not after?
Van Sant: Yeah, I think he would've done that.
Beaks: How do you feel about that?
Van Sant: He would've done that. He's sort of surprising. He doesn't really shoot himself in the foot; he's not that type of guy. He's a loudmouth; he says inappropriate things for comedy reasons, but he's not a guy who cuts himself off. And I'm not sure if he was with us, he would've said... Cleve was saying, "We've got to hurry up production and get in theaters before Prop 8." I sided with Cleve. I said, "That's what Harvey would do." But there was another side to it, which was this: "It is an election. Do elections eat up peoples' time and patience for political stories? Is there a real political story going on right now with the Presidential race, and is that when they're going to go see a political movie, regardless of Prop 8? How is Prop 8 going to turn out? Is the movie going to be any good? Will people want to go see it? If it's not any good, will that affect Prop 8? Are we only about Prop 8? Is Prop 8 the center, or does the film have a life outside of the campaign? And would it get locked into the political campaign so that, after the election, it would have no value at all?" These were things we didn't know. So rather than hurry the film up and stumble and have the film not work out, that was an argument on the other side.
I don't know which side Harvey would've taken. I mean, I assume he would've gone, "C'mon, we've got to go full on against Prop 8."
Beaks: Leave nothing to chance, or, at least, leave as few regrets as possible.
Van Sant: But Prop 8 is not the center of the universe of the dialogue in the advancement of gay rights. It just continues on and on and on. And now the same organizations are moving from state-to-state. So is a better movie worth having in the ongoing battle, or is better to scrunch it up into one battle?
Beaks: Sometimes a defeat like this will give way to more victories.
Van Sant: Right. And I think that's what's happening right now.
It will be fascinating to see how big a role MILK plays in beating back the prejudice. The battle begins this Wednesday, November 26th, and will expand throughout the month of December.
Faithfully submitted,
Mr. Beaks
-
+ Expand All
-
Nov 24, 2008 2:10:29 AM CST
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
by catlettuce4
-
Nov 24, 2008 2:14:38 AM CST
Khan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by catlettuce4
-
Yes, there is still a lot of racism and bigotry of ALL kinds in this country, but at least mainstream culture has gone through great lengths to change that. Hatred of gays, however, is still remarkably commonplace. "Fag" is the most common slander amongst the youth. Imagine if 80% of fifteen year olds used the term chink or wetback or kike as often as they use fag. Mainstream-izing this movie (especially after Prop 8) is actually a good idea because that WILL mean more people will go see it. I hope this movie rocks, but I've never really been a fan of Gus Van Sant at all. I saw the documentary at UC Santa Cruz and it's a MARVELOUS and extremely tragic tale.
-
is one of the most famous poseurs of modern cinema. He's basically a wanabe Tarkovsky/Antonioni, but without the soul of the former and the enigmatic qualities of the later. He does have a good eye and some of his cinematography is pretty good, but he's got nothing inside. Like Tarkovsky and Antonioni he employes amazingly long takes, but unlike those two giants his one-take sequences are not that impressive. I believe the Hardwicker Harmonies is the one that features an unbroken hospital shot that is near the end of the film, and it's pretty complicated. But nothing on the order of the astounding final sequence in Antonioni's The Passenger or anything from Tarkovsky's Stalker. I give the guy credit for trying something different, but, where Tarkovsky and Antonioni really reached for something with their films, Tarr just wants to be different. And this is coming from someone who loves brooding, long films, where you have to look for plot to find it. I also adore one-take shots and black-and-white cinematography, which is all Tarr shoots his films in. There is just no "there" to his movies, if that makes any sense. The only director today who does long takes, shoots in black-and-white and can stand toe-to-toe with giants of cinema is Alexei Gherman of Russia. His films as movie magic.
-
films on US DVDs nowadays. While I can't recommend them as good movies, I do suggest that you try Werckmeister Harmonies and Sátántangó. They represent what Tarr is about and should give you an idea if you like his work or not.
-
I did see Good Will Hunting and later on Finding Forrest on cable but nothing else.Honestly I wrote him off as kind of a hack after the Psycho remake ( and no I didn't bother seeing it.Fuck you and your bullshit remakes Hollywood).And Finding Forrest felt like a rehash of Good Will Hunting in a lot of ways to me.
Milk looks great from the previews and I'll see it more because of Sean Penn than anything else ( ya gotta admit, even the guy's failures are kind of intresting to watch ). -
That's where you lost me, Clarence. "Good Will Hunting" may have been a subjective speed bump given Van Sant's prior CV, but it was still a solid film that holds up quite well. Save that elitist BS for your next cocktail party, then HAVE ANOTHER HAMMS to show them what a "man of the people" you are. Assclown.
-
Stunning interview, Mr. Beaks, but I've got to get this off my chest. While Good Will Hunting is definitely a prestige movie, I'd argue it's not some work of Oscar-baiting desperation (which I'm not saying you have suggested; it just comes up a lot in the many online conversations people have had about whether it SuXX0rs or RoXXors). I can't imagine anyone thinks Van Sant was chasing one, and to be honest, it's got enough sass and life and quirk to separate it from the usual Miramax films which are definitely trying for that awful empty prestige. While GWH might be more formulaic than his experimental films, it takes someone with real intellect to inject so much energy and emotional power into something as ostensibly mainstream as that. Imagine GWH directed by Ron Howard, or even Clint Eastwood (no offense to the great man). All of the memorable moments in it (How do you like them apples?, the job interview, Will's final breakdown, his flirty relationship with Skylar) would probably not work anywhere near as well, if at all. I wish Van Sant got more credit for taking a mainstream project and making something so memorable and moving from it.
Elephant is his masterpiece, though. Watching that with headphones on to absorb that amazing sound design was one of the most profound experiences of my film-watching life.
As for Psycho, I've not seen it, but I remember an artist (whose name I forget) discussing it on the BBC, and he said it was just like Warhol's soup cans, showing us the same thing but slightly wrong, in the process showing us why the original is a classic. He mentioned a shot of Vince Vaughn reaching over the camera to point at something, his enormous neck filling the screen, and said the original shot works well because Anthony Perkins' neck was scrawny, all jittering windpipe, betraying his nervousness. You watch Hitchcock's original and you take that in without thinking about it, but watching Van Sant's remake gives you an insight into why Hitchcock filmed it like that. It's remarkably generous of Van Sant to almost wreck his career just so film students have a new way of looking at a classic. -
I get in trouble every time I say it, but it's true. I'm not saying it's great or even good, but it's about the most misunderstood movie ever. Everybody talks about it like it's just some cash-in on the name of Psycho, like it's in the same category as today's rash of cynically marketed horror remakes. I don't understand how anybody can watch that movie, or hear a brief description of what the movie is, and think that it was supposed to be a mainstream, commercial movie like that. The guy may be weird but he's not a moron, and knows that remaking a movie that nobody thinks should be touched, in a way that to this day makes people irrationally angry, is not a smart way to make a quick buck. Also, doing a shot for shot remake has to be a huge pain in the ass, which may be why he actually didn't end up going 100% with that concept.
The thing that pisses people off about it the most - that it tries to be a shot-for-shot remake - is the thing that's unique about it. If it was a "re-imagined" Psycho it wouldn't be as interesting, but would be less controversial, probaly would've made some money, might even have a sequel. Would that make you guys happy?
I'm not sure what AdmiralNeck says is exactly what Van Sant intended, but it's something like that. It's a bizarre, once-in-a-lifetime art project seeing an iconic movie meticulously redone with a different style and cast but the same script and music. The guy even had the original screenwriter hired to change a handful of words (and paid more than he was on the original).
Does it work as a replacement to Psycho? Of course not, don't be a fucking idiot, who would think that was a possibility? Nobody. But it is a weird and unique experience to watch and that's what you would hope for with a thing like that. And I still to this day have never heard of teens wanting to watch Psycho with Vince Vaughn and not that old black and white shit, or heard of a movie or remake somehow influenced by this one, or a movie remade because it worked for Psycho. So I don't understand why its existence is so threatening to everybody.
I know nobody will agree with me but if I bring this up a couple times a year for the next 30 years I think eventually a couple of you will come around. Maybe. -
Nov 24, 2008 3:58:34 AM CST
If you think Last Days is a better film than Good WIll Hunting..
by industrykiller!
You are off your fucking tree. It's just objectively not true. If the purpose of a biopic about Kurt Cobain, which I don't give a shit if Van Sant denies it because it obviously fucking is, is to give insight into what the man was made of, or what was going on in his head, then Last Days is a miserable failure. I know that Kurt Cobain had something to eat and did drugs and probably took a walk someplace before he killed himself, making an entire film showing it literally is just a poseurs way of admitting that you have no idea who the fuck the guy was or any way of even attempting to find out. Not only that but its shallow, throwing in all the requisite scenes, friends pestering him for money or other friends trying to talk some sense to him, without any purpose except they "should" be there. For an avante garde piece its incredibly conventional.
Good WIll Hunting on the other hand is a brilliant film. No there are no flight of cinematic fancy but it makes up for that in cold hard reality. I did't grow up in SOuth Boston but Im from New England I hang out in Worcester constantly and one of my best friends is from Dorchester, ask anyone from thata rea what film captures the area best and they'll all tell you Good Will Hunting. While the concept of the smartest guy in the world might be a bit unrealistic, it's merely a tool to examine these characters and where they are from and how that permeates every aspect of their lives. That moment where Will and Chuckie are talking about their futures, while Oscar bait maybe because it's so good, is heartbreakingly accurate. A lot of people from that area just cannot seem to escape. And the way Van Sant films it is pitch perfect, you really get an accurate feel for the area unlike 99% of films I see about LA that make it look like a palm tree laden paradise (riiiiight). I would love to hear what precisely you see as wrong with that film besides its a non experimental film made by an experimental director, I bet you come up with nothing. -
I read your defense of it somewhere before and it was a perspective I had never heard before and did make me appreciate the attempt. I never hated the film or the idea though. I remember seeing it in theaters and just being sort of indifferent. My question is though is who is that for? It just seems like an awful lot of effort for so little pay off. Yeah maybe the occasional film student will find something there and it's a minor conversation among film buffs but I think the controversy is largely overblown. Even if you really wanna get something out of the viewing experience I don't your gonna get it when you see the film. An interesting experiment? Ok sure. One with real lasting value? I don't see it, but maybe you do. As for it being some big sell out scheme, I'd still certainly take it over anything Michael Bay has ever made.
-
It was the first 'indie' film I saw, was young at the time, and I was like 'WTF WAS THAT?' Why does everyone forget My Own Private Idaho though? That was teh shiz/
-
Isn't that the movie where Damon and Affleck go to the desert and walk and walk.... and walk... and walk.... and walk.. then die? What the fuck did you like about that shit?
-
One of the best films ever. Definitely Gus's best film with amazing performances throughout.
Oh, and that "Gerry" comment above cracked the shit out of me. But I may be in the few that actually liked that film. You forgot the walk, walk, walk, walk, then stuck on a rock scene though. -
remaking The godfather or Star Wars shot for shot,its pointless and who wants to see SHIA LABEOUF as Michael Corleone or Justin Timberlake as Luke Skywalker.
-
Kind of interesting bit of trivia I heard the other day. Apparently, Jim Jones started out as a semi-respectable religious figure in San Francisco who got away with all sorts of his crazy shit building his empire because politicians, including Milk, found it politically expedient to allow him a seat at the mainstream SF table.
-
It is the conceit. The utter, shameless conceit of a director attempting to remake an acknowledged classic in the almost exact manner of it's predecessor. There is a word for what Van Sant did. It is called: Hubris. Definition: exaggerated pride or self-confidence. There is no other explanation. None. Unless you believe that a creative person in any field would deliberately set out to make an 'inferior' product. That they would deliberately set out to show how inferior their talent is to a master. That they would deliberatley set out to show their vision is inferior to what they are attempting to recreate, in the almost exact same set of circumstances. No, it is monumental Hubris on Van Sants part that pisses people off about the Psycho project. It would have been much much better if he had simply remade the movie, than going for a shot for shot remake. It is the exact same thing as him saying, 'hey I am making the same exact movie that Hitch did, with same screenwriter, same shot selections, and no this is not a student project for film school this is a major movie that I hope makes money and makes me a star and shows I can do the same thing Hitch did as good if not better than him, because afterall why would I deliberately waste millions of dollars on a movie if I thought it was going to be inferior to original?'
-
Though it claimed to be. That's probably the biggest problem with it. It's triumph is showing us how great of a filmmaker Hitchcock was. Kind of throws out the arguement we always hear about a good script, because they were both working with the same script, but Hitchcock's film is far superior due to his use of black and white/choice of actors, and direction of said actors.
-
Great direction, Buck Henry script, and probably the best pre-Botox Kidman performance.
-
Easily for me.
-
With a Rob Zombie update of Goldsmith's score.
-
Brilliant movie. Best acting the very talented Kidman ever did. One of Buck Henry's best scripts since "the Graduate." And the twist was great.
-
See, the motives you're giving Van Sant there seem ludicrous to me. Does that really fit with the movie or the director? I don't think so. Of course he didn't set out to show he was "inferior" but that doesn't mean he thinks he's better than Hitchcock. If it was hubris wouldn't he think he had a better approach than Hitchcock? I think you have it exactly opposite, the movie is worshipful of Hitchcock.
It would be hard to believe some MTV director would do a remake as a weird art experiment more than a commercial endeavor. But why is it so hard with Van Sant, who has only briefly dabbled in studio movies and is best known for indpendent movies about junkies and gay hustlers and hanging out with William S. Burroughs? Especially considering GERRY, ELEPHANT and LAST DAYS I have to say that your theory just doesn't fit the facts at all.
Industrykiller, I agree with you. I haven't watched it in years and you're probaly right that it doesn't have much lasting value. I think it's a failed experiment, but it's mainly a failure because it pissed everybody off so bad they can't even think about the movie in the way it was intended let alone watch it that way. He had to have known it was risky but I bet he had no idea how universally hated it would be. -
It was made to prove how great Hitchcock was, which in that case Van Sant's Psycho is brilliance.
-
You keep insinuating the Psycho remake was some kind of arthouse homage to the original. Sorry but I call foul on that. It was always a $20 million commercial endeavor meant to rake in cash, and was very much marketed as an updated version of the original for a new generation. For the love of god the studio released a soundtrack of it that included Rob Zombie music.
-
You're disrespecting what Hitchcock meticulously planned and that Psycho remake blew chunks. Give me Janet Leigh over Anne Fucking Heche (Both looks and performance wise) any day of the week.
Hey while we're at it, why don't we get Brett Ratner to do a shot for shot remake of A Clockwork Orange with Chris Tucker as Alex? Vern I can't believe you're defending someone remaking one of the BEST movies of all time. Jesus -
Let me give you a scenario: Director walks into office of movie producer, says " I want to remake Hitchcocks Psycho. And I want to do it as an homage to Hitch to show just how great a director he was. So I will shoot it shot for shot(almost) using his script and screenwriter just to prove that he was a genius director and that no one else - even using his movie as a template, could even come close to producing such a masterwork. And it will only cost you 20 million dollars! No, don't throw me out, think about it: The movie will have built in marketing appeal. All of the journos will jump on it giving us free publicity. It will be notorious! The geeks will go crazy, giving us more publicity! It will pay for itself!' So, Vern you want me and everyone else to believe that a studio greenlights a multi-million dollar 'homage' just to show how great a movie the original was? There are only three possibilities. 1)If Van Sant and the studio knew he could not approach Hitchcock's masterpiece, then they greenlit a multi-million movie they knew would be inferior. 2) If Van Sant thought he could make a superior movie than Hitch, well that shows his Hubris. 3) If he thought he could make a movie just as good as Hitch, well that shows his Hubris as well. Studio's and execs who run them will be out of business and jobs very quickly if they are in the habit of giving tens of millions dollars to make what amounts to a film school project just to pay homage to a great director. This was a commercial project made to make money (nothing wrong with that). Made to capitalize on a masterpiece using a gimmick. I see no great benign intent, no homage, other than using a gimmick to try and cash in. Oh, he may truly worship Hitch, but he and studios were trying to cash in, not create homage. Oh, yeah I forgot a fourth possibility: They were all nuts.
-
Chris Doyle's photography is fucking brilliant. Even more so considering the fact that he had never seen the original and made a point not to see it before shooting. He framed his shots off the original storyboards.
-
You have to live up to your 'iconoclastic' reputation!
-
Anybody know why he's not a fan of Vinny Chase? Also, can we get him to consider doing a shot-for-shot remake of Heroes?
-
Nov 24, 2008 3:30:08 PM CST
if Iconoclast means not giving a fuck what others think....
by dannyglovers_dickblood
....uhhh..sure, guess thats me. The arguments against the Psycho remake are weak. Hubris, studio is on crack, just a gimmick to cash in on a classic, bla bla bla. Who fucking cares? I'm not gonna sit here and cry about pissing on Hitchcock's grave. Van Sant made a shot for shot remake. Its a bizarre idea, but it came out well-- and both are enjoyable. Obviously the original deserves more respect because it is.....original after all. But seriously....what the fuck? Is this all an attempt to slam Van Sant's talents? The guy does have talent. He is a great filmmaker. I guess I should stop trying to offend with my 'iconoclastic' ways and just start agreeing with everyone else here. Remakes are bad, James Cameron is God, prequels completely suck, Quentin Tarantino can write. There now. I feel a lot better already. Its like I suddenly have friends. We all agree!!! Yay!!
-
Here we are all interpreting Van Sant's motives, I thought I should look for some interviews from the time to see what he said then. I'll have to read some more when I have more time but the first one that came up was on something called BNET and here's one quote:
"PP: So you didn't approach this remake with an eye to updating, to make it resemble contemporary horror movies which have recently done so well?
GVS: No. Originals have a mood that gets erased when they're redone in a modern fashion. My idea in that first meeting about Psycho was that it would be interesting if we remade something really good and didn't change it, except to make it in color with a modern cast. At the time the studio didn't really latch onto the idea. It wasn't something that had ever been done, and I wasn't yet a player because my films hadn't made a bunch of money. But doing a literal remake was an idea I kept in my head every time I went to Universal. Eventually they said OK. I was thrilled."
I don't think he went to the studio saying "I think I can do better than Hitchcock!" and they said "Really!? AWESOME! Let's do it!" Also, in the interview he talks about all these ways he considered emulating Hitchcock including hiring a television crew to shoot it, not screening it for critics and not allowing anyone to enter the theater once the movie has started. -
I have labeled you iconoclastic instead of just a troll being disagreeable and contrary for the sake of creating an argument, because you usually defend your reasoning, regardless of how much I disagree with it. It would be a very dull world, or TB if we all agreed. I dislike Van Sants movie because it was a pointless, artless, contrivance. My reasons for disliking his motivations for making the movie in the first place: The hubris etc. are different from my dislike of the movie itself. I am not saying he should not have been allowed to remake it. I see nothing wrong with remaking a movie if you have a different vision for it. Hey, it might not work, but sometimes it does. Remaking movies is as old as Hollywood. What I objected to, was the conceit of 'shot for shot'. It was either ' I can make Hitch's exact same movie, as good or better than he could do it, using his movie as a template, or it was a gimmick. No creative person deliberately sets out to make an inferior product. So, that means Van Sant thought he could do it as least as good if not better - using Hitch's own shooting materials. That is the height of hubris. That is why if he has simply remade psycho, on his own, it would have been far more palatable.
-
Everything is mismatched in that movie. There's a lot going on in GVS's PSYCHO that I can appreciate on a purely aesthetic level (the decision to remake Lila Crane as a vinyl geek is kinda genius), but it just doesn't work as a retelling of the story (and Hitch's PSYCHO, once you get past *its* gimmickry, isn't all that interesting in the first place). This may be the point, but what a strange (and not terribly fulfilling) waste of time and money.I'll tepidly second Vern and say I'm glad it exists, but aside from a handful of surface flourishes, it doesn't have much to offer.
-
I don't believe this for a second. You, everyone here, even Van Sant's mother, would have crucified him had he offered a different take on the material. No one is happy no matter what you do when it comes to remaking classics. Thats just the way it is.
-
Oh fuck off you pretentious twat.
-
As purely a cinematic footnote in history, I am glad it exists alongside the two version of the Exorcist remake. But as a standalone cinematic achievement, it ranks slightly above: Earnest Scared Stupid
-
I give you benefit of the doubt about not being a troll, so give me the same when I say I actually like some remakes and have no real problem with remaking any movie. No movie to me is sacrosanct. I can see the wisdom in not making or remaking some movies, but that does not mean it should not be done because the movie represents anything special. I will see Keanus movie on opening weekend. And hope it kicks ass. No matter how good or bad it may be, it will not diminish my enjoyment of the original.
-
...that change the film entirely and just cash in on the name value. But you have a problem with a shot for shot remake that cashes in on the name value? In your mind Gus thought he was better than Hitch because he wanted to remake it shot for shot, but a director remaking a film like say Planet of The Apes is showing more respect by murdering the original? Really?
-
He's the D.P. not the production designer.
-
What if it were released for the very first time in 1998. Would it have caught on?
-
Better, worse or just the same. It is still a different take on the original. I laid out two reasons for disliking what Van Sant did. The first was the motivation in making a 'shot for shot' remake as opposed to remaking it with his own vision. The second, was that his movie failed as an entertainment. They are not mutually exclusive reasons. By that I mean, I could still dislike Van Sants motivations in making a 'shot for shot' movie, but if he has somehow made a great flick, I could enjoy the movie on it's 'own' merits. He did not make a great flick, nor even an enjoyable one. Far from it.
-
Nov 24, 2008 4:41:15 PM CST
Van Sant wanted to remake psycho and he was in the position to
by stuntcock mike
do it. Shit, I'd do a shot for shot remake of Out for Justice if I had the fucking chance. With Seagal!
-
...is planning a shot-for-shot remake of "Milk", in black & white. Can't wait!
-
It sounds like we actually kind of agree on the movie, just not on the reasons it was made. Unlike Beaks I love the original Psycho, but this particular remake doesn't get my purist zealotry going like some of the other remakes do. If, I don't know, Todd Solondz or somebody had decided to do a scene-by-scene reshoot of THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE with a cast made up only of famous Olympic athletes, then it would not have worked as a horror movie but I would have enjoyed watching it once as a weird pop experiment and testament to the genius of the original. And that would be more than I got out of the remake they actually did make, which I think does sort of implicitly (by accident) imply that they think they can do it better than Tobe Hooper did, and that many young people actually accepted as being better. To me that's more offensive although I guess in both cases I'll survive.
-
I truly dislike the literal remake notion. While I would debate the wisdom of remaking certain movies, even so I hold no movie as sacrosanct. Remake a movie, but do it with your vision, not someone elses - regardless of the reasons you may think it wise to do so. It is not. I have laid out why I dislike what Van Sant did in earlier posts, but also stated that if he had succeeded and made an entertaining flick, I could have appreciated the movie, while still disliking the process that brought it about. They are not mutually exclusive. But he failed completely and throuroughly and not unexpectedly.
-
christ, when you transcribe, do you ever google? russian river was once the catskills for the middle class in the bay area...then the gays discovered it and families stopped going...and im so tired of this revisionist history about milk...were it not for george moscone, milk wouldve been nothing
-
Or are you always this cranky?... Use more lube next time, and you won't feel the need to go on such a tirade, 'kay? And if you're going to nitpick on transcribing, how's about spelling? It's "would've" not "wouldve". And starting sentences with capital letters. Oh, and do you live in the SF Bay Area? Because I do, and there are still plenty o' families and their kids along with the homos in Russian River. And they all get along pretty well.
-
or I am dense as hell. I could not finish watching that film. I stopped watching it after 5 minutes of the same goddamn boring scene...it was "kurt cobain" being filmed from outside a window coming in and out of the shot. I mean that just kept going, then they went to another scene. Im sorry that was complete bullshit! I know someone else mentioned how bad this film was so maybe I'm not that dense.
-
stating a fact...it was the summer getaway for most middle class families, when there used to be a time when households only needed one bread winner...i probably spoke out of turn to say that gays forced out straights, cuz over the years, families started going less and less to russian river...more so because of economics...but i am right about this whole bullshit hero worship of milk sans the power behind the guy, which was george moscone...moscone was well on his way to becoming a true force in the dem party when he was assasinated, yet he becomes a footnote in history...
-
But still, would it kill you to start your sentences with capital letters? However, thanks for clarifying the Russian River history. Before, you made it sound like the gays ruined it for everyone. And I still stand by my statement: Plenty of homos AND hetero families at Russian River these days, each group happily accepting the other. Don't agree with your version of Milk's rise to power, but hey, it's your opinion, well spoken, and you're entitled to it. Me, Harvey Milk will always be one of my heroes. And that's MY opinion. And can we agree that maybe (hopefully) we got this talkback away from the "Psycho" remake and back onto the original subject? Man, I was SO starting to get ticked with all the "Psycho remake was great!" "No, it wasn't, you doody-head!" And blah, blah, blah....
-
Oh... well, it doesn't. Pardon me.
-
At one point, Harvey Milk goes to Japan Town and orders the Calamari don buri.
-
I did Google that part. And replayed the audio several times. I was unsure of "Rushing River", but that's what it sounded like Van Sant was saying. As a non-native of California who's only visited San Francisco a handful of times, I don't quite know how extra Googling would've brought me closer to "Russian". Oh, well... thanks for offering the correction without being a complete prick.
-
Touché.
-
poor baby, had to read the tabgenital, uh tangentile, tangetoial, tangential. yeah tangential psycho posts. poor thing, can only focus on one subject at a time, with no room for divergence - even when no one is talking to him. must be knew, uh nyoo, new, around here. oh my bad, I did not capitalize any characters in my sentences, let alone the first letter as a majuscule, like some anal types complain about. tsk, tsk.
-
I'm actually a bit shocked that this TB hasn't completely devolved into homophobic gay bashing (yet).Mr. Beaks, I just wanted to let you know that you're a fantastic addition to AICN's writing staff. I always enjoy your interviews and articles. You're a damned good writer and critic.
-
Huh? And here I thought I'D had too much too drink before entering this talkback. Thanks for proooooooooving, uh, peruvuing,... NO, wait, uh, thanks for prooofing me wrung. Yeah, that's hit. *Hick!* "anal types"? scroo you yah homofopiaexpealtidicous.... *HICK* *BARF* (clunk as body falls to floor)
-
You have a good sense of humor, except when it comes to majuscule in sentences, of course what can you expect from a flying turtle? Good thing you are a reptile. I hates amphibians.
-
in this Hitchcock Psycho vs Van Sant Psycho remake debate, is that the original was a pretty crappy movie to begin with, so why would anyone want to make a shot for shot remake instead of trying to improve on it instead?
-
not my fault that van sant mumbles cuz he thinks its cool...i again apologize for the slight at gays...the reality is that gays saved the russian river tourist trade...i guess i was trying to be glib...oh, and fuck capitol letters...i only like to use them when i yell...as for milk's rise to power, it only happened because sf changed the way it elected its board of sups...prior to his election, the board was elected city wide...it was changed by the voters to be by district (from a ballot initiative spurred on by milk) here is the irony...dan white would never have won a city wide election either...he may have been well liked in his district...he wasnt elsewhere...and because of the sups being in districts, they did need moscone's backing to get things done...and moscone put political power behind milk...i was there guys, i saw it happening...oh, and fuck dianne feinstein...i hate that bitch
-
Does the film address this relationship? If not, its glossing over history, as the three were very intertwined. Google it.
-
but dude, you gotta remember that jones was a con artist extrodinaire...he fooled alot of people...here is some trivia...the people's temple used to be a synagogue...temple beth shalom...i went there as a kid
-
Check out Gus Van Sant's short film "The Discipline of DE" on the latest WholphinDVD complilation. And by that I mean check out my short film "David Huggins: Experienced," which is also on there. Cheap plug! yeah!
-
couldnt give a rats arse what anyone here thinks anyhow.
-
Who cares about a loudmouth gay man? If I wanted to see that, I'd rent a Richard Simmons tape. No one outside of San Francisco cares about Milk.
I wish the gay mafia would stop already with their bigoted hatred towards normal humanity's decree (twice now) that marriage is between a man and a woman. For some reason, they think the beliefs of over 3 BILLION people are wrong.
Just a bunch of hatefilled, close-minded bigots with a lisp. -
That's the kind of homophobic gay bashing I was expecting....
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 151 total posts 140 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 128 total posts 94 posts
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 92 total posts 91 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 474 total posts 70 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 64 total posts 64 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 51 total posts 51 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 116 total posts 41 posts
- Wanna smell like the Hulk? What about Cap? Consider yourself a Thunder God or a unisex God of Mischief? -- 71 total posts 40 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 35 total posts 34 posts