Hollywood Hitchcock's

The last decade (give or take) has seen a veritable explosion of questionable reboots and remakes of celebrated cult films, which often have the effect of leaving filmgoers scratching their heads, begging the question: “Did (insert film here) really need to be remade?” Films such as the recently released Robocop reboot, as well as the upcoming remake of Point Break come to mind.

"Yawwwwwwn" (Photo courtesy IMDB)

Given this increasingly apparent trend, it is often easy to neglect the fact that the commercial revitalization of dormant films/franchises is not limited solely to cult or niche films. Arguably one of the most notable ‘classic’ film remakes of the past two decades (if not ever), Gus Van Sant’s 1998 remake of Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960) was an unmitigated disaster in every sense.

              Despite the remake updating the story to contemporary times and being filmed in color, it bears a startling resemblance to Hitchcock’s original film that pushes the boundary between homage and sheer exploitation. Van Sant’s reverence to Hitchcock is almost palpable, as he often replicates Hitchcock’s original camera movements and editing techniques, while utilizing Joseph Stefano’s original script nearly verbatim. The film even makes use of Bernard Herrmann’s iconic musical score (albeit re-arranged, with some additions by Danny Elfman). These factors led critics to universally pan/disregard the Psycho remake as nothing more than a big-budget film school project—a shot-for-shot remake that failed to add anything compelling to the original film (and arguably tarnished its legend in the mind of viewers).

You are not my Norman Bates. (Photo courtesy vvaughn.com)

 Even with the disastrous outcome of Hollywood’s last attempt to cash in on the modernization of a Hitchcock film, it doesn’t appear that they have learned their lesson. It was reported in 2007 that Universal Studios had given the green light to begin production on a remake of another Hitchcock classic, The Birds (1963).

                The original report attached Naomi Watts to the role of Melanie, with rumors that Martin Campbell—hot off the success of Casino Royale—would be helming the project. As one might expect, this announcement was not only met with a distinct lack of excitement/interest, but vehement criticism. Tippi Hedren—who played Melanie in Hitchcock’s original—voiced her displeasure at the announcement, saying: “Why would you do that? Why? I mean, can’t we find new stories, new things to do?” That sentiment seems to be echoed by a large portion of today’s audiences, but as long as these questionable remakes/reboots remain commercially viable, we can continue to expect uninspired remakes of both classic and cult films alike.

               Whether or not this remake of The Birds ever reaches fruition, I cannot help but wonder what steps might be taken by the production team to insure a superior end result than the calamitous Psycho remake. It is safe to assume that Universal would distance itself from the idea of a shot-for-shot remake that Van Sant utilized, which raises the challenge of presenting a potential remake in a new and compelling way that makes it a worthy companion piece to the original.

               Personally, I see one of the biggest challenges in remaking The Birds is recreating Hitchcock’s evocative, macabre cinematography in a unique fashion, without simply recreating the shots (as Psycho did in 1998). Certain shots from original are still clearly etched into my mind—Lydia standing up into a fixed frame, while the camera slowly tracks backward to reveal four characters standing in perfect composition, or a close-up of a hand addressing a letter, before slowly tracking backward to reveal Melanie in a medium shot—and a successful remake would require an auteur with the ability to create memorable, evocative shot compositions without lifting shots directly from the original film. It is certainly possible, but to me, the few directors with the acumen to pull of such a feat, are also the directors smart enough steer clear of remaking a Hitchcock film in the first place.

Who are the 'Freaks'?

Following our requisite viewing of Tod Browning’s 1932 film Freaks—adapted from the short story Spurs, written by Tod Robbins in 1923—astute viewers will notice the variations in character portrayals between the film and the original story, in ways both subtle and apparent. I was immediately aware of the film's expansion of the idea/theme present in the short story questioning who the 'freaks' truly are.

Even more so than the original story, the film portrays the circus freaks as intrinsically honorable and trusting individuals, contrasted against the two "normal" members of the troupe who conspire together to murder Hans and obtain his fortune for themselves. It begs the question of who are the real freaks in this situation? That was a dynamic I enjoyed, despite the removal of several instances of dialogue that aimed to further depict the ‘normal’ humans as reprehensible, and the ‘freaks’ as sympathetic individuals.

Although the screen romance between Frieda and Hans reflects the subdued/chilly nature of the original story, this could easily have been a product of necessity, as the roles were played by real life brother and sister Harry and Daisy Earles.

The conclusion of the film--or rather, the entire film in general--is clearly a product of pre-Hays Code Hollywood, with the brutal climax that sees the freaks attacking the two 'normal' conspirators armed with knives, guns, and other weapons. It is interesting to note that the final reunion of Hans and Frieda—seen in most versions of the film—was not part of Tod Browning’s original cut. It was only added after negative response from test audiences prompted studio executives to re-edit the film with a happier ending.

Some of the imagery in this film was no less than shocking (to me, at least), and while I won't go as far as to say I had nightmares, the images of Cleopatra as a disgusting human duck, and basically every shot of Prince Randian as the living torso were enough to haunt my dreams for the duration of the weekend. I also enjoyed the fact that, unlike the original short story that portrayed each ancillary freak as something of a caricature, the film avoids this by the inclusion of several 'slice of life' scenes that expand upon the lives of the performers (birth of the bearded woman's child, conjoined twin engangement, etc). These inclusions were important to humanize the 'freaks' and it seems to shy away from the winking, almost tongue-in-cheek fashion they are portrayed in Spurs.

Photo courtesy of monkeyinthecage.com

 I would truly love to see the original, uncut version of this film, and I'm disappointed that the segments removed are lost to the universal ether. I can’t help but wonder how the film’s original ending—one that allegedly showed Hercules singing soprano in Madame Tetralini’s new sideshow after being castrated by the vengeful freaks—would have affected the tone and dynamic of the film, had it not been cut after receiving vehemently negative reactions from preview reactions. Even with the aforementioned cuts, the film was banned in the United Kingdom for more than 30 years, finally being released with an X rating in 1963.

 Although I was aware of Tod Browning through he and Bela Lugosi's collaboration on Dracula in 1931, it was especially interesting (and disheartening) to read that the extreme level of controversy—and misunderstanding—surrounding Freaks effectively ended Browning's once-promising Hollywood career, especially given the social critique of intolerance he was attempting to construct.