In a striking revelation that has stirred debate among critics and movie buffs, Quentin Tarantino declared his preference for Gus Van Sant’s contentious remake of “Psycho” over Alfred Hitchcock’s revered original, putting his Quentin Tarantino controversial remake preference at the heart of recent film discussions. Sharing candid insights during interviews, Tarantino’s remarks further illuminate his unique perspective on film history and influence.
Tarantino’s Surprising Opinion on the Psycho Remake
Quentin Tarantino, recognized for his strong opinions and major contributions to cinema over three decades, recently expressed admiration for Gus Van Sant’s 1998 shot-for-shot, color remake of “Psycho”. While many, including critics and film scholars, regard Alfred Hitchcock as one of the greatest directors and the original “Psycho” (1960) as a horror landmark, Tarantino maintains a contrarian viewpoint. He has long considered Hitchcock overrated and, even more provocatively, favors Van Sant’s version, which starred Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates and Anne Heche as Marion Crane.
The original “Psycho,” known for its shocking narrative involving a motel owner who kills his guests and for pivotal moments like the early demise of Janet Leigh’s character, is celebrated for its narrative innovations and four Academy Award nominations, including Best Director. Its influence is marked by various sequels, remakes, and a popular TV series. Despite the widespread praise for Hitchcock’s vision and style, Tarantino openly confesses a lack of attachment to both the director himself and “Psycho” as a film, a stance that stands out in the cinematic community.
Critics have often questioned the merit of Van Sant’s 1998 remake, arguing that its similarities to the original undermine any purpose it might serve. However, Tarantino defends the project and its director, arguing that the attempt was more valuable than critics suggest. He notably stated,
“at least Van Sant was trying to do something”
—Quentin Tarantino, filmmaker. This defense of Van Sant’s experimental approach emphasizes Tarantino’s respect for filmmakers who challenge norms, even if those efforts are poorly received.
Tarantino not only talks about his appreciation for the remake but demonstrates it by screening Van Sant’s “Psycho” multiple times at his Los Angeles venue, New Beverly Cinema. This action underscores his commitment to sharing unconventional cinematic perspectives with audiences.
Preference for the Sequels Over Hitchcock’s Original
Tarantino’s admiration for alternative interpretations of “Psycho” does not end with the remake. He has openly praised “Psycho II”, directed by Richard Franklin, stating a greater fondness for the sequel than the original. He recalls the cultural climate of the 1980s, when Hitchcock was almost untouchable among cinephiles, and the notion of remaking or extending his work was widely perceived as sacrilege. Tarantino commented,
“Hitchcock was definitely more revered than he is now. By the 80s, Hitchcock was treated like some sort of cinematic saint … So, the idea of remaking or especially sequalizing [a Hitchcock film ], people talked about it like sacrilege.”
—Quentin Tarantino, filmmaker. This observation provides insight into how shifting industry attitudes impacted creative choices and the reception of subsequent “Psycho” films.
Tarantino has often voiced a preference for director Richard Franklin, even describing him as the “Australian Hitchcock.” He commends Franklin for revitalizing the story by focusing on Norman Bates, portrayed once again by Anthony Perkins, and credits Tom Holland for the engaging screenplay. Remarkably, Tarantino has argued that Perkins’ performance in the sequel surpasses his original role and stands as one of horror’s finest. He emphasizes that the sequel uniquely positions viewers to root for Norman Bates’s redemption, adding complexity and depth to the character beyond his criminal actions.
Why Tarantino Criticizes Hitchcock’s Body of Work
Going beyond “Psycho”, Tarantino’s critique of Hitchcock extends to the legendary director’s broader filmography. He openly questioned the quality of films like “North by Northwest” and “Vertigo”, labeling them as only “mediocre” examples from their respective periods. “Frenzy,” Hitchcock’s so-called comeback, was described by Tarantino in disparaging terms. Still, he acknowledges that these are his personal views, despite how out-of-step they might seem given these films’ canonical status. On the continued discovery of Hitchcock’s work by younger fans, Tarantino commented,
“discover North by Northwest at 22 and think it’s wonderful when actually it is a very mediocre movie.”
—Quentin Tarantino, filmmaker. This assertion points to the longevity and influence of Hitchcock’s work, as “North by Northwest” maintains critical acclaim, holding a 97% Rotten Tomatoes score and a place in the National Film Registry.
Tarantino attributes his detachment from Hitchcock’s films, in part, to difficulties with their third acts. He suggests that Hitchcock’s endings were hampered by the filmmaking restrictions of his era, specifically the Hays Code, which controlled what could be explicitly portrayed on screen. As Tarantino explained,
“was held back by the times that he worked.”
—Quentin Tarantino, filmmaker. This insight into industry history suggests Tarantino believes Hitchcock could have delivered even greater films had he worked later, free of the Production Code’s constraints.
Nevertheless, Tarantino does credit Hitchcock with cleverly exploiting these very restrictions. He observes that the need to work around limitations often led Hitchcock to subvert expectations and uncover creative methods to convey bold messages within strict boundaries.
The Impact of Tarantino’s Stance on Film Discourse
Tarantino’s outspoken championing of both Gus Van Sant’s “Psycho” remake and the film’s sequels ignites ongoing conversation about the value of remakes, the evolving influence of legendary directors, and changing audience responses over time. By articulating his Quentin Tarantino controversial remake preference, he challenges widely held notions about classic cinema, prompting debate among film fans, critics, and industry professionals alike. Tarantino’s willingness to dissent from conventional wisdom ensures that discussions about Hitchcock, cinematic innovation, and the reinterpretation of established works will continue to shape conversations both in film circles and among broader audiences.
