Anne Heche looked a bit more - Psycho (1960) Discussion

[–] swanstep 7 years ago

Here are two key frames (the lowest the camera goes in each case) for comparison:
http://tinyurl.com/p2bswjs (Leigh)
http://tinyurl.com/papgurc (Heche)
An IMDb poster called 'moosefeathers' once observed that Leigh looks shocked/terrified whereas Heche looks pissed off.

It's striking how much more poetic Hitchcock's (and dp Russell's) shot is than Van Sant's (and his dp Doyle's). Hitch's camera gets a lot *lower* than Van Sant's and its focus is much *shallower/tighter*, i.e., *only* Marion's face is fully in focus so that it pops out from everything else, e.g., we really *see* her tear-like water-droplets in a way we don't with Heche.

Hitch's image has a flow within it away to a dark horizon near the middle of the frame. Effectively the shot has rotated and pulled back against this flow to this point when the horizon is finally horizontal. Marion's face breaks the dark horizon and in the gaudy brightness of the bathroom lights, her face is carved out of that darkness spilling forth from her mouth, obscuring her left eye almost completely, and making an abstract curve of her nose below her big eye that is the center of the image. Van Sant's image, by way of comparison, has no horizon, no focus-driven flow, and no play of light and dark. In sum, Van Sant's image has far less structure to it than Hitch's. It feels harsher, more clinical, and Heche's fate feels less dignified than Leigh's. A case could be made for either approach I suppose, but my own view is that had Hitchcock and Russell done things Van Sant and Doyle's way, there's no way we'd be here 50+ years later talking about it.

Leigh's face looked like it actually had some life in it

I think I get what you are saying: Leigh looks like a still-warm dead body alright and we feel like we've stayed in real time, whereas the Heche image is a lot colder and feels like maybe we've broken real-time and that ten minutes or so might have passed. Again, a case could be made for either approach, but I know which one I'd choose!

reply

[–] chaveechi 7 years ago

I vastly prefered Hitch's i just think Van Sant's was more realistic. Not better. I know which one I'd choose as well : )

reply

[–] ecarle 7 years ago

It's striking how much more poetic Hitchcock's (and dp Russell's) shot is than Van Sant's (and his dp Doyle's). Hitch's camera gets a lot *lower* than Van Sant's and its focus is much *shallower/tighter*, i.e., *only* Marion's face is fully in focus so that it pops out from everything else, e.g., we really *see* her tear-like water-droplets in a way we don't with Heche.

---

This paragraph, and all around it, reflect to me why Gus Van Sant's Psycho is an achievement of sorts that has all sorts of educational value along these lines: "Those of us who admire -- if not worship -- Hitchcock as a filmmaker get our proof of his greatness with Van Sant's Psycho." Shot for shot is one thing, but Van Sant simply could not capture what was WITHIN those shots. Hitchcock operated at a level of artistry that is, truly, spiritual (or something) in its ability to grip us, to move us, and to last pretty much forever in our minds.

At his best, at least. But the thing is, I see the same artistry even in misfires like Topaz -- the script and casting may have been off, Hitchcock may have been old, but however that visual "thing" in his mind worked, its there in Topaz, too.

---

I've remarked on this too:

Some months before Gus Van Sant's Psycho opened, both the LA Times AND Newsweek ran the same side-by-side photos: Janet Leigh showering (pre-attack) and Anne Heche showering (pre-attack.) The Leigh photo , from censored 1960, was ten times more erotic than the Heche photo from 1998. The texture of the Leigh shot was more cinematic; the Heche shot looked like a documentary representation of a woman simply taking a shower. "Shot versus shot" Hitchcock's work so outdistanced Van Sant's that you just KNEW Van Sant's experiment was going to fail.

And thus succeed in generating such an outcome: Hitchcock came out of things looking greater than ever.

reply

[–] PrometheusTree64 7 years ago

Hitchcock himself said "casting is character" and that's indeed another reason why Gus's 1998 remake, shot-for-shot though it mostly was, couldn't have worked -- even if Heche looked a wee bit "deader."

Even though Janet Leigh was killed off within the first 50 minutes of the movie, you never quite forgot her during the second half of the film. And why not? There was a sadness to the character which resonated throughout the movie; you believed theft wasn't her nature and that she had made a desperate last grasp at something, so you felt for her.

But Heche's version comes off as riffraff, an opportunistic piece o' trash you forget about immediately after being done in.

--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA

reply

[–] swanstep 7 years ago

Even though Janet Leigh was killed off within the first 50 minutes of the movie, you never quite forgot her during the second half of the film. And why not? There was a sadness to the character which resonated throughout the movie; you believed theft wasn't her nature and that she had made a desperate last grasp at something, so you felt for her.

But Heche's version comes off as riffraff, an opportunistic piece o' trash you forget about immediately after being done in.

That's an interesting point. Part of it is certainly Leigh's performance but part is just her particular presence (for which she was cast of course). Leigh was a super-good-looking movie-star but she had a trace of reserve about, and a watchfulness that can read on-screen as 'good listener' or as a little sad. You just don't forget about Leigh after she's been on-screen in the early '60s. Leigh's haunting quality at the time plays an even larger role in The Manchurian Candidate, where her character Rosie is only onscreen for about 10 minutes total but she really preys on your mind afterwards. Is she Marco's controller or not? Some of the credit for that impactgoes to screenwriter Axelrod who came up with some funkily mysterious dialogue for Leigh in her first 'train' scene with Sinatra. But a lot of the credit goes to Leigh (and whoever cast her) - the Janet Leigh-ness that makes her Marion Crane so unforgettable made for a richer character in Manchuran than would have been possible with anyone else.

reply

[–] ecarle 7 years ago

That's an interesting point. Part of it is certainly Leigh's performance but part is just her particular presence (for which she was cast of course). Leigh was a super-good-looking movie-star but she had a trace of reserve about, and a watchfulness that can read on-screen as 'good listener' or as a little sad.

---

Absolutely. Hitchcock may have cast somewhat wrong in a few films -- Bob Cummings in general, Frederick Stafford in Topaz -- but more often than not, his casting decisions were just about perfect in nuance for the film.

With Psycho, it looks like MCA forced John Gavin on him, and he defaulted to Vera Miles because he had her on personal contract. But Janet Leigh was very carefully chosen, just as Anthony Perkins had been and, I would contend, Martin Balsam as well(all those character men out there and Balsam seemed JUST RIGHT for a tough detective who wasn't quite tough enough.)

---

You just don't forget about Leigh after she's been on-screen in the early '60s. Leigh's haunting quality at the time plays an even larger role in The Manchurian Candidate, where her character Rosie is only onscreen for about 10 minutes total

---

Amazing, isn't it? Just ten minutes, but she matters. I do believe this was Leigh's first film after Psycho (less a cameo as herself in "Pepe"), and Marion Crane carries forth with her just as Norman Bates started taking Tony Perkins' roles.

---

but she really preys on your mind afterwards. Is she Marco's controller or not?

---

It seems so LIKELY in the film -- mainly because Leigh comes onto the trembling basket case Sinatra so quickly on the train(perhaps memories of Eve in NWNW worked here even though this wasn't a Hitchcock film) and rapidly dumps a fiancé to become his girlfriend (like, the next day.)

"Candidate" director John Frankenheimer said he saw Leigh's part as simply the rather thankless one of "the girlfriend," but we aren't sure, are we? I rather like to believe she WAS "just the girlfriend," but a very important one: the kind of loving, caring woman who would be exactly what the shellshocked/brainwashed Sinatra would need to become the good man he could be again. Leigh's presence in the cold, sad, nightmarish "Manchurian Candidate" is one of hope, of love, in a morass of horror.

I've always liked the moment when Sinatra brings home a newspaper announcing of the murders of a US Senator and his daughter. Sinatra , devastated, says "Raymond Shaw killed his wife and her father," and Leigh is real and tentative and human "...but, it doesn't say..."

---

Some of the credit for that impactgoes to screenwriter Axelrod who came up with some funkily mysterious dialogue for Leigh in her first 'train' scene with Sinatra.

---

That's a great scene, very famous now in its mix of the compassionate(how Leigh rushes between cars to comfort the freaked out Sinatra), the sexy(Leigh's VOICE! "The greatest female voice of her time," wrote somebody like Hedda Hopper) and its out and out strangeness(Leigh: "I was one of the original Chinese workmen who built this track." Sinatra: "Baltimore is a spectacular baseball town.")

The scene, BTW, was shot in one morning when a whole day was scheduled for it. Sinatra was "Mr. One Take" and Leigh matched him, note for note. Its ALL first take.

(Similarly, James Stewart and Tom Helmore did their first briefing scene for Vertigo in one morning too, when a day was scheduled. Sometimes, actors DO known their lines.)

---

But a lot of the credit goes to Leigh (and whoever cast her) - the Janet Leigh-ness that makes her Marion Crane so unforgettable made for a richer character in Manchuran than would have been possible with anyone else.

---

Absolutely. Sometimes we talk of Janet Leigh's "luck" in landing Touch of Evil, Psycho, and The Manchurian Candidate one after another. But perhaps those three movies were lucky to have HER.

Some sad realities behind her "Manchurian Candidate" performance: Tony Curtis was leaving her for a much younger woman(his "Taras Bulba" co-star) just as "Candidate" went into production. Sinatra had all of Leigh's scenes moved up to the front of the schedule so she could go right to work, forget about Tony -- and hang with a comforting Sinatra(nothing sexual that I've read of, he was being a caring friend.)

Meanwhile, around this same time, Janet Leigh's father committed suicide(I guess having a successful movie star daughter was no shield) and Leigh started to suffer from crazed Psycho fan harassment (horrific death threats). A difficult time for her, and perhaps a bit on screen in The Manchurian Candidate.

Speaking of "The Manchurian Candidate," SNL used that phrase last week to describe Trump given his Russian connection. I wonder how many youngsters in the audience got the joke?

reply

[–] agentbach 7 years ago

She also looked like a shriveled rotting corpse as well. Honestly I just want to know why Anne Heche? I don't think her acting is anything special, she's not particularly sexy or charming. I know the film was suppose to be shot for shot but if you're gonna shoot a modern version, cast someone attractive. When I see her, I don't see someone that would unknowingly seduce a man.

reply