PDA

View Full Version : Coverage, Blocking, Cuts and Psycho



J.R. Hudson
08-07-2005, 09:22 PM
Psycho Directed by Gus Van Sant (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001814/)

A SHOT FOR SHOT REMAKE OF A MASTERPIECE.

For those of you not familiar; I did one of these for a scene in JAWS a few months back.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=24329

I've been meaning to do another one.

Something stands out for me; among all the controversy of GUS' Shot for Shot adaption. The original truly is perfect; it is a masterpiece. There is no other way to remake it other than the way Van Zant decided to to.

Of course we'll be discussing the shower scene. Where were you the first time you saw this film? What do you think of the original and the remake? What does the sequence mean to you (how does it impact you). What would you have done differently, if any?

Let's break this down, tear it up and discuss it.

First the Scene:

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/2352/script4bd.jpg

Keep in mind:

There are a Total of 66 Cuts in this selected sequence

The scene is from 00:43:47 to 00:47:45.

From 00:45:20 to 00:45:51 there are 43 Cuts. That's 43 Cuts in 31 Seconds and the year is 1960.

http://img321.imageshack.us/img321/7064/shotforshot8kv.jpg


And of course the last shot of Norman and into the fade where we get the end titles; apparentyl thsi is identical to the original version

http://img321.imageshack.us/img321/6810/photstrip9me.jpg

brianluce
08-07-2005, 11:02 PM
Dude, you are clearly, unabashedly, absolutely head over heels in love. I salute you!

victorian
08-08-2005, 09:47 AM
Very impressive. Just out of curiousity, where did you get these amazing shots?

J.R. Hudson
08-08-2005, 07:12 PM
69 Views and 2 comments? :(

(Ouch) :undecided

The JAWS Version got 43 Replies.........

http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=24329

Is it the subject matter? I was just choosing a famous cinematic moment.

Did I offend anyone? :huh:

Shaw
08-08-2005, 07:21 PM
It's very interesting and well done. I'm just waiting until I can sit down and really give it the attention it deserves before making comments.

krestofre
08-09-2005, 06:14 AM
Sorry about skipping on the reply the first time through. The work that you do on these is great and I really enjoyed this one as well. I think the Jaws one got a little more feedback because there was some Hudson commentary to it. You added things like:


Look at the MED and C.U. of Brody and the Coroner as the scene plays out; they come from the same identical angle as previous set-ups except the framing has changed; ZOOMING IN. Notice the Tighter framing adds tension and drama as Dreyfuss leads up to "It's a Shark!"

and


I count 12 CUTS; and the Spielberg cleverly changes compositons without cutting by having Dreyfuss cross the line, not once, but two times.

Which are not only excellent insights, but also sparked conversation.

After reading this Psycho post, I was kinda left thinking, "Ok, but what does John *think* about it?"

So, let's start some conversation. John, what do you think about the way this scene was translated from script to screen? :laugh:

Chris

Bigmagic
08-09-2005, 07:38 AM
John this is the first time this has shown up on my "new posts" brilliant work again. The "Jaws" breakdown you did is my favorite dvxuser post. Wow I can't believe the number of cuts in four minutes of movie. Have you compared these cuts to the original? I don't own either movie but I'll have to rent them and compare. I agree with Krestofre that your commentary was very interesting in the "Jaws" breakdown. I also think because everyone has seen "Jaws" there was a more universal appeal. Some of the youngsters may not have seen the original Hitchcock version. Whats impressive about this scene to me is the lack of dialog, the story is being told by just the camera. I think the sound was an essential element in this scene as well. Great work John keep doing these.

rreichenfeld
08-09-2005, 11:15 AM
Did you already shoot it? Also that actress looks very familuar, (Spelling error.)

Isaac_Brody
08-15-2005, 09:22 AM
Great work John. :thumbsup: Scene dissection's a great tool. I did something similar a few years ago for a scene in Torn Curtain. Another great Hitchcock scene is the bar scene in The Birds.

J.R. Hudson
08-15-2005, 10:26 AM
Thanks for looking Isaac; I'll keep my eye out for the birds. Ive been meaning to watch that lately

HorseFilms
08-15-2005, 12:52 PM
Awesome! I've always loved that scene. It's nice to look at it shot by shot. It really shows off the master's work.

Blaine
01-10-2006, 02:54 PM
Thanks, John. This is an interesting exercise, well worth the viewing. I also liked the Jaws one you did, along with everyone's take on it.

Any other's I might have missed? Okay, I did the search and saw there weren't. : )

blastinhowl
01-10-2006, 05:37 PM
I for one, would like to know, how the hell, they shot that
full on view of the shower water flow.
I mean, were looking into the shower head and I don't see any water
on the lense?????!!!!!!!!
I'm trying to guess, but I can't.
I mean, I have no idea how they got that shot at all!
It's blowing my mind actually.

Seeing that scene broke up in bits like that, I can't help but admire how clean he kept it. That could of been a very nasty scene.:evil: But, I guess it didn't need to be.

That was very cool of you to break down like that. Thanks.

dougspice
01-10-2006, 06:19 PM
My guess is that they used COMPUTERS.

Tainted
01-10-2006, 10:47 PM
NICE POST!!!

On the shower-head shot, I'm not even sure they HAD computers back then (well maybe a room full of vacuum tubes or something, LOL!), and they did the exact same shot in the original (as is true with the rest of the remake). I watched an interview with Hitchcock within the past few months and he talked about it. I forget exactly what they did, but they designed a special setup just to do it. I also vaguely remember that the shower head was modified to shoot the water around the lens. Looks normal from that angle, but wouldn't be a great shower to actually take a shower in.

BTW, I also personally studied the film again recently because I wanted to use some of the same techniques in a film-in-a-day event called CinemaSports at the Mill Valley Film Fest a few months back. Let me say that I am a true amateur, still shooting on a GS400 (but hopefully a DVX soon), who has a day job completely unrelated to video production -- so this is just a hobby for me, so don't expect too much <SMILE>. But anyway, I wanted to make some sort of a B-horror flick for this film-in-a-day event, so I ripped off some angles and cutting ideas from psycho when I made it -- like showing a wide angle shot from above, following quickly with a quick series of super-close up montage cuts to help enable a sense of shock not only from the murder, but also from the abrupt cuts (like done with the second killing in Pyscho on the stairs).

Now make no mistake, my attempt to use some of those techniques represent a hack at best, and it didn't help that it was conceived, shot, edited, and rendered into it's final form in ten hours flat. But regardless, why not share? I'm going to link to the video I made, but you should read my blog post first so you understand how this short was shot -- in ten hours flat end-to-end and three "ingrediants" had to be incorporated into the movie that we didn't know about until 9am that morning. Anyway, for what it's worth, maybe just a laugh, don't expect too much, you can watch it here:
http://www.swerbo.com/posts/95.cinemasports-mill-valley-film-fest

And, I can't remember that interview with Hitchcock, but it is available on DVD, and is worth checking out sometime -- he talks about Pyscho in it quite a bit. It's a bit stale, but still worth checking out.

Lake Films
05-24-2006, 04:49 AM
I used 'plexiglass' for a shower scene I did to protect the camera. Was a great effect having the water hit the 'lens' so to speak...

Slimothy
05-26-2006, 03:15 PM
John-I'm learning some stuff from these things. You should keep em' up dammit.

Matt Sconce
05-26-2006, 09:11 PM
This and the Jaws breakdown are extremely helpful! Thanks!

TimurCivan
05-26-2006, 11:39 PM
the real "art" in a movie, is making the simple shots, look simple, but remain interesting. Psychologicaly this scene in psycho, is very direct, girl takes shower, guy dressed as his mom kills her.... ( ok maybe not psychologically simple but in terms of action it is) while watching you dont even notice the cuts, the zooms, the framing, the blocking. Nut now that john has broken it down, i can see teh trees from the forrest, and how complex this really was.


An allegory to art work, JAckson pollock paintings look "simple" and like a kid could do it. But try making one. its nearly impossible to make one that looks as good as his are. Same could be said here. This scene was "simple" but it just looks that way.

great work John in showing the gears that make the scene move.

snodart
05-27-2006, 01:44 AM
the real "art" in a movie, is making the simple shots, look simple, but remain interesting. Psychologicaly this scene in psycho, is very direct, girl takes shower, guy dressed as his mom kills her.... ( ok maybe not psychologically simple but in terms of action it is) while watching you dont even notice the cuts, the zooms, the framing, the blocking. Nut now that john has broken it down, i can see teh trees from the forrest, and how complex this really was.


An allegory to art work, JAckson pollock paintings look "simple" and like a kid could do it. But try making one. its nearly impossible to make one that looks as good as his are. Same could be said here. This scene was "simple" but it just looks that way.
Well said.


John, I just came across this and the Jaws post today. Very nice. My brother-in-law and I have been putting ourselves through an at-home film school of sorts. Director's commentaries, books, lighting tests, etc. Your shot breakdown idea will certainly be added to the list. Thanks for taking the time to do this.

jpbankesmercer
05-27-2006, 06:52 AM
I thought about the showerhead too, nice shot.
Thanks for bringing this alive again John, stirling work.
J

conrad_johnson
05-27-2006, 08:53 PM
That looked very filmic... how did you do that?

OmaR
05-29-2006, 06:59 AM
last winter I take a course on the movie language and obviously I spoke about Psyco (the Hitchcock's one). As soon as possible (maybe tomorrow) I'll post all the shots from the original shower scene, in order to view the difference between the 2 versions.

OmaR
06-05-2006, 12:54 PM
http://eazyshare.net/files/881/Psyco.JPG

First of all, a note on the rhythm:

54 shots in 2'51'', 13 shots before the murder in 1'05" (average: 5'' per shot), 32 shots during the murder in 22'' (average: 0,69'' per shot), 9 shots after the murder in 1'24'' (average: 9,3'' per shot).

And now the differences between the Hitchcock's Psyco and the Van Sant's one:

- A (first difference): Van Sant repeats the 6 shots before A for a second time;
- B: between this shot and the following Vans Sant put 5 shots (Marion and Norman)
- C: this shot doesn't appear in the Van Sant's Psyco
- D: the first time we see the legs, Van Sant put two external shots
- E: before Norman leaves, Van Sant put an eye shot
- F: before this shot there isn't Marion see en plonjée with slashes in the back (Hitchcock shoot this frame, but he couldn't put in the movie because of the censorship)

Weston
06-13-2006, 09:31 PM
Van saints may be very close....but even the shots that are the same....are not really at the exact same angle........There something about the hitchcock version that is beyond perfect. Not just because its been around for a long while and become classic....i mean i watched it for the first time a week ago. Its just apparent that hitchcocks eye is far better than van saints....and even when gus is doing a shot by shot copy....it still doesnt hold up....

plus vince vaughn sucks balls compared to anthony perkins.

Blaine
06-13-2006, 09:39 PM
For the life of me, I can't figure out why this was remade. The best thing about the remake was we got to see Hudson's analysis which was great. :thumbsup:

OmaR
06-14-2006, 01:52 AM
For the life of me, I can't figure out why this was remade.
me too :undecided

omar_
07-18-2006, 10:24 AM
Good job John. I'm curious though, why do this one and not the real PSYCHO, the ORIGINAL MASTERPIECE :) like you did JAWS? This remake got pretty bad reviews.

Noiz2
07-26-2006, 10:37 AM
I haven't seen the new Psycho but from these shots I think I won't like it as much as the first. It may be shot for shot but the shots are not exactly the same. I would have to go through it shot by shot but for instance there was no naked but in the original. The censors didn't want them to have a shot of an open toilet. He was able to be a bit more graphic and I think it was better when you see less.

But the original is brilliant. You get a great sense of violence with out actually showing much of anything. No shots of an actual stab, not much blood.

Pokri
10-27-2009, 12:27 AM
what is meant by ECU
its there in script and also its there in pics
thanks in advance

J.R. Hudson
10-27-2009, 08:36 AM
Extreme Close Up !

http://www.cineobscure.com/?cat=174

Check out this section of my blog (Seriously in need of an update)

:beer:

The script is online somewhere; just Google it

Pokri
10-28-2009, 01:36 AM
thanks a ton

chetanhsk
06-22-2010, 03:03 AM
Great....do the same for other scenes from hichtock films....thaks again.....

Jewlz the director
10-17-2010, 11:02 AM
Great post!!

Redpapereyes
10-17-2010, 07:09 PM
Great post, but link to your blog isn't working.