In Its Time, Hitchcock’S ‘Psycho’ Was A Ground-Breaking Shocker

In 1960, Alfred Hitchcock changed Hollywood.

Imagine being the kind of filmmaker who is able to alter a whole industry simply by having a personal vision.

That Hitchcock was different from his peers had been established long before. The best part of his career, represented by such films as “The Thirty-Nine Steps” (1935), “Rebecca” (1940), “Notorious” (1946), “Rear Window” (1954), “Vertigo” (1958) and “North by Northwest” (1959), already was behind him.

No one has combined passion and suspense, romance and Freudian intrigue better than this English filmmaker with such a good feel for American movie tastes.

With “Psycho,” though, Hitchcock outdid even himself. Not only was he able confound to the audience’s expectations, but he presented violence - without being half as graphic as any five minutes of, say, a Sean Cunningham movie - in a way that proved to be profoundly influential.

How influential? Let’s put it this way: Before “Psycho,” it would have been unthinkable for a mainstream film to portray a woman getting butchered in a shower. These days, we give it hardly a second thought.

Except that now we ARE giving it second thought. This is because of the new Gus Van Sant movie, released Dec. 4, in which the director re-creates Hitchcock’s original.

Re-creates, mind you, not remakes. Note the distinction.

The recent television version of “Rear Window,” directed by journeyman Jeff Bleckner, was a remake, an adaptation, a variation on a theme.

Van Sant, though, was committed to recapturing, as closely as possible, Hitchcock’s original movie, frame by frame.

Yes, he had to use a new cast (each of whom gives his or her character a different twist). Yes, he shot the film in color (instead of trying to match John L. Russell’s striking black and white). And, yes, he had to update some plot references (the stolen money is now $400,000 instead of Hitchcock’s measly $40,000).

Overall, though, the two movies are essentially the same. The more pressing question to be answered is this: Do the films elicit the same impact?

I would say no.

And I say this not because I believe, like a number of other critics do, that Van Sant has committed a sacrilege by doing this re-creation. Talented in his own way, Van Sant at least respects Hitchcock enough, he says, to want to “honor” him.

Besides, Hitchcock’s “Psycho,” while genuinely scary, is still only a mere entertainment - a cinematic laugh at things that lurk in the dark closets of our subconscious. Look past the fact that it was ahead of its time, factor in Simon Oakland’s corny closing lecture on the nature of split personality (shades of psychology 101!), and you have a film that doesn’t rank even with “Suddenly, Last Summer,” much less “Citizen Kane.”

As for comparison, anyone who hasn’t seen the original, assuming you have enough patience to stay with the slowly developing first half-hour, likely will enjoy what Van Sant has done. Even if you know what’s coming, the shower scene is a shocker.

But I would argue that Hitchcock’s version had more of an effect on the audiences of his day. We’re a much more worldly audience than our parents were. Thanks to filmmakers such as Hitchcock (and Coppola, Scorsese, Peckinpah and DePalma on one hand, and the likes of Carpenter, Craven and Raimi on the other), we’re less affected by simulated images of violence.

I would argue that butcher knives and shower stalls hold only so much thrill for a contemporary audience that’s already seen Drew Barrymore get filleted in the opening frames of “Scream.”

The only way to really know, of course, is to compare Van Sant’s and Hitchcock’s duelling versions. To do that fairly, of course, we’d have to turn back the clock.

Anybody got access to a time machine?

The week’s major releases:

The Parent Trap *** 1/2

There’s always a danger posed when you attempt to remake a classic, especially a particularly popular Disney classic. This one, about a pair of twin girls separated at birth who accidentally find one another and then try to get their parents to reconcile, was originally filmed by Uncle Walt’s gang in 1961. It made Hayley Mills a star. The new version may do the same for Lindsay Lothan, who boasts more acting ability than cute Hayley ever hoped to have. With Dennis Quaid and Natasha Richardson cast as her parents, and with the help of able supporting players Lisa Ann Walter and Simon Kunz, all director Nancy Meyers had to do was get out of the way. Fortunately, she does more than that. She improves on the original in every way. Rated PG

Six Days, Seven Nights ***

After their small plane crashes on a desert island, a pilot (Harrison Ford) and his passenger (Anne Heche) find themselves struggling to find food and shelter while a boat full of bad guys tries to kill them. Despite all the publicity surrounding her romance with Ellen Degeneres, Heche works up a chemistry with Ford that convincingly masks the 20-year-plus difference in their ages. For his part, Ford makes fun of his age, which is only partially apparent because of his taut abs and muscular arms. And while Reitman is only a journeyman director at best, he at least keeps things moving and, fortunately for us, makes sure that the spotlight shines directly on his cast. Rated PG-13

WHAT’S NEW TO VIEW Now available: “The Parent Trap,” “Lawn Dogs,” “Six Days, Seven Nights.” Available Tuesday: “Hav Plenty,” “Halloween H20,” “Madeline,” “Lethal Weapon 4,” “Bone Daddy,” “Indiscreet,” “Truce,” “Point Blank,” “My Brother’s War,” “Sticks and Stones, “Friend of the Deceased.”