Two of the most noticeable examples of heavily altered scenes are principally: (1) The scene of therapist who diagnoses Norman at the end of the film is shortened. Notice how tightly this shot focuses in on Vaughn’s face as he leans in at the cost of the background. Van Sant’s alterations within the scene structure draw attention to the beats of the scene that Hitchcock focused on: particularly the passive nature of Norman. When the traditionally climactic line does occur Vaughn can only slightly shift himself forward since he is already close to the camera. In Hitchcocks original direction he jump cuts to a slightly closer perspective and has Perkins suddenly lean forward to make the shot a closeup just before he responds to Leigh’s line of, “Can’t you put her someplace.” The alteration makes Vaughn seem more assertive in making excuses for his mother whereas the more passive Perkin’s only reactes to the allegation that his mother should be institutionalized. Van Sant pans around Vaughn to come for a closer shot on his line, “Understand, I don’t hate her, I hate what she’s become. Notice how the freehand camerawork has caused the owl to become almost entirely cropped out of the shot later in this scene.Īside from changing the visual focus of the scene, Van Sant also changes the climax of the scene through his shot technique. Van Sant by contrast seeks to focus the audiences’ attention exclusively on the Vaughn’s face and upper body movements, drawing focus more actively to the actor himself. Hitchcock makes it possible for the audience to focus their attention on details in the background of the scene and so passively enables the development of Norman’s character. Van Sant’s shot composition by contrast cuts off Vaughn’s hands when they are on his lap, uses a shallow depth of field, and drifts so that the owl goes from being distinguishable (Figure 6) to almost cropped out (Figure 7). Perkins’ clasped hands are also placed so that they are just fully visible where they rest on top of his lap. Hitchcock consistently shot Perkins from exactly the same angle so as to frame the swooping owl in the background with a deep depth of field (Figure 5). One can only realize how passively Hitchcock accomplishes this when observing Van Sants’ remake. The scene focuses heavily on exploring his personal dilemmas and establishing him as a sympathetic individual. The dinner in the parlor scene is designed to tell Norman’s background story. This element alone reminds one of the effectiveness with which Hitchcock used the technique of suturing to manipulate the audience's emotions.Īnother effect of this shot change is the shift of focus from Perkins’ overall body movement in the original to primarily Vaughn’s facial expressions as they step forward into light and then back into symbolic shadow. Van Sant inadvertently places us within two sutures very rapidly and so cancels out their effect for one character or the other. When Vaughn steps forward the audience doesn’t see him stepping toward Heche as in the original, but towards the screen and themselves. Altering the scene to include a shot of Vaughn from Heche’s perspective right before switching to his perspective naturally diminishes the amount of an audiences’ suturing into his character. The next shot is of Marion’s character from Norman’s perspective. One of the draws of Norman’s character for audiences is his sympathetic appeal which relies on the audience being sutured into his perspective for an instant within one shot in the scene. The change is significant for several reasons and the effects it has are rooted in the ways that an audience might perceive the characters. Van Sant chooses to jump to a closer shot of Vaughn from the front where his face is more visible (Figure 3) before having him step back (Figure 4) and cutting to the next shot. Vaughn after having taken a very obvious step backwards.
0 kommentar(er)
