Hitch-what-ian?

Art isn't just appreciated for its aesthetic beauty but for its originality. \nSalvador Dali was unique with his representation of dripping clocks. Picasso was unique with his two-eyed profiles, and Van Gogh was known for his swirling brush strokes in "Starry Night." \nAnd there's a reason why people stare intently at these art works in the galleries rather than the vinyl placemats and canvas diaper bags resembling them in the museum gift shops. Although replicas can be just as appealing to the eye, without the innovation the masterpiece demanded in its conception, a replica can never compare to its original. \nThat's why I still, to this day, have not seen the 1990's remake of "Psycho," and that's why I'd like to throw rotten tomatoes at every "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" movie poster I see. I'm not a Brad Pitt gusher, and I'm definitely not pro-Hitchcock knock-off even if they're taking an idea, a couple who isn't really married, and turning into something completely different. \nAny movie critic who dares to commend directors for remaking the genius of Alfred Hitchcock wouldn't know the difference between Michelangelo's "David" and my refrigerator magnet of the sculpture wearing board shorts and sunglasses. \nAlfred Hitchcock, the director of the real "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" and the real "Psycho," was a cinematic artist. His work has been lauded as the pinnacle of the suspense genre of films. \nBut somehow, his talent and last name has entered movie junkie lingo in the form of the term "Hitchcockian." Reviewers spit it out in their columns like popcorn kernels at the movie theater. \n"The Sixth Sense" has the kind of shocking ending found only in a Hitchcockian film. \n"Swimming Pool", a Hitchcockian thriller, will render you spellbound upon leaving the theater. \n"What Lies Beneath"'s play with human fears is the closest thing to a Hitchcockian film today. \nAccording to my World Wide Web search, anything from "Jaws" to "To Kill a Mockingbird" can fetch the return of the Hitchcockian label. \nReviewers, don't flatter yourselves. Any use of the term "Hitchcockian" is an absolute misuse. It seems any time there is a movie that has a shocking ending, a hint of paranoia, a plot twist, a spooky atmosphere or an element of surprise that works with audiences, reviewers automatically want to place it in the league with Hitchcock's films. What they obviously don't get is the distinction between surprise and suspense. \n"The Sixth Sense" is not like Hitchcock because it is not reality-based. It's simply a horror film, and though there was a definite twist to its ending, it hardly demonstrates the suspense of a Hitchcock film. For example, in the film "Vertigo," "spirits" from another realm are part of the great hoax, not the story motivator. Never once does one have to "suspend his belief" while watching a Hitchcock movie. Hitchcock made movies that scared people because they were grounded in real things -- swarms, murder, assumption of identities, phobias, mental illnesses and stalking -- not aliens, ghosts and paranormal fantasies. \nAlthough "Swimming Pool" earns its suspense stripes for creativity, why would anyone define it as Hitchcockian? The ending is elusive, leaving the audience perplexed as to what just happened, but Hitchcock was always more resolute than that. In his film "Psycho," we know the true identity of Mother and Norman Bates when we leave the screening. \nHitchcock was victorious in his attempts to force the audience to sympathize with the bad guys (the party hosts of "Rope") and feel submerged in the stories (the murderer Lars Thorwald in "Rear Window" appears to be looking back at you from his window and not at leading character L.B. Jeffries). \nWhat is clear is that Hitchcock constantly reinvented fear. With every film, he was a pioneer in some technique or concept, so to actually create a genre called "Hitchcockian" is contradictory of everything Hitchcock stood for in his career -- to be a one-of-a-kind, to be innovative. \nI say bring on the rotten tomatoes to any director so bold as to remake one of his films. \nThey may have the Hitchcock, but do they have the balls to be original?