Do you still enjoy this movie today?

There is a question of whether or not that information could be given elsewhere... some of it maybe, but not all of it.

---

Its funny. Hitchcock was asked directly about why he put the shrink scene in the movie and he practically waved the question away: "Oh, I don't know, I think there we are simply skimming over the facts to give the audience necessary information." He didn't feel that strongly about this scene one way or another, but here's the funny part: the shrink scene may just be the most CONTROVERSIAL scene(today) in a movie supposedly fillled with more and sick controversial scenes. The shrink scene is written about as much as the shower scene!

CONT

I understand the "rah-rah". I get into that point, too, where I praise a three star film/scene like it's a four-star. Sometimes my enthusiasm outpaces me.

One day to film the shrink scene? Yeah, tres impressionnant. Doubly so with Hitch watching; he could be ruthless to actors.

I, too, get being annoyed at constant criticism when there's a good explanation that people just ignore. Can't tell you how tired I am of hearing that "Batman '89 was 'campy'!" or that the Fellowship, "should have just used the eagles!"

The failed screenwriter thing does become relevant when Ebert tries to do things like re-write speeches. I love watching old Siskel and Ebert reviews, and they're almost always spot-on with critiques, but every now and then, they offer, "What they SHOULD have done!" and it's usually bad. Sometimes good, mostly not. Neil Gaiman once said that, if you're a writer, and somebody tells you there's something wrong with your story, they're almost always right. But, if they tell you how to fix it, they're almost always wrong.

Like much of Psycho '98, I don't really remember Forster's version of the speech. I think Psycho '98 is a bit too trounced-on. It's inferior in every way, but Vince Vaughn is good, and some of hte other cast members. I didn't like Heche's Marion, though. Not sure if it was a director thing or Heche herself, but she wasn't as nuanced. I admire the attempt, though.

The controversy thing is so true; it is as-discussed as the shower scene - at least, among cinephiles. I think it's because the shower scene *was* shocking, but now it's just remember ed for its excellent artistry. The shrink scene remains clunky (if necessary), so it's more shocking to film fans. "How could you, Alfred!?"

Hitch is right: give us info, no the characters, but we also need to not know how they will react. We have to worry about "the next". We know how the sister and boyfriend will react (sad); they can't do anything, so the suspense isn't effective. If it were a drama, the fun would be watching the emotions and reactions play out (she could cry, as it were), but it's a horror/thriller, so the "fun" is the action, and it doesn't work.

Almost every time I think simple works, and maybe that's part of Psycho's magic; it isn't expensive. It just is. You've talked about the power of the unseen, and it's so true. I think one of the first analyses I read of the shower scene (and several others thereafter) commented on how much viewers misremember the scene as being more violent than it is. I think simple works with the ending, too, even if it wasn't optimal, and I'm not sure elaborate flashbacks would have added to it.

It's also pretty true to serial killers that one or two kills are impossible to trace, but it's just numbers, and sooner or later it's the wrong victim or the wrong time, and they get caught.

Yeah, I liked the Cage film, but it's quite flawed. There are good setups, some "meh" payoffs, but it's okay. Not a waste of time.

Norman in the cell... yeah, that's an all-time best ending contender for sure.

Exposition dumps work better earlier in the film; we need information, so dump it and move on. Plus, Vertigo *starts* with a thrill, *then* dumps exposition. It also manages to cloak the exposition in action a little better. Again, I think it comes down to "what's next". In Vertigo, Scotty gets info and we don't know what he'll do with it or what'll happen next, but in Psycho we do. All the action happened; the movie's over. We're just waiting for the wrap. Even repeat viewings, we're looking forward to the action precipitated by the exposition, but with Psycho, when I rewatch it, I'm going, "Get to the (awesome) ending." Now, I will say this: the first time I watched Psycho I hated that scene, and I enjoy it more on repeat viewings. I think because I know what's coming I can relax; it doesn't feel as much of a grind-to-a-halt.


I'm going to push back on plays. They feature dialogue, but it's action through dialogue. Playwrights are encouraged to "show not tell" just like a screenwriter. You can "show" through dialogue. It can still be action. Think about Maltese Falcon. We get stories by Miss Wonderly (usually bogus ones) and those make Sam change his tack, and we watch their characters duel through words. Exposition can be watching action with no dialogue (the doubled-up introduction sequences in Suicide Squad, for instance), and dialogue can be action (Aaron Sorkin, Woody Allen, Coen Brothers, Wes Anderson, David Mamet, William Fucking Shakespeare, etc.)

Think about Seinfeld. George's speech, "The sea was angry that day, my friends," from The Marine Biologist. It's all "exposition", but because the story is written and performed like it's happening, it's still "active". We're being told a story, but it's action nevertheless. Action moves plot forward and advances character. That's true in The Maltese Falcon, Seinfeld, and Macbeth. Exposition tells us "here's something you need to know". (CONT)