MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Carol Burnett Does "Psycho"(and NXNW, an...

Carol Burnett Does "Psycho"(and NXNW, and Rebecca)

posted 7 years ago by ecarle (14979)
24 replies | jump to latest

I was YouTube surfing on some comedy things and landed in some Carol Burnett clips.

I wasn't a big watcher of the Carol Burnett show in the 70s, but from time to time I would stumble upon it, and notice a few things:

ONE: Harvey Korman and Tim Conway together could certainly be hilarious, breaking each other up with such stretched out intensity that even if it was maybe a little fake...it was still hilarious. (And Carol would certainly sometimes join in; she WAS the star after all.)

TWO: Burnett loved to do parodies of movies from the 30s and 40s and 50s in the main. It seemed clear to me that these were the movies she loved(as I love Hitchcocks from the 50s and early 60's) and she wanted not only to send them up, but to BE in them, in her own comical way. A skim finds Carol Burnett versions of GWTW, The Little Foxes, Mildred Pierce, etc.

I put two and two together and sought out a "Carol Burnett Hitchcock" clip, and found one. From the 70's. In the clip, Carol does an introduction in general on Hitchcock, and then three movies are spoofed:

North by Northwest
Psycho
Rebecca

Here's how...

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Carol uses two guest stars for her Hitchcock spoofs:

Rich Little...who does a "perfect to the right detail" version of Cary Grant that shows us how "surface" other impressions could be, and who does a damn good Hitchcock, too...though not quite as letter perfect as his Grant.

I like this line from Little, as Hitchcock, introducing his new motion picture:

"This is Alfred Hitchcock. I wish to show you some scenes from my new motion picture....which has elements of some of my PREVIOUS pictures (pause)...which in turn have elements of some of my PREVIOUS pictures."

I thought that was kind of funny. A bit of a dig (well, NXNW is sort of like Saboteur which is sort of like The 39 Steps...)

Carol Burnett introduces each sketch -- two "one scene mini-sketches" from NXNW and Psycho -- and then her usual more lengthy dip into "older cinema" -- a full-dress gibe at Rebecca.

And what's great there is how one realizes what a great VOICE Carol Burnett has always had --its part of her star persona -- loud and resonant for comedy, but when toned down a bit(as here), hearing Carol Burnett say "who can forget Alfred Hitchcock's most terrifying movie, Psycho!" well...it means something. One artist saluting another.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

The NXNW sketch is set on Mount Rushmore, with Rich Little doing his GREAT Cary Grant, dangling Carol as Eva Marie Saint by one hand. The two discuss Saint's various spy alliances (with the CIA, with Vandamm, with Cary) and it ends with a good gag.

The Psycho sketch is set -- naturally -- in a bathroom with a shower. Its not what you would expect, kind of goofy but the key element is: that Vicki Lawrence sure can scream. She's not playing Janet Leigh...she's playing a maid who looks into the shower and sees the aftermath of the murder. Or does she? The gag is how Vicki keeps backing away from the shower and screaming, and screaming, and SCREAMING and..well, guest Edie Gorme is the payoff.

Then its on to the full-length Rebecca sketch, which, alas, I didn't keep watching. Ms. Burnett likes to go back to the forties, but I don't so much.

But I WILL. I'd like to see what Carol and the gang did with Rebecca...

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Carol Burnett/Hitchcock trivia(that I read somewhere else, but it fits here.)

In an interview, Carol Burnett noted that one of her first jobs was as a movie usherette in Los Angeles. A dream job given her love of movies.

But she got fired from that job.

She got fired because she wouldn't let a couple enter the theater to watch Strangers on a Train during its last ten minutes. She didn't want the movie to be ruined for them.

She was, in fact, invoking Hitchcock's Psycho exhibition policy 9 years before he did.

[–] swanstep (2715) 7 years ago

Thanks for the heads up on these youtube clips ecarle. I listened to a movie podcast recently where the host reflected on how *most* of his initial takes on classic Hollywood came from these funny, smart, loving Burnett parodies. Some of them are *very* extensive: 'Mildred Fierce' is 20 minutes for example and clearly cost a bundle. I'll try to catch up with the Hitchcock parodies tonight. It's so great that they're all still available on youtube.

Youtube isn't the wild west it once was so, e.g., Alfred Hitchcock Presents eps and Twilight Zone eps are mostly unavailable there now. Sooner or later someone will probably lock down Carol Burnett for, e.g., Netflix or Hulu so I'd recommend that people *not* dilly dally and watch these parodies for free ASAP, while they still can.

BTW, all this is a reminder of just how *big* Carol Burnett was in the '70s. US Movies became less female-centric through the '60s and '70s but many of the biggest stars in TV from Lucy through Marlo Thomas to Mary Tyler Moore to Roseanne and Oprah and Ellen were women. And Burnett was a big part of that tradition (both Roseanne and Ellen drew from her I'd say).

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Thanks for the heads up on these youtube clips ecarle. I listened to a movie podcast recently where the host reflected on how *most* of his initial takes on classic Hollywood came from these funny, smart, loving Burnett parodies.

---

Yes. As I said above, I think Burnett had a deep love of these films she was spoofing, and really DID want to be in them herself, if only vicariously. I remember sometimes watching her show and learning about these movies(which I had never seen, save GWTW) chiefly from the Burnett versions.

I saw parts of her Double Indemnity spoof with Steve Lawrence(mainly a singer, but also a suave comedy talent) and...it really captured the mood.

---

Some of them are *very* extensive: 'Mildred Fierce' is 20 minutes for example and clearly cost a bundle.

---

So I've heard. Burnett could eat up half of an hour show doing these spoofs.

I have read that Pauline Kael, at the height of her 70's fame and "power"(such as it was) not only watched movies, but watched some TV religiously. Kael found Burnett to be "the best of the best," and corresponded with her.

---

I'll try to catch up with the Hitchcock parodies tonight. It's so great that they're all still available on youtube.

Youtube isn't the wild west it once was so, e.g., Alfred Hitchcock Presents eps and Twilight Zone eps are mostly unavailable there now. Sooner or later someone will probably lock down Carol Burnett for, e.g., Netflix or Hulu so I'd recommend that people *not* dilly dally and watch these parodies for free ASAP, while they still can.

---

I often feel that if I bring attention to these clips, I am "ratting them out" for takedown. But moviechat is a fairly small venue(at least at THIS board) so it might take awhile for detection. I want Psycho fans to be aware. Hitchcock fans, too.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

BTW, all this is a reminder of just how *big* Carol Burnett was in the '70s. US Movies became less female-centric through the '60s and '70s but many of the biggest stars in TV from Lucy through Marlo Thomas to Mary Tyler Moore to Roseanne and Oprah and Ellen were women. And Burnett was a big part of that tradition (both Roseanne and Ellen drew from her I'd say).

---

Well stated. While the male buddies were owning the 70s, the ladies had a good piece of TV ...and kept it into the 80's.

Something really funny with Carol Burnett that was at least available on VHS was a 60s Jack Benny show where she's funny in two different sketches.

One is the opener on stage with Benny(who was, of course, great himself.) The gag is that if the band plays "stripper bump and grind music," Carol goes nuts and "bumps and grinds." And of course, her looks weren't that great, but she really gets into it - while Benny does his shocked, deadpan takes. Actually, Carol's quite sexy here even acting goofy. She's got the moves.

But the big deal is a full-on sketch about "Tarzan and Jane." Carol is Jane, and in the first scene Tarzan is a young muscleman played by Peter Lupus(Mission Impossible's muscleman). Jane and Tarzan throw a medicine ball back and forth; they're in physical love. "Fast forward 30 years" -- now Jack Benny is playing Tarzan, Burnett (still the same age) is visibly sick and tired of him, and the laughs are automatic. When Jane throws him that medicine ball, he flies backwards through a tree...

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

One more thing:

Carol Burnett made a few forays into movies at the peak of her stardom. 'Annie" was probably the big one, but I am very partial to the deadpan, bittersweet romance "Pete and Tillie" of 1972, with Burnett well-matched with My Man Walter Matthau.

Burnett follows Matthau's lead and plays her role deadpan, low-key and subdued. This is a "mature" couple, but a sexual one, and their romance is charming and funny. Things veer into "Terms of Endearment" tragedy when a key character dies. This is a small film with great impact.

Pauline Kael criticized how subdued Burnett was in the part. Burnett agreed with Kael(in a private phone call.) I don't. Burnett's tone is just right for "Pete and Tillie"; it shows another side of her. Its Walter Matthau's movie right before Charley Varrick. He was on a "mini roll" in those days.

Reportedly, Matthau took Burnett to lunch before production started and told her "You're a great talent. Why do you waste your time on television?" Burnett replied: "Why do you make bad movies, sometimes?" Matthau replied: "I don't intend them to be." Burnett replied: "So movies are no better than television on certain occasions." Matthau shut up. They got along fine.

[–] movieghoul (213) 7 years ago

Kael wrote capsule reviews for old movies which were printed in the New Yorker when they were shown in revival houses. For some 40s melodrama, she trashed the film, but then said that its only saving grace was the spoof of the film on the Carol Burnett show.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Kael wrote capsule reviews for old movies which were printed in the New Yorker when they were shown in revival houses.

---

I think she had a book of those. A Psycho capsule review wasn't in it, but a Strangers on a Train one was, that opened with this sentence (paraphrased): "A good case could be made for Alfred Hitchcock as the greatest movie entertainer of the mid-century." So she wasn't against him -- but she wasn't much for him. She called "Topaz" -- "the same damn spy movie he's been making since World War II."

Kael "split the year" reviewing movies with Penelope Gilliatt. Thus -- mercifully, maybe -- it was Gilliatt and not Kael who reviewed "Frenzy" and "Family Plot." Raves for both of them. Lucky Hitch: raves from the New Yorker...

---

For some 40s melodrama, she trashed the film, but then said that its only saving grace was the spoof of the film on the Carol Burnett show.

---

Well, there ya go. I expect that Kael and Burnett were "brought up on the same movies" -- it could be comforting to see them done up right in a loving TV spoof.

I will note that I saw parts of the spoofs of Double Indemnity and The Little Foxes, and they were heavy on "fake shooting humor." Gunshots, no blood...but the characters died long and hard, falling about, coming back to life, falling dead again. Tim Conway even put the gun to his head and fired in "The Little Foxies"(Foxes.) So Carol Burnett "got" violent humor.

[–] swanstep (2715) 7 years ago

A couple more thoughts about Carol Burnett's parodies.

1. It's telling that only the Hitchcock parodies mention let alone feature the Director. The 'person in the street' - the lowest common dominator network TV viewer - has no idea who directed Casablanca or Mildred Pierce or Gone With the Wind or Sunset Blvd or... In the mid '70s you're DeMille back in the day or Disney or Hitchcock or you're (not nobody but you're) someone for relative sophisticates only.

2. The best parodies are the long, 20 minute ones, e.g., of Gone With The Wind and Mildred Pierce. They're relatively ambitious - they both recreate and exaggerate lots of plot and character details and respond to Fan wishes for alternative plots (Mildred Fierce shoots her ungrateful wretch of a daughter! Melody Wilkes pushes Starlet O'Hara down the stairs!).

3. Mildred Pierce (1945) and GWTW (1939) (both of which are presented as very old-timey in their parodies) are 31 and 27 years old respectively at the time their parodies are broadcast. The equivalents for a parody-show now would be 1986 - Blue Velvet, Aliens, Platoon, Working Girls, The Mission - and 1980 - Empire Strikes Back, Raging Bull, The Shining, Heaven's Gate, Caddyshack. Hmmmm.

[–] movieghoul (213) 7 years ago

GWTW was actually 37 years old when Burnett parodied it in 1976, but this was timed to the first US TV showing of the film, so tens of millions had just seen it.

[–] swanstep (2715) 7 years ago

@movieghoul. Indeed. Also, at least where I was (down in New Zealand), GWTW was an exception to every rule. It got prestige re-releases around 1978-1979 that I certainly got dragged along to (they were packed!), and I think that after being continually re-released throughout the '40s there were prints of GWTW in circulation in neighborhood theaters continuously throughout the '50s and '60s. E.g., My Mom was born in 1940 and she grew up reading GWTW and seeing it repeatedly on the big screen. That is, even without TV showings before the mid '70s, GWTW was one of the handful of Golden Age films that had never really gone away. The vast Box Office it built up reflects that 'long tail' of tickets sold decades after its first release.

I guess I'm just stating the obvious here: GWTW's cultural footprint was simply enormous. Even without the recent TV screening I think Burnett would have been able to rely on her audience being essentially universally, completely familiar with it.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

GWTW was one of the handful of Golden Age films that had never really gone away. The vast Box Office it built up reflects that 'long tail' of tickets sold decades after its first release.

---
And now it has been dropped from a Georgia revival house program as "too offensive for some of our audience".

I really don't want to get into the larger picture of the politics of our time, but what's interesting about the imminent exile (if not destruction) of GWTW is that if it does have to go away...look at how popular it was, for decades upon decades upon decades.

But: you're only as good as your last decade or two, and we finally have a generation filled with people who don't remember the film or don't like it.

[–] swanstep (2715) 7 years ago

And now it has been dropped from a Georgia revival house program as "too offensive for some of our audience".

I heard about that...a very poor decision in my view. I do think that it behoves anyone who screens GWTW to contextualize it, e.g., with a pre-show introduction of some kind (explaining the film's historical significance and its limitations) or by screening it as part of a series of films on the civil war and the antebellum South (movies like Glory and Django Unchained and 12 Years a Slave can in this way save GWTW's bacon for a lot of purposes). Of course, it needs to said that anyone who's *seriously* offended by GWTW *is* being overly sensitive, and they should really keep their powder dry for Birth of a Nation (1915). BoaN truly *is* deeply upsetting and offensive and in my view should never be screened without a serious, historically-minded introduction.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Of course, it needs to said that anyone who's *seriously* offended by GWTW *is* being overly sensitive, and they should really keep their powder dry for Birth of a Nation (1915). BoaN truly *is* deeply upsetting and offensive and in my view should never be screened without a serious, historically-minded introduction.

---

I agree on all points. GWTW has a rich and powerful patron in Ted Turner. I figure he'll defend it to the end, and then pass the legacy on to his grown children(if he has them.)

It indeed will require some explaining....much less so than Birth of a Nation.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

BTW, the other day on TCM, I watched George Stevens 1956 "Giant," a truly giant, lumbering film with a truly great performance by...Rock Hudson? As a big, rich "naturally bigoted Texan" whose son (Dennis Hopper at his most geek-like -- Rock Hudson and Liz Taylor made HIM?) marries a Mexican-American woman and triggers all hell breaking loose(including from James Dean in his last role before being dead before all three of his films were released.)

Big Rock slowly but surely comes to defend his Mexican daughter in law and his Mexican grandchild...and finds himself(in old age make-up with a fake belly under his suit) defending some poor Mexicans in a fistfight against the white owner of the diner who is trying to throw them out(Rock loses the fight). How this must have played in '56, I'll never know, but the film is pretty even-handed in showing how the white characters had to make very slow amends with their Mexican neighbors.

About that final fistfight: George Stevens was the "anti-Hitchocck." Whereas Hitch carefully chose exactly which angles to shoot and cut, Stevens gave himself take after take, reel after reel. And thus, the Rock versus the Diner boss fight gives us angles from ALL OVER THE ROOM, back here, over there, in a kind of haphazard "overly democratic" shot selection process. Its dynamic, but I think Hitchcock would have slapped his hand on his forehead watching it being filmed and cut.

Warren Beatty worked with George Stevens(and Liz Taylor!) on The Only Game in Town because he admired Stevens technique and had read about it. Stevens created a monster in Director Beatty, who would start to direct films with 1,000 takes per scene and cut them forever. After doing Beatty a favor by appearing in Reds, Gene Hackman turned down a cameo in Dick Tracy because he couldn't take all the takes.

But I digress...

[–] movieghoul (213) 7 years ago

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Well, I can certainly see how GWTW could be viewed as offensive. All of the principal white characters except for Melanie have streaks of venality, greed, egotism and lawlessness (they even hook up with the KKK!) while the blacks are loyal, honest and trustworthy. I can see why white audiences are turned off by this.

Similarly, DIsney rightly self-banned SOng of the South, where Uncle Remus is the only redeeming character.

---

Points well taken, movieghoul. Sometimes the rush to judgment fails to see the forest for the trees.

Hoo-boy, I mangled that analogy!

---

In America, the great experiment of bringing so many races and nationalities together in one country is starting to have its fissures. Shifts in demographics are already quite clear to behold -- the "white cast only" movies of much of the 20th Century will start to look more strange with each passing year.

I've sometimes considered QT's motives in presenting such racial unrest as he did in The Hateful Eight. He never really gave an interview where he could be confronted on what he was presenting: a film in which ALL races pretty much hated each other, outwardly and inwardly. The white Union supporters hated the white Confederate supporters. Sam Jackson's black man fought for the South, but allowed white Southern soldiers to die in a fire he set. Jackson points out that the black owner of Minnie's haberdashery had a sign that said "no dogs or Mexicans," and eventually allowed dogs. Mexican Bob and African-American Jackson hate each other until one dies.

And the film isn't much better on male-female relations, with Jennifer Jason-Leigh's Daisy Domergue being constantly beaten about the face by bounty hunter Kurt Russell.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Its really a very hateful movie, from a twisted mind on racial matters. And yet its my favorite of 2015, but for everything else in it: the gorgeous color cinematography. The long opening shot that mixes a creepy Jesus on the cross statue with Morricone's great credit overture. The cast. The dialogue. The claustrophobic blizzard of snow outside, and the door that has to be wrestled and nailed shut with TWO boards to keep the blizzard out (this is a running gag of great hilarity.) The Hitchcock-meets-Alien scene of two characters having drank poisoned coffee. But haunting it all -- QT's belief that we can all NOT get along.

Which I do not believe. For all my life, and currently, day after day, I have personally witnessed and undertaken positive, decent relationships among people of all races. That's not to say the inequities and rages portrayed on the news are not happening. But it is to say that neither those news reports , nor incendiary political columns(shamelessly written to "make the blood boil" for ratings or clicks), nor "The Hateful Eight" REALLY portray what people are capable of in terms of empathy and compassion. Or at least leaving each other alone.

[–] movieghoul (213) 7 years ago

THank you , ecarle. Now excuse me while I go remove my tongue from my cheek.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

The tongue was in cheek...but your points were quite valid.

Also, I got too serious. Sorry. But all this racial stuff has bothered me the past few years.

The Hateful Eight remains a stunner to me. I like all the dialogue and the look of the picture, and it has a great cast. But QT's take on racial animosity seemed way over the top. We CAN all get along. At least, a lot of us...

[–] movieghoul (213) 7 years ago

GWTW was also in fairly continuous release in the US, but I believe was withdrawn in the early 60s in preparation for the big roadshow release in 1967 "in the splendor of 70 mm projection and full stereophonic sound!" as the ads trumpeted. Which was nonsense: 70mm was achieved by taking the nearly square sized 35mm print, cutting off the top and bottom of each frame, and blowing up what remained. Stereo? they just used multiple speakers with the same sound coming from everywhere. But still it drew a lot of young people to the theater, including me.

1967 was the time when big epic films were starting to come to the small screen, Bridge on the River Kwai had just been broadcast to a record audience, but for the 1967 rerelease of GWTW, MGM stated that they could not foresee the possibility that it would EVER be shown on home TV. I think this was about the time that an IBM executive stated that no individual would ever own a computer in his home.

I have a copy of the New York Times from my birthdate in the late 40s, and perusing the movie listings it was interesting how many hit films from earlier years were playing in theaters, but where else would they go, TV just starting up and home video decades away.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

1967 was the time when big epic films were starting to come to the small screen, Bridge on the River Kwai had just been broadcast to a record audience, but for the 1967 rerelease of GWTW, MGM stated that they could not foresee the possibility that it would EVER be shown on home TV. I think this was about the time that an IBM executive stated that no individual would ever own a computer in his home.

--

I've lived long enough to remember a lot of statements about how "we will never do this" fell down, one by one.

The same but different: in the 80's, when VHS tapes came out, movies like Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark were held off the VHS market for YEARS after the movie came out.

And then somebody decided to release the VHS of Tim Burton's summer1989 hit Batman...at 1989 Christmas. A mere four months after its run. That seemed INCREDIBLE.

And now, movie theaters are fighting studios over "too short a window" between theatrical release and home viewing.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

I have a copy of the New York Times from my birthdate in the late 40s, and perusing the movie listings it was interesting how many hit films from earlier years were playing in theaters, but where else would they go, TV just starting up and home video decades away

----

Yes, before the VHS tape we had...the re-release.

Hitchcock in the sixties had this. Psycho was re-released to theaters in 1965. North by Northwest was re-released to theaters in 1966.

And they put together double bills of 50's Hitchcock movies in the 60s. To Catch a Thief and Vertigo went out in 1962. The Trouble With Harry and Man '56 went out in 1963 (I remember seeing that double bill; my first Hitchcocks -- my parents took me to a movie about child kidnapping! But I thought Harry was quite funny.)