MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Could Marion Have Gotten Away With It?

Could Marion Have Gotten Away With It?

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

So often, analysis of Psycho concludes that Marion's embezzlement and flight in Psycho was a losing cause from the get-go, that she "went a little mad," and that each obstacle along the way(the highway cop, California Charlie) proves her crime is futile.

Marion even imagines Sam's voice upon being surprised by Marion in Fairvale:

Sam: Marion? Of course, I'm always glad to see you. (Pause) What is it, Marion?

The suggestion being that Sam won't accept the stolen cash as a premise for a marriage and a future.

But what if he DID?

Psycho never reaches a scene where that might occur(Marion gets killed in the shower first) but what if it DID?

Some musings:

If Marion drove straight on to Fairvale, she would reach Sam by Saturday night, December 12. No Bates Motel, no murder.

So Marion would have the night to persuade Sam to join her in crime. She wouldn't want to fake this as "an inheritance from a relative," because then Sam wouldn't feel the need to run. So they'd get caught.

No, Marion would have to tell Sam EVERYTHING. About lecherous Cassidy(that would make Sam mad.) And how he only carries enough as he can afford to lose. And how he doesn't declare it. And how he targeted it to buy an expensive house for a spoiled rich 18-year old.

And Marion could toss in some data on Lowery and his refusal to air condition the office of his worker girls...in red-hot Phoenix Arizona.

But then: Marion would go to work ON SAM.

Part one: Sex. And lots of it.

Part two: Remind Sam of all his sacrifice. Living in the backroom of his store. Carrying his father's debt and reliant on the goodwill of Fairvale residents to buy from him -- if he displeases them, they cut him off. Paying alimony to an ex-wife "on the other side of the world somewhere." The bleak promise of American poverty, debt and early death.

So, c'mon Sam..."Let's drive to Mexico. Right now!"

They could use Sunday for an all-day, all-night drive from Shasta County , California, to the Mexican border(about 700 miles). I would expect crossing the border into Mexico was pretty easy in 1960.

And then? Switch cars for an American import in Mexico and live the life of American expatriates.

They've got 39,300 dollars(Marion paid $700 for the car.) I would expect that the 1960 dollar was strong against the Peso. And some kind of low-pay work could be found.

Many American movies spoke to the protagonists "escaping to Mexico" as their way out of trouble. Crooks kept trying -- and not making it -- in some movies. Spencer Tracy doesn't make it in "Mad Mad World."

But Steve McQueen and Ali MacGraw DO make it into Mexico in The Getaway. As does escaped Wrong Man Convict Tim Robbins in The Shawshank Redemption. His life -- painting a boat by the beach -- looks idyliic. Picture Sam and Marion the same way.

The 1960 Hayes Code would not allow Marion and Sam to escape with the cash to Mexico. But real life MIGHT. And its a reminder that what we THINK we see in Psycho is rarely "all there is."

Marion Crane could have gotten away with her theft....

[–] telegonus (736) 7 years ago

Briefly, I would say no. She was not a professional criminal, nor had she (apparently) stolen before. There was a well connected quality to Marion that would have made the kind of sociopathy criminals need for her to have gone all the way, whether with Sam to Mexico or someplace else on her own (a private island?). Not in her character. Whether consciously or not I think she'd have left trails, would have been found fairly soon by professionals, whether public or private, just like,--LOL!--TV, but not often like real life, when criminals often do get away with their crimes.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

I appreciate your response, telegonus, and your analsyis as to why my surmise likely wouldn't play out.

I was moved to write it, I think, because so often the literature and analysis on Psycho is that Marion's theft is "crazy, she could never get away with it, its a hopeless lost cause."

Well, ON PAPER, she COULD get away with it. If Sam went along (crucial) there is time enough to make the run to Mexico and money enough to start again down there (perhaps in resort jobs?)

----

Briefly, I would say no. She was not a professional criminal, nor had she (apparently) stolen before. There was a well connected quality to Marion that would have made the kind of sociopathy criminals need for her to have gone all the way, whether with Sam to Mexico or someplace else on her own (a private island?). Not in her character.

---

All fair enough. The key "amateur" quality to Marion -- we learn with the cop and California Charlie -- is she can't remain "cool, calm and collected" about her crime. The guilt is driving her crazy, as is terror of being "found out." It would probably dog her forever. It would poison her relationship with Sam.

---

Whether consciously or not I think she'd have left trails, would have been found fairly soon by professionals, whether public or private, just like,--LOL!--TV, but not often like real life, when criminals often do get away with their crimes.

---

What was that old 40's movie -- Out of the Past, remade in the 80s as Against All Odds? A mobster's moll flees with the mobster's money to Mexico. The mobster sends a guy down there to retrieve her(Robert Mitchum, Jeff Bridges). He falls in love with her and they stay in Mexico. The mobster sends ANOTHER guy down there to get the cash -- and the first guy kills him.

I guess that's the Sam and Marion story "in an alternate universe" with criminal types...

---

Anyway, telegonus, thanks for indulging my indulgence. I guess Marion's crime WAS hopeless.

[–] telegonus (736) 7 years ago

Hey, no problem, EC. All this speculating over whether Marion could have got away with her crime gets me to thinking just how many professional criminals there are in Hitchcock's films, leaving foreign intrigue and spies aside. I don't think he ever made a true gangster film. His criminals tend to be amateurs or have screws loose. Even the near criminal as played by Cary Grant in Suspicion is more bounder than criminal, and with a romantic streak. Uncle Charlie was a psycho time bomb who sooner or later would have been caught.

Later on, Bruno Antony seems wholly amateur, though I imagine he had a rap sheet of sorts for minor offenses going back to his prep school days. His natural exhibitionism would make his having a wholly crime free record unlikely. Dial M's tennis pro is a pro only at tennis. Lars Thorwald may well have been shady in some respects but likely had never killed anyone before. To Catch A Thief, well, there you have it. The Wrong Man is wrong, though the man he's mistaken for is a career minor criminal. Vertgo's so convoluted as to plot and character machinations as to make my head spin, while North By Northwest is a Hitchcock reversion to the foreign intrigue type story of his pre-war British years.

Which brings us to Psycho. Both Marion and Norman are somewhat reluctant criminals. It's not in Marion's nature to steal, and one can, or at least I do, infer that Norman's homicidality was imposed on him by upbringing and "conditioning", which, if one could remove this from his psyche Norman wouldn't be a Psycho. This adds credence to the notion that some of us have of the "authenticity" of the parlor scene. Both Marion and Norman had much to hide, making it a kind of parlor game, and yet emotionally there was understanding, compassion and genuine connection for a few brief shining moments. I think it's fair to say that aside from the sexual nature of Marion's relationship with Sam that nothing like this had ever happened between these two "beautiful people".

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Uncle Charlie was a psycho time bomb who sooner or later would have been caught.

---

Uncle Charlie -- like Bruno Anthony later -- is a psycho who just can't help but reveal his nuttiness to the world. Those crazy speeches at the dinner table (although Young Charlie's family seems pretty crazy in ACCEPTING those speeches.) At least Norman Bates and Bob Rusk "kept things under wraps," for the most part, handled jobs with people person skills. Norman let Mother peep out in the parlor scene; Rusk lets his inner sex killer peep out only once, talking to Blaney:

Rusk: This man must be some sort of sexual maniac. (Face clouds, anger forms) Of course, some women deserve everything they GET!! (Calms down) But you? A killer? Don't make me laugh.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Later on, Bruno Antony seems wholly amateur, though I imagine he had a rap sheet of sorts for minor offenses going back to his prep school days. His natural exhibitionism would make his having a wholly crime free record unlikely.

---

Well, he talks about getting thrown out of schools and driving blindfolded fast. Yep...probably a dangerous rich nutty kid (some capsule reviews call Bruno "a playboy," but I see no evidence of that.

---

Dial M's tennis pro is a pro only at tennis.

---

But BOTH of his plots to do away with Grace are pretty good.

---

Lars Thorwald may well have been shady in some respects but likely had never killed anyone before.

---

To Catch A Thief, well, there you have it.

---

Well, Robie's a reformed thief, and there IS a thief. And there's that ring of ex-thieves, now kitchen help. These are the closest to gangsters Hitchcock ever probably got (plus I think he had some gangster types in the 30s films, yes?)

---
The Wrong Man is wrong, though the man he's mistaken for is a career minor criminal.

--

Who yells when captured, "Let me go! I've got a wife and kids!" Pure Hitchcock sympathy, twisted.

---Vertgo's so convoluted as to plot and character machinations as to make my head spin,

---

Well Gavin is a plotter AND a killer...but Scottie's pretty villainous himself.

---

while North By Northwest is a Hitchcock reversion to the foreign intrigue type story of his pre-war British years.

---

Hitchcock said of spies, "A spy against another country is a hero in his own country." True enough, but Vandamm seems quite out for himself and his murderous gang suggests a certain "evilness' that blots out equivalency. He would easily be ready to kill his lover, Eve, at the end, in a mixture of patriotism and jealousy. (Which Rico Parra, in Topaz, DOES.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Which brings us to Psycho. Both Marion and Norman are somewhat reluctant criminals.

---

Well , they both went a little mad, sometimes.

---

It's not in Marion's nature to steal, and one can, or at least I do,

---

And you are winning me to your side

---

infer that Norman's homicidality was imposed on him by upbringing and "conditioning", which, if one could remove this from his psyche Norman wouldn't be a Psycho.

---

Perhaps, perhaps. I've read up on psychopaths and it seems that home environment is crucial.
---

This adds credence to the notion that some of us have of the "authenticity" of the parlor scene. Both Marion and Norman had much to hide, making it a kind of parlor game, and yet emotionally there was understanding, compassion and genuine connection for a few brief shining moments.

---

The early part of the conversation -- everything before "a boy's best friend is his mother" is wonderfully connective. Marion connects to Norman; Norman connects to Marion, and Norman connects to US. And he susses Marion out "What are you running away from?" and then "People never really run away from anything, do they?" Put another way: "No matter where you go...there you are."

---

I think it's fair to say that aside from the sexual nature of Marion's relationship with Sam that nothing like this had ever happened between these two "beautiful people"

---

They connect. They are beautiful people living traumatized lives, without real parental support(Norman's is imaginary and terrible) or financial help. They are on their own.

I've always been a little sad at Norman's near-final nice line to Marion after he has calmed down:

"Don't you want to stay a little longer. Just for talk?"

I can't think of a better summary of loneliness than that line. Imagine if Norman had been entirely normal, and not a killer, and Marion walked out that door and drove away the next morn. It would just be...sad.

[–] telegonus (736) 7 years ago

Yes, the eager-sad plaintive quality of Anthony Perkins and the character he's playing is so touching in those final few moments just prior to Marion's departure and, the viewer hopes for a while, her successful attempt to return the money, make restitution for all she had done wrong. Even cold fish Lowrey would probably have rehired her,--on "probabtion"--and it might have worked, been a wake up call for Marion and Sam that there are no easy answers.

This is truly the last time we see Norman as the engaging upright fellow he came across as from the git, right through most of the parlor chat,--and even his "boy's best friend is his mother" could be written off as a real life flub on Norman's part, paving the way for a Rear Window sort of tale. "You wait and see", Psycho seems to be suggesting, "this young fellow will learn the ropes. All he needs is time...and a little help from Marion". This somewhat "impaired" leading man and lovely lady dynamic was a driving force in Psycho early on as it was throughout in RW.

Jeff, like "mother" is, literally, confined, but then he's no psycho killer. The guy across the courtyard is. Thus, confined as he is, Jeff is a real man after all; and a whole man, bad leg notwithstanding. Norman's "unwholeness" is the key to his personality, and the chief reason he can't stop killing. He was way too fragmented by the time Marion arrived at the motel for experience with one good woman, whether purely emotional, sexually, or various points in-between, to have have changed him. Even if Marion had the desire to help,--and briefly, she appears to--the sheer force of nature of madness within Norman--would have drawn out the killer inside him.

[–] missnat (1179) 7 years ago

No she kept giving herself away too easily, nervousness around cop,making mistakes (signing wrong name etc).

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Signing one name (a fake -- easily traced -- "Marie Samuels") and then slipping up and giving Norman her real name. And when Norman checks the guest register moments later...

Its a great bit of screenwriting. I don't think her fake name is "Marie Samuels" in the book; Stefano gave us something more meaningful for Arbogast to leap on ("That's an interesting alias...her boyfriend's name was Sam.")

I suddenly(at this moment) realized something: When Arbogast told Norman "her boyfriend's name was Sam," he may well have planted in Norman's subconscious the growing realization that the boyfriend is HERE when Sam checked in.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Yes, the eager-sad plaintive quality of Anthony Perkins and the character he's playing is so touching in those final few moments just prior to Marion's departure and, the viewer hopes for a while, her successful attempt to return the money,

---

We "can see it in our mind" as Norman lays it out for Marion: tomorrow, when she leaves very early, at dawn, he'll bring her some breakfast. And she will drive all the way back to Phoenix(a mistake, she signed in from Los Angeles.) We can SEE it. Nice Norman. Breakfast. Marion drives hard and fast. The end. But it CAN'T be the end. We're at the 43 minute mark. And Hitchcock dashes our "vision of tomorrow" in a famous shower.

---

make restitution for all she had done wrong. Even cold fish Lowrey would probably have rehired her,--on "probabtion"--and it might have worked, been a wake up call for Marion and Sam that there are no easy answers.

---

But there's also an out: if Marion gets to Phoenix by Sunday night, she can return the money by Monday to the bank before LOWERY KNOWS IT IS GONE. But she will have to transfer $700 cash (of her own money, to make up for the car purchase) in the same deposit. How to disguise THAT?

But still, yeah, if Marion didn't make it back on time(say Lila ratted her out as not being home) and the theft was discovered...probably "business probation."

[–] telegonus (736) 7 years ago

Where Lowrey is concerned Marion's looks were a major plus. Clients, male clients, liked her. Cassidy paid no attention to "the other one". The quality that enabled Marion to have a successful and lively (shall we say) love life also in the end cost her her own. She had a lot of fun along the way but she paid and paid dearly for being a babe. As a hypothetical: do you think that the dowdy and already middle aged looking character Pat Hitchcock played would have aroused Norman's interest had she checked into the Bates motel that rainy night, that her dealings with Norman would have been more than perfunctory, that he's stabbed her to death in the shower?

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Where Lowrey is concerned Marion's looks were a major plus. Clients, male clients, liked her. Cassidy paid no attention to "the other one".

--

He was that quick to ignore Caroline, wasn't he? A lesson in male priorities. (Though certainly women can be the same way about men -- ignore the nerd, focus on the hunk.)

You could say that Lowery had "one girl to do the work, the other girl to be decorative" -- but Marion seems pretty skillful and Lowery gives HER the 40K assignment. (Angrily and nervously "I don't even want it in the office over the weekend!" -- a great plot line, yes?)

I'm reminded again that Hitchcock was so precise a producer-director that he would -- almost with an objective lack of sensitivity to her feelings -- assign his own DAUGHTER this dowdy role -- as he had assigned her a dowdy but spunkier role in Strangers on a Train(where Pat IS attractive to a cop.) As for Pat Hitchcock, she seemed to understand her "niche": character roles with humor, the professional calling of actors who are not beautiful.

----

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

The quality that enabled Marion to have a successful and lively (shall we say) love life also in the end cost her her own.

---

I have read, via cops testimony, that beautiful women have to be doubly careful about men . Marion seems to have understood her power AND her vulnerability though...SURPRISE: Neither the cop nor California Charlie leer at her at all. They are "all business." (And recall: Stefano first wrote the cop as fliratatious , which probably would have happened in real life, but Hitch was having none of that.)

---

She had a lot of fun along the way but she paid and paid dearly for being a babe.

---

For some reason, "Looking for Mr. Goodbar" comes to mind again. And yet there is not hint that Marion was as promiscuous as Ms. Keaton.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

As a hypothetical: do you think that the dowdy and already middle aged looking character Pat Hitchcock played would have aroused Norman's interest had she checked into the Bates motel that rainy night, that her dealings with Norman would have been more than perfunctory, that he's stabbed her to death in the shower?

---

Damn hard to say. I've figured that the customers who escaped death were men(likely travelling salesmen) and OLD couples.

Given his peephole, I do wonder if Norman used it to watch YOUNG couples making love(surely the Bates Motel was a "no tell motel" for locals) , and what effect that might have had. Thinking further: if they registered AS locals, Norman might have let them live. (But not the two girls who were "missing persons cases.")

Meanwhile, back at Caroline. If something about her "aroused" Norman, doomsday. But figure nothing did. Caroline would likely travel on, safely.

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

A lot would depend on whether anyone in Phoenix knew that she was involved with Sam. If she'd told her office-mates anything, even a mention of a boyfriend in the Fairvale area, that would have been passed along to the Phoenix police... and then to the Fairvale police.

There's a great big difference between showing up with enough illicit funds to solve all your immediate worries, and showing up as an officially wanted criminal.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

A lot would depend on whether anyone in Phoenix knew that she was involved with Sam.

---

The movie is rather silent on this except that...Lila turns right up there in Fairvale, so SHE knew. (And Arbogast is explained in one line when Lila says "I don't know you": "Oh, I know that, otherwise I couldn't have followed you.") I think in the Bloch novel, Lila found a love letter.

---

If she'd told her office-mates anything, even a mention of a boyfriend in the Fairvale area, that would have been passed along to the Phoenix police... and then to the Fairvale police.

---

But none of that would have happened until Monday, so if Sam and Marion vamoosed on down to Mexico Saturday night through Sunday, they'd be ahead of all cops.

Except I think telegonus' doubts about that escape working are probably correct.

---

There's a great big difference between showing up with enough illicit funds to solve all your immediate worries, and showing up as an officially wanted criminal.

---

Ha. Very true. Marion had to get all her ducks in a row to avoid that outcome.

But she didn't count on an odd duck named Norman...