MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > A Long, Long Wait 'Til the BOO

A Long, Long Wait 'Til the BOO


This is another Arbogast post, but perhaps to a more "global use."

The deal as Hitchcock planned it was for Mrs. Bates to first reveal her horrific murdering side in the shower scene...and for Mrs. B to thereafter haunt the entire movie as "a lurking menace." Once we have seen exactly what she is capable of(stabbing a victim multiple merciless times with a great big butcher knife)...we cringe everytime ANYBODY comes to the Bates Motel or enters the Bates house. That's how Psycho "works" from the shower murder on.

Once Arbogast arrives in the movie...and then arrives on the porch of the Bates Motel at dusk..the "Mrs. Bates menace" mechanism kicks in, and the entire Bates property becomes a "zone of danger" much like the ocean in Jaws: once you enter, there's every chance you get attacked and killed.

What's amazing, I think, is how LONG it takes for Arbogast to get it, how long Hitchcock milks the possibility of Mother materializing to kill the man.

She's "lurking" in our minds as Arbogast and Norman talk in the motel office(it grows dark, Arbo's back is to the outside door, Mother COULD come up behind him); as Arbogast and Norman talk on the porch in the darkness(again, Arbogast's back to the house -- Mother COULD come up behind him); when Arbogast makes his phone booth call(he's got information of great danger -- Marion was here, Mother exists) and she just might be capable of driving up in a truck or something and killing him; and then back at the motel, where Hitchcock angles things so the audience worries that Arbo could be attacked both as he gazes at the stuffed birds and when he kneels down to examine the safe(on his rise back up, I'll bet the audience's closed their eyes.)

And then it all tightens up without mercy as Arbogast climbs the hill to the house, enters the foyer, climbs the stairs....

Its a great big BOO when Mother comes racing out at Arbogast to kill him, but I would contend that Hitchcock had this moment building since practically the moment Arbogast first arrived at the Bates Motel. In the structure of "Psycho," Mother is an unseen menace who isn't seen much, and doesn't do much, until the suspense has been ratcheted all the way up and the story all the way out.

And when she comes rushing out that door...its time. She's just as horrible as she always was, just a monstrous as we thought she was. Again.

Compare this to the usual Friday the 13th slasher movie pattern, in which we get a new bloodily stabbed, sliced, hacked victim about every ten minutes or so. Hitchcock didn't work in a period where you could DO that, but I doubt that he would have wanted to, anyway. He's "the master of suspense," and saving, saving, saving Mother's next attack(after the shower) is how he operates and keeps Psycho at high tension even in "dialogue scenes."

Once both Marion AND Arbogast have been gorily stabbed to death, the whole machinery kicks in again for the visit of Sam and Lila to the Bates Motel...and rises to peak suspense as Lila explores the house alone. It has been said that "Psycho only has two murders" but we don't know that when we first SEE it. Lila is fair game, and so is Sam, big guy that he is(Mother is quite capable of ambush, as Arbogast found out.)

In this third act finale, Hitchcock again plays the "zone of danger" card(the rooms of a house in which we have not been before) and the "Menacing Mother" card(she could pop out anywhere, as the "mirror jump" moment confirms)....and its a long, long, LONG wait to perhaps the biggest BOO in the picture: the double whammy of Dead Mother and Norman Mother in the fruit cellar.

These are elements of Psycho that we have brought up before, but I think what I would like to linger on here is the long period of time BETWEEN shocks, and how Hitchcock rather expertly stretches out the story AND the suspense until these shocks finally arrive as if to justify how long we had to wait.

I mean, both the Arbogast murder and the fruit cellar finale are GREAT shocks, scream-worthy(with Herrmann's strings) when they happen and incredibly cinematic(by Hitchcock's direction) in the play-out(think of the high shot of Mother's attack on Arbogast versus the swirl-around close up of Dead Mother's face -- different presentational techniques.

And funny: both the "zone of danger" mechanism and the "Menacing lurking mother mechanism" come into being only AFTER the shower murder. It is as if the most shocking scene in the movie exists rather separately from the suspense-horror movie that follows it.

reply

Great explanation of what Hitchcock accomplished on screen!! He knew how to draw out the suspense in order to keep an audience in a sweaty state of anxiety. That's how you do it!


Too many films today are of the "gore, shock and slasher " type. No suspense. Just making the audience scream or, in a lot of instances, making them sick.

Even Spielberg knew how to draw out the suspense in Jaws. Just those few chords of music to signal that the shark was on the prowl. The audience didn't even see the shark until the second half of the movie.

In contrast, there was one of those shark films during summer "Shark Week". It was called "Sharktopus", a combination of a shark and octopus. The strange menacing creature was shown about five minutes after the opening credits.

I thought, "Great way to build up the suspense!" lol

The ability to scare an audience and keep them on the edge of their seats is a lost art.

reply

Even Spielberg knew how to draw out the suspense in Jaws. Just those few chords of music to signal that the shark was on the prowl. The audience didn't even see the shark until the second half of the movie.

---

It remains my contention that Jaws is "next in line to Psycho" in terms of using the same Hitchcockian techniques -- plus a few new ones of Spielberg's making -- to create a movie in which there's tons of suspense and only occasional shockeroos.

There are differences dictated by 15 more years "at the movies." Psycho could get away with a half hour before the Bates Motel shows up and 47 minutes til the shower shock. Jaws starts right off with a killing(shower scene-ish: naked woman in water) and then "doles out" some shocks along the way, but not a lot of them, and not all killings (examples: the head popping out of the hole in the boat, the shark coming up at Scheider shoveling chum into the water.)

There's even that great early "red herring scene" in which a guy falls into the drink and the unseen shark is represented by a torn-away small pier TURNING AROUND IN THE WATER to chase him -- the shark is caught up in the pier with a chain. The audience screams and yells in excitement -- but the man escapes in time.

Psycho, made 15 years earlier, didn't even seem to KNOW that it should be throwing scares in one after another. Hitchcock knew that the three big scares he had were more than enough for a 1960 movie.

----

I've always said that while Psycho, The Exorcist and Jaws are the three "superthrillers of film history" (blockbuster grosses for horror) but only Jaws and Psycho truly "match up": the shocks come from killings or fear OF killings. The shocks in The Exorcist appear in a different way: we are to be sickened more than we are to be shocked. (And THAT approach continued as well in later movies.)

reply

In contrast, there was one of those shark films during summer "Shark Week". It was called "Sharktopus", a combination of a shark and octopus. The strange menacing creature was shown about five minutes after the opening credits.

--

Ha, well in "B movie land," you gotta show everything, early and often.

---

I thought, "Great way to build up the suspense!" lol

The ability to scare an audience and keep them on the edge of their seats is a lost art.

---

I suppose it is a lost art because the MTV-based fast-edit filmmaking of today demands it.

That goes for action as well as shocks.

Just as there are only three big shock scenes in Psycho, there are only three big action scenes in North by Northwest -- the drunken drive, the crop duster, and the chase across Mount Rushmore. But THOSE three scenes were more than enough in 1959, you felt the movie building towards each one and then building on FROM each one.

But modern action movies need a big action scene right up front(often before the credits roll; see James Bond) and what are known as "action beats' or "action gotchas" at about eight minute intervals (producer Joel Silver dictated these for both the Lethal Weapon and Die Hard films.)

I gotta admit, even to myself: I've gotten used to action beats, and North by Northwest with only three big action scenes seems more quaint every time I see it.

Except those are three GREAT action scenes. Especially the second two (crop duster and Mount Rushmore) and Rushmore is my favorite set-piece in Hitchcock.

reply

More excellent analysis.

Do you think that directors forgo the slow build-up of suspense because audiences, owing to modern technology, have short attention spans? I mean, they have to have everything fast, faster, fastest, no waiting! The younger generation texts and has to have a reply in minutes. In contrast, I remember writing letters and waiting for days in delicious anticipation for a reply.

One movie I should've included was Halloween. Just saw it again when they aired it. The first part of the movie, after the initial shock of the young Michael Myers killing his sister, is one long slow tango with anticipation and fear. You "know" he's out there, but his intended victims do not.

That scene when Laurie and her friends are walking home from school in broad daylight is like Jaws on dry land. They walk, they talk about schoolgirl stuff, oblivious to the danger. But he's there. Is he down the street, in that car which stops abruptly, behind the tall hedge??

Even after a few characters meet their fate, his intended victim, Laurie, is totally oblivious to what's going on. The suspense is drawn out until the audience is one raw nerve.

For a low budget movie, it didn't succumb to cheap horror tricks, unlike a lot of the slasher flicks which followed.

reply

Do you think that directors forgo the slow build-up of suspense because audiences, owing to modern technology, have short attention spans? I mean, they have to have everything fast, faster, fastest, no waiting!

---

I'm afraid so. The nervous system has changed.

I cannot see Psycho playing today with its first half hour of "no horror."

I might add, Hitchcock himself "got with the program" 12 years after Psycho when he made Frenzy.

Frenzy opens with a scene -- not in the source novel -- in which a London politician's speech by the River Thames is interrupted by a naked woman's body floating up -- buttocks upwards -- with a necktie round her neck. Its a macabre, funny and overtly sexual scene that establishes in the first scene that this movie WILL be about a serial sex killer. THEN Hitchcock can spend a half hour on "plot" before the next murder. But by modern standards, Frenzy STILL took too long to get to the horror.

---

The younger generation texts and has to have a reply in minutes. In contrast, I remember writing letters and waiting for days in delicious anticipation for a reply.

---

Aw...letter writing. In college, I had a girlfriend who would "go home" hundreds of miles away during summers. Though we would visit each other every couple weeks, in the meantime...letters got it done. The anticipation...the moment you opened the mailbox and HER letter was in there. It was actually the same with good male friends...our letters to each other were "comedy writing experiments" of wit. And of course, letters from parents and grandparents.

A lost art. A lost time.

.

reply

One movie I should've included was Halloween. Just saw it again when they aired it.

---

I always saw "Halloween" as "reintroducing Psycho as a thriller model" after a Satanic interlude(Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist, The Omen) with a "killer animal" chaser(Jaws, Orca).

Carpenter knew this. He gave Donald Pleasance the name "Sam Loomis" and cast Janet Leigh's daughter Jamie Lee Curtis in the female lead. AP photos in 1978 newspapers put a shot of Jamie Lee screaming in Halloween next to a shot of Janet Leigh screaming in the shower. The "reintroduction of Psycho" was a big deal with Halloween -- even as it didn't particularly feel like Psycho in other ways.

---

The first part of the movie, after the initial shock of the young Michael Myers killing his sister,

---

A bow to the need for an "opening scene shocker" (see: Jaws, Frenzy. Much later: Scream.)

---

is one long slow tango with anticipation and fear. You "know" he's out there, but his intended victims do not.

---

Yep. I do love how Carpenter films these early scenes in a kind of "dusky daylight." You can feel the sun slowly going away -- what's coming is Halloween Night. But also what is coming is the Dead of Night. In the daytime, Michael's already driving around town in a stolen car and soon walking around in the mask that is 'allowed' on Halloween.

And then night falls. And the terror begins. (wait until dark...)

---

reply

That scene when Laurie and her friends are walking home from school in broad daylight is like Jaws on dry land. They walk, they talk about schoolgirl stuff, oblivious to the danger. But he's there. Is he down the street, in that car which stops abruptly, behind the tall hedge??

----

Yep. Carpenter "earns his Hitchcock stripes" with this early stretch of nervous anticipation and oblivious victims(two of whom are rather "off-puttingly inane" girls -- unlike Psycho, Halloween has you rooting just a bit FOR the killer. But the victims don't deserve THIS.)

---

Even after a few characters meet their fate, his intended victim, Laurie, is totally oblivious to what's going on. The suspense is drawn out until the audience is one raw nerve.

---

Hitchcock: "Suspense is giving the audience information that the characters on screen do not have."

----

For a low budget movie, it didn't succumb to cheap horror tricks, unlike a lot of the slasher flicks which followed.

---

Its a pretty classy act. Donald Pleasance(the sole "name" actor in the film) is good with his ongoing interweaving into the plot as the Man Who Knows(how evil Michael Myers is.) Some of the suspense is in wanting people to BELIEVE him, and wanting him to eventually catch up with Michael and "save the day."

I would like to point out that while Halloween "brought back the slasher film"(or at least the "stabber" film), two of the key murders -- of the two girls -- are STRANGLINGS. In that way, Halloween connects more with Frenzy than with Psycho and -- as with Frenzy -- a lingering strangling is, in many ways, less scary and more disturbing and intimate to watch than a good "boo!" stabbing(in Halloween, that would be the bespectacled boyfriend in the kitchen.)

reply

I think my favorite moment of terror in Halloween is when Jamie Lee is pounding on a door to get into a house and ...behind her every time she glances back...Michael is walking from the house across the street to catch up with her. Just WALKING. Slowly, methodically, getting closer and closer as no one answers the door until...she gets in.

I think my least favorite moment of Halloween -- and what makes it fail against Psycho for me -- is the extended final sequence in which Jamie Lee keeps managing to stab Michael and then, with Michael dead on the ground, JUST SITS THERE next to him FOREVER without running away. Utnil Michael rises again and the chase/fight begins again. It happens what, two, three times? I always felt that "botched the finale" and its comparison in Psycho is much better: Norman runs into the fruit cellar to kill Lila and is stopped by Sam. No long chase of victim by killer, no silliness of a killer who "plays dead" while his victim just sits there.

And this: My personal Halloween the movie story. I was staying at the family home when this came out. Watching TV late at night alone, when there was a POUNDING POUNDING POUNDING on the front door. I opened the door cautiously to find a female sibling running me over to get in the house:

Me: What's going on?(I see a car out front screech away)
Her: I just saw the scariest movie I've ever seen in my life. My friends dropped me off but I didn't think I could make it to the door! I was too scared to try to come up here.
Me: Oh. What was the movie?
Her: Halloween.
Me: Oh...that? Nobody's in that, is there? Its a cheapie?
Her: I DON'T CARE...scariest movie I've ever seen.
Me: OK.
Her: I mean, a LOT scarier than Psycho.
Me: Hey...

----

The movies of our lives.

reply