MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Norman at the Sanitarium

Norman at the Sanitarium

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

I've posted in the past that there are two movies in "Psycho":

ONE: The present story we watch, start to finish, the story on the screen.

TWO: The movie "in our mind" -- in which we "fill in the blanks" with all sorts of scenes that aren't on screen, both in terms of the present story and in terms of the back story.

The present story:

How Cassidy and Lowery hired Arbogast
How Arbogast "followed" Lila to Fairvale(cab to cab? on the same plane that Sam catches at the beginning of the movie?)
The burial of Arbogast by Norman(a more difficult job than with Marion, I'd say)
Sam and Lila's drive to the Bates Motel, longer(this scene was scripted and not shot, they discuss Marion, the death of Lila and Marion's parents, their fears that Marion may be dead.)
What Sam and Lila DID with Norman between tackling him in the fruit cellar and getting the cops to come out and pick him up.
The shrink's actual in-cell conversation with "Mother."

The back story:

Norman's father and his death.
Norman's wonderful early life with Mother("We were more than happy")
The coming of The Boyfriend.
Killing Mom and the Boyfriend.
The digging up and stuffing of Mother.
How/when/why the split personality manifested. When did Norman first put on the dress and wig? When did Norman first kill a victim?

Many of these "back story" scenes were covered in Psycho IV, via flashback.

---

But what of "the after story": Norman at the sanitarium? Or better put, at the "State Hospital for the Criminally Insane" as they were so nicely named.

We know that at the end of "Psycho" Norman is not only speaking only as mother, he is THINKING only as Mother.

The shrink says "He tried to BE his mother...and now he is, probably for all time."

For ALL TIME. Helluva sentence.

So figure that at least for his first year or two at the asylum, Norman is..MOTHER. I would expect that the attending psychiatrists out to get to the bottom of Norman's madness would find themselves talking to a man speaking in a woman's voice and desperately trying to assert her innocence, with bad Norman "put away now," somewhere else.

But perhaps at some year in the future, under the pressures of medication and solitude...Mother subsided. And Norman came back. And the shrinks found themselves talking to a young man instead of an old woman.

And how about this:

I don't know if this is allowed in real life, but what if: Lila Crane asked to meet with Norman? Perhaps accompanied by Sam? Would the State let her do it? Would she want to do it? Could she pry out of Mother more information about what Norman felt about Marion? Would/could Lila "go the distance" and ask about...how Marion died?

Perhaps those would be questions better placed in Sam's mouth to ask...

And how about Arbogast's family? He must have had one. He was 40 years old at death, probably had parents, or brothers or sisters. Maybe even a wife and/or kids. Or an ex. Or a girlfriend. They would be as entitled as Marion's people to confront Mother/Norman and find out what happened to Milton. "Hollywood rules" tell us that Marion Crane was a star, Arbogast was a supporting player. But in real life...they would be equal as victims. And Arbogast's family would be entitled to meet Norman as well.

Perhaps these loved ones would meet Mother at first..and have to deal with that. But would they be invited to meet NORMAN when he emerged? (I am thinking of the Norman we meet in Psycho II -- back to BEING Norman -- and judged sane for return to society.)

In the opening scene of Psycho II, Lila Loomis(WIDOW of Sam!) appears at Norman's hearing with a petition signed by loved ones of victims and she tries to keep him put away. She's even more angry than she was in 1960. One can't picture her having gone to the asylum to speak to Norman, but maybe.

I do love this in Psycho II: One shot -- and one shot only -- outside the courtroom after that hearing , in which Norman Bates and Lila Crane are standing near each other -- Anthony Perkins and Vera Miles together again -- and one senses the two movies melding together in cast: Psycho and Psycho II. But the two characters don't connect at all: Lila is raging to the press about Norman's release, and he stands by nervously saying nothing. The two movies remain separate.

[–] [email protected] (5871) 7 years ago

Those are some interesting aspects of Psycho II. I never saw the movie. I just thought it was going to be a letdown after the original. But it sounds interesting.

Never knew that Lila and Sam got married!

As for Lila asking about the details of her sister's death, well after they fished Marion out of the water I'm sure the M.E. would have discovered all those many stab wounds. I don't know if Lila would've wanted to hear the grisly details.

I do think that Lila and Arbogast's families would have had the opportunity to meet with Norman Bates. When the Manson Family was up for parole, Sharon Tate's family and the families of the other victims attended the parole hearings.

I saw a very sad video on youtube. Sharon's mother, Mrs. Doris Tate was allowed to meet with Tex Watson. He wanted parole because he felt he was rehabilitated and wanted "mercy".

Mrs. Tate asked, "And what mercy did you show to my daughter?"

I'm all for showing forgiveness to someone. But he needed to stay locked up as his PUNISHMENT, not just until he felt like he wouldn't kill anyone else!

In Norman's case it was a little different because he went from "insane" to "sane". Supposedly his mental illness was cured and so he was released. It would be just as hard though for the victim's family to accept that a killer was "all better" and able to live in society.

I know psychiatry can help people. But I have heard of many cases of criminals fooling their doctors. They tell them just what they want to hear. They are liars and manipulators. No wonder Lila was furious.

Now I have to go find a copy of that movie!!!

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Those are some interesting aspects of Psycho II. I never saw the movie. I just thought it was going to be a letdown after the original. But it sounds interesting.

---

Well, as far as I am concerned, it WAS a letdown. But it was quite the mid-level box office hit. I think there was a massive nostalgia factor -- we'd get Perkins, Miles, and that house 23 years later! And it played more like a modern-day slasher movie.

But it wasn't written or directed nearly as well as Psycho, there was no art to it.

What was interesting, if one could get into it, was the study in Psycho II of Lila Crane and her fate after the original.

Whereas Tony Perkins in Psycho II really couldn't recapture the performance he gave in 1960 -- he was older now, with a weird sing-song cadence to his voice -- Vera Miles picked up Lila right where she left off. Its like Lila Crane is locked in a time warp of her 1960 self, only worse now: raging instead of angry, and obsessed instead of driven. She's almost as crazy as Norman, now. And its sad. And she will end up in that fruit cellar again, 23 years later, with a different outcome.

---

Never knew that Sam and Lila got married!

----We learn her name is Lila Loomis, but she gets only one line about Sam: "My husband is dead."

A year or so ahead of the movie "Psycho II," we got a novel called "Psycho II" by the original author, Robert Bloch. Weirdly, his book sequel was nothing like the movie sequel. We now have TWO "Psycho IIs."

The movie has Norman RELEASED from the sanitarium(impossible) and sent back to run the Bates Motel and live in the house.

The book has Norman ESCAPE from the sanitarium(more plausible) and haunting the set of the movie("Crazy Lady") being made of his crimed. But en route to Hollywood, Norman stops off at Sam Loomis hardware, where Sam and Lila live in that room in the back and - he slaughters them.

Ah, the alternative universes of fan fiction...

[–] movieghoul (213) 7 years ago

As I recall, Norman actually dies fairly early in the novel Psycho II but it turns out that the director of the film within the film is a Norman double obsessed by Norman's story, so I envisioned that Perkins would play a dual role in the film of the novel But that film was never made. Maybe with the insatiable desire for all things Psycho, the time to make this film has arrived.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

As for Lila asking about the details of her sister's death, well after they fished Marion out of the water I'm sure the M.E. would have discovered all those many stab wounds. I don't know if Lila would've wanted to hear the grisly details.

----

Well, she would want to know -- HAVE to know -- the cause of Marion's death. What I'm wondering is if she would find out that Marion was stabbed in the shower. Perhaps "Mother" told this to the shrink and the shrink -- after prodding -- told Sam and Lila. (Sam would understand; he remarked on there being no shower curtain in Cabin One.)

Speaking of fan fiction, in Psycho IV, somebody remarks of Norman Bates, "he's that guy who stabbed that woman in the shower decades ago." Idea being that, in real life, Norman Bates as being "the shower stabber" would be his claim to fame. (And Arbogast's murder? A staircase is pretty cinematic, too...but ignored in Psycho IV.)

--

I do think that Lila and Arbogast's families would have had the opportunity to meet with Norman Bates. When the Manson Family was up for parole, Sharon Tate's family and the families of the other victims attended the parole hearings.

I saw a very sad video on youtube. Sharon's mother, Mrs. Doris Tate was allowed to meet with Tex Watson. He wanted parole because he felt he was rehabilitated and wanted "mercy".

Mrs. Tate asked, "And what mercy did you show to my daughter?"

---

I had no idea that Mrs. Tate got to meet Tex Watson, and therefore I believe that Crane and Arbogast next of kin would likely get to meet with Norman. The question being: who did they meet with? Norman or Mother? If "Mother," she would simply say to them, "I'm so sorry for what Norman did. Its sad when a Mother has to condemn her own son, but he was always bad."

I'm all for showing forgiveness to someone. But he needed to stay locked up as his PUNISHMENT, not just until he felt like he wouldn't kill anyone else!

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

I'm all for showing forgiveness to someone. But he needed to stay locked up as his PUNISHMENT, not just until he felt like he wouldn't kill anyone else!

---

I'm pleased to hear that Tex Watson asked for mercy and wanted to be let out. Didn't happen. Ain't gonna happen.

Though as I've noted, one of the other Manson killers -- a woman -- has this year (2017)been granted parole in California by the parole board -- but that must be cleared by Governor Jerry Brown. I don't think he will do it.

---

In Norman's case it was a little different because he went from "insane" to "sane". Supposedly his mental illness was cured and so he was released. It would be just as hard though for the victim's family to accept that a killer was "all better" and able to live in society.

I know psychiatry can help people. But I have heard of many cases of criminals fooling their doctors. They tell them just what they want to hear. They are liars and manipulators. No wonder Lila was furious.

---

Psycho II takes this idea up with force. It also begins a study of "Nice Norman Bates" and what happens when people KNOW he has killed, but STILLL think he's a nice guy. Psycho II, III, and IV all feature men and women who come to like and trust Norman Bates even with his horrific past. Most of them get killed -- some by Mother, some by others.

--

Now I have to go find a copy of that movie!!!

---

All three of the Psycho sequels are inferior to the original, but somehow worth watching because of how they relate TO the original. I think Psycho III(1986) is the best -- intelligently directed by the intelligent Anthony Perkins, and with an often-smart script by Charles Edward Pogue(Cronenberg's "The Fly") which ties into the original with great loyalty.

[–] [email protected] (5871) 7 years ago

Norman Bates is an interesting character! I did find Psycho II on youtube but the sound quality was poor. I watched about twenty minutes. So I decided to buy it. I found a copy on youtube, just waiting for it.

I have the original novel. I didn't know that Robert Bloch wrote a sequel. Now I have to find that too! It does make more sense that Norman would escape rather than be released.

As for Tony Perkins, as I wrote, I only saw twenty minutes of his performance, but I found it plausible. Norman was older and it seemed like over the years he learned how to modify his behavior. He knew how to at least "act normal".
He didn't look much older, he still had a very slim physique for a guy approaching fifty and a youthful look. Tony Perkins captured the essence of a guy who was still his "mama's boy". Weird, but maybe that's just me.

Nothing can capture the brilliance of the original film. Hitchcock has many imitators, but no one can imitate his genius. I also thought this film should've been in black and white to capture the mood. But modern audiences wouldn't have liked it.

As for the Manson killer, you must be referring to Leslie van Houten. Granted parole, but I hope she never gets out! Her excuses are just sickening. She only stabbed Mrs. La Bianca about a dozen times because she thought "she was already dead." I can't believe she has people who stand up for her.

I just want to ask her- so what did you do when Mr. La Bianca was being stabbed and his wife was screaming for her husband?

I saw a news clip of Leslie's dad a few years ago. He was SO UPSET that his daughter wasn't given parole. He wondered "where was the justice"?? So where was the justice for the La Biancas or their family?

Leslie and her pals were given the gas chamber. But California outlawed capital punishment before their sentences could be carried out. So...sit your a@@ in prison and be happy you're still breathing.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Norman Bates is an interesting character!

---

You got that right! A character who was overweight, 40 , bespectacled and a goonish drunk in the novel became..Anthony Perkins. Movie star handsome. Soft spoken. Likeable. LOVEable. (Young girls swooned for Norman as they would for The Beatles and David Cassidy later.)

And the world became entranced with him. I think it has to do with the juxtaposition between how horrific the murders are that he commits and how likeable, cute, and sad he is as a human being. We are magnetically DRAWN to him, even as his crimes terrify and repel us. It creates a sense of .... emotional vertigo.

---

I did find Psycho II on youtube but the sound quality was poor. I watched about twenty minutes. So I decided to buy it. I found a copy on youtube, just waiting for it.

---

Good. If you're going to see Psycho II, I'd recommend that you go "all the way" and see III and IV, too. Only Psycho II was much of a hit among the sequels; III underperformed and IV was done for Showtime Cable TV.

---

I have the original novel. I didn't know that Robert Bloch wrote a sequel. Now I have to find that too!

---

Bloch wrote TWO sequels: Psycho II(his version of the story) and "Psycho House"(instead of Psycho III -- this one begins with the house and motel as tourist attractions!)

---

It does make more sense that Norman would escape rather than be released.

---

I think so. Yes, some mentally ill killers get released, but after seeing what Norman did to Marion and Arbogast...no way he'd be let out.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

As for Tony Perkins, as I wrote, I only saw twenty minutes of his performance, but I found it plausible. Norman was older and it seemed like over the years he learned how to modify his behavior. He knew how to at least "act normal".
He didn't look much older, he still had a very slim physique for a guy approaching fifty and a youthful look. Tony Perkins captured the essence of a guy who was still his "mama's boy". Weird, but maybe that's just me.

---

There can be no doubt that in Psycho II, Perkins was still slim (he was able to wear his original 1960 Norman Bates jacket for the opening scene) and youthful. Some have made the point that this "older Norman" WOULD have a different way of behaving and speaking --he's been locked up for decades, and he KNOWS he was a killer. Still, you can see Anthony Perkins acting starting to change way BEFORE Psycho II...in movies like Murder on the Orient Express, Winter Kills, and fflokes...something just went a bit haywire in his line readings. "Too many nervous tics."

[–] [email protected] (5871) 7 years ago

ecarle- Well I did go part of the way. I got my copy of Psycho II and watched it several times just to digest the story.

It is a lot better than what I had imagined it would be like. Interesting how the townspeople were so willing to forgive. They welcomed a known killer back into their midst. Norman had killed a number of people in their community but they weren't the least bit concerned about having him back? The diner owner had no problem giving Norman a BIG KNIFE to cut up salad?

I wonder if this was done sort of tongue in cheek, a spoof on Psycho. Yeah, a killer whose weapons of choice are poisoned tea and big knives. Hey, let's give him a job in a diner. LOL Will the audience go for it?

Actually Norman comes across as so tame and harmless, you feel that he is rehabilitated. Great irony at the end when Mary and Lila's misdeeds are exposed which leads the sheriff to think Norman is pure as the driven snow.

The ending only proves him to still be as batsh$@ crazy as ever. So much for modern psychiatry.

I found Psycho III on youtube. I didn't realize at first that it was only supposed to take place a month after the last film. Norman still hadn't aged much. I guess that's what happens when you are a perpetual child and momma's boy in your mind.

A bit too much "slasher film" for my taste, but an interesting story nonetheless.

The disappearance of Mrs. Spool demonstrates the willful ignorance of the town and law enforcement. A conscientious employee disappears without a word to her employer just after a serial killer comes back to town? Just a coincidence? The sheriff seems to have no desire to investigate.

The woman left behind an apartment full of personal belongings and clothes. Why? No one seems to care to check into it.

And the name "Spool". Maybe it's just me, but I find that name interesting. Norman and his family came off the spool years ago.

The young ex-nun and Norman seem to mirror each other. She felt horrible guilt for having "lustful" feelings and left the convent in disgrace. Norman was always at war with his "lustful" feelings.

One thing I found hard to believe, Maureen's suitcase had the initials MC. And she had short blonde hair like Marion Crane. I just saw no resemblance between Diana Scarwid and Janet Leigh. But we were supposed to believe that Norman saw her as "Marion" come back to him. I just didn't see it.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

ecarle- Well I did go part of the way. I got my copy of Psycho II and watched it several times just to digest the story.

It is a lot better than what I had imagined it would be like.

--
OK by me. Many of the reviews were kind, saying it was "better than the average slasher movie" because the material was so great and Perkins was there (along with that great historic house. And Vera , too.)

---

Interesting how the townspeople were so willing to forgive. They welcomed a known killer back into their midst. Norman had killed a number of people in their community but they weren't the least bit concerned about having him back?

---

Especially the damn sheriff -- who noted that he had been a deputy to Deputy Sheriff Chambers in 1960 when the original occurred.

You could say that the film went wildly overboard in terms of how everybody liked Norman and felt that Lila was picking on him -- the new shrink(Robert Loggia), the sheriff, and Mary all come to defend Norman strongly. And two of 'em end up dead. (Though not by Norman's hand -- and they are killed by two different killers.)

---

The diner owner had no problem giving Norman a BIG KNIFE to cut up salad?

I wonder if this was done sort of tongue in cheek, a spoof on Psycho. Yeah, a killer whose weapons of choice are poisoned tea and big knives. Hey, let's give him a job in a diner. LOL Will the audience go for it?

---

Even if a spoof, this kind of scripting is why Psycho II fails big for me(and DID outrage a few critics who knew the original.) As Hitchcock had carefully conceived Norman, he was "at one with his lair" -- the House and the Motel. That was his "fantasical haunted home." He wasn't meant to be put in the real world working in a diner, first of all. And working with knives?

But the film was all wet in suggesting Norman would be released in the first place.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Hitchcock's Psycho had "fantastical elements"(the stylization of the murders, the dream-like logic of the piece) but it was never "dumb." Psycho II is. Nobody particularly thought carefully about the plot of Psycho II.

And try this as an example: a "first screenwriter" on Hitchcock's Psycho wrote up the final investigation of the motel by Sam and Lila so that they...stopped and KISSED each other! Evidently setting up some romance, but c'mon? When they were searching for Marion? Hitchcock fired that screenwriter.

Psycho II was written by a screenwriter Hitchcock would have fired.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Actually Norman comes across as so tame and harmless, you feel that he is rehabilitated. Great irony at the end when Mary and Lila's misdeeds are exposed which leads the sheriff to think Norman is pure as the driven snow.

--

There was some nice irony there -- Hitchcockian, you might say.

----

The ending only proves him to still be as batsh$@ crazy as ever. So much for modern psychiatry.

---

Yep. Intriguingly, Norman commits none of the slasher murders in Psycho II(which deflates the film further.) Only a shovel murder at the end.

I tell ya, I spent much of Psycho III not sure if Norman was the killer that time, too. But he was, slashing and stabbing away, just like old times.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

I found Psycho III on youtube. I didn't realize at first that it was only supposed to take place a month after the last film. Norman still hadn't aged much.

---

True...but he had a new, spiky haircut. I think Perkins wanted to look that way "for the 80's." His Psycho II haircut was longer and closer to the 1960 look.

---

I guess that's what happens when you are a perpetual child and momma's boy in your mind.

----

A great point you've made about Perkins not aging much and staying slim for the sequels is that this allows Norman himself to be "locked in the past." He's ALMOST the 1960 model. Actors like Brando, Tracy, and Stewart weren't so lucky at not aging or gaining weight.

----

A bit too much "slasher film" for my taste, but an interesting story nonetheless.

----

Yes, I guess Psycho II was a bit more of a whodunnit; Norman's back to slashing here.

I think the great conceit of Psycho III was to "go back to the source" and let us study Psycho(the original) from "backstage." Now we see Norman talking to dead mother up in her room while watching guests arrive. Now we see Mother's newest shower murder attempt collapse in compassion(the "victim" is already dying from suicidal wrist cuts). Now we see Norman "shut down murderous mother"(as a victim wants to come in the house) by literally grabbing the butcher knife blade and slamming his hand against the wall (THAT will stop mother form coming on.) And of course, there is a new staircase murder of sorts(with far worse process for the fall than Arbogast's in the original. Hitchocck WAS better.)

Perkins direction is arty and stylish, and I think the script is better than the one for Psycho II but...it seems Psycho III was "a sequel too far" and it didn't draw as much support as Psycho II.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

The disappearance of Mrs. Spool demonstrates the willful ignorance of the town and law enforcement. A conscientious employee disappears without a word to her employer just after a serial killer comes back to town? Just a coincidence? The sheriff seems to have no desire to investigate.

---

Again: Hitchcock would have fired the screenwriter.

---

And the name "Spool". Maybe it's just me, but I find that name interesting. Norman and his family came off the spool years ago.

--
Great point. It was an interesting new name to add to the Psycho legacy -- following Norman Bates, Marion Crane, Arbogast...

----

The young ex-nun and Norman seem to mirror each other. She felt horrible guilt for having "lustful" feelings and left the convent in disgrace. Norman was always at war with his "lustful" feelings.

---

Here is where Hitchcock would NOT have fired the screenwriter. The writer was trying to determine: "Who could Norman Bates fall in love with?" And the sad story has Norman doing so...and the woman reciprocating...but Mother is too strong.

---

One thing I found hard to believe, Maureen's suitcase had the initials MC. And she had short blonde hair like Marion Crane. I just saw no resemblance between Diana Scarwid and Janet Leigh. But we were supposed to believe that Norman saw her as "Marion" come back to him. I just didn't see it.

---

The scene hit its point too hard hard -- with a flashback to the shower murder and b/w footage of Scarwid laying on the shower floor -- to suggest that Norman saw a "double." But it didn't work. Scarwid wasn't a double for Janet Leigh.

In Bloch's novel, when Lila Crane comes to check in, Norman panics thinking it IS Marion...come back out of the swamp. Then Lila draws closer and he realizes its not Marion.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Nothing can capture the brilliance of the original film. Hitchcock has many imitators, but no one can imitate his genius.

---

One of the weird "gifts" of all the Psycho sequels and even Van Sant's "Psycho" remake(which worked from the same script and shots as the original) was that they all gave us a class in WHY Hitchcock was such a great artist, maybe a genius, at his best. The sequels couldn't match either the artistry or the script of Psycho; the remake used the original's recipe and couldn't make the same meal (wrong actors, wrong edits, wrong era.)

---

I also thought this film should've been in black and white to capture the mood. But modern audiences wouldn't have liked it.

---

Black and white was practically outlawed by Hollywood with the coming of widespread color TV sales in the late sixties. Only sometimes has it been used in the 50 years since: The Last Picture Show, Young Frankenstein, Manhattan, Ed Wood.

I think another reason that Hitchcock's Psycho stands out from the sequels and remakes is that is among the greatest of black and white movies, and its black and white look makes it unique against almost all thrillers after it(Wait Until Dark, Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist, Jaws.) Though Baby Jane, Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte, Homicidal and Strait-Jacket all used "Psycho-esque black and white to good effect.)

Note: The Bates House interiors in color in Psycho II -- green wallpaper and red curtains -- were based largely on the interior of the London psychopath's flat(apartment) in a genuine Hitchcock movie(Frenzy of 1972.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

As for the Manson killer, you must be referring to Leslie van Houten. Granted parole, but I hope she never gets out!

---

Evidently, the parole board granted her parole on a previous occasion...and Governor Brown vetoed that decision. He SHOULD do it again, but he is in his last year as Governor, who knows what he is thinking.

---

Her excuses are just sickening. She only stabbed Mrs. La Bianca about a dozen times because she thought "she was already dead." I can't believe she has people who stand up for her.

I just want to ask her- so what did you do when Mr. La Bianca was being stabbed and his wife was screaming for her husband?

I saw a news clip of Leslie's dad a few years ago. He was SO UPSET that his daughter wasn't given parole. He wondered "where was the justice"?? So where was the justice for the La Biancas or their family?

Leslie and her pals were given the gas chamber. But California outlawed capital punishment before their sentences could be carried out. So...sit your a@@ in prison and be happy you're still breathing.

---

This is all pretty disturbing to read. I do recall how the Manson killers found their death sentences commuted and it was like living proof that California was already kind of on the nutty side, government-wise.

IF...one believes in the use of the death penalty. Which I do, in the relatively easy-to-determine cases where it is clear who did the killings, clear how savage the killings were, clear how innocent the victims were, and clear how monstrous and callous the killers were.

One recalls psycho Ted Bundy evidently getting smart and committing his last murders in a state that used the death penalty freely -- they executed him pretty quickly.

[–] [email protected] (5871) 7 years ago

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

I don't think Teddy wanted to die though. He had used up his stays of execution. So he tried another ploy. He was "willing" to talk to explain what caused him to become a serial killer. He had a lot of "useful information" to give to law enforcement. He was interviewed several times. He thought he could spin out his explanations indefinitely and avoid the electric chair.

---

I didn't know those details. Well, he did go to law school....

---

The lives of his victims didn't matter. But apparently, HIS life mattered very much.

----

Seems to be the case with a lot of stone cold killer and madmen...

----

But surprise, they fried him anyway.

---

Surprise.

I can't "take back" my support of the death penalty as expressed above, but I will say this: I think it should be saved for "the worst of the worst" and only when there is no competing evidence of another possible killer.

Hitchcock toyed with this very belief in Frenzy, where he had Inspector Oxford say of the "guilty" Richard Blaney: "There's not even the possibility of another suspect." Wrong. There's another suspect and he's the RIGHT killer: Bob Rusk. And "Frenzy" was based in part on a real life case(the John Christie case) in which the wrong man was hanged and then they found out that Christie(i.e. Rusk) did do it. And the death penalty was banned in England.

Even with my knowledge of this, I still think the death penalty is a necessary way to deal with "the worst of the worst." If you've ever read a few death penalty cases(and I have) ...they are oftimes atrocities committed in the most sadistic manner imaginable..and often upon women. Better to get our revenge and remove these animals from earth than allow them a few more decades of life, and pen pals and prison marriages

There is also the fact(proven, I think) that many criminals won't kill if they know that the death penalty may be waiting for them. Indeed, they value their own skins...

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

(Bundy) blamed pornography

---

Yeah...him and 50 million other guys...who killed no one.

---

but I think there was something wrong with little Ted from birth. You can always blame something, but he was not wired right.

---

Given the rather serious and grim turn of this thread(which, I might add, I think "Psycho" and "Frenzy" were designed by Hitchcock to engender discussion about), I will add that medical authorities have recently announced that they are going to study the BRAIN of the Las Vegas shooter of a few weeks back. They are looking for "abnormalities" -- much as a small tumor was found in the brain of Charles Whitman, the Texas Tower sniper of 1966.

But its all part of the rather bottomless and inconclusive quest to find out why ANY psycho does what he or she does. "Brain chemistry," they often say, "has gone wrong." Or, as you say "they are wired wrong"(a concept that I believe in.) Trying to predict the psycho killing from this, or trying to understand how the psycho could have been "cured" is the mystery no one seems able to solve.

---

In one of the biographies I have, Ted was alone with a babysitter when he was about three or four. She fell asleep. She woke up with all the kitchen knives encircling her body, courtesy of little Teddy. That should have been a red flag for his mom! Your kid is disturbed. Get him some therapy.

----

Yikes. With many adult psychopaths, the telltale childhood actions involve the torture and murder of pets.
No movie has really wanted to put THAT in the back story of a psycho. I'm glad.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

How Hitchcock dealt with the end of five of his psychos:

Uncle Charlie(Shadow of a Doubt)...pushed off train by niece, crushed by oncoming train.

Phillip and Brandon(Rope)..found out by Professor James Stewart, who yells(as only James Stewart can): 'You're gonna DIE!" Execution is guaranteed.

Bruno Anthony(Strangers on a Train) Crushed by collapsing amusement park carousel.

Norman Bates(Psycho) Captured by amateurs, committed to an asylum for life.

Bob Rusk(Frenzy) Captured by the police and an amateur, committed to prison for life.

In short, Hitchocck favored the death penalty once(Rope); gave his psychos a "natural" death penalty twice(Shadow, and Strangers), and elected to tell us that Norman and Rusk, as "mad men," would not be executed. Though it looks like Rusk will serve his sentence in prison, not a medical facility(because we hear that verdict first given to Blaney.)

I've sometimes pondered whether or not Norman AND Rusk deserved the death penalty, given how merciless and horrible their murders were -- and largely against defenseless women. I've felt that Hitchcock seemed to imply that Norman deserved to be spared but that Rusk would have done well to be executed...except that wasn't an option in England in 1972.

And as for the deaths of Uncle Charlie and Bruno Anthony, their movies suggest a bit of "divine intervention" given that Young Charlie manages to overcome the stronger Uncle Charlie and Bruno seems to be the ONLY fatal victim of that carousel crash...

[–] [email protected] (5871) 7 years ago

Interesting point about how Hitchcock believed in the "death penalty", in one form or another... Even on his TV show, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, the bad guy (or gal) was punished in the end. Some of the episodes ended with the killer apparently getting away with the crime. But Hitchcock would always explain at the end that the person was finally caught and punished.

With people like the Manson family, I would've been okay with life imprisonment for them if it actually meant LIFE and not parole hearings every few years. To me, that is totally insane. They got the gas chamber, so obviously they were deemed evil enough to be executed. But after a few years and a couple of college degrees, they were "cured"?

Okay, so they obtained college degrees, they were "model" prisoners, they counseled other prisoners. But the idea that they were rehabilitated and deserved their freedom is an insult to their victims and a mockery of the legal system.
Some people seem to forget that they were in prison as punishment. They took the lives of their innocent victims. Their victims didn't have the opportunity for parole, so why should they?
Norman Bates was of course, seriously disturbed, so he should never have been let out. There's no cure for a psychopath.

Those childhood telltale signs of a psychopath, yes I've read about those. Bedwetting, starting fires and killing and torturing small animals. Psychos start out small and kill insects, birds and move on to bigger things, cats, dogs, etc.

[–] swanstep (2715) 7 years ago

Rusk would have done well to be executed...except that wasn't an option in England in 1972.

Actually it wasn't an option in the US at the time either. There'd been no executions since 1967 and in 1972 in a 5-4 Supreme Court case called Furman v. Georgia the Supreme Court struck down *all* existing death penalty statutes. The decision was a muddle but the Court's principal worry was that existing statutes were unequally applied - poor and black got you the death penalty, rich and white almost never, and so on.

There were no executions in the US until 1977 when the Supreme Court decided that a bunch of new death penalty statutes (which gave Juries less of a role in sentencing and less decretion, and began tightening up the sorts of crimes to which death could attach, etc.) did pass constitutional muster. Again, if you read the decision, it's a hell of a muddle, and the judges themselves are far from convinced that the reformed death penalty statutes will help with the problems of unequal and flat out racist application that they'd raised back in 1972, but they go on and certify the new laws anyway. It looks for all the world like the court was just sick of the political heat that came with their blocking of the Death Penalty, and that they just decided to take a case and reverse themselves come hell or high water. Moreover, the same patterns of unequal application of death penalty statutes have continued since 1977 (the reformed statutes haven't in fact helped with what they were supposed to help with) but the Supreme Court has never seen fit to wade into the issue in such a broad way again. It's not the SC's finest hour.

[–] swanstep (2715) 7 years ago

In general, when you look at the US in the early 1970s, there were lots of respects in which the US was just following international trends. The whole developed world was rationalizing systems of measurement in favor of the metric system, rejecting death penalties, ending compulsory military service, passing equal rights initiatives for women etc., enshrining basic reproductive freedoms, doing something meaningful about child-care and pregnancy leave, etc.. But the US jumped the tracks of modernity around 1974 (diverged from the developmental path that the rest of the developed World was on) and hasn't really got back on since (especially at the Federal level - at the State level, Mass. for example is pretty comparable to France or Canada say - Alabama or Texas much less so). Indeed the powers of anti-modernity in the US have continued to strengthen, hence the conspiracy-mongering and nativism and anti-expertise/primivitism and anti-science-ism of the current administration.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

I suppose I hadda go and support something somewhat controversial(here at this board where I come to avoid the real world and bask in 1960...), but the death penalty is one thing I do ponder from time to time.

I suppose I'll align myself with two-time Oscar winner and generally liberal movie star Tom Hanks. He made The Green Mile, a 30's period piece about a man who works death row to support his family during The Depression, and must participate in some tragic executions by electric chair. Hanks said something like, "I suppose I should offer my opinion on the death penalty. I think that some killers should get the death penalty , and some killers should not."

That's about right. The realist in me notes the disparity in race and class. The realist in me also notes that, in some American states, killers get the death penalty and are really executed all the time, and in some states, killers get the death penalty and aren't ever executed(California.)

But the realist in me also notes that many murders are committed by people who have been released from prison for killing other people earlier in time(usually pled down to second degree or manslaughter), and some killers only get caught on tried for their most recent murder(say, one out of ten.)

Years ago, Norman Mailer and some other folks championed the release of a killer(I can't remember if they said he was wrongly accused) who wrote a book called "In the Belly of the Beast." Someone took this guy out for dinner at a restaurant -- he got in an argument with the waiter and stabbed the waiter to death with a table knife. Back to prison. (Norman Bates is shown reading "In the Belly of the Beast" in Psycho II.)

So, the reality is when the death penalty is not applied...sometimes it means other people are gonna die. Innocent people.

Sometimes.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

But it shifts back to: for the most heinous, sickening and sadistic of murders(say of women or children)...there used to be a moral duty to remove that killer from earth as a matter of punishment and as a matter of asserting a moral system somehow. I ain't joining a picket line in support of THOSE killers.

So I'm OK with the use of the death penalty in a small, narrowly focussed group of cases based on the nature of the killing itself.

But on to the movie versions...

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Columbo.

In practically every episode, the killer was at least well off, and maybe rich. White(except, I think, two times -- a Mexican and a Middle Eastern diplomat.) Usually male. Rich white male.

And Columbo always caught them, and sometimes they were nice guys in certain ways(Donald Pleasance as the wine maker) and, even if they were really cold and arrogant guys(Jack Cassidy, Robert Culp)...

...you never got the feeling any of them got the death penalty, gas chamber or electric chair.

In real life, rich guys do get off or reduced sentences. And interestingly enough, the kinds of murders shown on Columbo -- carefully premeditated in advance and often motivated by greed -- are the OTHER kinds of murders for which the death penalty was developed. (In between the sick killings of a Manson or Bundy and these murders are the "life sentence ones" -- crimes of barroom passion or drug deals gone bad or domestic violence.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

The death penalty "at the movies":

I'd say from Dirty Harry on(with a few exceptions, notably Frenzy), the movies began their movement of not ending with the killer off to prison, but rather ending with the killer KILLED. Usually in very violent and satisfying ways. Dirty Harry(and all of its sequels). Charley Varrick. Death Wish. Marathon Man. Black Sunday. Lethal Weapon. Die Hard. And a Die Hard knockoff called "Sudden Death"(Die Hard at the Hockey Arena), where Powers Boothe, having killed hostage men AND women with relish, is about to kill the hero's young daughter in front of him("I want you to remember I killed her") and is instead dealt a massively satifsying death of his own.

Its called "revenge fantasy." Kind of like how Smokey and the Bandit allows us to enjoy car crashes that in real life would just give us ulcers over the insurance claims and body shop bills, the movies allow us to see that bad guy GONE, erased, vanished, never to blight the world again.

One movie looked at the death penalty in an interesting way. At the end of the original "Taking of Pelham 123," good guy cop Walter Matthau has a gun on bad guy hostage killer Robert Shaw, down on the subway tracks below the city. The following exchange:

Shaw: Tell me, do you have the death penalty in this state?(New York)
Matthau: Uh...no.
Shaw: Pity.

And Shaw EXECUTES HIMSELF by putting his foot on the infamous electrified "third rail" of the subway track.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

To a thinking person, there can certainly be a lot about the death penalty to ponder and dislike:

How about the idea that you are told EXACTLY WHEN YOU ARE GOING TO DIE, more or less.

Mercifully , most of us do not know exactly when we are going to die. But death penalty convicts (in states that really execute) eventually get a date. They KNOW how many days they have left on earth. And the clock ticks right up to the famous "last supper" of their choice, granted by the prison. Who would want to think that they are being given a last supper?

The famous 1958 movie "I Want to Live"(with a large role for Simon Psycho Oakland), won an Oscar for Susan Hayward as a woman who gets the gas chamber for her accessory role to a killing. The movie made a big deal of a long night in which calls keep coming in staying Hayward's execution, and then allowing it to go forward, and then staying it, and then allowing it to go forward -- until it goes forward. That ringing phone was built up to suggest literal "life or death" and Hayward was mentally tortured up until she got the gas(or was it the chair, I can't remember.)

Well, that was pretty terrible on all counts. And I think changes were made -- not executing accessories, for one thing.

I suppose I can be as comfortable with a world in which the death penalty is abolished to avoid all its injustices(including the big one, executing the Wrong Man), and I'm not one to fight for or against it.

But on general principles, if one understands the capacity of "the worst of the worst" to kill innocent people(including defenseless children) in the most lingering and sadistic ways imaginable....these are not people I"m inclined to leave sticking around.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Which brings me back to Norman in the sanitarium. Or at least in his jail cell at the end.

Compare Norman Bates to Scorpio, the leering, cackling sadist played by Andy Robinson in Dirty Harry. Robinson kills one pretty white woman and a young black boy early in thethe film, then rapes, tortures and kills another teenage girl, and then hijacks a school bus filled with little kids and terrorizes them. He's evil, sadistic, cruel, crazy...and its one of the most satisfying endings in movie history when Dirty Harry finally kills him(perhaps too quickly for revenge sake, but at least Harry tortured Scorpio earlier in the film, and stuck a switchblade in the guy's thigh.)

Everybody CRAVED Scorpio's death.

But no one seems to have craved the death of Norman Bates.

Hitchcock pulled that off pretty neatly -- given what Norman did to Marion Crane(especially) and to Arbogast.

Its a matter of de-emphasizing Norman's evil and the brutality of his crimes, keeping Perkins polite through much of the film.

And at film's end, Hitchcock selects another tone entirely: one of creeping profound horror. Looking into Norman's crazed, leering death's head smile at the end, we are thinking much more of horror than of revenge -- Norman has sailed above and beyond what the punishment system can do to him.

Meanwhile 12 years later, Bob Rusk(Barry Foster) IS in Scorpio's territory -- you just HATE this guy, especially watching him terrorize, manhandle, rape and strangle a defenseless woman. Hitchcock ends the film with Rusk trapped in his flat by Inspector Oxford and Blaney. I would have ended it with Blaney giving Rusk a righteous non-fatal beating with that tire iron he brought to kill Rusk with.

[–] [email protected] (5871) 7 years ago

Very interesting, you have given this subject a lot of thought. I enjoy reading your thoughts.

"I Want to Live" has a chilling 'death watch' scene. I saw the movie years ago and watched it again a few years ago. The last minute stays of execution are like torture.
Ever see the TV remake with Lindsay Wagner? The final gas chamber scene is way more intense than what was depicted in the Susan Hayward film.

The film itself has been deemed a "fictionalized" version of "Bloody Babs" as the press called her. It depicts her as somewhat innocent, just an accessory to murder, as if "just an accessory" absolves one from guilt.
Her partners in crime intended to rob a 64 year old widow. They had Barbara knock on the her door to ask to use the phone. Supposedly a woman would open the door to another woman. Barbara Graham took part in the murder by pistol whipping the victim, Mrs. Mabel Monohan and smothering her with a pillow.

"The Taking of Pelham, One Two Three" is a favorite movie of mine. So many great performances including Walter Matthau and of course, Robert Shaw as the criminal who executes himself. He really didn't want to be taken alive. Prison would've been a worse punishment than death for him.

Just a small correction about "In the Belly of the Beast". It was Mary Loomis , not Norman who was reading the book in bed. In Psycho III, you can catch a glimpse of that book lying on the lawn in front of the Bates home at the start of the film.

The criminal in the book is Jack Henry Abbott. in some ways his story (excuses) echo Charles Manson and other convicted criminals, i.e., I had a bad home life, everyone was mean to me, etc, and boo hoo.
He stabbed a man to death over a silly argument.

Interestingly enough Susan Sarandon and her former husband (partner?) Tim Robbins, well known bleeding heart liberals and activists named their son Jack Henry in "honor" of this killer.
Another reason why I have no desire to listen to
Hollywood actors and their opinions!

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

you have given this subject a lot of thought.

---

For better and perhaps for a little worse, I'm one of those people who goes through life...thinking about things. Just thinking. Weighing pros and cons and , yes, applying emotion at times because I simply don't have all the facts.

On the death penalty, I had reason to read some documents once on the background of every prisoner in a particular state with the death penalty given to them. It was a Cook's tour of depravity in some cases -- the rape-murders of women, the torture killings of children. And one guy did his mother in to exert maximum pain and torture. Its not "pleasure reading."

So you almost HAVE to decide if you are going to be "compassionate" to such people(even in your mind.) Or not.

And there are many, many, many homicides which are, more "understandable." Where the death penalty doesn't seem like it would be appropriate.

---

I enjoy reading your thoughts.

---

Well I certainly thank you for reading them.

----

"I Want to Live" has a chilling 'death watch' scene. I saw the movie years ago and watched it again a few years ago. The last minute stays of execution are like torture.
Ever see the TV remake with Lindsay Wagner? The final gas chamber scene is way more intense than what was depicted in the Susan Hayward film.

---

I have not seen the Wagner version, and even with the Hayward version, I only saw the final sequence on death row with the phone calls. A LOT of my younger film watching (mainly of movies on TV) did not involve the full commitment to watch a movie start to finish. I was too fidgety, other things to do. Yes, what I mainly watched were the first 20 minutes of a movie(on Saturday Night at the Movies, they ran the movie for about 20 minutes before the first commercial...and then ran commercials every ten minutes after that.) Or i watched the ending.

Like with I Want to Live.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

The film itself has been deemed a "fictionalized" version of "Bloody Babs" as the press called her. It depicts her as somewhat innocent, just an accessory to murder, as if "just an accessory" absolves one from guilt.

---

I realize my throwaway line about executing accessories may have seemed callous. Of course, even there, there are "degrees." Someone who is told of a murder and doesn't report it can be an "accessory after the fact." I knew nothing of Babs complicity in the murder and of her personally pistol-whipping and helping smother the victim.

If the movie didn't get into this detail...what a crock.

----

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

"The Taking of Pelham, One Two Three" is a favorite movie of mine. So many great performances including Walter Matthau and of course, Robert Shaw as the criminal who executes himself.

---

And Martin Balsam(Arbogast) sharing the movie's final, delightful scene of final controntation, with Matthau. "Pelham 123" was written by the witty Peter Stone(Charade, Mirage) and understood how grim horror(Shaw's cold killing of the hostages) and deadpan humor(Matthau vs Balsam, two great character men, one a star) could co-exist in a film.

And "Pelham 123" had a bonus, courtesy of Peter Stone "going gritty and near-R rated" in 1974 after his 60's thrillers: the film is a time capsule of gritty, collapsing NYC in the early seventies, with the cast of cops, politicians and bureaucrats snarling and cussing at each other in a big-city mix of bad manners and bravado which..nonetheless..turns into heroism and compassion when the subway hostage takers threaten to kill a hostage a minute if money isn't delivered on time.

---

(Shaw) really didn't want to be taken alive. Prison would've been a worse punishment than death for him.

---

Shaw gave us a chilling portrayal of an ex-military mercenary who had modified his psychopathy into a "by the book" terrorism. Cooperate or die. And when he is caught at the end, he "uses the book" on himself.
Executes himself.

Matthau -- one of my favorite actors of all time -- was such a great foil for Shaw. One man wry and humanistic, the other man cold and merciless.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Decades later, they did a remake with Denzel as the good guy and Travolta as the bad guy. THEY are two of my favorite actors, but they were saddled with an over-written script with WAY too much background for their characters. Travolta played the bad guy(now an ex-Wall Streeter bound for revenge after prison) as an over-the-top hair-trigger madman and screamer.

At the end of the remake, the classic dead-cool Matthau/Shaw final confrontation became big, over-the-top, screaming and pretty much everything that the original was NOT.

And the original had that great, "Shaft-like," 70's chugga-chugga-chugga down the subway track credit sequence music...which comes on at the end to underline Matthau's deadpan solving of the final loose ends of the case.

Honestly, for those who have not seen the original "Pelham 123," YouTube that opening music. It sets the mood perfectly.

I've written about how 1974 had all those downer films. It did. But it also had some gritty films with upbeat endings. Pelham 123 is near the top of my list for that year. I've given the very downbeat Chinatown my top slot, but there can be no doubt that a few of the other stories of the year were more fun at the end.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Just a small correction about "In the Belly of the Beast". It was Mary Loomis , not Norman who was reading the book in bed.

---

Aha! Thanks for the correction. Well, you've seen Psycho II a lot more recently than I have. It makes sense having Mary read that book, "to understand."

---

In Psycho III, you can catch a glimpse of that book lying on the lawn in front of the Bates home at the start of the film.

--

Hmm. So Norman eventually maybe DID read it.

----

The criminal in the book is Jack Henry Abbott. in some ways his story (excuses) echo Charles Manson and other convicted criminals, i.e., I had a bad home life, everyone was mean to me, etc, and boo hoo.
He stabbed a man to death over a silly argument.

----
Criminology is replete with people who childhood was so horrific that they became killers and criminology is replete with efforts to prevent that from happening. In the meantime, we have to live in a world where this happens, and the innocent have to be protected from the criminal

In high school, there was this one guy from a very bad home who chose to terrify other students and beat those who crossed him in some way(looking at him wrong or standing up to him). He'd get expelled and then return. We chose a strategy: avoid him at all costs, go the other way as he approached.

He ended up in prison for murder about four years after high school.

---

Interestingly enough Susan Sarandon and her former husband (partner?) Tim Robbins, well known bleeding heart liberals and activists named their son Jack Henry in "honor" of this killer.

---

Ah, well...

Robbins was her partner, BTW. The lovely Susan dumped him, eventually.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Another reason why I have no desire to listen to
Hollywood actors and their opinions

---

Stars were built in the olden days to be worshipped. But nowadays, they seem to be revealing all sorts of distance from reality that, thanks to Twitter and other outlets, they freely discourse on.

It makes it hard to respect them, let alone worship them.

See, I don't think naming your child after a guy who stabbed a waiter to death in a restaurant in a rage...is much of a wise political statement at all. I may be wrong.

[–] [email protected] (5871) 7 years ago

Another in depth, interesting response, thanks!

No, I didn't mean to imply that your comment about someone being an "accessory to murder" was a "throwaway line."

Some people are "accessories after the fact" as they call it in the legal world. The film seemed to portray Barbara Graham that way.
But she was present at the murder scene and took part in it. You could say that she didn't actually plan it, she just went along with the men who did. But I think that made her guilty. So an "accessory", maybe in the legal sense.

It's sort of like the people who say that Charles Manson didn't actually kill the La Biancas. Well, he was in their house, tied them up and told them "not to worry", it was just a robbery. Then his followers went ahead and did the deed after he left.
In some twisted way, his fans think that absolved him from any guilt.

As far as Pelham 1,2,3...did you ever read the novel? Great book. It goes into way more detail of Robert Shaw's character and how he recruited those men to commit the crime with him.

Martin Balsam, Ah!! I totally forgot his sneezing throughout the movie and Matthau's constant "God Bless You." What a finale. A sneeze, a "bless you", and Matthau's cute mug peeking around the door! Gotcha!!

[–] movieghoul (213) 7 years ago

Peter Stone said in an interview that he agreed to write the screenplay to Pelham only under the provision that the back stories of the criminals be omitted. His thinking after having read the book was that it's wrong to humanize these guys too much. And given his reputation, the filmmakers agreed.

[–] [email protected] (5871) 7 years ago

That is interesting! I read the book but I never thought that it "humanized" the criminals in any way. I didn't feel sorry enough for them to think that it was okay for them to terrorize a group of innocent people.

To me they were still a bunch of bad guys no matter what their sob stories were. Still, that's an interesting take on the idea.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Peter Stone said in an interview

---

And a quick bow-down here TO Peter Stone, who wrote a few of the best thrillers ever made:

Charade
Mirage
The Taking of Pelham 123
1776 (Yep...getting that Declaration signed proves quite suspenseful and dangerous)

He also wrote Who is Killing the Great Chefs of Europe , with George Segal and Jackie Bisset trying to be Grant and Hepburn. It was 1978, and it didn't quite fit the times.

---

that he agreed to write the screenplay to Pelham only under the provision that the back stories of the criminals be omitted. His thinking after having read the book was that it's wrong to humanize these guys too much. And given his reputation, the filmmakers agreed.

---

I have read the book, and I recall a long flashback scene to how Shaw's mercenary recruited Balsam's disgruntled and fired subway car worker in a bar over several meetings. It was more backstory than the movie really needed.

Shaw was the "mystery man," to be sure, in Pelham 123. He is logical, quiet, and measured in his every cold remark. But he is also merciless and without conscience. Deliver the money on time, or a hostage dies per minute. If the money is late, for whatever reason, a hostage dies per minute. And after an initial screw-up gun skirmish with the cops...he calmly executes a hostage just for appearance's sake.

All we know is that he has a military background, and it seems to have leaked from "mercenary" to "psychopath."

A good exchange, though, with the member of his gang who "was thrown out of the Mafia for being too unpredictable":

Shaw: I've ordered men killed for what you just did.
Mafia guy: That's the difference between us...I do my own killing.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

The 1974 gang are Shaw as the leader, Balsam as his sneezing subway car driver, Hector Elizondo as the dangerous ex-Mafia Man, and nondescript Earl Hindeman(the "neighbor over the fence" on Home Improvement) as the quiet, stuttering one. They famously have the "caper names" Mr. Gray, Mr. Brown, Mr. White, and Mr. Black (I think), an idea that QT famously stole for Reservoir Dogs(except there are more guys, so one guy balks at being called "Mr. Pink." Steve Buscemi.)

There have actually been TWO remakes of Pelham 123, the material is that good:

The 2009 version with Denzel and Travolta. (And James "Sopranos" Gandolfini in a nice short role as the Mayor of NYC. He wonderfully broke from free from Tony here.)

A TV movie version with Edward James Olmos in the Matthau role and a little-known Vincent D'Onofrio in the Shaw role.

But the first is, easily, the best, full of 1970s grit, Stone's witty but coarse lines, that great locomotive funk score, and the estimable counterpoint of laconic Matthau versus stone cold Shaw. A nice bit: for the whole movie , each man only knows the other man as a voice. It is only at the end that they actually see each other.

And I like Matthau's line to the unseen Shaw about half way through the ordeal: "I hope you don't mind me sayin' this, but after this is over, I suggest that you seek psychiatric care."

Its just funny that Matthau even thinks Shaw would consider it.