MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > A Shower and A Staircase

A Shower and A Staircase

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

There are slasher movies and there are slasher movies.

And then there is Psycho.

One critic called it "perhaps the most perfectly made film of all time," and though he didn't elaborate beyond that one sentence, there is a feeling of everything in the film being just right -- the length of scenes, the structure of the story, the montage sequences, the camera movemnts, the shot compositions, the acting (even John Gavin), the music, the dialogue. Everything.

But the film also has a great "seminal quality" (this is the FIRST TIME so many things happen in movies, and in the slasher film) and, I would argue here, a certain perfection of certain elements that no later slasher film could match.

My oddball start point would be: the Mount Rushmore climax to North by Northwest, released less than a year before Psycho, and perfect in its own way too.

The thing is: once you've staged a chase and a cliffhanger on Mount Rushmore...who can top THAT?

Hitchcock had already done a cliffhanger -- but no chase, there was no room -- on the Statue of Liberty in Saboteur. Others have done action on the Eiffel Tower(The Bond Film A View to a Kill.) But honestly, what greater and more monumental monument can you use? (This past summer Spiderman pulled off something at the Washington Monument but it relied on Spidey's supersticky climbing skills -- a REAL action sequence couldn't be staged there.

Which brings me to Psycho. It has, famously, two horrific murders -- slaughters that were not in the genteel Agatha Christie tradition, nor even in the tough its-just-business gangster tradition. No, these were brutal, bloody slaughters carried out by a monster of an old woman -- terrifying in what they did that no murder scenes before them did.

But I would like to here speak to the very Hitchcockian, stylistic perfection of how the murders play out in "counterpoint rhyme" and how the two locations -- a shower and a staircase -- proved to be as monumental as...Mount Rushmore.

The counterpoint rhyme.

A woman is killed.

A man is killed. (Vitally important, too many psycho killer films -- like Frenzy -- feature on female victims.)

One murder takes place in the creepy (but modern) motel.

One murder takes place in the creepy (and Gothic) mansion.

Mother comes DOWN FROM the house to commit the murder of Marion in the Shower.

Arbogast goes UP TO the house to meet Mother and his own demise.

One senses in all these elements, Hitchcock's scrupulous attention to balance, to a kind of "cinematic poetry" that lines everything up so that nothing is wasted, and everything speaks to the organic whole of the film. This is a movie set at a creepy modern motel overlooked by a creepy Gothic house. BOTH elements must be used for murder, for horror, for IMPACT. And they feed upon each other.

Which brings us to : the locales of murder.

There can be no doubt that the shower is the more famous and historic locale, the one everyone remembers or has heard about Psycho. And there sure are plenty of reasons why: the victim is naked and beautiful(for us to empathize with), and there is a certain recognizable banality to the shower as a deathtrap we take for granted: everybody takes a shower sometime. So everybody who has ever seen Psycho has probably thought about that movie at least once taking a shower -- particularly in a motel of any type.

The shower also ties in directly to the isolation and desolation of the Bates Motel itself. What should be the safest place to be turns out to be the worst.

There's one more thing about the shower to discuss, but we have to discuss the location of the other murder first:

The staircase of the Bates mansion, which Arbogast climbs to the top, whereupon he is attacked with a slash to the face and he falls backwards down the stairs and is finished off by Mother on the foyer floor.

With this under consideration, the two murder locales become PERFECT in their relationship to how "an old woman"(or even a calculating young man) would select murder locales that could ASSIST in carrying out the murders, thus:

The shower: the victim is trapped by three walls and the killer blocking the exit; the footing is slippery, the ability to "stand and fight" is compromised and the abilty to escape and run away is non-existent.

The staircase: Once the shocked and bloodied Arbogast steps backwards onto the staircase, it becomes a "murder weapon" as much as the knife. Or at least "helpful to the killing." For if the shower had slippery footing, the staircase has precarious footing and soon Arbogast is fighting a death from a fall as much as from the pursuing killer's knife. As Hitchocck says in the trailer of Arbogast's backwards fall ONTO the foyer: "the back broke immediately." And then this tough detective was softened up for Mother's finished knife blows.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Seen this way, it is as if the shower and the staircase provided Norman/Mother with absolutely the best places to kill -- no escape for the victim, and precarious in the footing so that the spaces THEMSELVES are physically harmful to the victims. (You can fall in a slippery shower as well as down a steep staircase.)

In Robert Bloch's novel, Marion(called Mary) is killed in the shower as in the film. In the book, Arbogast dies in the Bates house as in the movie, but he is slashed (via straight razor) by Mother the moment he steps through the door.

Hitchcock and screenwriter Joe Stefano realized that if you moved the Arbogast murder just a few yards onto the staircase -- the cinematic possiblities expanded greatly. Arbogast could check out the house from the foyer; climb the stairs in great suspense, get attacked on the landing(in a great overhead shot) and then -- in the centerpiece of the sequence -- fall backwards down the stairs(this is under Hitchocck's rule: "If you have a location USE IT". With the grisly finale on the foyer floor..returning Arbogast to where he got killed in Bloch's book.

Hitchcock thus maximized the cinematic qualities of the shower from the book, and CHANGED the cinematic qualities of the house for murder(from the foyer to the staircase) from the book. And he ended up with two classic, unbeatable Hitchcock set-pieces for the effort. Honestly, there have been hundreds(thousands) of bloody shock killings since Psycho, but none, I think , with the cinematic perfection of the two in Psycho.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

There are some other nifty comparisons between the shower murder and the staircase murder:

As a perusal of Hitchocck/Truffaut and other books with photos demonstrates, the shower murder is pretty much portrayed "in bright whiteness;" the shower tiles and strong bathroom light make everything white except Mother's face. But the staircase murder takes place in the Gothic Gray of the old house, with gray and black the dominant colors of the scene -- it is a murder in darkness as opposed to the light of the shower scene; yet another counterpoint.

There are cinematic differences to the two murders, too. The shower murder is famously composed of a flurry of anywhere from 52 to seventy quick shots of film, with the camera jumping hither and yon in a very enclosed space to take in Marion's murder. The staircase murder takes exactly FOUR shots: (1) Overhead on Mother running at Arbogast; (2) Arbogast's process shot fall (3) wide shot of Arbogast falling to floor with Mother leaping upon him; (4) Close up on the knife coming down on the screaming Arbogast(unseen, below the frame line) as the shot fades out.

One murder: 70 shots. The other murder: 4 shots. Or as Hitchcock said in one interview: "I gave the audience a first murder that was very violent, and then a second murder that was less violent -- but more terrifying -- because the violence had transferred to the minds of the viewer."

I guess the difference between "very violent" and "less violent" was: the number of shots. (Me, I think Arbogast's murder is actually more violent -- if shorter in duration -- because of the bloody slash to his face -- the film's one overt depiction of a knife hitting a victim and doing great damage.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Returning to a lede buried above: grisly though the topic may be, what other notable cinematic screen killings have been portrayed in the movies?

Leaving out the spilled-intestines brand of ultra-gore, I will offer:

Jaws: the first killing of the naked young woman(a Psycho homage of sorts: pretty naked blonde, water; we see no teeth penetrate the body)

Jaws: the killing of the Kinter boy on the beach(the most Hitchcockian killing -- and Hitchcockian suspense sequence -- in the entire film.)

Jaws: the killing of the lifeguard(good, but lacks the power of the killings of good actors playing detailed characters in Psycho)

Jaws: the killing of Quint(THIS one matches Psycho for a good actor playing a detailed character.)

Alien: The chest-burst killing of William Hurt. Honorable mention: how Tom Skerritt goes quick and too early(its a mix of Marion Crane's early exit and Arbogast's jump scare.) I'm not too crazy about the clarity of the other killings in Alien.

Dressed to Kill: Brian DePalma goes for a far gorier version of the shower scene -- with an elevator in for a shower, Angie Dickinson in for Janet Leigh, and a strait razor(Norman's Arbogast weapon in the book) as the grisly deathmaker. But this scene is too gory and falls apart at the end(the bit where Nancy Allen is spared.)

The Exorcist: I got nothing.

Rosemary's Baby: I got nothing.

The Omen: Satan is the special effects department here, using "accidents"(ala Final Destination) to off various victims. In Omen I, , a flying pane of glass decapitates one victim; in Omen II, an elevator mishap leads to a man being chopped in half and watching the lower part of his own body separate away from him.

Memorable, all, but not "monumental" like The Shower and The Staircase were.

Any others?

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

A whole lot to read and comment on, but just one quick point right now...

As far as deaths on the stairs - Arbogast is stabbed and falls backward down the stairs in the Bates home.

Exorcist- Father Karras is thrown to his death down those outdoor stairs. That scene took place in a real Georgetown location.

Don't know what the significance is, but in films, stairs can be pretty dangerous. Scarlett fell down the stairs in GWTW and miscarried her baby. I've seen several films and TV shows where characters are pushed to their deaths down a flight of stairs. Remember the Twilight Zone episode "Living Doll"? Eric (played by Telly Savalas) falls down the stairs to his death courtesy of the evil doll Talky Tina who is on the steps and "trips" him.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

A whole lot to read and comment on,

---

Oh, I just put it up there to get some thoughts out...but if it triggers some more comments over time, that would be fine.

---

but just one quick point right now...

As far as deaths on the stairs - Arbogast is stabbed and falls backward down the stairs in the Bates home.

Exorcist- Father Karras is thrown to his death down those outdoor stairs. That scene took place in a real Georgetown location.

---

That's right, they are now known as "The Exorcist steps" -- outdoors -- and, unlike the Psycho staircase, can be visited and walked upon. I have.

I've noted this before, but among Psycho, Jaws, Alien and The Exorcist, The Exorcist is the only one in which characters getting murdered(or eaten) isn't the "boo" element. One character is killed by Regan in The Exorcist, but it is offscreen(the movie director), and then the two big deaths come with the exorcism itself --Von Sydow via heart attack and Jason Miller by "absorbing the demon into himself" and jumping out the window to those stone steps below. Much of the horror element in The Exorcist is "sensory" -- the look, sound, and vomiting of Regan.

----

Don't know what the significance is, but in films, stairs can be pretty dangerous.

----

Well, Hitchcock had a couple of comments on staircases. He was asked the same question by two questioners on two separate occasions:

"Why do you use staircases so much in your films?"

One answer: "They are cinematic."

Second answer: "Staircases take people up -- and they take people down." In Psycho Arbogast climbs up the stairs suspensefully and falls back down them in a classic (and surreal) screen moment of horror. But think of the Hitchcock staircases in Shadow of Doubt(Young Charlie shows Uncle Charlie "the ring"), Notorious, Strangers on a Train(Guy versus a dangerous dog), Man Who Knew Too Much 56(the villain meets his end), Vertigo(the bell tower!) Frenzy(the camera retreats down the stairs .)

[–] movieghoul (213) 7 years ago

Also in Vertigo, there's the scene of Scottie racing up the steps of the McKittrick hotel to where he expects to find Madeleine. This staircase foreshadows the staircase in the Bates house, and notice we have a hotel run by a (real) little old lady, who's slightly sinister in her own way, since we suspect she's conspiring with Madeleine to fool Scottie.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

(Sorry, missed this post earlier.)

---

Also in Vertigo, there's the scene of Scottie racing up the steps of the McKittrick hotel to where he expects to find Madeleine. This staircase foreshadows the staircase in the Bates house, and notice we have a hotel run by a (real) little old lady, who's slightly sinister in her own way, since we suspect she's conspiring with Madeleine to fool Scottie.

---

Its amazing how much the staircase in the McKittrick Hotel resembles the one to come two years later in Psycho...though the Vertigo staircase is much more opulent and sturdy looking in Technicolor than the Bates more spare Gothic version. Still, one senses Hitchcock "foreshadowing a future movie" here. Why James Stewart is even a DETECTIVE come to investigate and climb the stairs (flash idea: Stewart as Arbogast....the interrogation scene would have been great and the shock massive.)

Also interesting: when Hitchocck made and released Vertigo, Psycho hadn't even been written by Robert Bloch yet. And yet...it seems as if Vertigo here anticipates the visuals of Psycho rather exactly.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Scarlett fell down the stairs in GWTW and miscarried her baby. I've seen several films and TV shows where characters are pushed to their deaths down a flight of stairs. Remember the Twilight Zone episode "Living Doll"? Eric (played by Telly Savalas) falls down the stairs to his death courtesy of the evil doll Talky Tina who is on the steps and "trips" him.

--

That Twilight Zone one was particularly delicious -- and with the odd spectacle of Telly Savalas as "a typical American suburban father." I can't remember, was he a meanie? Or a total innocent in getting killed?

There's also a famous scene -- famous in its time for its violence as the shower and staircase scenes in Psycho later -- in the gangster picture "Kiss of Death," in which crazed gangster Richard Widmark pushes an old lady in a wheelchair down a staircase to HER death. The shock was in the victim being an old lady. Part of the shock in Psycho is in the KILLER being an old lady. Revenge!

Which brings me to this: it occurs to me that in a "Hays code toothless version" of Psycho, Mrs. Bates could have killed Arbogast by pushing him down the stairs to his death via "the usual" fall and neck break. But that isn't a "foolproof murder method." So we got the slashing and stabbing to guarantee death and shock the audience.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

And this: in the book "The Rainbird Pattern" from which "Family Plot" was derived, the villainous kidnapping couple were married and had a little boy. In the book, the villains are both killed and their boy is given to Julia Rainbird, the old woman with money ready for the Rainbird heir(the male villain is the heir, in both book and movie.)

The book ends with the boy pushing Julia Rainbird down a long staircase to her death . We hear his thoughts: he is planning the killing of George(the Bruce Dern character) next. (Madame Blanche gets killed by the kidnappers in the book, but not iin the movie.)

I read The Rainbird Pattern before I saw Family Plot(like, a year before) and I could picture that great Hitchcock staircase death with Julia Rainbird. I went to the movie and I was surprised: There was no staircase death of Julia Rainbird. Because there was no boy. Because the kidnappers aren't married. And they don't kill Blanche. Hitchcock and screenwriter Ernest Lehman made some changes.

And this: Psycho screenwriter Joseph Stefano wrote a modest Universal theatrical release in '69, I think, called "Eye of the Cat." And it had a scene where a killer cat leaped onto an old lady in a wheelchair outside her San Francisco home, causing her chair to reel backwards down the steep and curving Lombard Street. The sequence was shot "Arbogast murder style" with the old lady in her wheelchair against a moving process screen of Lombard street.

Its an homage.

[–] MizhuB (165) 7 years ago

Hi ecarle.

Just a couple corrections on 'Eye of the Cat' (which, you're correct, was made in 1969).

Eleanor Parker did NOT reel backwards on curvy Lombard St. That would have been impossible.

She actually reeled back on Octavia St., from the top at Washington St., which was literally right next to the mansion she 'owned'. It was a straight shot down to the street below.

Also, the shot was not done entirely against a process screen. Parker's wheelchair was actually attached to a round turntable kind of thing (sort of a Tilt-a-Whirl), with a small camera truck attached to it. The only process shot was the one where she slammed backwards into a wall, and the wheelchair turned around, facing forward. So the look of fear on Parker's face was real.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Just a couple corrections on 'Eye of the Cat' (which, you're correct, was made in 1969).

---

Thank God, I got one right. You know, I never saw the film, just commercials for the NBC Monday movie a coupla years later. I was intrigued that Joseph Stefano had written it -- and I felt -- just watching the commercial -- that it was an old lady going down Lombard Street ala Arbogast process. But wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

---

Eleanor Parker

---

NOT that old a lady! Was she playing disabled, at least?

---

did NOT reel backwards on curvy Lombard St. That would have been impossible.
--

Yeah, I guess so. Though not in a comedy!

----

She actually reeled back on Octavia St., from the top at Washington St., which was literally right next to the mansion she 'owned'. It was a straight shot down to the street below.

---

Well, at least that sounds more like a "straight Arbogast fall."

----

Also, the shot was not done entirely against a process screen. Parker's wheelchair was actually attached to a round turntable kind of thing (sort of a Tilt-a-Whirl), with a small camera truck attached to it. The only process shot was the one where she slammed backwards into a wall, and the wheelchair turned around, facing forward. So the look of fear on Parker's face was real.

---

I guess the character doesn't die. I'm trying to picture what you are describing, but I guess I'd have to see the shot. Its possible that all the NBC commercial showed was the end with the slamming into the wall.

I dunno. The movie may be 1969, but my memory of the NBC commercial is from 1971 or so, I think. A long time ago.

I'm gonna have to keep film encyclopedias and DVDs nearby or stop guessing from memory.

Appreciate the correction and the learning experience.

[–] MizhuB (165) 7 years ago

Hi again, ecarle.

*****SPOILERS, JUST IN CASE*****

I've seen it many times. Saw it in the theater a couple years after it was released, when I was young (perhaps when the 1971 trailer you saw was released?) I also own it on DVD, but it's VHS quality. I consider it one of my 'guilty pleasure' movies.

Stefano wrote it, but it's really not very good. Just enjoyable, interesting fluff, if you get my drift.

Parker wasn't old, maybe late 40s. And she still looked attractive. Her character was slowly dying of emphysema. Sometimes she could walk, sometimes she needed to be wheeled around. There were those who wanted her to die sooner, so they could get her money.

Octavia Street's curb does curve in and out along a brick road. Maybe that's why you misinterpreted it as Lombard St.

As far as an 'Arbogast fall' is concerned, I'm reluctant to say this, but I'd think of it more as the shower scene in Psycho. The scene in which she careens down the street is full of fast, quick cuts.

No, she doesn't die. Toward the end of the street, her nephew runs up and pulls her out of the wheelchair, which careens into the street below and is hit by a truck.

One thing you may find interesting. Overall, the plot is the same, but for the TV version, different shots and scenes were filmed to make it less 'intense'.

Here's the original trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG-qgoeCSvg

Thanks for your indulgence ;)

Edit: As much as I'm sick of hearing how every movie should have a 'twist ending' (I've even ready that Psycho's TWIST should have been that it was the mother, after all), this was back when they weren't so common. And it does have a twist ending.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

As far as an 'Arbogast fall' is concerned, I'm reluctant to say this, but I'd think of it more as the shower scene in Psycho. The scene in which she careens down the street is full of fast, quick cuts.

---

Well, I haven't seen the movie, only a brief part of the wheelchair scene on the commercial. Having read that Joseph Stefano wrote it(this was part of the advertising -- "from the writer of PSYCHO" -- boy did Robert Bloch hate Stefano for that billing) I flashed on the Arbogast fall when I saw the clip. Interesting that Stefano may have taken(and given to his director here) inspiration from the OTHER Psycho murder scene in the shower. Or -- perhaps -- BOTH (a character falling with a lot of cuts in the scene -- interesting that Hitchcock rejected that approach for Arbogast.)

----

No, she doesn't die. Toward the end of the street, her nephew runs up and pulls her out of the wheelchair, which careens into the street below and is hit by a truck.

---

Aha. I really must look this up. The CAT started it, right? But on purpose, or was he forced into it by a villain?

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

One thing you may find interesting. Overall, the plot is the same, but for the TV version, different shots and scenes were filmed to make it less 'intense'.

----

Universal and NBC were "joined at the hip" in the 70s and Universal would often ship to NBC different versions of its R-rated movies, with new scenes.

The most classic example: "Two Minute Warning" posited a mad sniper at the Super Bowl, who, at the end, kills about 5 characters(played by stars) before being killed himself. For the NBC version, none of the 5 characters are killed. The sniper simply fires at walls and empty seats to start a stampede. Why? Star Charlton Heston agreed to film a scene for NBC holding his police walkie talkie and saying into it "I don't think this sniper is out to kill anybody...I think he's trying to divert attention from an art museum robbery across the street!" Which was also filmed for NBC. Hoo boy.

[–] MizhuB (165) 7 years ago

Aha. I really must look this up. The CAT started it, right? But on purpose, or was he forced into it by a villain?

*****SPOILERS AGAIN******

Neither. It was accidental. Long story short, she was a 'cat lady' who had hundreds in her mansion. When her favorite nephew comes back (who has a morbid fear of cats), she convinces his brother to get rid of them.

But cats have a way of finding their way home again. When her wheelchair malfunctions at the top of the hill, he runs out to save her, but a cat that came back lands in her lap, sort of paralyzing her nephew. It jumps out of her lap onto the nephew, who falls on the ground, hence her careening down the hill.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Neither. It was accidental. Long story short, she was a 'cat lady' who had hundreds in her mansion. When her favorite nephew comes back (who has a morbid fear of cats), she convinces his brother to get rid of them.

But cats have a way of finding their way home again. When her wheelchair malfunctions at the top of the hill, he runs out to save her, but a cat that came back lands in her lap, sort of paralyzing her nephew. It jumps out of her lap onto the nephew, who falls on the ground, hence her careening down the hill.

---

Interesting, but that plot seems rather convoluted, overly complex, and contrived to me. Compare it to the tightly structured, simple on the surface, story of Psycho. This was going to be the problem for Stefano: never really getting such great source material to work with again.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Stefano wrote it, but it's really not very good. Just enjoyable, interesting fluff, if you get my drift.

----

It remains interesting to me that, unlike North by Northwest screenwriter Ernest Lehman -- who went on to write and produce films like West Side Story, The Sound of Music, and Virginia Woolf(adaptations all)...Psycho scribe Joseph Stefano seemed relegated to B-movie and TV-movie type stuff(less one Gary Cooper starrer -- his last before dying -- The Naked Edge.)

Instead, Stefano got as his OTHER claim to fame The Outer Limits, and perhaps his doing TV work crippled his ability to move forward to big movies.

Of course, on Psycho, Stefano was given The Greatest Story Hitchcock Ever Found(thank you, Robert Bloch) and a director at the top of his game and ready to fight the censors. Stefano's best work in Psycho was the dialogue(better than Bloch's by far); he's also evidently responsible for "starting the movie with Marion" and the opening hotel tryst scene.

Evidently , Stefano simply could never land a big enough movie to prove himself again and -- he was hired dirt-cheap for Psycho because Hitchcock saw THAT as "a B movie done well."

Thanks for your indulgence ;)

---

No, very educational to read. Polite in correcting me, too.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Edit: As much as I'm sick of hearing how every movie should have a 'twist ending' (I've even read that Psycho's TWIST should have been that it was the mother, after all),

---

That comment was made by(for one) Robert Aldrich, the director of Baby Jane and Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte, who said he made those Bette Davis/Joan Crawford " hag movies" because he felt Psycho would have been more horrific if Mother HAD been the killer.

Remember, to the extent that Psycho has an " ongoing mystery" throughout, it is this: we want to find out what Mother's FACE looks like. This is very sublminal, I think. Hitchcock hid the face in shadow(in the shower) and overhead views(shower, staircase) and we want to see that face. We're expecting an ugly old hag -- but we get Tony Perkins instead.

---

this was back when they weren't so common. And it does have a twist ending.

---

Eye of the Cat? Well, Stefano had a tradition to uphold.

So many movies today require twist endings, but I think they were frowned upon "back in the day" for two reasons: (1) The twist might make fools out of the audience -- "Hah fooled you, the movie wasn't about that at all" and (2) It was felt that if the twist got out("MOther is Norman"), nobody would come to the movie. Well, Psycho proved both of those wrong. People went BACK to see Psycho to figure out how they were fooled AND to re-live the shock thrills.

[–] MizhuB (165) 7 years ago

Hi ecarle

I 100% agree that Stefano greatly improved upon Bloch's novel. I consider that his 'claim to fame'.

But you're right. He was basically a B-movie/TV writer, and in one of my earlier posts about Eye of the Cat, I considered saying that the script was basically a B-story written for TV, but produced as a B-movie.

Even though it would be considered 'mild' by today's standards, it would've been too intense for TV at the time. Hence, the two versions.

I still enjoy it though ;)

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

I 100% agree that Stefano greatly improved upon Bloch's novel. I consider that his 'claim to fame'.

---

Yes. I suppose here is a good place to note that Robert Bloch hated Joe Stefano, and Joe Stefano hated Robert Bloch. At least as a matter of professional jealousy.

Stefano insulted Bloch's book as sleazy and off-putting. "I didn't like it, I didn't want to adapt it." Evidently when Hitchcock said Norman would now be Anthony Perkins, Stefano signed on.

Bloch insulted Stefano as stealing his credit on Psycho. BOTH Bloch AND Stefano got later film advertisements being from "The author of Psycho(Bloch)...the writer of Psycho(Stefano), but Bloch felt that Stefano was taking credit for all of BLOCH's ideas. And Bloch was kind of right. The motel and the house, the shower murder, the detective and his murder(but not on a staircase), Mother, the swamp, the twist ending -- ALL from Bloch's book. Bloch said "I wonder what (Stefano) would claim if he adapted the Bible?"

Bloch's case against Stefano seems stronger than Stefano's case against Bloch, but there can be no doubt that the dialogue in the movie is better than the dialogue in the book -- particularly in the Norman/Marion and Norman/Arbogast scenes.

Interesting to me: Hitchcock really liked Joe Stefano as a person, tried to get him to write The Birds, got a treatment out of him for Marnie.

But Hitchcock, after Psycho also tried to hire Robert Bloch to write a screenplay and evidently the deal fell apart, mainly because Hitchcock didn't feel any rappoir WITH Bloch.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

But you're right. He was basically a B-movie/TV writer, and in one of my earlier posts about Eye of the Cat, I considered saying that the script was basically a B-story written for TV, but produced as a B-movie.

---

When the TV movie came into being -- in phases, with a few in the 60's on NBC followed by the "ABC Movie of the Week" in the 70's -- studios seemed to have to make choices on scripts: "Is this material big enough for a theatrical film, or should it be done as a TV movie?" The problem with TV movies that they were done cheap, and the ABC ones ran well less than the 90 minutes they were scheduled for(commericals.)

And there was always the risk that some theatrical films seemed like "transplanted TV movies." A great one for 1973 -- Don Siegel's crime thriller Charley Varrick -- SEEMED that way. But no way a movie of the week could have had that film's take on Reno hookers and amoral Mafia men.

Anyway, Eye of the Cat seems to have been designed for quick theatrical release and then a quick trip to NBC.

And Joe Stefano wrote a few Movies of the Week. (Notably, Home for the Holidays.)

Even though it would be considered 'mild' by today's standards, it would've been too intense for TV at the time. Hence, the two versions.

I still enjoy it though ;)

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

The episode with Telly Savalas, well he wasn't a total meanie!

In the early sixties television had to be careful in the way it presented delicate situations. Eric was married to a woman who already had a daughter named Christie. We could assume the woman was widowed.

Eric seemed to love Christie, but at the same time he was resentful that he and his wife couldn't have a child of their own. It was sort of hinted at that Eric was sterile. But sixties TV couldn't come out and say that!

Eric was angry that his wife spent money on an expensive doll for Christie. The doll "talked" to him and threatened him when no one else was around. Eric thought it was all an elaborate practical joke. He took it away from Christie and tried to destroy it.

After many viewings of the episode, I realized that the doll 'Talky Tina' had the same name as Christie, Christine. I began to think that the doll was Christie's alter ego. Even though she was a little girl, she was smart enough to feel the resentment and anger directed at her by her stepfather.

Was Tina responsible for Eric's death or was it Christie all along? In the TZ world, a doll could be made to do the evil deed!

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Interesting on the details of that Twilight Zone. A possible "hit" carried out by a doll. And an examination of stepfamily tensions(The Twilight Zone often put social discussions in a fantasy context.)

I know that there are greater Twlight Zone experts around these parts than me (I will say "that episode with Telly Savalas" where they will be able to give episode name, number and season) but I will say this: it always interested me how The Twilight Zone used the "available crop" of male and female TV leads and movie supporting actors to populate its episodes. I could never tell if the casting was "just right" or "just who's available" -- Telly Savalas as a suburban dad being a case in point.

I believe that Arbogast himself, Martin Balsam, was in a couple of episodes. One was about a movie star from the silent era who goes back in time via her old movies -- forever. Balsam played her agent, I think.

But the more famous one was the one by Robert Bloch(Psycho) where Balsam got to play...Norman Bates . Well, a mad killer with a personality split. He took on the identities of the famous killers in his wax museum(like Jack the Ripper.) As I recall, there's even a scene where a detective(or detective type) questions Balsam as Arbogast questions Norman in Psycho.

Happy New Year! I'm off for a bit.

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

Going back to the other movie killings... forgive me for being OCD, but the little boy in Jaws, his last name was Kintner. I've seen that movie about fifty times. And in Alien, the character who died first was played by the late John Hurt, not William Hurt. John Hurt was that fantastic British actor. William Hurt is American.

In Alien, Brett's death was fairly quick. On the DVD there is a deleted scene where his death is more drawn out and gruesome. I prefer the short version.

Lambert's death- well that one is heard but not seen. The director, Ridley Scott, talks about it. It is more horrifying to hear Lambert's death cry rather than to see it. The audience imagines something more terrible than what can be shown.

Another Brian de Palma film, Body Double has a gruesome ending for one of the characters, Gloria, played by Deborah Shelton. The killer comes at her with that drill! I was so relieved when the cord was too short and it pulled out of the wall. But the killer found another plug. It's been years since I've seen the film. But I somehow remember all the blood dripping down through the ceiling. Very gruesome.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Going back to the other movie killings... forgive me for being OCD,

---

Aren't we all around here? Its a good thing. Educational for others(like me.)

---

but the little boy in Jaws, his last name was Kintner.

---

Yeah, yeah...that's it!

---

I've seen that movie about fifty times.

---

I've seen it a lot of times, but not that many. I'm guessing 50 for Psycho. First time: 1970. 48 years ago. Yeah, fifty at least.

I might add that Jaws is my favorite movie of 1975, and rather see-saws in a tie with The Godfather as my favorite of the 70's. I think Jaws used to be Number One, and now The Godfather is. They were both "blockbusters with a brain."

Which I seem to have lost(see below.)

---
And in Alien, the character who died first was played by the late John Hurt, not William Hurt. John Hurt was that fantastic British actor. William Hurt is American.

---

Ay ay ay -- I KNEW that. Now we're just talking brain drift. Its tough getting older. Gotta concentrate.

But how about this trivia? The actor first cast in John Hurt's in Alien, role was...Jon Finch, Hitchcock's barely-known lead in Frenzy. Frenzy for Hitchocck was a nice gig(as was MacBeth for Polanski), but had Finch been the chest-burster man, it sure would have made him famous. Illness(diabetes?) forced him out of the role.

Decades later, "Alien" director Ridley Scott cast a white-haired Jon Finch in an old man role in some movie with with Orlando Bloom.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

In Alien, Brett's death was fairly quick. On the DVD there is a deleted scene where his death is more drawn out and gruesome. I prefer the short version.

---
That's an issue with the elevator strait razor slashing of Angie Dickenson in Dressed to Kill, too. There is an "uncut" much gorier version which led to a rather truncated version for the film.

I think what bothers me more with Brett's death is how doggone long it takes to GET to it. Granted the atmosphere is tremendous -- dripping water, hanging metal chains(?), but compare this to the shorter but still suspenseful bulid-ups to the shower murder and the staircase murder in Psycho. I did.

----

Lambert's death- well that one is heard but not seen. The director, Ridley Scott, talks about it. It is more horrifying to hear Lambert's death cry rather than to see it. The audience imagines something more terrible than what can be shown.

---

Agreed, but there just seemed to be a "messiness" to that scene, and how Kotto's death is rather "forced into it."

---

Another Brian de Palma film, Body Double has a gruesome ending for one of the characters, Gloria, played by Deborah Shelton. The killer comes at her with that drill! I was so relieved when the cord was too short and it pulled out of the wall. But the killer found another plug. It's been years since I've seen the film. But I somehow remember all the blood dripping down through the ceiling. Very gruesome.

---

That was pretty horrible stuff...with one shot of the drill coming down at the woman from between the man's legs to overly resemble a penis -- I suppose this was meant to "spoof sexual murder" but it seemed in bad taste(and far from the actually sympathetic, serious and heartbreaking way Hitchcock filmed his rape-murder in Frenzy.)

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

Yes I can be fairly OCD when it comes to these films, can ya tell? LOL

As far as Brett's death in Alien, well it IS a long time coming. Maybe the director was going for some balance. What I mean is, the first death, Kane's, was so quick and graphically violent while he was doing a simple mundane thing, having dinner with his co-workers. The room was well lit. They were laughing and joking thinking that they put the menace of LV-426 behind them. It was a cozy scene and then boom! He starts writhing in pain and "gives birth" to a baby alien.

The next time, the doomed character Brett is all alone, in the dark, in the bowels of the ship, looking for that dumb cat. When I saw the movie for the first time, I knew he was going to find something, and it wouldn't be just the cat! The tension was almost unbearable. But it worked.

Aliens had a high death count, but surprisingly the deaths were not that graphic. Remember when they found the colonists? Dietrich was the first to go. The sergeant tells them to go to infrared.

She said, "Maybe they don't show up on infrared at all" and that's when an alien grabbed her. But that's all we saw.
Sergeant Apone looked up and that's when an alien got him. Most of their deaths were indicated by the flat line on the screen that Ripley was monitoring.
We never saw Spunkmeyer's death. He noticed something slimy outside the drop ship and tries to tell Ferro. But she just yells, "Get up here!" and we know he's a goner.
Ferro turns around and sees the alien. It gets her too, but all we see is a blood spattered windshield.
it's one of those moments where I thought some of the aliens were pretty dumb. Why would you kill the PILOT? The drop ship was going to crash with the alien on it.
And Ash said that the alien "was a survivor". Well not that one! ha!

We never see Carter Burke's death. He just turns and sees an alien.

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

Of course there were a few deaths that were graphic, like Drake's. At the end Vasquez and Gorman die somewhat of a heroic death together. They pull the pin on a grenade and hold onto it to kill the alien who is in the tunnel with them, giving the others time to escape.

Dressed to Kill- You mean there was a gorier version of Angie Dickinson's character's death? The one I saw was bad enough.

I think there is another parallel between the Kate Miller character and Marion Crane. I saw Angie Dickinson plugging the movie on The Tonight Show. It seemed to me that she was the star of the film. She certainly was a bigger name and more well known than Nancy Allen at that time.

But just like Marion, she gets offed in the first half of the movie. I read that she only had thirty minutes of screen time.

Of course it was de Palma's homage to Hitchcock. When told about, Alfred Hitchcock said, "You mean fromage." Cheese! I wonder if he liked it and was just being cheeky.

That's one movie that gave me an actual nightmare. I'd seen it but I was watching it again, probably on HBO. I fell asleep and dreamed that my boyfriend at the time was the killer. Geez, was that a scary dream. He was doing all the killing. Guess I didn't have a high opinion of him, huh?

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Dressed to Kill- You mean there was a gorier version of Angie Dickinson's character's death? The one I saw was bad enough.

---

Well maybe you saw the "ultra-gory one" and the less gory one wasn't on that DVD or cable channel.

I'm reminded that while in 1960, Hitchcock couldn't show the blade cut flesh and forced himself to film the blood in black and white, and therefore turned the shower murder in to a , er, frenzy of shots -- in 1980 with an R-rating, Brian DePalma could go for broke in that elevator. But he ended up with a problem. Marion's blood all washed off her body and down the drain. Angie's blood ends up all over her and on the walls and floor, etc. It can't go anywhere.

The gorier version was more explicit about the strait razor slashes to Angie's throat. Though in both versions, we get that horrible early moment when Angie puts up her hand in defense and the killer cuts a bloody slash down the palm. You can FEEL it.

---

---

I think there is another parallel between the Kate Miller character and Marion Crane. I saw Angie Dickinson plugging the movie on The Tonight Show. It seemed to me that she was the star of the film. She certainly was a bigger name and more well known than Nancy Allen at that time.

But just like Marion, she gets offed in the first half of the movie. I read that she only had thirty minutes of screen time.

Of course it was de Palma's homage to Hitchcock.

---

Very much an homage in that aspect. I did like the presentation of Angie (for real and as the character) as a forty-something woman with massive sex drive. Thus the movies shifted from sex being "for the young."

---

When told about, Alfred Hitchcock said, "You mean fromage." Cheese! I wonder if he liked it and was just being cheeky.

--

I've always challenged this story(from director John Landis) because Dressed to Kill came out about two months after Hitchcock's 1980 death -- but maybe he got to see an early print. Right before his death.

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

Yes I've hears that too! Maybe Hitchcock made that remark after being told that a movie was in the works which was an homage to him. A lot of quotes have been attributed to famous people that aren't always provable.

However a lot of movies seemed to be homages to Alfred Hitchcock's work.

Yes I did see the version with the slashing cut to the throat. Yikes! I bought a copy of the film years later, I mostly just close my eyes for that scene.

I saw an interview with Angie Dickinson where she talks about the brevity of her role. She said that Brian de Palma said that he needed a famous name to draw in the audiences. But he wanted a star who was willing to be killed off early in the picture.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Yes I've hears that too! Maybe Hitchcock made that remark after being told that a movie was in the works which was an homage to him.

---

I ran out of space above to finish up, but I was going to note: if Hitchcock DID get to see an advance print of Dressed to Kill before its June release(he died right at the end of April)...he was probably in a pretty grouchy mood! About to die!

---

A lot of quotes have been attributed to famous people that aren't always provable.

---

Absolutely. One quote from Hitchcock has been used for two separate stories:

He was asked by an actor "What's my motivation for climbing these stairs?
Hitch's answer: "Your paycheck."

The question was attributed to Martin Balsam(Psycho) and Tippi Hedren(The Birds.) Probably made up in either case.

About the only 'provable" quotes uttered by celebrities are those in printed interviews. Everything else is just...tales told.

----

However a lot of movies seemed to be homages to Alfred Hitchcock's work.

---

Oh, yes. He was very aware of that. The only one I think he liked was Mel Brooks "High Anxiety" probably because it was a comedy and he wasn't threatened by it. Hitch became late friends with Mel Brooks...both Brooks and his wife Anne Bancroft came to Hitchocck's funeral. (So did I...standing outside, seeing them.)

Hitchcock didn't have many competitors in the 40s and 50s, but it is my contention that once he had the back-to-back hits of North by Northwest and Psycho, a LOT of homages popped up. Or just flat out competition: Cape Fear, Charade, The Prize, Mirage, Baby Jane, Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte, Homicidal, Strait-Jacket, Arabesque...and the whole of James Bond. That was just the 60's. Came the 70's, we had Brian DePalma in general, and movies as diverse as Silver Streak, Jaws, and Foul Play.

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

All those "quotes". Some true, some imagined? As I indicated a while ago, I have lots of Hitchcock books, all three of the Donald Spoto books.

Several actors were quoted as asking Hitchcock, "What's my motivation for this scene?"
His answer was always "your paycheck."

According to Tippi Hedren, she asked him WHY in the world would she open the door to that room when I think there are birds in there?

She said his reply was, "Because I am asking you to."

Alfred Hitchcock was always mis-quoted as saying, "Actors are cattle." I saw an interviewer ask him about that and he said, "No, I think actors should be treated like cattle."

He had that sly smile. I think he had a sense of humor that went over the heads of some people! He obviously wanted the best actors for his films and he respected them. He had his favorites like Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, Lauren Bacall, Grace Kelly.
I think it was in the Truffaut book where he said that some of his films didn't turn out the way he wanted because he couldn't get the actors he wanted. Some actors were just wrong for the part. And Hitchcock knew it. He just had to work with the actors he had.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Yes I did see the version with the slashing cut to the throat. Yikes! I bought a copy of the film years later, I mostly just close my eyes for that scene.

--

And here is where Hitchcock, with the more heavily censored (but still breakthrough) Psycho came out ahead, I think. You could watch the Psycho murders without getting sick, without having to close your eyes. There was nothing as painful to watch as the slashing of Angie's throat. Even the slash to Arbogast's face seemed more like a "horror slash" than something painful or lethal. (The script called for Arbogast to be stabbed in the neck, not filmable in 1960.)

---

I saw an interview with Angie Dickinson where she talks about the brevity of her role. She said that Brian de Palma said that he needed a famous name to draw in the audiences. But he wanted a star who was willing to be killed off early in the picture.

---

Angie was almost Janet Leigh level at the time. She was coming off the hit TV series Police Woman and well known from the Carson show.

PS. My famous "personal Dressed to Kill" story. I saw it near Brentwood, Los Angeles California. As I was in line going IN...OUT came...OJ Simpson. In white tennis outfit and with the blonde girlfriend who would later be his wife...and die by a blade to the throat 14 years later. That day, we all applauded OJ. But...did he get some ideas from Dressed to Kill? Oh, wait, he's innocent.

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

The shower scene murder is almost poetic in its execution. (NO pun intended!) You can watch it without having your stomach churn. It's just intense and scary.

The elevator death is just too painful to watch. But modern audiences expect the gore. Just my two cents, but I think it would've been better to see a slashing razor and nothing else. Then the elevator doors open and we see Angie Dickinson's character lying there covered in blood.

Very interesting fashion choice. Those white clothes also
seem an homage to Hitchcock. He dressed his female characters in a specific way in specific colors to make a point.
In one book, Kim Novak (Vertigo) says that she did not want to wear the gray suit because it's not a flattering color for blondes. She also didn't want to wear black heels. But Hitchcock had a visual picture in mind. He wanted Madeleine emerging from the San Francisco fog wearing that drab suit.
Edith Head told Hitchcock that Novak didn't want to wear that outfit.
Supposedly he said, "She can wear anything she wants as long as it's a gray suit with black heels."
Obviously he got his way!

You saw O.J. and Nicole? Wow. Who would have expected what happened.
I read a comment by James Cameron. He considered O.J Simpson for the role of the Terminator. But he thought that no one would believe the lovable O.J. as a cold hearted killer! He was so adored by his public

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

The shower scene murder is almost poetic in its execution. (NO pun intended!) You can watch it without having your stomach churn. It's just intense and scary.

---

As far as you and I are concerned, I think that is very much the case. But I found the 1960 Time review which said things like the shower murder was nauseating and..."what follows is expertly Gothic, but the nausea remains." Near the end of the review, Time's then-unnamed critic wrote "What could have been a fun creak-and-shriek thriller becomes an exercise in stomach-churning horror." This phrase likely sold more tickets for Psycho, but it is interesting: stomach-churning it may have been THEN, but compared to Dressed to Kill and other gore-fests...it is not stomach-churning NOW.

----

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

The elevator death is just too painful to watch. But modern audiences expect the gore.

---
Its weird. I'm not sure that they WANT the gore...but its what they were gonna get, pretty much from 1968's introduction of the R rating to date.

---

Just my two cents, but I think it would've been better to see a slashing razor and nothing else. Then the elevator doors open and we see Angie Dickinson's character lying there covered in blood.

---

That would have been more "Hitchcock stylish." But DePalma was operating in an era that wouldn't let a horror movie past muster without the gore. And then he did it again(worse) in Body Double. And then his career tanked for a few years, and he came back (pretty much "for hire") on The Untouchables(which had a surprising amount of gore -- Al Capone's baseball hat to head killing of an underling; some bloody gunshot deaths).

---

Very interesting fashion choice. Those white clothes also
seem an homage to Hitchcock. He dressed his female characters in a specific way in specific colors to make a point.

----

And some of his male characters. Consider Cary Grant's silver-blue suit in NXNW. He doesn't get to shed it til the Professor brings him a shirt and slacks in Rapid City. Stewart in Vertigo has two suits, one brown(the cop suit color) and the other a dark blue.

And Norman Bates wears three variations on the same outfit in the three acts of Psycho:

Act One(Marion): White shirt, gray slacks, gray jacket.

Act Two(Arbogast): White shirt, gray slacks, black crewneck sweater.

Act Three(Sam and Lila): White shirt , gray slacks. No jacket, no sweater.

---

In one book, Kim Novak (Vertigo) says that she did not want to wear the gray suit because it's not a flattering color for blondes. She also didn't want to wear black heels. But Hitchcock had a visual picture in mind. He wanted Madeleine emerging from the San Francisco fog wearing that drab suit.
Edith Head told Hitchcock that Novak didn't want to wear that outfit.
Supposedly he said, "She can wear anything she wants as long as it's a gray suit with black heels."
Obviously he got his way!

---

Funny thing about Novak's outfits in Vertigo. The grey suit isn't really very flattering on her at all. Nor are her hairstyles -- too tight for blonde Madeleine, too "weird" for redhead Judy.

The same year as Vertigo, Novak made a movie with director Richard Quine called "Bell, Book and Candle"(also with Jimmy Stewart!) and she looks gorgeous. Quine was her lover at the time, and, unlike Hitchcock, let Novak wear the clothes she wanted and the hairstyles she wanted, and she's much more sexy in BBC than in Vertigo.

But Hitchcock wanted his "Vertigo look" and Novak was gorgeous no matter what clothes and hair you put on her and -- the initial white outfit IS iconic. And repeated in Basic Instinct(for Sharon Stone) and Dressed to Kill(for Angie -- particularly vivid in an early art gallery hide and seek with a potential lover that invokes "Vertigo" as well.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

You saw O.J. and Nicole? Wow. Who would have expected what happened.

---

Its one of those things where, for 15 years or so, it was just a pleasant memory of "celebrity sighting in LA." I vividly remember that OJ was wearing a very tight white tennis shirt and shorts, showing off his athletic, muscular body. And I remember the blonde.(I looked it up -- though you can confirm it now -- that OJ and Nicole were at least a couple in 1980.)

I recall everybody on line cheering and applauding and chanting "Juice! Juice!" and I recall OJ thumbing back at the theater and saying "Horny movie...horny movie." And then the couple was gone.

And then , 14-15 years later , it hit me. OJ and Nicole had seen a movie where a blonde dies of slashing. Ironic.

----
I read a comment by James Cameron. He considered O.J Simpson for the role of the Terminator. But he thought that no one would believe the lovable O.J. as a cold hearted killer! He was so adored by his public

----

Agreed. He was a prime athlete -- a true superstar -- and then an amiable presence running through the Airport in Hertz commericals, getting comically knocked about in the Naked Gun films...and holding his own with Newman and McQueen in The Towering Inferno.

That said, I'm pretty sure he played a raping, murdering black man(versus equally evil raping, murdering KKK white men) in the awful 1974 movie The Klansman(with Richard Burton, visibly drunk on the screen, and Lee Marvin, evidently equally drunk but holding tight.) And to think that Lee Marvin turned down The Wild Bunch and Jaws(Quint) to take movies likeThe Klansman.

PS. I would like to note that while I saw Dressed to Kill near Brentwood, I didn't live there. That's the great thing about LA. You can live in a cheap studio apartment and yet drive over to Hollywood or "the west side" and hobnob at movie theaters with celebrities.

[–] Gubbio (3893) 7 years ago

He was a prime athlete -- a true superstar -- and then an amiable presence running through the Airport in Hertz commericals.....

O.J. was once asked if he was going to sign another contract with Hertz.

He replied, "I don't know..... I have to go home and ax my wife."

(My bad!)

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Oh, man.

Good to know you're still out there, Gubbio. A happy 2018 to you!

[–] movieghoul (213) 7 years ago

I'm not a huge De Palma fan, but I've always credited him with playing a great psychological game on the audience in DTK. We see Dickinson enter the elevator, followed by the killer. Just as the door is closing we get a quick glimpse of the razor. Then, for what seemed like several seconds....nothing. Just the closed elevator door.

WHen I saw it in the theater, the audience's disappointment was palpable: oh, gee, we're not going to actually see what happens to her?

And suddenly cut to the interior of the elevator and the slashing away, as if De Palma is saying: Is this what you wanted to see so badly? Far be it from me to disappoint you!

[–] MizhuB (165) 7 years ago

Hi movieghoul.

I HATE to sound like I'm always correcting someone, but to tell the truth, that's mostly when I speak up. I just don't want people to be talking about something I know to be false.

I read ALL of the posts on this board, because it's about Psycho which I've seen about a gazillian times. I've rarely felt the need to reply because whatever it is I'm thinking, you guys already got it covered. And it's also very informative.

Anyway, on to Dressed to Kill. Which I've seen several times, but not in years.

The killer does not enter the elevator with her. There may or not be a quick shot of the killer as the doors close (I'm not sure), but Angie is alone and hits the button for the lobby.

It's on her way down that she realizes she left her wedding ring in the apartment of the...er...'afternoon delight' guy. When she gets to the bottom, she presses the button to go back up. When the doors open on that floor, THAT's when the killer is standing there, enters the elevator and starts to slash her.

Here's proof (CAUTION: this is the uncut, more violent and bloody version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8_HfT2ndyg

Sorry I don't know how to make a link clickable if it doesn't show up that way, but you can always use the old method of copy and paste.

Thanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8_HfT2ndyg

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

ecarle here...

I am unable to move the links at this time(the problem is me, not the links), but working just from memory, I think what movieghoul is referring to is what happens AFTER Angie elects to go back up in the elevator, and THEN the killer enters with a brief glimpse of blade...and we go outside for a moment(indeed thinking we're NOT going to see the killing) and then BOOM...we're back in the elevator and the killing is underway.

Did not the slash to Angie's hand occur before the killer went all the way into the elevator to kill her "more"?

I'm at a loss here, working from memory rather than clips, but again, I think maybe we're all discussing different points in the same overall sequence.

I may be wrong.

I have been before.

[–] movieghoul (213) 7 years ago

ecarle, yes, I had forgotten that ANgie goes down and then back up at which point the killer enters and the razor flashes.

Otherwise, I stand by my post and thanks for correctly interpreting me here.

I still claim it's a brilliant (some would say dirty?) trick on audience expectations.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Aliens had a high death count, but surprisingly the deaths were not that graphic. Remember when they found the colonists? Dietrich was the first to go. The sergeant tells them to go to infrared.

--

Lest I expose my lack of memory yet again(on practically any movie OTHER than Psycho...or NXNW), I saw and liked Aliens on original release, have occasionally watched it since -- but I don't particularly remember who was who, or how they died.

But I would say this: AlieN, as a horror movie, could do a "one by one" series of death scenes, ala Psycho(with its meager but great two deaths) or -- in a non-gory way...Ten Little Indians.

AliENS, structured as an "action war movie," likely couldn't linger on the many, many deaths that occur in the film. Director James Cameron(not quite superfamous yet) was out to get a kind of "gotcha!" effect as the maurading aliens took every body out in pretty rapid succession. When you've got that many deaths, you rather have to not show them all in detail; it gets morbid IMHO.

She said, "Maybe they don't show up on infrared at all" and that's when an alien grabbed her. But that's all we saw.
Sergeant Apone looked up and that's when an alien got him. Most of their deaths were indicated by the flat line on the screen that Ripley was monitoring.
We never saw Spunkmeyer's death. He noticed something slimy outside the drop ship and tries to tell Ferro. But she just yells, "Get up here!" and we know he's a goner.
Ferro turns around and sees the alien. It gets her too, but all we see is a blood spattered windshield.
it's one of those moments where I thought some of the aliens were pretty dumb. Why would you kill the PILOT? The drop ship was going to crash with the alien on it.
And Ash said that the alien "was a survivor". Well not that one! ha!

We never see Carter Burke's death. He just turns and sees an alien.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

I do remember Paul Reiser(villain) practically backing into an alien and his doom (was he Carter Burke?); and I remember the two brave Marines who die together.

I remember Bill Paxton famously screaming "GAME OVER, MAN!"..but I don't remember how he died.

And of course I remember the final showdown between Signourney and the Big Mama Alien -- "GET AWAY FROM HER, YOU BCTH!"

Aliens was -- quite cleverly -- a different experience from the original picture, which made it memorable and one of the more classic sequels(alas Psycho III came out the same summer to very little impact.)
And a blockbuster. With a Time Magazine cover -- remember when those MATTERED for movies?

About those movie covers. Sometimes they were for Time. Sometimes they were for Newsweek. There was competition to get them. I recall Time got Jaws. Newsweek got The Godfather. I think Time got Superman. Newsweek, interestingly enough , gave one to Brian DePalma's The Untouchables.

But when Time was ready to go with it cover story for the first Star Wars, some political event relegated the Star Wars cover to a small insert in the upper right of the cover, but with a compelling caption: "The Best Movie of 1977".

I have since read that if Time or Newsweek got a cover story on a movie, the critics were expected to support the film, and soft-pedal any negative remarks. That said, I do recall that the Time review of Jaws said that "Spielberg does not yet have the depth of Hitchcock" (or some such) and that the review of Superman loved Reeve and the effects, but felt that Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor and his idiot henchman Otis(Ned Beatty) were "out of an old Batman TV show." This was an insult to the old Batman TV show -- nobody NEVER had a character as ridiculous as Otis in any other comic-based TV show or film. Hackman I liked, BTW -- but he refused to play Luthor as bald until his last ten seconds in the movie...

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

I"d say "but I digress", but this: When "Aliens" got a Time magazine cover on its release, I felt that was telling us all: this is a major movie event, not your usual sequel.

It wasn't Psycho III.

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

Yes, Paul Reiser played Carter Burke, a "company man". Even though an alien got him, he was going to be killed anyway by Hudson.

Remember how he let the two face huggers loose to impregnate Ripley and Newt? His plan was foiled, but Ripley explained it to the other Marines. She said he'd probably sabotage their freezers on the way home so everyone else would die. That way he could get the alien embryos past quarantine.

Hudson remarks, "I say we grease this rat f%#@ S.O.B. right now!"

But an alien "greased" Burke.

Earlier, Hudson was really coming apart at the seams. He was in a panic. But at the end, he died very bravely fighting off the aliens. I guess the adrenaline kicked in. One of the aliens came up through the floor and pulled him down.

As for Superman, I loved that first movie. Ned Beatty really shows off his acting range as Otis considering his role in Deliverance. Otis was so stupid, yet Ned Beatty played him so convincingly.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Yes, Paul Reiser played Carter Burke, a "company man". Even though an alien got him, he was going to be killed anyway by Hudson.

---
Ah ha. Hudson being Bill Paxton.

---

Remember how he let the two face huggers loose to impregnate Ripley and Newt? His plan was foiled, but Ripley explained it to the other Marines. She said he'd probably sabotage their freezers on the way home so everyone else would die. That way he could get the alien embryos past quarantine.

Hudson remarks, "I say we grease this rat f%#@ S.O.B. right now!"

---

Eminently wise.

---

But an alien "greased" Burke.

--

Ha.

---

Earlier, Hudson was really coming apart at the seams. He was in a panic. But at the end, he died very bravely fighting off the aliens. I guess the adrenaline kicked in. One of the aliens came up through the floor and pulled him down.

---

I remember that now. Well...he was a Marine.

---

As for Superman, I loved that first movie. Ned Beatty really shows off his acting range as Otis considering his role in Deliverance. Otis was so stupid, yet Ned Beatty played him so convincingly.

--

Again I guess I need to "back pedal" a little, but just a little. Beatty certainly captured the essence of his bumbling fool(inexplicably hired by Lex Luthor -- not even henchmen around?), but it somehow didn't feel right in 1978 to have him in the movie, and it definitely feels all wrong decades later when comic movies have refined themselves into much tougher thing(Heck, 1989's Batman had nothing like Otis -- and it WAS tied to the old Batman TV show.)

Agreed that Beatty had incredible range. Between Deliverance and Superman, he got that one-scene-wonder of memorized intricate, highly intelligent dialogue as the Network owner who reads Peter Finch the riot act in "Network." Play THAT performance next to Otis, and behold.