MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Off the Main Highway, Hiding From the Wo...

Off the Main Highway, Hiding From the World


A few times a year for business, I drive a couple of hundred miles, mainly in open countryside and through a few small towns en route.

A year or so ago, I was following the highway to a town that had about four signals, a downtown business district, gas stations and a supermarket. A small traffic jam and delay was part of the expected travel through that town en route to my destination , but I had no choice.

And as I drove to the town THIS time...it disappeared. I never saw it, drove right past it -- thought that I had taken a wrong turn and was heading south instead of north. It took some thinking and map checking to realize: a bypass that had been "under construction" for years -- had finally been finished. I would now be driving totally AROUND that town and its four traffic signals. Looking in the far distance, I could make out the roofs of a few buildings of the downtown -- and that was it.

I thought of Psycho, of course.

I've driven that route three times since the bypass and its as if the town doesn't exist anymore. I have no reason to go there and it would take me out of my way to do so.

I guess you could say that town was Fairvale.

I guess one could understand how devastating it was to the Bates Motel when a daily surge of traffic trickled down to nothing, with hardly anybody coming by. How a motel that perhaps had no vacancies some nights suddenly had "twelve cabins, twelve vacancies."

The Bates Motel being "off the main highway" gives Psycho much of its charge. The isolation makes the place a true deathtrap for Marion Crane -- there are no other customers in the other rooms, no where to run for help(not that she could get it in the shower)...no one to hear you scream(hey, that's a GREAT tag line for movie, yes?)

But the isolation also creates a sense of sadness and lonlieness in Psycho, too. Once they moved the highway, Norman and Mother were all alone. Or more to the point, Norman was all alone and "had to" create Mother for company.

Being "off the main highway," the Bates Motel at once hastened Norman's descent into madness and created a spider's web into which Marion Crane stepped.

But there is also the great, effortless symbolism of the isolation: "You must have driven off the main highway," Norman says to Marion, "No one comes here unless they've done that."

Yes, Psycho is LITERALLY about taking the wrong turn, the wrong pathway -- nobody comes to the Bates Motel unless they've done THAT(like, stealing some money and beginning a meager life of crime.)

We never really see the terrain beyond the Bates Motel in Psycho, but it is created in our mind, never more powerfully than when Arbogast tells Norman, "I've been to so many motels the past few days, my eyes are bleary with neon...but this is the first place that looks like its hiding from the world." Arbogast creates a picture of a crowded urban world -- and then compares it to the Bates property -- hiding from the world. Which, of course, Norman is doing. And evidently quite content to do so.

The Bates Motel being "on the old highway" summons up a vision , too. The OLD highway. The past -- long gone, newly replaced. Local characters like Sam and Chambers rather derisively toss off the phrase "Its that place out on the old highway." Actually, despite my comments above about that real-life town now bypassed, I've always figured that Fairvale was still next to the new highway, Sam doesn't complain about it like Norman does.

Anyway, add to the list of reasons why Psycho is so great how it takes the realistic ("They moved the main highway") and turns it into the symbolic("taking the wrong road"), the atmospheric(horror), the emotional(lonlieness) , and the terrifying (people get killed there, among other reasons, because no one can hear them scream.)

reply

Yeah, the sense that you've taken a wrong turn and left the known world is one of the things that makes "Psycho" work so well.

One point that you haven't addressed: The fact that Norman's isolated world is, in some sense, self-created.

Oh sure, part of it was happenstance and out of his control, for all we know the bypass was put in while he was still a schoolboy and had to stay if his mother chose to stay. But of course Norman isn't the sweet young victim of circumstance he seems to be when Marion meets him, he's batshit crazy and he's created a world where he's free to indulge his madness and delusions. That's what a lot of crazy people want above all, a place they can control completely and where nobody gets to argue with their version of reality, and when there are several people in a situation like that the term "dysfunctional family" does't begin to cover it! But that's what Norman has in his dead small town, he has complete control over his beloved/hated mother, completely control over the family home and family business, and he can get away with killing anyone who upsets the status quo.

Or so I assume. I don't think Marion was his first victim. So what if it leaves him poor, he's rich in other ways!

reply

Yeah, the sense that you've taken a wrong turn and left the known world is one of the things that makes "Psycho" work so well.


---
Marion: I must have taken a wrong turn.
Norman: People only come here if they've done that.

How wonderfully literal -- nobody finds the Bates Motel anymore UNLESS they take a wrong turn -- and symbolic: makes you wonder about Norman's other previous victims, and it sort of relates to Arbogast too, who "almost drove right past" and who, in the script, passes and re-passes the Bates Motel about three times before seeing it and pulling in.

Psycho touches on mythological journeys known to others more than me, but surely Marion Crane sets off on a quest that slowly takes her into an Other World of evil and doom. (Roger Thornhill before her, and Melanie Daniels after her, take somewhat less doomed journeys)


----
One point that you haven't addressed: The fact that Norman's isolated world is, in some sense, self-created.

---

Excellent that you will address it!

----

Oh sure, part of it was happenstance and out of his control, for all we know the bypass was put in while he was still a schoolboy and had to stay if his mother chose to stay.

---

Funny thing: Norman and Mother (while she was alive) must have known the bypass was coming, but didn't leave. They couldn't -- their HOME was there. This was not simply a motel run apart from family concerns.

And then eventually Mother and Boyfriend died, and Norman began to ferment.

----

But of course Norman isn't the sweet young victim of circumstance he seems to be when Marion meets him,

---

There's a bit of debate at this site as to whether Norman was REALLY nice -- but overcome by his killer side -- or a killer "faking the niceness" (see: Bob Rusk 12 years later in Frenzy.)

---

he's batshit crazy and he's created a world where he's free to indulge his madness and delusions. That's what a lot of crazy people want above all, a place they can control completely and where nobody gets to argue with their version of reality, and when there are several people in a situation like that the term "dysfunctional family" does't begin to cover it!

---

We don't realize the full sweep of Norman's madness until the very end, but it is surely true that first Marion and then -- more aggressively -- Arbogast -- invade Norman's world and force a confrontation with his fantasy: Arbogast is on course to discover what Lila will: Mother is a corpse, she no longer exists as a person -- and Norman is desperate not only to cover up that fact but to AVOID HAVING TO FACE IT HIMSELF.

---

But that's what Norman has in his dead small town, he has complete control over his beloved/hated mother, completely control over the family home and family business, and he can get away with killing anyone who upsets the status quo.

---

The "dead town" (Fairvale) helps keep Norman's murders secrets, I suppose. Nobody looks after him. Evidently no one followed those earlier missing persons reports to the Bates Motel -- he's left to be a contented hermit.

Or so I assume. I don't think Marion was his first victim. So what if it leaves him poor, he's rich in other ways!

reply

I like your post, EC. The "old highway". A nice ring to it. Ever notice how country people, by which I mean those who grew up in rural areas, use the word old as a term of endearment? I associate it with the South a lot but it's everywhere ("that old apple tree, we had to chop it down",>"why? I liked it". "he he. if you can call a tree nice. we needed the space. for the view. the new house"). I've had conversations like that. It's a way of looking at the world; and modernly, even older farmers and country folk have come to accept the need for change. There's a beautiful episode of Route 66, last season, called something like You Can't Get There From Here, set way off the beaten Route 66 path, in Vermont, and it deals with the pain of, aside from getting old, having to learn to adjust to change.

If there hadn't been a murder I can almost see a non-pathological Psycho as a Route 66 entry with Tod and Buzz driving into Fairvale, staying at the Bates motel, meeting up with, say, Keir Dullea as a Norman type,--maybe even a crossdresser--with the two male leads helping him out of his rut, fixing him up with, oh, let's sat Lois Nettleton,--Susan Oliver would be too conventionally pretty--as a shy local girl who could use a safe place to stay, a man (something Keir/Norman could become in the course of the story) to look after her. The only downside for me is trying to reimagine Psycho off the Uni back lot, as a real house, and R66 mostly used real places, in a real town somewhere in Cali. In this, the artifice of the original Psycho is a major factor in its greatness. Could it have survived a more naturalistic approach in a "reimagining"? I doubt it.

reply

I like your post, EC. The "old highway". A nice ring to it.

---

As I recall, Universal Studios -- in the 80's for the sequels -- sold stationary(that you could write on and use) that said:

Bates Motel
1000 Old Highway
Fairvale, California

(Or some other number than 2000.) It had a quaint ring to it, and tied in to Norman's great joke "And stationary with Bates Motel printed on it, to make your friends back home feel envious." I like that line for lots of reasons; Norman's wit, and the sense that there are "friends back home" that Marion will never see again, for two.

----

Ever notice how country people, by which I mean those who grew up in rural areas, use the word old as a term of endearment? I associate it with the South a lot but it's everywhere ("that old apple tree, we had to chop it down",>"why? I liked it". "he he. if you can call a tree nice. we needed the space. for the view. the new house"). I've had conversations like that. It's a way of looking at the world; and modernly, even older farmers and country folk have come to accept the need for change.

---

I suppose so. It creates a sense of "the past living alongside the present."

reply

In the northern California city of Redding -- which Hitchcock specified as being near the fictional Fairvale in Psycho(the Shasta County California map on the DA's wall proves it), there is one major super-interstate running north-south (Interstate 5) but another "old highway" about 3 miles to the West. I have driven both. And the "old highway" is marvelous. It is not empty as near the Bates place...it is filled with "old" restored diners and gas stations and stores, still clinging to their old 40s/50s neon signs. But it is over near the Interstate where the modern Chilis and Chevy's restaurants can be found.

Which reminds me: I have often re-visited the train station in Santa Rosa where Uncle Charlie disembarks at the beginning and gets killed at the end of Shadow of a Doubt. Last time I went there -- there was a Chevy's Mexican restaurant right across from the train station(which looks the same, but a lot older and doesn't really accept business anymore, though trains do come through.) I had a margarita and remembered...

reply

ecarle- This is such a weird and strange coincidence.

I had heard of the city of Redding, California a long time ago. But I haven't seen anything about it for years. Now you say Fairvale was near Redding! My niece just relocated there! We live across the country but she decided to head out to California.

I just saw a strange news item a few weeks ago. A man saw a huge wolf spider in his apartment and tried to "torch it" with a cigarette lighter. He burned down his apartment. The location? Redding.
My niece loves it, but it's just so strange to hear all of a sudden about a place connected to such strange happenings.

reply

There's a beautiful episode of Route 66, last season, called something like You Can't Get There From Here, set way off the beaten Route 66 path, in Vermont, and it deals with the pain of, aside from getting old, having to learn to adjust to change.

---

I must rediscover that show, with its great theme of two guys cruising America in a hot car and meeting people in various towns and cities "on location." I fear today, it would be seen to have gay themes -- two buddies just cruising around the country aimlessly. But I am here to tell you that decades ago, I took a cross-country drive with a male friend and it was very much NOT that. We just felt two guys would be safer than one, and that explorations at that age were mandatory of the big country before we settled down with women. And weren't these the themes of Kerouac?

----



If there hadn't been a murder I can almost see a non-pathological Psycho as a Route 66 entry with Tod and Buzz driving into Fairvale, staying at the Bates motel, meeting up with, say, Keir Dullea as a Norman type,--maybe even a crossdresser--with the two male leads helping him out of his rut, fixing him up with, oh, let's sat Lois Nettleton,--Susan Oliver would be too conventionally pretty--as a shy local girl who could use a safe place to stay, a man (something Keir/Norman could become in the course of the story) to look after her.

---

Ha. Nicely plotted and cast story. (I suppose Keir Dullea might have made a good Norman Bates, but he didn't have a star career in 1960, and barely had one thereafter -- he's another anonymous actor with one Big One on his resume(2001.)

Lois Nettleton -- a "homespun hottie." She dated Sinatra for a time in the 70s.

---

reply

The only downside for me is trying to reimagine Psycho off the Uni back lot, as a real house, and R66 mostly used real places, in a real town somewhere in Cali. In this, the artifice of the original Psycho is a major factor in its greatness. Could it have survived a more naturalistic approach in a "reimagining"? I doubt it.

--We have kicked around before -- and can certainly kick around indefinitely -- how Hitchcock elected to NOT show us much of the terrain in Psycho. The "richest" location stuff is when Marion is stopped by the cop and driving State 99 north to the Bates Motel. That was real stuff, and helped "mentally set the stage" when things moved pretty permanently to the Universal backlot both for the Bates property and Fairvale(the church.)

But a "fully realistic" Psycho is fun to imagine -- with long shots of the gas station from which Arbo makes his fatal phone call; or shots of the Sheriff's neighborhood, or perhaps a long shot showing Sam and Lila's drive to the Bates Motel to give us a sense of just how isolated it IS.

But Hitchcock had neither the budget nor the inclination to give us that. So we have to imagine it.

And I guess it would be a different movie. For once things settle in at the Bates Motel, that house -- for almost all its scenes til the final Sunday afternoon climax -- is rendered with matte photography, moving cloud shots, pouring rain shots, day-for-night, and other camera tricks to seem somewhat otherworldy and fantastical. ("Can you try to do something about the house?" asked Hitchcock of Saul Bass.) You can almost TASTE the difference from reality.

reply

A couple of notes in passing:

ONE: On another thread, we tackle Brian DePalma's Dressed to Kill, with "homages" Psycho a lot with a shower scene type victim and a shower scene type scene. Also a split personality/cross-dressing bewigged killer. But for all that IS on point between Psycho and Dressed to Kill, a key thing that is NOT on point is: setting. Psycho is, ultimately, set in small town, dusty rural backwater America, among low population. Dressed to Kill is set in the Biggest City of Them All(NYC) and there are menacing black gangs to go along with the menacing cross-dressing killer. Our mental state is entirely different watching the rural Psycho (which borrowed its setting from William Castle movies like Macabre and The Tingler) and the urban Dressed to Kill.

TWO: Hitchcock himself set up the rural/urban comparison with his next and final psycho movie, Frenzy. Here, the teeming big city is London, which comes equipped with more "ancient historical roots" than NYC and roots in Hitchcock's own life. To counterpoint urban recluse Norman Bates, Hitchcock gave us gregarious city dweller(and everybody's pal) Bob Rusk. That's rather what I like about Rusk: he lives right in the middle of Covent Garden, with life bustling all around him. He functions well with others. But he's just as crazy and violent as Norman. He hides in plain sight. Urban city sight.

reply

Interesting way of looking at it. Marion made several "wrong turns". The first was stealing that money. Then she compounded it by making a turn onto a road that took her to the Bates motel. I suppose it's a metaphor for all the "wrong turns" many of us make in life. Marion even acknowledged it when she told Norman that she had fallen into a private trap and wanted to make amends.

Norman though, stayed in his trap. His mother was quite abusive but obviously killing her was wrong. He could have packed his bags and left his abusive home. He was smart, handsome and charming. No doubt he could have made a life for himself away from his crazy momma. He could have found a job and put himself through school. Nothing was keeping him from leaving an abusive home life and making a life for himself. Many people have done just that.

But he chose to stay in his trap, punish his mother and her lover, and become a reclusive murderous nutcase!

reply

Interesting way of looking at it. Marion made several "wrong turns". The first was stealing that money. Then she compounded it by making a turn onto a road that took her to the Bates motel. I suppose it's a metaphor for all the "wrong turns" many of us make in life.

---

I think so. There are also all thoses "if onlys" along the way. If only Sam had proposed to Marion in that hotel room. If only Cassidy hadn't showed up with the money. If only Marion had taken the cop's and California Charlie's suspicions as reason to quit the crime and go home. If only there had not been a rainstorm. If only Marion had driven the additionally 15 miles to Fairvale instead of staying at the motel. If only, if only, if only. Life has all these decisions we make, hundreds of them, and they change our lives and usually we don't even know it. Because we don't get killed.

--

reply

Marion even acknowledged it when she told Norman that she had fallen into a private trap and wanted to make amends.

---

The "private traps" speech of Norman's is a key part of Psycho. Norman(and by inference, Hitchcock and Stefano) invite EVERYBODY to think about their own "private traps" -- and, hopefully to reject such a hellish view of life. Yes some of us are born into traps, or end up in them(dead end jobs, loveless marriages). But part of life is adapting to that stuff, changing it(make the marriage better, or divorce; change your job) and ENJOY things that poor Norman cannot(friends, family, love.)

Still, yeah, we're in private traps, and to Marion's credit she resolves to "go back to Phoenix and pull myself out of it."

Side-bar: speaking of "private traps" the shower becomes a private trap for Marion, and the staircase becomes a private trap for Arbogast. Mother traps these victims...and kills them.


reply

Norman though, stayed in his trap.

---

He probably didn't realize it was a trap until it was too late. Like a lot of us, but more extreme.

---

His mother was quite abusive but obviously killing her was wrong. He could have packed his bags and left his abusive home. He was smart, handsome and charming. No doubt he could have made a life for himself away from his crazy momma. He could have found a job and put himself through school. Nothing was keeping him from leaving an abusive home life and making a life for himself. Many people have done just that.

---

Yes, but I fear Norman's innate madness would have precluded doing that "normally." I suppose had he gone to a bigger city -- Redding, Sacramento, San Francisco(the nearest cities in or near Shasta County) -- he MIGHT have found a good job and made good friends and found a good lover.

Or he could have become Bob Rusk.

But he chose to stay in his trap, punish his mother and her lover, and become a reclusive murderous nutcase!

reply

"Norman though, stayed in his trap. "

"He probably didn't realize it was a trap until it was too late. Like a lot of us, but more extreme."

Again, Norman wasn't trapped, everything he said about being trapped was a lie, he stayed where he was because the situation met his batshit crazy emotional needs.

He could have buried Mother out in the woods and told everyone she'd run off with some man, after a decent interval he could have rented the family property and headed off to the big city to make a new life for himself with a little money in his pocket, but that wasn't what he wanted. He wanted people to think of him as the nice sweet boy who was being abused by his awful mother, a psychological triumph over her, and he wanted total control over mother - her body and the personality he'd absorbed, once she only existed inside his head he could do what he wanted with her for the first time in his life. THAT was what he wanted, what he cared about, more than the money or freedom or girlfriend or career that sane people would assume he wanted, because that's what sane people want.

reply

All this speculation re what Norman could have/would have done with just a little bit of luck, better weather, a few vacationing small families to keep his business humming,--even if this had happened, a few strokes of good fortune--Norman still had his personal history; and could a few dollars more, even some babes in hot suits and belly shirts, have turned around the inner magma that kept him who he was on account of his personal history?

I'd say the pathology cut deeper than any life event could have turned around. Marion was almost but not quite God's final gift to Norman,--"make of her what she will, I won't tell you what to do", said God to Norman--and she was close to ideal for him, as to type, imaginable. If she hadn't "retired" so early to get up at the crack of dawn Marion and Norman might have shared life stories. She might have even leveled with about about the 40K theft. Assuming she hadn't aroused his sexual side too much he might have been able to shut up "inner mom" and swing into action: swung into action as the Galahad he'd always dreamed of becoming, a hero, a knight in shining armour.

He might have been able to come up with a plan to get the money back to Lowrey, make up a phony story to make it sound better--and abrcadabra, no crime. No Arbogast, no trouble, reduced stress, a beautiful woman for Norman,--what to do with her is off the table, and she's already told him she has a guy--so Norman's just a fix-it guy. No real romance thus far, thus also no homicidal mom ready to burst free, put on her dress and start killing people. Norman's safe from all this. So is Marion, so is Sam. All's well for the time being in Fairvale and Phoenix.

Admittedly, none of this shows the makings of a great story for a great movie, or even a good movie at all, and yet it goes to show that that which would in fact being the best turn of events for all concerned does not a good movie make. It's what goes wrong in life that draws us in, not happy stuff.

reply

I disagree with you about Marion being a gift to Norman. Of course any human contact was a gift of sorts to someone so isolated, but they were both so wrapped up in their own troubles that they weren't going to stay up all night sharing stories. Not with Marion being physically exhausted as well as being tormented by guild and fear for the future, and Norman being tormented by his internal "mother".

Plus, he could barely talk to women.

reply

I've enjoyed reading the back and forth here, because I'm not sure that there is a "conclusive" sense of what Norman could have become if he moved somewhere and functioned well; or a "conclusive" sense of just how well Norman and Marion DID connect during that short talk, and what would have happened had they talked longer.

Critic David Thomson -- a few decades ago -- wrote an essay in which he contended that Hitchcock played an awful, dirty trick by having Norman and Marion connect so well..only to have Norman kill Marion minutes later (and it IS only minutes later!---four, five?)

So Thomson wrote an "alternative story" about Norman and Marion connecting as friends, not lovers; of Norman indeed keeping Mother's body in the cellar and getting locked up in the asylum; of Marion dumping Sam and "caring about" Norman.

It was quite an alternative story but it would not have been much of a worldwide screamathon shocker.

Methinks sometimes, that the characters in Psycho are so well developed, written and acted that we give them a life that Hitchcock never intended them to have. He protested that everybody other than Norman in the second half were "mere figures," but we related to them all: the distraught sister, the concerned boyfriend, the doesn't-much-care cool detective whose cool gets him killed, etc.

Meanwhile, Marion is NOT a "mere figure," and when she meets Norman, it is roughly a meeting of equals -- equal stardom(well maybe Leigh had more than Perkins), equal good looks.

I like telegonus' take on Norman "keeping mother at bay" so as to help Marion and to be a friend....
...but...well...I sure do take him for a nutcase killer, too. THAT's the character Hitchcock wanted to give us, I think -- a "nice young fellow" with bottomless depths of homicidal madness.


reply

The movie world doesn't give Hitchcock's "Frenzy" psycho, Bob Rusk, much of the classic weight that Norman got, but I think Rusk IS a nice contrast to isolated Norman. Rusk lives in London, surrounded by people, easily able to gain their camaraderie and trust.

Norman Bates might well have been THAT guy ...in the city. Still a homicidal psycho, but a more gregarious one.

Much disliked as the Psycho shrink scene is, I think that fact that we know little it nothing of
Bob Rusk's childhood rather hurt our getting very interested in the character. Rusk's madness just IS...we don't wonder too much about where it came from.

Anyway, whether it is Norman or Rusk, I think both men demonstrate this: pleasant manners and good looks don't guarantee good people. And being "not good" can be "normal"(they have a temper but don't kill anyone.) When you reach the level of what Norman or Rusk do...you've gone well beyond humanity.

reply

IMHO anyone who thinks that Marion could keep Norman's "inner mother" at bay understands nothing about Norman. Marion's presence brought out the "inner mother" rather than calming it, precisely because his feelings towards here weren't entirely friendly, and that made "mother" jealous.

I don't know why people want to rewrite stories like this to make them nicer, because to do so they have to ignore everything that makes the characters who they are.

reply

ecarle, have you seen 3 Billboards? THat film has its own litany if "if onlys".

reply

ecarle, have you seen 3 Billboards?

---

Not yet. I will likely see it, particularly after Oscar makes its judgments. I have skimmed swanstep's review of it. I'm intrigued but -- frankly -- find Frances McDormand doing a bit of her schtick, I think.

----

THat film has its own litany if "if onlys".

--

Interesting that you see them there. Psycho, of course, was full of them, and Hitchcock's cinema was full of them.

What if Roger Thornhill had NOT risen to send a telegram just when the bad guys were paging Kaplan?

What if Scottie had turned down Elster's offer of detective work? (Then Elster's whole murder scheme would fall apart.)

What if Jeff Jeffries had NOT broken his leg, thus parking himself at the window to uncover Thorwald's crime?

And that's just three.

reply

One of the biggest, saddest and ironic "if onlys" in Psycho is if only Marion had more faith in Sam's love for her, if only she hadn't been so impulsive. If only she waited a few days to hear from him. She didn't need to steal that money to start a new life with Sam after all.

The next time we see Sam he is writing a letter to her. He mentions his "tiny back room." He writes, "So what if we're poor and cramped and miserable, at least we'll be happy!"

He had come to his senses and realized that his love for Marion was stronger than his worries about money. He had been caught up in his own "private trap" with fretting over his financial situation. But in the interim he realized that his life would be better with Marion. His financial woes wouldn't last forever. They were both young and healthy. No doubt Marion would've continued working and helping Sam to build a better life for them.

Sam's trap was thinking he had to do it all alone. He found a way out of his trap, but too late for Marion

reply

One of the biggest, saddest and ironic "if onlys" in Psycho is if only Marion had more faith in Sam's love for her, if only she hadn't been so impulsive. If only she waited a few days to hear from him. She didn't need to steal that money to start a new life with Sam after all.

----

Some silly critic somewhere sometime years ago said Psycho was only about the shower scene, and then the staircase murder(not the "staircase scene," there are two of those) and only designed "to give ma and pa a couple of shocks before going home to beer and bed." (I recall that "beer and bed" line to be evidence of snobbery.)

But Hitchcock flourished and has stood the test of time because he ALWAYS went a level or two more deeply into characterization and human emotion than the usual thriller or action film maker.

And Sam's letter to Marion is evidence of this. Indeed, suddenly, what HAD been a gruesome scream scene in a shower yields to a horrible sadness about the ironies of life.

But Hitchcock's empathy towards Sam and Marion also revealed a certain nastiness here, didn't it? By showing us that Sam WOULD have married Marion, after all -- Hitchcock compounds both the pain of the situation and the suspense of the situation(now we REALLY want Sam to find out what happened to Marion.)

----

reply

The next time we see Sam he is writing a letter to her. He mentions his "tiny back room." He writes, "So what if we're poor and cramped and miserable, at least we'll be happy!"

----

That back room is quite a unique dwelling for a film character, I think. I realize back in the day, more people "lived over their store," but in a little ROOM, in the back, that is really supposed to be an office? With that big ol' musty hardware store at night and its knives and scythes and rat poisons on the walls? Pretty creepy, pretty depressing. Sam was perhaps right at first to not want to subject Marion to that. But ALSO right to realize that it wouldn't matter.

For they WOULD be together in that little room, man and wife, "living on love" in the beginning, probably having a lot of sex where the room doesn't matter, and, I think, eventually moving to something better. A small rental house in Fairvale perhaps.

I talk often of the "other movie" that Psycho creates in our minds, and actually there are multiple "other movies." How about the one where Marion doesn't steal the money, marries Sam, moves to Fairvale? Its a small town, but Marion could likely find some sort of work to bring in income(or she could help Sam run the store, maybe save him a bookkeeper.) In real life, the alimony to the ex-wife WOULD stop(the marriage couldn't have been that long, and she indeed might re-marry), the father's debts could be paid off. Hell, Sam could sell the hardware store and make any number of new lives with Marion. In Redding. In San Francisco. In Sacramento. Its 1960. The population is lower. Jobs are plentiful.

And this being 1960, they'd probably have kids.

There would be struggle -- I don't think Hitchcock saw the world as "happily ever after" for people of the middle class(see: The Wrong Man.) But they would have a shot.

----

Sam's trap was thinking he had to do it all alone.

---

That's a great point. I think one of the ways that any of us sometimes back ourselves into painful corners of despair is when we think "we have to do this all alone." No, we don't. We can find a romantic partner, a business partner, use family or friends for support.

---

He found a way out of his trap, but too late for Marion.

----

Funny: that opening "post hotel tryst scene" reveals itself as a major moment for both Marion AND Sam. Marion decides to steal the money. Sam decides to marry Marion. It was a big day for both of them.

reply

You bring up some interesting things regarding Sam's financial status.
I also thought that Sam's wife would probably remarry and he'd be off the hook for alimony. He mentions that she lives "halfway around the world". I wonder about that remark. Was it the truth or was Sam exaggerating? They were on the west coast, so maybe his ex was living in New York? Or was she in Europe? Somehow she had enough money to travel and I wonder how Sam, running a little hardware store, had enough $$ to furnish such a lavish lifestyle for her.

And I wonder about his father's "debts". What could they have been? Was his dad a big gambler and Sam had to pay off his debts? How does someone run up big debts running a hardware store?

Part of me wonders if Sam was exaggerating his financial woes just a TINY bit because he was afraid of getting married again!

But getting back to Sam's "poverty", I didn't see Psycho until I was an adult and I did not understand what Sam's problem was with marriage because he had no money. My parents married very young and they had no money either. But they were young and "in love".

They didn't even have a " back room" to live in. My dad took a job out of town and only came home on weekends. My mom lived with her mom during the week and my dad came home on Friday. They also spent time at his parents house. Newly married young couples didn't have big houses or big incomes right away, at least not where I grew up.
Sam living in that back room? Is that where he lived with his first wife? No wonder she left! LOL They must've had a house or at least an apartment. If his wife was such a gold digger why did she latch onto a man with a little hardware store?

Marion's problem seemed to be that she didn't understand men very well. She loved Sam, but she was too willing to jump into bed with him without a commitment. That gave Sam the luxury of waiting.


reply

You bring up some interesting things regarding Sam's financial status.
I also thought that Sam's wife would probably remarry and he'd be off the hook for alimony. He mentions that she lives "halfway around the world". I wonder about that remark. Was it the truth or was Sam exaggerating? They were on the west coast, so maybe his ex was living in New York? Or was she in Europe? Somehow she had enough money to travel and I wonder how Sam, running a little hardware store, had enough $$ to furnish such a lavish lifestyle for her.

---

An issue here -- admittedly -- is that Stefano wrote these lines for Sam and made sure they were brief and succinct -- alimony that stops "if she ever gets married again"(I'm not sure the debt would last TOO long) and an ex- "who lives on the other side of the world somewhere"(which brings up the issues you raise.)

Of course "on the other side of the world somewhere" could just be Sam's way of saying that woman has simply disappeared form HIS world.

------

And I wonder about his father's "debts". What could they have been? Was his dad a big gambler and Sam had to pay off his debts? How does someone run up big debts running a hardware store?

----

It was perhaps a different America, in which debt was a bigger shame. Robert Bloch's novel got into the debt somewhat, and more importantly, got into the point that the people of Fairvale supported Sam by giving him business to pay off those debts -- and that he had to " behave" or they would stop patronizing his store.

I expect that the debt may well have been in the rent of the store itself, in loans taken out to buy the merchandise for sale, etc. But again, modernly, those could be extinguished(the son wouldn't have to work them off) .




reply

Clearly, Sam isn't clearing enough on the store to have anywhere to live. Evidently not even a family home to live with his mother or something. I assume she's dead, too. (The parents in Psycho all seem to be dead, making financial trouble for Marion, Sam, and Lila...and big psychological trouble for Norman...MR. Bates died when he was five, a truly absent father.)

---
Part of me wonders if Sam was exaggerating his financial woes just a TINY bit because he was afraid of getting married again!

----

I wouldn't doubt that at all. Marion wants to marry a man who has tasted the costs of a FAILED marriage. Plus, especially in 1960, there were psychological pressures on both the male and the female side. The female side: Marion needs to get married before 30; the male side: Sam will be expected to be a breadwinner, or the main breadwinner. BOTH of them are feeling the pressure, and so, yes, Sam may well exaggerate his poverty. But then again, that room in the back seems to indicate poverty....(compare this, btw, to Mitch Brenner one film later in The Birds, he's got a swinging bachelor apartment in San Francisco and returns to a handsome family home in Bodega Bay on the weekends.)

---
But getting back to Sam's "poverty", I didn't see Psycho until I was an adult and I did not understand what Sam's problem was with marriage because he had no money. My parents married very young and they had no money either. But they were young and "in love".

They didn't even have a " back room" to live in. My dad took a job out of town and only came home on weekends. My mom lived with her mom during the week and my dad came home on Friday. They also spent time at his parents house. Newly married young couples didn't have big houses or big incomes right away, at least not where I grew up.

----

I expect that 1960 audiences knew of such arrangements in their own lives, and hence could see their way past Sam's objections about his "poor" lifestyle. Love and marriage could make it work!

----

Sam living in that back room? Is that where he lived with his first wife? No wonder she left! LOL They must've had a house or at least an apartment. If his wife was such a gold digger why did she latch onto a man with a little hardware store?

---

Ha to all of that. Again, screenwriter Stefano may have set up too little "meat on the bones" of this backstory.

I doubt if a tiny town like Fairvale had much in the way of apartments. Maybe, but more likely rental homes and boarding houses(we see Arbogast scour a few of them.) But Sam and his ex likely found something. The truth of the matter for divorced men is: they can pretty much live anywhere. In the modern-day private eye movie " Harper"(1966) divorced private eye Paul Newman(divorced from JANET LEIGH!) lives in his office with a cot while Leigh lives in their old house.

As for the wife's golddigger status, I dunno. I figure handsome Sam as a BMOC type who probably married the head cheerleader. On the other hand, maybe he went out in the world, found a "fast woman," brought her back to Fairvale and...kaput.

----

Marion's problem seemed to be that she didn't understand men very well. She loved Sam, but she was too willing to jump into bed with him without a commitment. That gave Sam the luxury of waiting.

---

Always an issue. I believe the phrase, if applied to Sam, is "if you can get the milk for free, why buy the cow?" Which seems a massively sexist statement these days, and rather untrue these days. Couples live together without marriage for a lot of reasons, many financial in today's oppressively high-cost America. In 1960, I dunno. I wasn't there as an adult, maybe premarital sex was more common than most movies showed, but certainly Sam seems to be getting it.

Although, THAT's another reality that the first scene in Psycho confronts, too: Marion has given Sam sex - not all that often, he has to fly hundreds of miles to get it. But the day has come where she is dictating new terms for that sex: marriage. ("Sam, this is the last time.") That's a ploy.

How sad to think that she WON.

reply

I think I have to read the Robert Bloch novel again. You bring up some interesting points. I bought a copy of it on ebay about six years ago, but I just don't remember all the details about Sam and his financial problems.

Maybe it's time to reread the book!

I'm sure that premarital sex was a bit more common than the movies of the 1960's portrayed it!

But it is also another trap that women fall into. It may sound old fashioned, but if a woman is giving a guy everything he wants, and face it, if they live together she is likely doing the cooking and cleaning and all the "wifely" chores, then why would he marry her? I worked with a woman a few years ago who was dying to marry her boyfriend. She was divorced and really wanted to marry again. She only knew the guy a few months and moved in with him. He had "health issues" and didn't want to get married until he was better. Well, they still aren't married!
It was none of my business, but I so often wanted to ask her, "What did you expect? You rented out your house and moved in with him. It was obvious that he didn't have to do much to get you." Under those circumstances a lot of men don't feel pressured to get married.

In the case of Marion and Sam, they lived far apart, so she wasn't keeping house for him. That in itself makes me wonder. Just where did they meet? At a hardware convention? lol I really do wonder how their paths crossed. It appears that Sam was living in Fairvale for years. How did Marion ever encounter him? Maybe just another example of Marion's bad luck of running into men who were not good for her.

reply

I think I have to read the Robert Bloch novel again.

---

Its worth a read. Fiction is fiction, but the "worlds" of Psycho the book and Psycho the movie are very different even as the plotting is almost exactly the same (and both book and movie end with the line "She wouldn't harm a fly." Though maybe it is "he" in the book.)

Someone else around here has been great with details from the book, including how and when the parents of Marion and Lila died, and Sam's interest in classical music(this didn't make it into the movie at all.) We also learn that Sam and Marion(Mary in the book) met on a cruise; Sam had won it for selling farm equipment "and had asked for the money instead, to pay his debts" but no go.

---

You bring up some interesting points. I bought a copy of it on ebay about six years ago, but I just don't remember all the details about Sam and his financial problems.

---

What I do remember is that Bloch lingered on how the people of Fairvale kept bringing Sam business to help him pay his debts -- but "watched over him." If he got out of line, they'd cut him off. So had he brought Marion to Fairvale...he damn well better marry her!

---

Maybe it's time to reread the book!

---

Its different. The first chapter begins up in the house with Norman and Mother talking in the living room -- you can imagine the movie Psycho starting this way and being "creepy" right off the bat. But I think Hitchocck realized that Mother had to be "kept at a distance" and thus Marion had to be brought in to first SEE Mother from a distance. He couldn't play "the misdirection game" with a movie that opens only with Mother and Norman. Also: the book starts at the house and brings Marion IN; the movie puts us with Marion and we journey TO the house and motel.

reply

But it is also another trap that women fall into. It may sound old fashioned, but if a woman is giving a guy everything he wants, and face it, if they live together she is likely doing the cooking and cleaning and all the "wifely" chores, then why would he marry her? I worked with a woman a few years ago who was dying to marry her boyfriend. She was divorced and really wanted to marry again. She only knew the guy a few months and moved in with him. He had "health issues" and didn't want to get married until he was better. Well, they still aren't married!

---

Well, again...modernly all sorts of things happen. I think in 1960, Sam's small town peers in Fairvale would have expected him to marry Marion..or to keep her in other quarters than in his backroom with him!

In certain ways, having Marion hundreds of miles away was a great "safety valve" -- he took business trips and got to have her, and then flew back. Some have speculated that Sam could have kept ANOTHER girlfriend in or near Fairvale.

But the movie posits Marion as...Janet frickin' Leigh...and Sam ain't gonna do better than THAT. Which is why, I think, he flies to see her and why, I think, he writes that letter proposing marriage(though we never see those words.) Come to think of it, the letter probably did NOT propose marriage(you don't do that in a letter), but rather was meant to set the stage: "If you can live in this backroom with me, come to Fairvale and we will talk." THEN he proposes.

reply

In the case of Marion and Sam, they lived far apart, so she wasn't keeping house for him. That in itself makes me wonder. Just where did they meet? At a hardware convention? lol I really do wonder how their paths crossed. It appears that Sam was living in Fairvale for years. How did Marion ever encounter him?

---

Well, the book posits an ocean cruise...but the movie suggests something more prosaic: says Marion to Sam "...you come down here on these business trips." He likely came down on some business trip once(probably a supplier of his Fairvale store has HQ in Phoenix) and just...MET...Marion. At a bar? Across a crowded room? They are both great physical specimens, they probably saw that and BOOM.

---
Maybe just another example of Marion's bad luck of running into men who were not good for her.

The book posits another boyfriend before Sam, who went into the Army and stopped writing(another girl?) This ate up valuable time and left Mary/Marion spouseless with 30 already past(in the book.) She practically latched onto Sam.

And BOY, was Sam not good for her. Debt and alimony issues, to start. But worst of all: he lived 15 miles from the Bates Motel. That ALONE made Sam literally deadly to Marion. If she had not have met Sam, she would not have met Norman.

Or Mother.

reply

I'm sure that premarital sex was a bit more common than the movies of the 1960's portrayed it!

---

Or of the fifties. Or of the forties.

Hitchcock was among those who , famously, suggested that sex had occurred and symbolized it (fireworks in To Catch a Thief, the train into the tunnel at the end of NXNW.)

But wowza, the 1950s movie that had sex all over the place was:

Strangers on a Train.

Consider: Guy's trampy estranged wife Miriam goes on a fairgrounds date with TWO guys, while PREGNANT with ANOTHER guy's baby(not Guy's baby) and allows yet ANOTHER guy(Bruno) to flirt with her and pick her up. Meanwhile, Guy is "dating" the Senator's daughter. Just how much? Just how far?

I wasn't there to ask anybody but I figure that in real life in the fifties, more pre-marital (and extra-marital) sex was being practiced than any movie was allowed to even talk about. let alone show. Let's face it: the Church had a strong hand in movie censorship and did a damn good job in keeping lusts under wraps for almost decades in American studio films. (I can almost picture young adult audience members who were having sex laughing at how under wraps things were on screen.)

But Psycho pushed that envelope a bit. We meet Sam and Marion AFTER a very long "extended lunch hour" has taken place. 2:43. Figure a noon lunch hour. They are unclad but not 15 minutes earlier they very well may have been naked and finishing a sexual bout. It seems CLEAR today that that is what happened. In 1960, maybe not -- maybe Sam and Marion were seen as "heavy petting in their underwear." I dunno.

By the way, the script has a line from Sam to LILA in the hardware store, that spells out that he and Marion had sex. From memory:

Sam: What is it? (Hesitates) Is Marion in....THAT kind of trouble?
Lila: No, no, no..not THAT!

Or something like that. Evidently, the censors forced Hitch to cut the exchange.

reply

At the time, divorce laws were rather skewed toward the wife in a one income household. Not unusual for the husband to live in near poverty to keep the wife solvent. Ever see Divorce AMerican Style?

reply

Do you mean the film starring Dick van Dyke and Debbie Reynolds? Yes I saw it a long time ago.

Yes, the divorce laws could be rather unfair in those days. But they were weighed in favor of a woman with dependent children. If the man deserted his wife and kids, he should still support them at least until they are out of school. My sister's husband was divorced and had a son. He paid through the nose to his ex-wife until their son graduated from high school.
But in the case of Sam and his ex-wife, there were no children involved. Men were often on the hook for supporting a woman until she remarried. No doubt Sam's ex was young and able to support herself, but the law favored women back then.

I remember the TV show The Odd Couple. Oscar was always hoping that his ex-wife Blanche would remarry and he'd be off the hook for alimony

But each situation is different. There are women who have spent their entire lives as housewives only to be dumped by a man who found someone younger. When a women is in her forties or fifties with no marketable job skills, she needs some support.

In Sam's case, he obviously had a young ex-wife who could probably to support herself.

I myself am divorced and my ex got to reap the benefits of some of the changes in the laws. He was abusive and I wanted him to leave our home. But the law wouldn't back me up, so I had to leave and he stayed in our house. Sort of like O.J. Simpson who kept his house after two divorces.
My ex paid some "spousal support" as they call it now, but not for long. He certainly wasn't on the hook for a lifetime of alimony until I remarried which I haven't. (one trip through matrimonial hell was enough for me!) Although he wasn't too happy with some of the terms of the divorce. He had to pay me half the value of our home and half of the savings account and investments.

reply

But we know from the opening scene that Sam's paying alimony which may well explain his living behind the store. Nothing to suggest he didn't have a better lifestyle when he was married.

reply