The Split Personality - Psycho (1960) Discussion

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

This is a rich source of discussion, Savage Beauty, and probably one of the keys to why Psycho obsesses and endures.

Is the "split personality" aspect of the film a mere gimmick? Or are we studying here a "cinematically enhanced" view of how and why a personality CAN split?

You are right to cite Jekyll and Hyde as a forbear, but also right to note that a potion does the splitting -- and ends it as well. (Hyde is rather a "regression to the cave man" for Jekyll). Also on the fictional beat, Stephen King has found traces of the 1941 film "The Wolf Man" in Norman's split.

But "The Three Faces of Eve" is likely better on point with what Psycho is about: the REALITY of a split personality, the actual potential for a human mind to break itself into separate personalities.

I think there has been some back and forth argumentation on this phenonmenon over the years in the psychiatric community: are split personalities really real? Seems to be, with Eve. And with Sybil years later. In real life.

But there is always something nagging in even these stories: can a personality REALLY split? Were Eve and Sybil on the up and up? Or just "consciously acting out personalities."

I can't speak to that, I'm guessing "yes." Because of the traumas you discussed.

Meanwhile, back at Norman. His line "a son is a poor substitute for a lover" IS sexually charged, isn't it? For 1960 especially. The psychiatrist's later contention about Norman and Mother "living like there was no one else in the world" also rather suggests something loving and abusive at the same time.

And indeed, Mother is triggered when Norman is sexually aroused (for the most part, Arbogast triggered her because Norman needed to kill the man for snooping.) If Norman's reactions to his sexual arousal tie backwards to a sexual relationship with Mother, well....Psycho just gets that much deeper.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I'm pretty sure that in Bloch's novel, Norman has a sexual thought or two about Mother, expressed on the page in his thoughts. On the other hand, Norman recalls a childhood memory of Mother catching him masturbating -- and beating him hard with a hairbrush -- so Mother is hardly a sexually loving woman in the book.

But that's what's great about Psycho, the movie. Little clues are dropped here and there("A son is a poor substitute for a lover") and while a lot gets explained at the end by the psychiatrist, a lot is NOT explained. We have to fill in the blanks. We think about this story for a long time after we see it.

Recall that Vincent Canby of the New York Times wrote of Frenzy in 1972, "Frenzy is the best movie about a sex murderer since Psycho." Frenzy was EXPLICITLY about a sex murderer(he's a rapist/strangler), but Canby was telling us that Psycho was IMPLICITLY about a sex murderer(Norman being triggered by lusts he cannot act upon.) Everything is more nuanced and mysterious about the killer in Psycho than in Frenzy.

And how about this:

Film scholar David Thomson wrote a book a few years ago called "The Moment of Psycho." It was an odd book because..Thomson really doesn't much LIKE Psycho. One reason is a reason cited by others: After Marion is buried in the swamp and her story is over, says Thomson(who likes the Marion part very much)the film becomes "a routine mystery story much like a TV show."(I disagree, but...whatever.)

But Thomson's SECOND reason not to like Psycho is, well, Psycho:

Paraphrased: Thomson didn't believe, for one moment, that Norman really has a split personality and carries out his killings as Mother without knowing that it is really himself.

In short, Thomson felt that Hitchcock HIMSELF didn't believe the split personality gimmick in Psycho.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Which makes little sense to me. I mean, if Norman has no split personality, why does he dress up to commit his killings? Why doesn't he just kill "as he is"? (In his "man clothes" of pants, shirt and sometimes jacket.)

In the alternative, Thomson's concept makes little sense even if Norman, when dressing up, is rather "putting on a show" to do the killings as Mother(in other words, he knows he is Norman committing the murders, but he likes the "act" of acting like mother.)

David Thomson is respected for his film writings, but his whole attack on the "split personality" aspects of Psycho struck me as revealing something flat out wrong in terms of "understanding narrative." If Norman doesn't think he is mother when he kills people, the whole story is a joke, and a lie.

Which brings us back, however, to at least one premise for this thread:

OK, so Norman has a split personality. Do they really work like this? And what really causes them?

And(to my mind) exactly how many split personality people are there in this world, right now?

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

There is a Hitchcock quote I heard years ago about how everybody has two sides... what matters is how far apart those two sides are.... I wish I had the exact quote (if anyone knows it?).

---

I'm afraid I don't have it...but I seem to remember Hitchcock saying it.

---

Many Hitchcock films have dualism as a central theme. Simply defined, dualism = the division of something conceptually into two opposed or contrasted aspects, or the state of being so divided.

---

Oh, sure. But things can get a bit confusing.

A lot of Hitchcock movies have "doubled characters":

Uncle Charlie/Young Charlie
Bruno/Guy
Norman/Sam (look somewhat alike, both live behind their "store")
Rusk/Blaney(the nice killer vs the irascible hero)

But Hitchcock was also talking, I think, about the duality WITHIN people.

It comes to a head with Psycho and Norman...but also with MARION...who proves within her prim and proper law-abiding secretary to have a "criminal within"(not to mention a lustful lover side that she also doesn't show to the world.)

Elsewhere:

Scottie in Vertigo is an officer of the law, an ex-cop, a lawyer and somewhat of a "man's man," but we learn he is very unbalanced within, capable of romantic obsession to the point of delusion, and of controlling cruelty to the object of his affections(Judy.)

Jeff in Rear Window is also a "man's man"(globe-trotting photographer, war vet) with a "dark side": voyeurism and again, a certain cruelty to the woman in his life.

Mark in Marnie is a handsome and rich man who, on the one hand , seems to love Marnie very much, but who, on the other, is committed to interrogating her, running her down, "catching her in the act" and dominating her.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

And so forth and so on. Perhaps one way to put it is that a lot of Hitchocck heroes have villainous qualities. Meanwhile Hitchcock offers up a sympathetic side to many of his villains: Norman, Claude Rains in Notorious, Lars Thorwald in Rear Window("What do you want from me? Money" I HAVE no money!") Norman Bates and Bob Rusk are pretty nice guys to hang with and talk to - you'd never know they are such psychotic monsters within.

The duality WITHIN his characters is perhaps yet another key to the lasting strength of Hitchcock's films. We KNOW these people, with their dualities within. We ARE these people.

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

The duality within is what I meant.

Marnie is a thief, but also a victim. It's complex and confusing who is "good" and who is "bad" in Marnie. I never understood why Mark didn't go for Diane Baker, but I digress. Then there's that strange rape scene on their honeymoon, where Mark tries to cure Marnie of her sexual problems. And come to think of it... there it is again: Childhood sexual trauma - Bruce Dern wanted child-age Marnie sexually and was subsequently attacked by Marnie's mother. The color red triggers her because of the blood in the attack, and the storm/lightening. In a way, she is living as several identities with different names. Hmmm.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

The duality within is what I meant.

---

OK. I expect that's the duality that Hitchcock really knew how to exploit...the duality within us all(though most of us aren't killers or thieves, its just that we have a "dark side.")

---

Marnie is a thief, but also a victim. It's complex and confusing who is "good" and who is "bad" in Marnie.

---

Yes. I think Marnie is one of the few Hitchcock films where there really isn't a "villain," along the lines of his psychopaths or Nazi spymasters, etc. Marnie is a thief, but also a victim. Marnie's mother is as puritanical in her way as Mrs. Bates was in hers, but NOT a killer, and pathetic in the end. Mark is a dominating bully, but capable of love in the end. I suppose Dern's sailor is a villain of sorts(he goes from comforter to possible molester in approaching Little Marnie) , but even HE is a literal victim.

---

I never understood why Mark didn't go for Diane Baker, but I digress.

---

Oh, I think the deal there is that Baker pursues him and would easily bed and marry him(in that order) but...Marnie is interested in neither. Its a challenge to a handsome rich man who is used to women falling all over him...and who is a widower and thus wounded in some way.

---

Then there's that strange rape scene on their honeymoon, where Mark tries to cure Marnie of her sexual problems.

----

Some cure! I've always found the roundelay here quite sexist: Marnie refuses to marry Mark...but he blackmails her into it(under fear of arrest), takes her on a honeymoon and asserts his "husband's rights" to rape his wife (which existed at the time, in custom if not in law!) Now, Hitchcock fired one male writer(Evan Hunter, scenarist of The Birds) who refused to write the rape so directly, and then hired a FEMALE writer(Jay Presson Allen) who said that neither Hitchcock nor SHE felt the scene involved a rape. Uh huh...

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Still, the scene worked because of Sean Connery, I suppose. Mark remains sympathetic. Largely because he's Sean Connery...beginning his Bond period at the time and thus already possessing a dominating personality with the ladies.

---

And come to think of it... there it is again: Childhood sexual trauma -

---

Marnie Edgar and Norman Bates have a lot in common...even as she is not a psycho murderer. Actually, she's a psycho thief...but her mind isn't as "lost" as Norman's...she is redeemable.

---

Bruce Dern wanted child-age Marnie sexually and was subsequently attacked by Marnie's mother.

---

But Dern is KILLED by...Little Marnie. And Mother takes the blame, sacrificially.

---

The color red triggers her because of the blood in the attack, and the storm/lightening.

---

Marnie: a nice complex mix of the psychological(in theme, and thus following up on The Wrong Man, Vertigo, and Psycho) and the Expressionistic.

---

In a way, she is living as several identities with different names. Hmmm.

---

Norman...is that you? At least Marnie's identities are by choice.

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

ecarle wrote:
OK, so Norman has a split personality. Do they really work like this? And what really causes them?
---

The split occurs from trauma, or so they say. The compartmentalization of the mind, complete with amnesiac barriers, happens as a protective reaction. The memory is not gone, but in deep storage. When someone can't deal with the trauma, for protection, the mind creates another personality that can deal with that trauma. Or at least this is the theory...

This leads to all kinds of heavy questions dealing with "What is an individual personality? and Where does it come from? and Who am I really?"

Yes, this is how they really work. Psycho and Dressed to Kill are accurate! The Three Faces of Eve was written by 2 psychiatrists.

reply

[–] Starman (412) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

I don't think it's just a mere gimmick. I've been researching this topic and several overlapping "splitting of the mind" subjects.

The mind has the ability to create an amnesiac barrier. For example: Let's say you were in an accident, you might not remember it because your mind can compartmentalize certain memories that are too traumatic. These memories are saved to process later. Sometimes the loss of memory of an accident never returns, it's just blocked out. Other times it floods back in slow motion with every detail, like reliving a memory. This is well known, but nobody really has any real answers to explain HOW this happens in the mind. We might not have the instrumentation/technology to measure how it happens in the brain, but it is a real phenomenon. Brain scans seem to offer nothing to answer these questions.

Can a personality really split? It's an area still being researched, but yes, I think it's possible, but rare.

Centuries ago it would be labelled "demonic possession" without a doubt. I also think there are fakers out there, to muddy the waters.

The most disturbing element by far: mind control experiments. There is a book called "The Search for the Manchurian Candidate" by John Marks on this subject https://www.amazon.com/Search-Manchurian-Candidate-Behavioral-Sciences/dp/0393307948/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1531063287&sr=8-1&keywords=john+marks+the+search+for+the+manchurian+candidate&dpID=51vN2KnV6EL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch .
Using the term "behavioral science experiments" doctors were trying to intentionally split the mind, sometimes using various traumatizing techniques. The book only has HALF of the story because half the files were destroyed before they could be released by the freedom of information act. There's a 60 minutes and a BBC mainstream news segment on youtube, if you want a "cleaned up nice summary" where they leave out the really depraved stuff (but it makes the point even edited).

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

You know the end of DePalma's movie Sisters when Jennifer Salt is strapped to a table and brainwashed to say "there was no murder" by evil Dr. Emile? Even at the end, she has no memory of the murder... Well, in a nut shell, that's what the doctors were trying to do in these experiments. In addition, they were trying to create "alters" for specific purposes, but it didn't turn out to work like The Manchurian Candidate (or at least mind controlled alter assassins are 'claimed to be a failure' in Marks's book). It was a cooperative effort between doctors at universities and government military funding. People who were tricked into taking part in these experiments included those with depression and anxiety, they were seeking help and were asked to take part in "behavioral science experiments". There was even the wife of a Canadian politician who is interviewed in the 60 minutes segment explaining what they really did to her, she is still traumatized. Sick human experimentation.

Dr. Emile in Sisters was probably doing the same type of mind control stuff to the twins, then he had just the one surviving twin.
In Sisters, there's also the VERY CLEAR inappropriate sexual relationship between the doctor/ex husband and the nice twin. There's obvious sexual abuse since she was a child, because he's in all the old photos with the twins as children in that institute. I re-watched Sisters recently and was amazed by how much was revealed. So, there again we get the split personality because of childhood sexual abuse and the trauma of losing her twin, a part of her becomes the bad twin.

There was a time when I thought it was all made-up fiction, but once I started reading about all these topics, I could see these ideas portrayed very much according to the real stories.

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

By some amazing coincidence / synchronicity... I also recently watched Dario Argento's film The Stendhal Syndrome (1996) for the first time. I have watched almost every Argento film, this was one that I just never got around to seeing. It's up on youtube free right now, the quality is crappy and it really should be watched in HD because it's one of his best looking movies. For those of you who like giallo type horror, this one is really one of Argento's best. But, there are also half a dozen horrible rape scenes that are unwatchable (for me anyway) and I consider myself a tough babe - for watching movies anyway. Despite the unwatchable rape scenes, it was one of his most beautiful and well written movies with shades of Psycho and Vertigo all over. At the same time, it's uniquely Argento -who was known as the Italian Hitchcock, but it's really his own style. Great Ennio Morricone score!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stendhal_Syndrome
a quote from wiki “Stendhal syndrome is a real syndrome, first diagnosed in Florence, Italy in 1982. Argento said he experienced Stendhal syndrome as a child. While touring Athens with his parents young Dario was climbing the steps of the Parthenon when he was overcome by a trance that caused him to become lost from his parents for hours. The experience was so strong that Argento never forgot it; he immediately thought of it when he came across Graziella Magherini’s book about the syndrome, which would become the basis of the film.” end of wiki quote
here is a link to the wiki about the "real" syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stendhal_syndrome
The Stendhal Syndrome is a psychosomatic disorder that causes rapid heartbeat, dizziness, fainting, confusion and even hallucinations when an individual is exposed to an experience of great personal significance, particularly viewing art.[1] It is not listed as a recognised condition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. end of wiki quote

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 6 years ago

I also recently watched Dario Argento's film The Stendhal Syndrome (1996) for the first time.... it really should be watched in HD because it's one of his best looking movies. For those of you who like giallo type horror, this one is really one of Argento's best. But, there are also half a dozen horrible rape scenes....Despite the unwatchable rape scenes, it was one of his most beautiful and well written movies with shades of Psycho and Vertigo all over.

Thanks for the recommendation SavB. I'll definitely try to track down a better-than-youtube, italian-with-subs copy of TSS. Argento's a very uneven director in my experience. The last thing of his I tried, a 2000s piece called 'Do you like Hitchcock?', was *so* awful that I gave up, as it were, working through his filmography. I need a specific recommendation to explore Argento further.

2018 is turning into a bit of a Argento moment. On the one hand, daughter Asia is one of the (the most?) legally crucial, figure(s) in the Harvey Weinstein case, and I understand that the Italian press has been brutal towards her, basically calling her a liar and claiming that she's a slut/prostitute supposedly beyond the protection of anti-rape/assault laws. On the other hand, Suspiria gets a prestige remake next month from Call Me By Your Name's director and starring Tilda Swinton and Dakota Johnson. Early word is (surprisingly to me!) very strong.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

2018 is turning into a bit of a Argento moment.

---

Yes. I keep reading of him all the time, it seems. And he sure seems to have gone many stages past Psycho in terms of violence against women. As you know, I like a man or two to get killed(ala Arbogast, and two of the victims in Wait Until Dark) to remove the taint of sexual violence but..oh well, these woman-killing movies do have their followers.

---

On the one hand, daughter Asia is one of the (the most?) legally crucial, figure(s) in the Harvey Weinstein case, and I understand that the Italian press has been brutal towards her, basically calling her a liar and claiming that she's a slut/prostitute supposedly beyond the protection of anti-rape/assault laws.

----

Asia has also entered into the reportage on the suicide of her lover Anthony Bourdain, who was a staunch defender of her against Weinstein and his lawyers. Rose MacGowan turns out to be a protective friend of Asia's so...the whole thing merges together with some real tragedy to go with the scandal.

---

On the other hand, Suspiria gets a prestige remake next month from Call Me By Your Name's director and starring Tilda Swinton and Dakota Johnson. Early word is (surprisingly to me!) very strong.

---

I remember the original Suspiria coming out in the 70's...here it comes again. Is 2018 ready for its gruesomeness?

I guess good ol' QT has some competish in the "prestige gore" division.

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 6 years ago

2018 is turning into a bit of a Argento moment.
---
Yes. I keep reading of him all the time, it seems.

It's also a bit of a Godard moment. On the one hand from The Artist's director Hazanavicius there's Redoubtable (a.k.a. Godard Mon Amour) which dramatizes (mainly from the perspective of his young wife at the time, soon to be ex-wife!) of the moment in 1968 when Godard decided to become a permanent left-wing revolutionary/lousy philosopher and to renounce all his earlier films etc.. Redoubtable isn't very good but it's got some good jokes and has basic bio-pic and movie-buff insider joke pleasures.

On the other hand there's (88 year old!) Agnes Varda's wonderful auto-biog./documentary Face Places - my third fave film from last year so far - over which Godard, both his talent and his supremely cruel but also self-destructive jerkiness, looms very large.

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

swanstep wrote:
On the one hand, daughter Asia is one of the (the most?) legally crucial, figure(s) in the Harvey Weinstein case, and I understand that the Italian press has been brutal towards her, basically calling her a liar and claiming that she's a slut/prostitute supposedly beyond the protection of anti-rape/assault laws.
----
Because it happened so long ago, there is nothing that can legally be done for Asia's case. She has just been very vocal in the media.

Did you guys read Ronan Farrow's interview in The New Yorker:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/from-aggressive-overtures-to-sexual-assault-harvey-weinsteins-accusers-tell-their-stories
To summarize: Asia was in the French Riviera (over 20 years ago) and was invited to a party in a hotel thrown by Miramax. She got up to the room and she was alone with Weinstein. She reluctantly agreed to give him a massage (umm, yeah) and then he forced himself on to her giving her oral sex. She faked pleasure and then complicated the matter by having a consensual sexual relationship with him for years after! So this might explain why the Italian press calls her a slut. She even calls herself an idiot for not knowing better.
The legally crucial victim was actually wearing a wire, so there can be no "he said, she said".

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

A quote from the article
"Argento said, “He kept contacting me.” For a few months, Weinstein seemed obsessed, offering her expensive gifts.

What complicates the story, Argento readily allowed, is that she eventually yielded to Weinstein’s further advances and even grew close to him. Weinstein dined with her, and introduced her to his mother. Argento told me, “He made it sound like he was my friend and he really appreciated me.” She said that she had consensual sexual relations with him multiple times over the course of the next five years, though she described the encounters as one-sided and “onanistic.” The first occasion, several months after the alleged assault, came before the release of “B. Monkey.” “I felt I had to,” she said. “Because I had the movie coming out and I didn’t want to anger him.” She believed that Weinstein would ruin her career if she didn’t comply. Years later, when she was a single mother dealing with childcare, Weinstein offered to pay for a nanny. She said that she felt “obliged” to submit to his sexual advances."

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

ecarle wrote:
Asia has also entered into the reportage on the suicide of her lover Anthony Bourdain, who was a staunch defender of her against Weinstein and his lawyers. Rose MacGowan turns out to be a protective friend of Asia's so...the whole thing merges together with some real tragedy to go with the scandal.
-----

Bourdain's death was really shocking. I was a fan of his for a long time, I read his books and watched his shows. Although I really enjoy some of Asia's movies, I found her behavior after his death to be strange. Then, Asia started making statements through Rose McGowan about Anthony's death all over social media. Rose claims Bourdain and Asia had an open relationship to justify those photos of Asia all over that French journalist. The entire thing just leaves me with questions. Both Asia and Rose look frightening now, I must say, they look like the witchy villains in some of Dario Argento movies. I'm sorry for them, they were lovely looking not that long ago, what happened?! The Harvey Weinstein stuff makes me roll my eyes. He's a bad casting couch pig, yes, I see that. But, I feel both Rose and Asia are just attention seekers with very little understanding of right and wrong. I replied to swanstep above linking the interview with Asia where she admits to a consensual sexual relationship with Weinstein FOR YEARS! How can she keep this victim mentality? Again, I can be a fan of the artist but not a fan of the person. These are not my role models, not at all.

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

Which Argento movies have you watched and which ones did you enjoy? I can recommend some others. 'Do you like Hitchcock' was made for TV and it wasn't very good. Pretty much all of his films are dubbed, I think the Italian versions are dubbed too - but I'm not sure, perhaps you will let me know. The dubbing makes for a "lesser" cinematic experience (for me anyway) because you don't really get to hear the performances. Argento has major storytelling problems, but he claims it's intentionally dream like or nightmare like. Don't look too closely for plot holes or flaws, you will find many. Best advice: only watch Argento films if you are in the mood.

I can't believe anyone would remake Suspiria, it only works because of the nightmare quality. Daria Nicolodi (mom of Asia) wrote the story for Suspiria based on tales her grandmother told her. It's not the story but the WAY it's done, of course the style is everything.
I also liked 'Profondo Rosso' or 'Deep Red' starring Daria, in all its badly dubbed glory. It's a good film, if you are in that mood.
His film 'Opera' is not bad either, but the ending is tacked-on. 'Inferno' was pretty good, it's the second film in the Suspiria trilogy and it's not as good, but not bad at all. It has some great moments.
I've been disappointed with most of the recent Argento movies, the older ones are much better. 'Giallo' 2009 with Adrien Brody and Polanski's wife was just OK, not amazing, silly at times. 'Dracula 3D' was disappointing, so was 'Mother of Tears' which is the 3rd movie in the Suspiria trilogy, it was not good.
Now old Dario has a new film coming out 'The Sandman' in 2018 based on the E.T.A. Hoffmann story. It sounds like it would have been amazing if he made it decades ago, but I'm still hopeful.

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 6 years ago

I've been disappointed with most of the recent Argento movies, the older ones are much better.

That's been my experience too. Bird with Crystal Plumage and 4 Flies on Grey Velvet and Deep Red are my faves apart from Suspiria. Nothing after Suspiria has done much for me. I'm hoping to break my post-Suspiria duck this weeked with TSS!

[I guess I should add too that even in his '70s heyday I don't think that Argento's films are *complete* triumphs. Argento seems to lose concentration and quality control over a whole movie at least compared to Hitchcock, De Palma, Antonioni, anyone at all first rate really. That is, I watch even the best Argento films for their 'great half hours'. Thus, while I'm skeptical that the Suspiria remake will be able to match the original's first half hour - no chance if they change the music for a start! - there's lots of room for improvement with the rest, and Guadagigno (sp?) is just the sort of careful, high quality-control, A-list director who'll do a better *overall* job than Argento.]

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

ecarle pops in to note:

This is a rich, bountiful thread to read with the Argento discussion...and my realization that Argento's "giallo auteur status" is in certain ways of no real connection to the personal life and career of his daughter, who seems to have gotten caught up in the World of Weinstein for better(some level of fame and wealth) and for worse. Its as if the two universes -- father's and daughter's -- are separate and should be considered separately. But they can't be!

McGowan and Asia Argento DO complicate the "Me Too" scenario because they seem to have mixed consensual and non-consensual sex into the same lifestyles, and now we are expected to sort things out.

I bookstore browsed McGowan's recent book and she gets into detail about a long affair with director Robert Rodriguez(a QT buddy; together, they made the two halves of "Grindhouse" and McGowan is in both of them.) Rodriguez seems to move from lover to tormentor to user in McGowan's recall, but she DID have a relationship with him, and she WAS in Grindhouse.

About which: McGowan is sexy in both halves of the movie, but in the QT film especially(Death Proof), she's literally effervescent with beauty and charm (right up until QT has Kurt Russell reduce McGowan's face to bloody mush by using his car to knock her around as a passenger in a steel passenger seat.)

There's something about how both RR and QT use McGowan in "Grindhouse" -- accenting her beauty while mutilating her along the way(she loses her leg and straps a machine gun in its place in Planet Terror for RR) -- that suggests how bad parts of Hollywood can be to the women who join up there.

And yet I'm STILL looking forward to the next QT film, and I've found RR's stuff to be funny in a real cheap way(Machete, for instance.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

"Me, Too" seems to be sorting itself out. After an initial fusillade of "sudden death career endings"(Cosby, Weinstein, Spacey, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Senator Al Franken...even maybe Dustin Hoffman, who has disappeared)....matters have subsided and a tricky examination of the overall sexuality of Hollywood has come to the fore: sex is the currency of men with power and women who want jobs. (In gay situations, it can be a same sex power relationship.) What's consensual and what's not...is what its all about.

BTW, I note that they are going to try to release an older movie with Kevin Spacey later this year -- The Billionaire Boy's Club -- without removing Spacey from it.

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

ecarle wrote:"Me, Too" seems to be sorting itself out. After an initial fusillade of "sudden death career endings"(Cosby, Weinstein, Spacey, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Senator Al Franken...even maybe Dustin Hoffman, who has disappeared)....matters have subsided and a tricky examination of the overall sexuality of Hollywood has come to the fore: sex is the currency of men with power and women who want jobs. (In gay situations, it can be a same sex power relationship.)
-----
When you summarize the sudden career death endings like that- it looks like some form of mass hysteria. There's a huge difference between "I felt uncomfortable when he flirted with me" and true sexual assault. I think a good portion of the "me too movement" is actually sexual buyers remorse.

ecarle wrote:
What's consensual and what's not...is what its all about.
----

The definition of consensual was not the same for Asia and Weistein. He obviously thought it was consensual, especially after 5 YEARS of having sex with her.
And he probably thought being "pushy" was part of courting these girls. He's disgusting, but the entire culture is about prostituting yourself in one way or another. These people have no real moral values and don’t know when they are crossing the line. The one recent Weinstein victim who was wearing a wire really does have a case, she was fighting to get away from him and it's all recorded.

The weak excuse "I was forced to have sex with him for a job and needed help paying for childcare" claim from Asia Argento, who is reported to be worth around 4 million dollars, not her family's money but her own as a film director and actress. She is Italian film royalty. Asia’s grandfather was Elio Luxardo, a photographer for Mussolini known as the Italian Leni Riefenstahl (yes they are/were proud Fascists). Her entire family, not just her parents, but uncles and grandparents are well known in the industry. She didn't need to sleep with anyone for a job or money.

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

ecarle wrote:
BTW, I note that they are going to try to release an older movie with Kevin Spacey later this year -- The Billionaire Boy's Club -- without removing Spacey from it.
----

That film title is unfortunate. Do people not make the mental association of "Boys Club" in combination with Spacey who is accused of fondling 14-17 year old boys???
The plot of this film sounds good, however. The story summary from imdb "A group of wealthy boys in Los Angeles during the early 1980s establish a 'get-rich-quick' scam that turns deadly."
I would go see that...

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

ecarle wrote: I bookstore browsed McGowan's recent book and she gets into detail about a long affair with director Robert Rodriguez(a QT buddy; together, they made the two halves of "Grindhouse" and McGowan is in both of them.) Rodriguez seems to move from lover to tormentor to user in McGowan's recall, but she DID have a relationship with him, and she WAS in Grindhouse.
----

Her book 'Brave' with her shaved head on the cover? [Isn't interesting when the beautiful actresses and pop stars self-destruct, they always shave their head or cut off all their hair?] I read the first few pages while browsing too. It is very honest and raw writing, and surprisingly not whiny. I knew she was in the Children of God cult as a child, this cult was one of the worst because they encouraged sex with very young children (although she denies being sexually abused there). Then, she says she was in the Cult of Hollywood later, but I didn't get to read the later chapters. If you want real examples of trauma based mind control, that is what that cult tried to do to Rose as a child; serving her pet lamb for dinner and laughing at her as they told her. She still has problems with her own self worth and identity, who knows if she will ever truly heal or if it's even possible. The self destructing head shaving also goes with all that, and she even writes about how she hated her long hair because it "made the real her disappear". She was great in Death Proof and Planet Terror. I had no idea Rodriguez tormented her in any way, as I didn't get to read the parts were she discusses QT and RR, thanks for the summary. I'm sure RR denies any wrong doing, and it's really difficult to sort opinion from fact here.

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 6 years ago

I think the Italian versions are dubbed too - but I'm not sure, perhaps you will let me know. The dubbing makes for a "lesser" cinematic experience (for me anyway)

The post-recording of all sound is common in Italian films at least until the '80s and, I agree that it's a real minus in many cases. I often find myself actively looking forward to wordless sequences! (compare with silent film where the better directors like Murnau used fewer and fewer intertitle cards).

It was a commonplace too for Italian films in this period to have very international casts and mostly for those performers to speak in their own languages on set. This makes for very creative dubbing afterwards and for a proliferation of alternative versions afterwards if live sound *was* recorded!

The bottom line is that except for the very top tier of Italian directors (Antonioni, Fellini, De Sica, Visconti, etc.) sound in '60s-'80s Italian film is a fricking mess and over time this has led to numerous incompatible, all compromised versions of lots of films. Even a monster hit and close-to-masterpiece like The Good The Bad and The Ugly *sounds* terrible for the most part, notwithstanding Morricone's amazing score. Sadly, even after multiple restorations and blu-ray versions TGTB&TU is a *mess* sounds-wise, color-wise, and length-wise. No Hollywood film of such stature exists in such a poor state.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Even a monster hit and close-to-masterpiece like The Good The Bad and The Ugly *sounds* terrible for the most part, notwithstanding Morricone's amazing score.

---

It seems sad that dubbing was the way they had to go with the Eastwood Westerns. Subtitles would have been more "pure" -- but how could Clint speak Italian?

So we are stuck with dubbing.

---

Sadly, even after multiple restorations and blu-ray versions TGTB&TU is a *mess* sounds-wise, color-wise, and length-wise. No Hollywood film of such stature exists in such a poor state.

---

On the one hand, that's what makes watching GBU (and Once Upon a Time in the West) somewhat difficult any time I do. The polish of a great Hollywood film(such as Rear Window and Psycho) is missing...and the absence is noted. About all I can do is "adjust" to the idea that the dubbing and hacking and color is "part of the mystique of the Spaghetti Western."

If GBU had been a polished Hollywood Western like The Professionals or The Wild Bunch...it would not have been GBU.

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

ecarle wrote:It seems sad that dubbing was the way they had to go with the Eastwood Westerns. Subtitles would have been more "pure" -- but how could Clint speak Italian?

So we are stuck with dubbing.
----

These films were intended for the international market. The Italians dubbed their own movies anyway, even if they were in Italian. Fellini was a master at getting the dubbing in sync with the actors lips. It actually was a fairly common practice in Europe at the time.
Many films were shot with un-blimped cameras, so noisy they could be heard over a microphone on set. This allowed actors to flub or stumble a line, and a retake is not needed. The mistake can be corrected in the dubbing booth. Rather than fight camera noise and other extraneous sounds (Hitch hated shooting on location because of sound issues), the sound person would record a scratch track, used as a guide for the actors when they would return to the studio weeks/months later to "dub" their own lines. Of course, dubbing studios charge by the hour, so good and fast is the producer's goal. It doesn't always work out: with some actors better at getting back into character in such an isolated, sterile environment. Overall, this process is cost effective, allowing the picture to be shot using fewer takes. Fewer takes=less film needed and shorter production schedule = cost effective. Plus, those Italian crews were noisy, and directors were yelling at the actors while they were filming a scene. Leone was guilty of this at times.
Again, because dubbing has its cost factors, these movies tend to have limited, pithy dialog, and lots of visual storytelling augmented with music and sound effects. The Spaghetti Westerns have their own charm. While not polished Hollywood style, they are in a class all their own.
Same for the 70's and 80's Hong Kong films, dubbing was standard for the international market.

BTW. John Boorman's "Excalibur" was made this way: all the dialog was dubbed later by the cast.

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

We have the BluRay of all three Eastwood/Leone pictures. They look good, and really should be seen in their full 'scope format. To this day, young Directors of Photography hold the cinematography in high esteem, and wonder how they can capture that "look". Exquisite textures! Much of the exteriors in Spain were shot early morning or late afternoon for strong backlighting and texture, filling in actors faces with reflectors or arcs. TGTB&TU definitely suffers some low budget problems. The interiors and many of the street scenes were shot at Cinecitta with a Techniscope Mitchell BNC--a quiet camera, but still, on set sound recording is only for a scratch track. Like you said, Swanstep, the dialog tracks are in different languages; in this case three: Italian, Spanish and English. In typical European fashion, actors come in and loop their dialog in post production. On GB&U, the location work was shot in Spain with a small crew, lightweight camera package (2-Arr IIc Techniscopes with a set of primes and one zoom, but 2 arc lights for fill in that blazing desert sun) and a scratch track for sound. This is according to my husband, he's a film director.
My husband personally experienced Italian moviemaking many years ago when one night he stumbled across an Italian crew in Miami: a movie released as "Super Fuzz". Met star Terrence Hill-couldn't speak English, and director Sergio Corbucci-could speak some English. As they shot a scene, actors were all delivering dialog to each other in their native tongue-English and Italian. As someone involved in film, he was interested in watching how they worked. The American actors were playing mob types, and it looked like some sort of gangster meeting in a parking lot in front of a restaurant. The crew was small: shooting with Arriflex IIc, a DP/operator, 2 ACs, electrician, make-up/hair, 2 ADs, scriptgirl, a few grips, and a sound man (Nagra deck) with boom operator. That's how the Italian crews roll; small, fast and noisy.

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 6 years ago

@SavB. Very interesting!

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Second that motion! Thank you, savagebeauty.

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 6 years ago

A couple of links of interest.

1. Here's what I take to be a fair run-down of the state of the blu-ray art w.r.t. TGTBATU:
https://tinyurl.com/yaasp6n9
It's not good! I'm stuck a generation behind with very stylized yellow colors but at least with correct framings and aspect ratios. The latest 50th Anniv edn. solves some but not all of the color problems and in its inconsistency is arguably worse. I suspect that it will take someone like a Scorsese or a QT to step in, knock heads and force people to stop pulling color-schemes out of their butts and calibrate properly against existing negatives, set-photos (whose negatives are often in better shape) the way restorations of Vertigo, Red Shoes, etc. have been conducted.

2. I recently saw and enjoyed a Spanish film called '800 Bullets' (2002). It's set in the tourist trap wild west towns of Almeira which were built originally as sets for Leone and others. Old stuntmen who reminisce about doubling for Clint get into a shooting war to stop their broken down old towns from being swept away by development. It's a light-hearted romp but fun and catnip for Leone-fans. Here's Trailer from Hell's take on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QnS3xGqShI
The director Alex De La Iglesia is kind of Spain's Edgar Wright: his films aren't deep but they're made with a lot of brio and love for various sub-cultures and -genres. I liked his heavy-metal/horror pastiche, 'The Day of the Beast' (1996?) even more.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

The Stendhal Syndrome is a psychosomatic disorder that causes rapid heartbeat, dizziness, fainting, confusion and even hallucinations when an individual is exposed to an experience of great personal significance, particularly viewing art.[1] It is not listed as a recognised condition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. end of wiki quote

---

Not listed as a recognised condition? I wonder what is necessary for that to occur?

---

For those of you who like giallo type horror, this one is really one of Argento's best. But, there are also half a dozen horrible rape scenes that are unwatchable (for me anyway) and I consider myself a tough babe - for watching movies anyway.

---

As someone who found the single rape scene in Frenzy to be one of the most disturbing ten minutes of his filmgoing life, the idea of half a dozen of them is very offputting to me. And yet this Argento fellow sure has a following, and I'm not sure where I get to "cut off my participation" with impunity. I LIKE Frenzy. And Straw Dogs. And even Deliverance(upsetting to a guy as it is.)

---

Despite the unwatchable rape scenes, it was one of his most beautiful and well written movies with shades of Psycho and Vertigo all over. At the same time, it's uniquely Argento -who was known as the Italian Hitchcock, but it's really his own style. Great Ennio Morricone score!

---

Morricone adds a stamp of approval to all this, doesn't he?

---

I stumbled onto an article the other day that contended as much as Dressed to Kill owes to Psycho in plot, its really a Giallo in the artfulness, the sexuality, and the gore so graphically shown in the Angie Dickensen murder.

Sometimes I feel that Psycho is the "bicycle with training wheels" from which a half century of gore was born.

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 6 years ago

@SavB. I finally got hold of a fairly decent copy of TSS... and found it all a little laborious (and maybe, concretely about 20-30 minutes too long). Asia A's character, Anna, is really the only one we get to know and the film to a large extent must stand or fall with her performance. She just didn't quite work for me. I've liked a lot of slowly-revealed-as-nuts roles over the years - they're actor showcases after all - e.g., Isabel Huppert has played versions of this many times (La Ceremonie, The Piano Teacher, Elle) each time finding new ways to blow me away. Asia A. just doesn't have the chops of Huppert or Adjani or Jennifer Jason-Leigh or even Kathleen Turner (whose turn in Crimes of Passion, Asia A. in TSS reminded me of a bit) and with the film a full 2 hours she needs to be truly great to hold our attention. I felt my attention wander.

Probably the best bit of TSS for me is the museum opening. I need to rewatch it to be sure but it seemed to tip its hat to the art museum scenes in both Vertigo and Dressed To Kill and in some respects to top them with its additional (very realistic in my experience!) threat of crowds at important Museums in Europe at the exalted level of the Uffizi and the Louvre. It was unnerving and ingenious (notwithstanding the painfully dated mid-'90s CGI sequences of paintings coming alive etc.).

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

Now, I'm going to spoil The Stendhal Syndrome (1996) so if you don't want have the film spoiled do not read further!
Truth be told, I read the plot before watching and it didn't spoil it for me because I get lost watching the movie anyway.

Anna Manni (Asia Argento, daughter of the director) travels to Florence on the trail of a serial killer, Alfredo Grossi (Thomas Kretschmann). While visiting the famous Uffizi Gallery, Anna is overcome by Stendhal syndrome. She faints and loses her memory and doesn't remember who she is. She goes to her hotel and "enters into the artwork", she remembers she is a detective. Then she is subjected to a sadistic sexual attack by the very man she is tracking. Although she manages to escape, Anna is left deeply traumatized. She starts sessions with a psychologist in an effort to come to terms with her own deep-seated emotional trauma. She drastically changes her appearance, cutting of her long brown hair and dressing more "like a boy". There are more rapes, complete with razor blades. Artwork comes alive for Anna and the killer/rapist knows this, he takes her to a graffiti filled empty building, where she freaks out and she is raped again. She turns the tables somehow, gets in a position to kill him. Funny enough, he wants to be arrested and pleads "I have the right to be arrested" she says "You have the right to shut up" and she shoots him, one of the best lines since Dirty Harry. She kills him and pushes him into a water way. She changes her appearance yet again, this time being ultra feminine in a blond wig and red lipstick. The artwork doesn't come alive for her anymore. But, she thinks the killer is still calling & stalking her. He knows everything about her and more murders occur. Of course, it's revealed that she has multiple personalities and she is doing the killing. Watching the earlier parts of the film again, you can see where the artwork triggers her alter to come out and rape/kill. Split personality killer/victim.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Funny enough, he wants to be arrested and pleads "I have the right to be arrested" she says "You have the right to shut up" and she shoots him, one of the best lines since Dirty Harry

---

Sounds like it!

---

Of course, it's revealed that she has multiple personalities and she is doing the killing. Watching the earlier parts of the film again, you can see where the artwork triggers her alter to come out and rape/kill.

---

SHE rapes?

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

She rapes, yes. Mostly she is going through her own attack in her head... but there are several other victims and she does indeed "rape" as her alternate personality.

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 6 years ago

she does indeed "rape" as her alternate personality.

That's not how I understood it. I understood all Anna's killing etc. to occur after she's dispatched Alfredo. She kills her new boyfriend, her psychiatrist, and her fellow cop/old boyfriend and in all cases it's something like her-as-Alfredo doing the killing and there's no sexual component.

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

If you watch it again, there are several clues. The most obvious clue she is the killer/rapist is the scene with the lady in the red dress and long brown hair who ends up dead (around 48 min). It's all 'killer point of view' shots, and then when the killer talks to the red dress lady, the sound of his voice is muffled/mumbled and we only hear red dress lady reply about how she broke up with her boyfriend and likes kissing "I'm the oral type" umm, yeah. The brief glimpse of the killer's shadow looks like Asia dressed in men's clothes in her boy phase with short hair. There are other clues, but this one is major.
Alfredo did really exist, we see his wife and his art in his house. Asia talks to his other living victims. But, there would be no other reason to muffle Alfredo's voice and show it from his point of view with red dress lady unless it really isn't him.

Sorry to hear you didn't enjoy the film as much as I did. In my opinion, it's one of the best later Argento films. Did you watch it in Italian with English subtitles? Was it dubbed? Asia was very upset that her voice was dubbed in the English version, she felt it took away from her performance. I thought this was some of her best acting.
Dario originally wanted Jennifer Jason Leigh or Bridget Fonda to play Anna but they were busy. The film he made with Asia before this one, 'Trauma', was much more B-movie feeling, in fact every other movie he made with Asia was far worse than TSS. I don't suggest watching those! ... unless you're in the mood for b-movie horror (sometimes I am in the b-movie mood).

The museum scene - basically the first 10 minutes or so are the best part of the film, as well as the music by Morricone. It's the only movie ever to be allowed to film in the famous Uffizi Gallery. All the artwork shown is also significant, such as the Caravaggio Shield of Medusa, who has her own tragic rape story: she was once a beautiful maiden and she was raped by Poseidon in Athena's temple, so Athena made Medusa into the snake headed monster who turns onlookers to stone.

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 6 years ago

The most obvious clue she is the killer/rapist is the scene with the lady in the red dress and long brown hair who ends up dead (around 48 min). It's all 'killer point of view' shots, and then when the killer talks to the red dress lady, the sound of his voice is muffled/mumbled and we only hear red dress lady reply about how she broke up with her boyfriend and likes kissing "I'm the oral type" umm, yeah. The brief glimpse of the killer's shadow looks like Asia dressed in men's clothes in her boy phase with short hair. There are other clues, but this one is major.

I thought that that scene's coyness about the killer might be grist to your mill.... but when I rewatched it, well, we see the killer's strangling hands clearly and they're clearly a dude's!

I did see TSS in Italian with subtitles. Much of the dialogue seemed to be live recorded (this is the '90s) so dubbing into English does lose a lot. Earlier Argento films (all sound post-recorded and diverse actors spoke their own languages on set so no unilingual consistent lip movements to synch to in any case) as we've discussed make it much more of a toss-up whether to watch in English or Italian.

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

Why do you think that scene was shot that way? We don't see or hear Alfredo. What other reason would there be to hide the killer's voice and appearance? Please tell me because I'm really open to another explanation.
There are several other references to Anna being Alfredo from the start in the museum... if I have time I will go through and write them down later. Repeating imagery (such as the waterfall, for one example) from paintings to reality for the final bye-bye Alfredo scene. Also the fact that Anna's mother was a painter. I wonder if the book has more backstory and makes more sense.
Also, it's implied in what she says to her psychologist on several occasions, even about cutting her hands ... Alfredo cuts his own hands too in one of the rape scenes. Let's not forget, she does sexually force herself on her little boyfriend who brings her frozen pizza and funny movies (around 37 min).

Years ago I heard that Dario was usually the hands of the killer, especially the black gloved killer of his giallo movies - and those killers were usually women in the story. Not sure when he decided not to be the killer hands, but the way the scenes with Alfredo are done... I don't know.

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 6 years ago

Why do you think that scene was shot that way? We don't see or hear Alfredo. What other reason would there be to hide the killer's voice and appearance? Please tell me because I'm really open to another explanation.

My guess is that the film just never gets its story straight: it flirts with the idea that Anna might in fact be the main killer-rapist but never commits to that possibility precisely because of how much undoing of the main narrative would be required to make sense of that possibility. A famously failed film that ran into this exact brick wall was Freidkin's Cruising (1980): Al Pacino plays a NYC cop who goes undercover to catch a killer in the gay, leather, S&M sex-club scene. The film's mostly got a fairly unpleasant edge (which got it protested at the time) of voyeurism at extreme sexual practices and near-gay-panic & quasi-titillation as Pacino's cover requires him to participate in some of the sub-culture's practices. Pacino's girlfriend (played by Karen Allen) starts to freak and speak for the audience: How far is he going to go? How is this job changing him? *That's* the movie, unpleasant as it is. But *THEN*, near the end of the second act, Freidkin suddenly starts dropping hints that Pacino's character *is* the killer of gay leather men that he's been chasing all along, that he's been suffering all this 'degradation' for, etc.. This possibility makes no sense, i.e., it requires a completely different movie. (You feel for Friedkin - I'd have wished I'd made a different movie too if I was looking at an assembly of the first two acts of Cruising in the cutting room!)

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 6 years ago

The film mostly reverts to the conventional story (Pacino catches killer, returns happily to girlfriend) in the final Act but also can't stop itself hitting the ambiguity notes hard in its final shots: maybe he was *the* killer all along, maybe he's at least become a copy-cat killer, or maybe he's just gone big-time gay on the inside and Karen Allen shouldn't be so relieved. Maybe Friedkin should just have figured out what movie he was making!

I feel like I run into movies that try to save themselves (often seemingly in the editing suite) with a half-hearted flurry of ambiguity or complexity every couple of years at least. It almost never works in my view, and I mostly instantly forget such muddles. If the director is at the level of Friedkin or Argento or above, however, *then* I remember.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

The film mostly reverts to the conventional story (Pacino catches killer, returns happily to girlfriend) in the final Act but also can't stop itself hitting the ambiguity notes hard in its final shots: maybe he was *the* killer all along, maybe he's at least become a copy-cat killer, or maybe he's just gone big-time gay on the inside and Karen Allen shouldn't be so relieved. Maybe Friedkin should just have figured out what movie he was making!

===

A book I bought is "The Friedkin Connection," where Friedkin covers his career and gets into this Cruising issue.

Indeed, he "discovered in the editing" the idea that maybe Pacino IS the killer(or a copycat killer) and recut the film to suggest this.

Al Pacino viewed the final cut and was ENRAGED by this. He told Friedkin: "If you had told me this idea, I would have played the role differently!"

(Which reminds me of a joke I once read: When lower-grade Rat Packer Joey Bishop was told that the Rat Pack Western "Soldiers Three" needed a title change to "Sergeants Three" he said: "They should have told me. I would have played my part differently.")

Friedkin throughout his book notes that he "often" discovers the story or the ending "in the editing" -- or soon before shooting a scene.

The biggest example he gives is the ending of The French Connection and Popeye's accidental(?) killing of the antagonistic FBI man. Not in the book, not in the script -- Friedkin decided on it. Which made the REAL FBI man who the character was based on(still quite alive), furious, too.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

The crash and burn of the career of William Friedkin is a famous Hollywood tale, but his arrogance in "not sticking to the script" and continually "finding the ending" during editing, is among the reasons his career DID crash and burn.(Pacino never forgave Friedkin and Pacino was not an enemy to have back then.)

He didn't stop with The French Connection or Cruising in "making it up as he went along." He did the same thing with his later films like To Live and Die in LA and Jade(ever lessening acheivements.)

Compare this to Alfred "make sure the script is set in stone" Hitchcock. Hitchcock allowed for some improvisation and line changing on his sets...but always stuck to the story as pre-set.

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 6 years ago

A book I bought is "The Friedkin Connection," where Friedkin covers his career and gets into this Cruising issue.
Indeed, he "discovered in the editing" the idea that maybe Pacino IS the killer(or a copycat killer) and recut the film to suggest this.

Ha, thanks for the confirmation of what certainly feels like it has to be the case when you watch Cruising now!

Obviously there *are* great films - Casablanca and Annie Hall among them - that have been decisively and successfully reshaped in the edit suite. But it's definitely risky to shoot without having a script you fully believe in, i.e., with an eye to having enough coverage to use the editing phase to complete the writing task.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Ha, thanks for the confirmation of what certainly feels like it has to be the case when you watch Cruising now!

---

What's funny is that, in reading Friedkin's book start to finish, it seems he "made the movie in the editing" a LOT during his career. As I recall, only The Exorcist was kept pretty much "on script" -- it was from a big bestseller.

And it seems like -- unlike as with Casablanca and Annie Hall -- when Friedkin made these decisions, they were pretty banal. Popeye kills the FBI man. Pacino MIGHT be the killer(but he might not.) A key character should die in "Live and Die in LA." Etc.

---

Obviously there *are* great films - Casablanca and Annie Hall among them - that have been decisively and successfully reshaped in the edit suite. But it's definitely risky to shoot without having a script you fully believe in, i.e., with an eye to having enough coverage to use the editing phase to complete the writing task.

---

I certainly take the point that some great films have been made great in "the editing suite"(Jaws is another rumored one) but indeed, it better be a good director, or a good TEAM, making those decisions.

I think I read of Hitchcock moving scenes around in some of his movies after they were shot, during editing. It just seemed better, to him, to have certain scenes in different places than they had been placed in the script.

And I am reminded of the most famous time Hitchcock's luck ran out on his story telling: with Topaz, in which the ending he wanted(a duel in a stadium) turned out to be terrible(it is, I've seen it) and Hitchcock then filmed another ending which was almost as terrible(it is, I've seen it), and then threw in the towel to create a very awkward looking "off-screen suicide and freeze frame" that smacked of desperation(even as it struck me as the only GOOD ending to the story of the three.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

That "suicide freeze-frame ending" was , truly, created in the editing room -- and the coverage WASN'T there(Hitchcock used footage of Phillipe Noiret to create the suicide of Michael Piccoli.)

Speaking of "coverage that wasn't there," one scene I have never seen and would like to see is: Robert Walker's death in "My Son John."

Walker's character dies in that film(his only film after Strangers on a Train) but Walker himself died(too young, accidental drug OD from his studio doctors) before he could film the death scene.

So director Leo McCarey enlisted Hitchcock to bring Walker's death scene in Strangers on a Train into the editing room -- and they "fixed it up"(creating an ultra close-up on Walker, blurring the image a bit), to create a new death scene.

reply

[–] movieghoul (213) 6 years ago

One of Holloywood's urban legends of the 70s is that the editor Verna Fields, not George Lucas, owns 90% of the credit for American Graffiti. This story does have some credibility when you consider the sort of randomness of the scenes in AG, it may have needed a master editor to make iit work.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

One of Holloywood's urban legends of the 70s is that the editor Verna Fields, not George Lucas, owns 90% of the credit for American Graffiti. This story does have some credibility when you consider the sort of randomness of the scenes in AG, it may have needed a master editor to make iit work.

---

I had not heard that about Verna Fields and American Graffiti...but I heard that(read that) about Verna Fields and Jaws. THAT was evidently a mishmash of mismatched shots of ocean, boat and sky(sometimes clear, sometimes cloudy) until Fields cut it together.

She was called "Mother Cutter" by the Young Turks. But I also read that eventually, Spielberg for one didn't like her being given TOO MUCH credit for his work -- he eventually elected not to hire her, broke ties with her.

When you think about it, a lot of Jaws may well have been done by Fields(the cutting) and John Williams (the music), but Spielberg earned his stripes holding the film together as a true "leader" -- and getting three great lead performances and some nice supporting ones(the Mayor, Brody's wife.)

Hitchcock evidently supervised his longtime editor George Tomasini(Vertigo, NXNW, Psycho, The Birds) with a certain expertise of his own. "Hitch was a frame cutter," noted Tomasini, and I think this is very clear when you watch that door open at the top of the stairs in close-up in the Arbogast killing scene. The cut is at the SECOND that all the light has spilled on the floor that can.

I'd like to here point out that I took a film editing class one time in college(I dabbled in film courses) and MAN was that hard. You go blind trying to pick the right frame to cut on "with your eyeball"(notice how many editors wore heavy eyeglasses) and -- back then at least -- the soundtrack was some frames behind the visual track. You had to kind of mix them together, I think in a final merge of "visual and sound". I can't remember how.

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

My husband and I were talking about editing. A few frames trimmed here, a few put back in there, can make all the difference in the world. There's nothing worse than an editor who is not "in synch" (pun intended) with the director or producer. An editor who fits in can elevate a picture. He has certain editors he likes to work with depending on the subject/project style.
ecarle, what did you use for editing? Ethan Cohen told my husband they cut "Blood Simple" on the kitchen table with a pair of rewinds, a splicer, a synch block with sound readers and a Moviescope. He said that's pretty much where all indies started back in the days when there was only film. My husband had that set-up. They really work! As for eyestrain: 35mm is easier to see than 16mm.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

An editor who fits in can elevate a picture. He has certain editors he likes to work with depending on the subject/project style.

---

Who is "he," might I ask? Hitchcock...or your husband? Do we have a ringer here!? (Marvelous if we do, fine if we don't.)

----
ecarle, what did you use for editing?

---

Oh, I can hardly remember. It was probably old in its time. I do remember that I cut with a splicer with the film running side by side with the sound tape.

---

Ethan Cohen told my husband

---

Hey, wait a minute! Ringer!

---

they cut "Blood Simple" on the kitchen table with a pair of rewinds, a splicer, a synch block with sound readers and a Moviescope. He said that's pretty much where all indies started back in the days when there was only film. My husband had that set-up.

---

That roughly sounds like what I worked with.

----
As for eyestrain: 35mm is easier to see than 16mm.

---

I will tell you that "advanced editing" courses at the school where I went, cut with 16mm, but me and the other beginners cut with "sound 8mm." I'm lucky they let me cut at all. And the soundtrack was just for some car noises and music from existing albums, no dialogue.

I must admit it was fun to go in the mixing room and mix the music and the sound effects to the film. But...Super8mm?

And THAT said, since I wanted some "Hitchcockian cuts" in my action scenes, it was that much more hard to make so many cuts in my scenes. How much easier it would have been to let a scene run for three or four minutes uncut.

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned that my husband is a writer/director of low budget films and TV. He's not famous or anything. The Ethan Coen story was from way back BEFORE the Coen brothers were famous at a screening of Blood Simple (when it first came out). My husband talked with him in the parking lot after the screening, mostly about budget concerns and other boring topics. I think it's endearing to know that film was cut on their kitchen table.
Because he works in the biz, my hubby has lots of stories meeting or working with well known people. But, again, it's really not a big deal, he's just a regular working guy. He was quite proud to write for "Gunny" R. Lee Ermey for several years on a TV show called Military Makeover. Gunny actually signed some of his scripts with "good writing" which was very nice. RIP Gunny.
And my hubby got to say hello to Jamie Lee Curtis when she was on the set of a TV show he was working on. If he had gotten the chance to talk with her more I am sure it would have been "What did your mother say about working with Hitchcock"? type of conversation, but there was no chance to talk. He actually had the chance to ask Melanie Griffith the same question back in the 80's about her mother working with Hitch, and she was very friendly and open. She said she was a very young child and Hitch creeped her out a bit.
As for working with certain editors, my husband has several he really likes for different reasons. Some of them are our personal friends outside of work too. Many of the editors are also musicians and have a sense of rhythm to the cuts.
Then, there's the opposite: There are certain editors that will make the job harder because they actually argue and backtalk the director/producers... and decide they don't "get" the way it was envisioned when it was shot. A good editor can make all the difference. A bad or lazy one is a nightmare. Hitch was blessed with excellent creative collaborators.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned that my husband is a writer/director of low budget films and TV.

---

I either missed this, or have forgeten...which I do at this age.

---

He's not famous or anything.

--

But he works in the field! That's important.

As I've mentioned, the closest I came was getting some school awards for a couple of screenplays(originals -- they don't sell much), an agent, and a handful of Hollywood meetings and rejection letters. I quit early , decided I'm much rather read about people who DID make it.

But your husband does the work...

---

The Ethan Coen story was from way back BEFORE the Coen brothers were famous at a screening of Blood Simple (when it first came out).

---

Funny how you never know who's going to "make it."

---

My husband talked with him in the parking lot after the screening, mostly about budget concerns and other boring topics. I think it's endearing to know that film was cut on their kitchen table.

--

Endearing and amazing...I mean I can't picture it!

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

He was quite proud to write for "Gunny" R. Lee Ermey for several years on a TV show called Military Makeover. Gunny actually signed some of his scripts with "good writing" which was very nice. RIP Gunny.

---

RIP indeed. He's classic in Full Metal Jacket -- funny how that Kubrick movie is just about the most UN-PC movie ever made, but survives as a neo-classic -- but I liked seeing him turn up in other roles and inhabiting them with "a touch of Gunny." He played the Ernest Borgnine villain(who gets eaten by rats) in the remake of Willard, for instance.

----
And my hubby got to say hello to Jamie Lee Curtis when she was on the set of a TV show he was working on. If he had gotten the chance to talk with her more I am sure it would have been "What did your mother say about working with Hitchcock"? type of conversation, but there was no chance to talk.

----

I recall her being on Letterman and being asked what she thought about them remaking Psycho. She said: "I don't think its worth saying another word about." Loyalty to her mother!

---

He actually had the chance to ask Melanie Griffith the same question back in the 80's about her mother working with Hitch, and she was very friendly and open. She said she was a very young child and Hitch creeped her out a bit.

---

Melanie Griffith always seemed nice to me in TV interviews. Eventually she gave the press a very nasty quote on Hitchcock, and actually said "and you can quote me on that." But I don't think she really knew him -- she just heard her mother's stories. I expect she wasn't inclined to say anything so nasty about Hitch to your husband.

---

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

As for working with certain editors, my husband has several he really likes for different reasons. Some of them are our personal friends outside of work too.

---

That's nice..there's this whole other side to the movie business, I think...a lot of non-star friendly people doing creative work.

---

Many of the editors are also musicians and have a sense of rhythm to the cuts.

---

That's the first of several "insights" you offer in your post above. Very educational. I have read that Hitchcock kept a metronome going both on his sets (during shooting) and int he editing room, but I can't figure out how you would use it to get tempo in either venue. Probably "just one of those stories."

---
Then, there's the opposite: There are certain editors that will make the job harder because they actually argue and backtalk the director/producers... and decide they don't "get" the way it was envisioned when it was shot.

---

As I recall, an editor named Aram Akavan fought with Coppola on The Godfather, tried to get him fired, wanted to replace him. But HE got fired.

---

A good editor can make all the difference. A bad or lazy one is a nightmare. Hitch was blessed with excellent creative collaborators.

---

In his Golden Era, Hitchcock seemed to settle in with George Tomasini. At least from Vertigo through The Birds, probably more(Rear Window?) The man died of a heart attack on a camping trip after having done Marnie, before Torn Curtain was made. It is sad that one reason all the Hitchcock pictures after Marnie are subpar might be that didn't have Tomasini editing them(but I think a good editor named Jon Jympson did the precision editing on Frenzy.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Tomasini died on a camping trip(55 or so, I think.) Cinematographer Robert Burks and his wife died in a home fire. Hitchocck lost key collaborators to tough causes of death. (But Burks died AFTER not being hired for Torn Curtain, which was photographed by John Warren; Herrman was famously fired off the same film; Tomasini was already dead by then.)

Its interesting...I guess...about the deaths of Tomasini and Burks. Likely they had no expectation that death was coming for them...no warning.

Just like a Hitchcock movie.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

they actually argue and backtalk the director/producers... and decide they don't "get" the way it was envisioned when it was shot
--
They dont' need to get it. The editor is there for making edits as the director envisioned it. Egos everywhere, hmm?

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

Thanks for your input! Haven't seen Cruising, but it sounds like a good candidate for a Directors Cut on DVD/BluRay if he hasn't done it already.

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 6 years ago

Friedkin's track-record with Director's Cuts, restorations, etc. is poor. The Exorcist's late '90s directors cut is unloved (I hate it), and the late '00s restoration of French Connection for Blu-ray was pilloried by, among others, the film's DP Roizman for its ultra blue color pallete (it's like the whole thing has been dipped in blue soup/slime!) and some sort of weird pastellization/technicolor effect apparently at Friedkin's specific request. There's been a second blu-ray edition that turns off the pastellization and restores detail but doesn't fix the blue-shift color atrocity.

Anyhow, Cruising's problems go far deeper than with most of Friedkin's other films. Apart from its general script third act formlessness, famously Friedkin had a half hour of explicit S&M sex-club footage in his cut that no studio would ever allow to be released. Apparently that footage was destroyed... and, notoriously, James Franco did an art project were he staged and filmed versions he imagined of these 'missing scenes'. All this energy expended over a film almost nobody likes or rates!

Friedkin's comeback films in the last 15 years - the excellent Bug and the good Killer Joe - are proof to me that energies of both film viewers and makers are far better devoted to new films than trying to breathe new life into old failures.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Friedkin's track-record with Director's Cuts, restorations, etc. is poor. The Exorcist's late '90s directors cut is unloved (I hate it), and the late '00s restoration of French Connection for Blu-ray was pilloried by, among others, the film's DP Roizman for its ultra blue color pallete (it's like the whole thing has been dipped in blue soup/slime!) and some sort of weird pastellization/technicolor effect apparently at Friedkin's specific request. There's been a second blu-ray edition that turns off the pastellization and restores detail but doesn't fix the blue-shift color atrocity.

---

Sounds like the worst director's cut tampering with classics since Lucas gave the opening shot of American Graffiti a blood-gold sunset matte sky! And changed the music at the end of Return of the Jedi.

I recall when the DVD of LA Confidential was released, there were no "deleted scenes" on it. I liked that. The story is the story as told in the first, well-reviewed release of the film, nothing more, nothing less.

---

Anyhow, Cruising's problems go far deeper than with most of Friedkin's other films. Apart from its general script third act formlessness, famously Friedkin had a half hour of explicit S&M sex-club footage in his cut that no studio would ever allow to be released. Apparently that footage was destroyed... and, notoriously, James Franco did an art project were he staged and filmed versions he imagined of these 'missing scenes'. All this energy expended over a film almost nobody likes or rates!

---

I've seen the film and the sex club footage that is IN the film is disturbing. I've read Friedkin's autobio, and he ran into a real buzz saw with the gay community(says he) for portraying only that side of things. Though evidently that side of things does exist -- just as it does in the straight world.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Recall that a few years ago I went to see Al Pacino "live and in person" doing a Q and A. Most of the discussion was a lovefest about The Godfather and Scarface and Glengarry Glen Ross and even Scent of a Woman...but when someone in the audience mentioned Cruising to Pacino...the place got noticeably silent and Pacino got noticeably uncomfortable. As I recall he mumbled something like "I signed on because I thought it was would be an important film, but its not very good, and I don't like it."

And then we went back to the love fest.

Speaking of S and M clubs --in my extensive readings on Psycho I read one eye-popping bit about how Joe Stefano "clued Hitchcock in", while they were writing Psycho , that HE(Stefano) frequented such clubs in Hollywood(straight, I guess.) Hitchcock wasn't appalled -- he was fascinated. And he had Stefano tell him about the clubs. One wonders sometimes if some of that world didn't "leak in" to the movie Psycho given its penchant for pain.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Friedkin's comeback films in the last 15 years - the excellent Bug and the good Killer Joe - are proof to me that energies of both film viewers and makers are far better devoted to new films than trying to breathe new life into old failures.

---

The William Freidkin story is another classic Hollywood tale. A few films before his hit The French Connection(noteably, the film of the landmark gay man play The Boys in the Band, which got none of the bad press of Cruising), then Connection back to back with The Exorcist(Oscar, hit, blockbuster) and then...a rather rapid collapse. Sorcerer crippled him, Cruising put him in the ground.

And yet, he could always manage to make another movie. I like "To Live and Die in LA"(1985, I think), even though its high style masks some real cliché storytelling.

But then came "the big save": Friedkin met and married Sherry Lansing -- just around the time she became the chief of Paramount Studios. Suddenly, Friedkin was attached to one of the most powerful people in Hollywood. Interestingly, she couldn't get him big projects to direct, but she got him some work -- notably "Jade."

And Friedkin did a cable version of "12 Angry Men" that used no women, but DID use some African-American and Hispanic men. Jack Lemmon took the Henry Fonda part and George C. Scott took the Lee J. Cobb part and -- both men were too old and frail for the roles. But James Gandolfini's in it -- Friedkin writes that Gandolfini told him how nervous he was to act in a scene with Jack Lemmon and Friedkin told him, "Someday, a young actor will be nervous to act with YOU."

Friedkin could be right, sometimes.

Eventually, Friedkin found his way to indies, to "Bug," to "Killer Joe" and to respect (though, ala Frenzy with Hitchcock, with very disturbing material.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

PS. If the footage survives to final cut, Friedkin will be referenced in QT's "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood." The 1969-set film has footage of a movie marquee with Friedkin's early film, "The Night They Raided Minsky's" which was actually a 1968 release. But perhaps it played again the next year; I assume QT was working from photographs or newspaper ads of 1969.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I don't think (split personality is) just a mere gimmick.

---

This truly is an interesting topic.

I brought in David Thomson's dismissal of the idea because in certain ways, he seems to be saying its a canard, "just in the movies." At the same time, Thomson's analysis renders Psycho meaningless. If Norman is faking his split personality...what's the point? And it seems impossible that he COULD. Why would he talk to his mother and do her voice if the whole thing isn't for real?

What I think CAN be fake...and IS fake...is in real life: any number of killers in custody "acting out a split personality" so as to convince the authorities that they aren't responsible for their murders. These people have all seen Psycho, Sybil, and The Three Faces of Eve, I guess.

We've spoken to the influences of Diabolique and House on Haunted Hill upon Psycho - but it occurs to me that it also follows both The Three Faces of Eve(split personality) and Some Like It Hot(cross-dressing), so Psycho really was the sum of a lot of parts...while being totally unique on its own.

---

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I've been researching this topic and several overlapping "splitting of the mind" subjects.

---

Glad you are sharing this with us. When you get right down to it, the reason that Norman Bates is a more famous Hitchcock psycho than Uncle Charlie, Bruno Anthony, or Bob Rusk is that he DOES have a split personality. Given the "game" Hitchcock was playing with the Psycho audience(fooling them as to the killer), Norman spends most of the film seeming something less THAN a villain. Mother is the killer...he's a sadly "trapped" accomplice. Or so we think.

And once the twist is revealed, we spend a lot of time(and several re-viewings) trying to figure out how Norman's split personality with Mother works. Now the recently concluded "Bates Motel" series gave us that relationship in endless detail, and showed us EXACTLY how it worked, but I like the more mysterious Hitchcock version myself.

---

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

The mind has the ability to create an amnesiac barrier. For example: Let's say you were in an accident, you might not remember it because your mind can compartmentalize certain memories that are too traumatic. These memories are saved to process later. Sometimes the loss of memory of an accident never returns, it's just blocked out.

---

I have read a couple of articles where someone who was badly injured in a car accident says, "I don't remember the accident at all; just making a turn in my car, and waking up in a hospital bed." The human mind(brain) evidently has protective mechanisms, eh?

---

Other times it floods back in slow motion with every detail, like reliving a memory. This is well known, but nobody really has any real answers to explain HOW this happens in the mind.

----

There have been several movies on this issue. Two star Gregory Peck, two were directed by Hitchcock, but they "overlap":

Spellbound: with Gregory Peck, by Hitchcock.
Marnie: without Gregory Peck, by Hitchcock.
Mirage: with Gregory Peck, without Hitchocck.

Of that group, Mirage(directed by Edward Dymtryk for 1965 release) is the "fun" one. Its modern and has action and chases(and wry Walter Matthau as a private eye as doomed as Arbogast, but without the blood.) Mirage also has the most aggravating approach to amnesia memory struggles -- very fast-cut and avant garde.

But the two Hitchcock films are more artful on the topic of amnesia and memory loss.

--

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

We might not have the instrumentation/technology to measure how it happens in the brain, but it is a real phenomenon. Brain scans seem to offer nothing to answer these questions.

---

Nor does brain scan offer much to ascertain what makes a person want to shoot 30 people to death from a hotel room. Nor would a brain scan offer much of a way to ascertain how Norman Bates' mind works.

The human brain remains a massively complex organism. And the human MIND remains mysterious -- the debate over spirituality or supernatural influences on human behavior is largely based in how the mind is controlled by its "owner."

----

The issue of evil enters in, too.

In the news in America has been the arrest of a 70-something psychopath (alleged though he is right now) who spent the late 70s and 80's going out at night , entering homes and raping women and eventually killing both women AND men. It seems to have been quite the sport for him: stalking his victims, checking out their homes in advance before entering them, eluding the police in footchases and fence jumps -- all in the name of terrorizing people with rape and murder. He was called the East (Sacramento) Area Rapist before he started moving all over California and became the Golden State Killer.

He's an old man now, and you can bet the authorities who are working on prosecuting him are also trying to enter his mind to find out why he did what he did.

Mental illness? Or just plain evil? And if evil, from what source?

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

The Golden State killer is a very odd story, I've been following it. And the way they got the DNA evidence and linked it to the killer is also strange, from one of those ancestry open share family tree DNA websites looking for family members.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Centuries ago it would be labelled "demonic possession" without a doubt.

---

And now it is called "out of balance brain chemistry." But I'm not sure it is any more "explainable" -- and is certainly not preventable.

---

I also think there are fakers out there, to muddy the waters.

---

I think so, too. As I wrote in another post, these killers saw Psycho and Sybil and figure its worth a try to fake it. Wasn't the movie Primal Fear about this issue?

---

The most disturbing element by far: mind control experiments. There is a book called "The Search for the Manchurian Candidate" by John Marks on this subject

---

Not to be too facile about this, but The Manchurian Candidate is my favorite film of 1962, and I suppose here is another example in thriller fiction of "how the mind works." Its rather like hypnosis(which Hitchcock told Truffaut, he thought, didn't "hold water on the screen" and caused Hitchcock to abandon a film of The Three Hostages.) Can human beings' minds be "programmed" to do evil deeds? Can people be "brainwashed"? Its a hard call for me.

The Manchurian Candidate of 1962 posited several Army men who were brainwashed as prisoners by the Communists . With weak and troubled Laurence Harvey, it "took" and he is capable of being ordeedr to kill like a robot. With tough and respected Frank Sinatra, the brainwashing is breaking down as the hero in him emerges to solve the mystery. It all makes sense in "movie terms"(oh how we like to "learn the rules" of a thriller)...but is it real?

Your discussion of the book is harrowing!

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Using the term "behavioral science experiments" doctors were trying to intentionally split the mind, sometimes using various traumatizing techniques.

---

How horrible, over history, doctors abusing their powers on human guinea pigs.

---

The book only has HALF of the story because half the files were destroyed before they could be released by the freedom of information act. There's a 60 minutes and a BBC mainstream news segment on youtube, if you want a "cleaned up nice summary" where they leave out the really depraved stuff (but it makes the point even edited).

---

The really depraved stuff? (Shudder.) I'm afraid there are two many historical instances of the military being the main villains in using psychological (or physical) means to control human development and health.

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

Yes, people can be brainwashed. To what degree? These ideas come from non-fiction. The more I look into these subjects, the more disgusted I become. John Marks explained how in the late 1940's there became tremendous concern inside the CIA and the US government about the possibilities of mind control. After a Hungarian Cardinal was acting very robotic and controlled when he was speaking at a trial, the question arose in Western government agencies: What if there was a kind of technology to have people commit acts against their own will? The precursor to the CIA was the OSS, and this is where these ideas started.
Sometimes called MKUltra, this mind control program attempted to develop "real" Manchurian Candidates who could commit assassinations and not remember. If they were captured, interrogation would lead no where since the assassin couldn't remember. Keeping secrets safe was the main idea, so the people involved wouldn't be able leak any info. Marks's book is based on the seven remaining boxes of documents from this program, the doctors involved destroyed the other seven boxes of documents. So we don't have a full record of everything. It is claimed to be unsuccessful. But, the CIA also denied doing these experiments in the first place. After being confronted with evidence, now it is admitted they were "testing the possibility".
When Sandoz pharmaceuticals developed LSD, the US government tried it as a truth serum, but it didn't work ('Hoffman's Potion' is a good documentary about Hoffman developing LSD, it's free on youtube). While not a truth serum, LSD did produce an altered state of consciousness, and many of the mind control experiments involved drugs and hypnosis, and electrical signals. Some people who they used for experimentation were on the fringes of society. The scientists and doctors behind these programs have no qualms about experimenting on humans because they consider people the same as animals. The world is their laboratory.

reply

[–] SavageBeauty (61) 6 years ago

Can they eliminate free will and create biological robots out of people? Can amnesia be induced?
The loss of free will is somewhat problematic, because the robot-people would not be very good spies. So they tinkered with the psyche. You still need a cunning spy, not a robot. I've also been reading about tradecraft (espionage), they needed a certain type of person for these ideas to work. There really is no way to do a conclusive lab experiment on some of this stuff, real world conditions became the testing ground at times. Intentionally inducing amnesia was admitted to be successful (using trauma, electric shock, drugs...).
These sick individuals might have done experiments on each other too. There was the case of CIA agent Frank Olson who was [unknowingly?] dosed with LSD and jumped out of a high rise window. His family did a secret second autopsy and found out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Olson His family is still claiming the CIA is withholding documents from them. It's a mystery whatever happened to him.
One of the current experts on multiple personalities (or DID) is Dr. Colin Ross, he explains how during these experiments, they used hypnosis and other methods on subjects to create new identities. These identities would stand up to a lie detector test successfully [he didn't do the experiments, he is critical of them]. Also they tried to create new identities for a person to carry out a task and then be totally amnesic about the task. - Dr. Ross explains "real world simulations where a woman would go into one room, retrieve a document, bring it back, come out of hypnotic sleep and have no memory of what she's done."

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

And now it is called "out of balance brain chemistry." But I'm not sure it is any more "explainable" -- and is certainly not preventable.
---
There are brain scans of OCD patients where the brain is structurally-different; called "grey matter" which exists in the temporal lobe (now I understand more what the doc in the Exorcist was hyped about). If you're already born with a predisposition to be mentally-ill/ overly-sensitive, and add an abusive (not sexual-abuse) or neglectful parent, along with external-factors, the cards are already stacked against you. The question in some psych-conditions is whether it borders on schizophrenia, or is a form of schizophrenia, including the negative-symptoms (as they label it) of schizophrenia vs. the positive symptoms of schizophrenia. The suicide-rate is at an all-time high, and many suicides may intuitively know that things will not-- and cannot-- change, at least in any significant way to make life desirable for that specific patient, regardless if the patient seeks help or not (especially older ones who simply do not have the innate-will).

reply

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

>>SB: So... What do you think happened to Norman to cause him to split into Mother and when do you think it occurred? I know, I know, I listened to the Psychiatrist explain it...<<

Don't listen to the psychiatrist. Listen to Hitchcock. AH is the one who is explaining throughout the film. The psychiatrist is a device to tie up the loose ends to make sure everyone got everything.

What AH is telling us in Norman's mother was f-ing Norman while he was growing up. To those who did not get this, "For years they lived as if there wasn't anyone else in the world." Even you mentioned severe sexual abuse with Three Faces of Eve.

Then in the next sentence, "But, then, she met a man.." This set off Norman as Hitchcock explains who became jealous and possessive of his lover. After the traumatic sexual abuse, "He was only half there to begin with."

AH explains throughout the movie as, "A son is a poor substitute for a lover."

Now, go look at the scene where Lila looks into Norman's baby and child room. How long do you think Norman was abused? Does it send shivers up your spine?

The fact he got away with all this against the British censors and later US censors is amazing and some good forturne.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

>>SB: So... What do you think happened to Norman to cause him to split into Mother and when do you think it occurred? I know, I know, I listened to the Psychiatrist explain it...<<

Don't listen to the psychiatrist. Listen to Hitchcock. AH is the one who is explaining throughout the film. The psychiatrist is a device to tie up the loose ends to make sure everyone got everything.

---

On the other hand, you gotta admit that you use a few of the psychiatrist's lines to make your case below("For years they lived as if there was no one else in the world" "And then she met a man"...."He was only half there to begin with." ) Hitchcock sets it all up, but the psychiatrist has the actual lines to spell it out.

----

What AH is telling us in Norman's mother was f-ing Norman while he was growing up. To those who did not get this, "For years they lived as if there wasn't anyone else in the world." Even you mentioned severe sexual abuse with Three Faces of Eve.

---

Its a reasonable analysis, to be sure. "A son is a poor substitute for a lover" is Norman's lines, but one role of the later psychiatrist scene is to LINK BACK to much of what Norman says to Marion in the parlor. The two scenes feed each other.

I will note that Joseph Stefano, as the screenwriter of Psycho IV, got a scene into that movie that he offered to Hitchcock for the Psycho script: a flashback to Young Mrs. Bates and Norman rolling around on the floor of Mother's room, playfully wrestling until Norman gets an erection -- and Mother goes into a rage, smacking him with her brush. The "Stefano version" had Norman having sexual feelings for Mom...but no consummation. (The Bloch novel has Norman having an erotic dream about Mother.)

But if one tosses out all this speculation in a sequel/prequel and the Bloch novel(where it doesn't match the movie)...I suppose the movie makes more than enough of a case for sexual abuse of Norman.

---

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Now, go look at the scene where Lila looks into Norman's baby and child room. How long do you think Norman was abused? Does it send shivers up your spine?

---

It does. That room also offers a heap of "arrested development," doesn't it. A grown man sleeping with his childhood dolls, in a bed that seems so small and grubby one wonders how Norman DOES sleep -- and imagine, with Mother's corpse in the other room every night.

----

The fact he got away with all this against the British censors and later US censors is amazing and some good forturne.

---

Its funny. Its as if Hitchocck and a few other filmmakers saw the censors as opponents in a game called "How Much Can We Sneak Past Them?" which, of course, meant for a lot of wit and profundity in his attempt to make things "clear buy unclear."

One more thing: the childhood sexual abuse may have set Norman up for the "split," but the shrink has another helpful line "Matricide is the most unbearable crime...most unbearable to the son who commits it." So it was actually KILLING his beloved Mother that put Norman over the line -- already a murderer, now he brought mother back to life in a second personality.

----

I've mentioned how Hitchcock only gave us one more psycho after Psycho: Bob Rusk in Frenzy. We get very little to go on, but we get a little:

We meet Rusk's mother, a rather goofy old woman who seems harmless but...something's off. She's kind of sleazy in how she says to Richard Blaney "Pul-eezed to meetcha, I'm shurre!" ("Pleased to meet you, I'm sure.")

The only item on Rusk's otherwise bare mantel is: a photo of Mother. Today. No father. No siblings. And obviously , no wife. Just Mrs. Rusk. "No one else in the world."

Rusk keeps quoting things his mother said to him, but one is a bit weird and sexual: "Beauluh, peel me a grape" that's what me mum used to say." I believe that was a line from the very sexual Mae West.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

So you put it together -- just on the surface -- and Rusk comes across as a guy who lived alone with his mother, no father, no siblings...and possibly in a sexually abusive place of its own. But he hasn't murdered or rejected his mother...he keeps her in his life as a living being(she lives down in Kent, but visits him in London), and as the sole "worshipee" on his mantel.

I would suspect that sexual psychopaths like Rusk have something wrong in their brains to begin with(as did Norman -- "he was disturbed since his father died", says the psychiatrist) -- but it has been written that for many psychopathic personalities, an abusive home life puts them over the line to murder and rape. In better homes, they keep their tempers tamped down better. If Rusk's home was creepy and he was subjected to abuse....?

Anyway, I kind of wonder what a "psychiatrist scene" about Bob Rusk would have been like. I expect Hitchcock knew the scene in Psycho had a bad rep, so he skipped it this next time.

reply

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

>>It does. That room also offers a heap of "arrested development," doesn't it. A grown man sleeping with his childhood dolls, in a bed that seems so small and grubby one wonders how Norman DOES sleep -- and imagine, with Mother's corpse in the other room every night.<<

I think it shows child, teen and adult. Another clue to Norman's personality that we do not get to dwell on. Maybe the book that Lila looked at was pornographic. If it was, then I'm sure she would've dwelled on it more to look for clues. Then we see the Eroica lp for long seconds which we interpret as erotica. Dirty minds, I know. The LP and book could've been mother's. We don't know and probably don't think it's hers but Norman's appetite. It gets us off mother and into Norman, but we still can't put 2 + 2 together. Yet, the clues are there!

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 6 years ago

What AH is telling us in Norman's mother was f-ing Norman while he was growing up.

This possibility of sexual abuse is consistent with everything we see and hear, but it's far from implied by it. After all, we could imagine Hitch tacking something like the final shot of Repulsion (camera pushes in on a crowded family photograph in Catherine Deneuve's apartment revealing Deneuve as a young girl glaring at her father) on to the end of Psycho if he'd *really* wanted to guide our interpretations in that direction.

For myself, after Repulsion, Chinatown, Twin Peaks, Red Riding Trilogy, and so on, I'm a bit sick of child sexual abuse being wheeled in as a 'final explanation' and thus really appreciate that Psycho *doesn't* force us in this direction. I *like* the fact that Psycho never allows to settle how much agency to give Norman. Maybe *Norma* Bates was a monster and a predator and in that sense directly gave birth to Norman's crazy, but equally maybe she was just a hard-working solo parent, somewhat domineering (maybe warm, maybe cold, who knows?) with a too-attached only child who responded very very badly when Norma finally started to seek out some personal happiness for herself. We only have Norman's theatrics ventriloquizing Mom to base any negative view of Norma on, and for all we really know she could be utterly blameless. It's reasonable to suspect that that's *not* the case, that 'there's no smoke without fire', etc. but that we could be besmirching a basically good woman by allowing our suspicions to run in that direction also haunts us. In my view, Psycho's better for leaving us suspended in this way (rather than offering a closing explanatory note a la Repulsion).

Note that The Shining ends with a Repulsion-style explanatory final shot but in typical Kubrick fashion that shot has multiple interpretations. And, famously, some people think that there's a child sexual abuse subtext to be found in The Shining and again in Eyes Wide Shut...

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

For myself, after Repulsion, Chinatown, Twin Peaks, Red Riding Trilogy, and so on, I'm a bit sick of child sexual abuse being wheeled in as a 'final explanation' and thus really appreciate that Psycho *doesn't* force us in this direction. I *like* the fact that Psycho never allows to settle how much agency to give Norman. Maybe *Norma* Bates was a monster and a predator and in that sense directly gave birth to Norman's crazy, but equally maybe she was just a hard-working solo parent, somewhat domineering (maybe warm, maybe cold, who knows?) with a too-attached only child who responded very very badly when Norma finally started to seek out some personal happiness for herself.

---

Yes, we aren't given any evidence of sexual abuse(the psychiatrist doesn't allude to it, for instance, even as a guess beyond "they lived like there was no one else in the world) and it is entirely possible -- Psycho IV and Bates Motel aside -- that in the Hitchcock version, the original Mrs. Bates was A-OK. We know that Norman was pretty much a psycho ("Disturbed, ever since his father died," says the shrink -- and how'd he know THAT?) from earlier on, and he killed mother and her boyfriend. He might have been a "bad seed."

In Bloch's book, mother was a monster who beat Norman when she caught him masterbating, and rather the opposite of a sexual abuser -- despite Norman's own occasional sexual feelings towards his mother.

And even in the backstory of Psycho IV, the young and pretty Mrs Bates seemed content to tease her son on the one hand sexually while punishing him for sexual thoughts about her, on the other. And eventually she picked up the boyfriend and rather rubbed Norman's nose in her sexual relationship with the loutish character.

In short...any and many possibilities are out there for how bad Norman Bates' mother was. What we do know is that HE was bad -- a killer of his own mother -- and that the matricide seems to have caused the personality split.

reply

[–] dt123 (704) 6 years ago

If you notice, the film is full of mirrors — to literally reflect the two sides of everyone. I remember a film class in college where, on 2nd viewing, the teacher called out each time a mirror was used. It’s often very subtle.

reply

[–] Faridah (1363) 6 years ago

I may get a lot of hate or disbelief for this but I was diagnosed with DID about 15yrs ago. I’m now what’s called “merged” and pretty much functional. I’ve been out of therapy for about 8yrs or so. Off medication too.

I just watched this movie for the first time. I saw the remake in theaters but don’t remember much of it. But I did remember the surprise ending. I didn’t know or remember though the diagnosis of DID. I personally found it very odd.

I would say he doesn’t have DID/MPD. Why? Well, first off the personalities of someone with DID are not based off real people. They are parts created to survive. The body (original born person) can’t handle what’s going on so someone else takes over while “the body” steps back.

Norman I suspect was abused in some form by his controlling mother. I also read there may have been sexual stuff going on between them too. So yes that would be a reason for another personality to form but definitely not Mother the one abusing him.

I’d say the act of him or maybe even yet another personality killing Mother and her lover or husband disturb him a lot! I suspect he couldn’t handle his mom being gone. So he brought her body back. He was lonely so he talked to her. My great aunt use to talk to her dead husband like he was still alive but Norman definitely took this to another level. He dressed like her too.

My guess for the murders were his fear of others finding out about the body of Mother being there.

I could be completely wrong but I do not see this as a diagnosis of DID what so ever and I’ve read plenty of book about it. I’ve also been in group therapy for it and individual therapy. I have also worked as part of research at a near by university. So I know a lot about DID.

I’m watching The Making Of Psycho on YouTube right now and it just showed the ending with the dr and Norman with the blanket around him. Someone said he was now Mother forever. I guess him slipping into the identity of his mother could be guilt yet again over killing her. I also wonder if there was a sexual relationship aka incest maybe he was jealous of the husband and that’s why he killed both her and him. His guilt drove him even more mad and he can’t live without her so he eventually becomes her full time. He can’t live with himself for murdering others either.

But again this is not DID. There is always other personalities there not just one. Remember DID use to be multiple personality disorder. This means many not just one.

reply

[–] Faridah (1363) 6 years ago

I was just talking about this with a friend and she pointed out something that also makes sense. She grew up physically and emotionally abused. I was too and abused in other ways. But she reminded me even years now after her mother’s desth she still hears her mothers insults in her mind. She will get all dressed ready for work and look in the mirror. Her mind replays insults from her mom of how trashy and ugly she looks. The same is similar in some ways with Norman. His mom is dead yet she is still there controlling his every move. Again this is not DID.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I would say he doesn’t have DID/MPD. Why? Well, first off the personalities of someone with DID are not based off real people.

----

Interesting. I know with films like Sybil and The Three Faces of Eve, the other personalities do seem like "fictional creations." One mystery about Mrs. Bates in Psycho, though is: did Norman create a FAKE "Mrs. Bates"(evil, witch-like, a crone) in lieu of what may well have been a normal mother?

---

They are parts created to survive. The body (original born person) can’t handle what’s going on so someone else takes over while “the body” steps back.

---

Well, the psychiatrist makes fairly clear -- if we wish to accept it -- that "matricide is the most unbearable crime of all, most unbearable to the son who commits it." Norman's killing of his mother(aside from the boyfriend) is presented as something so traumatic to his psyche that it triggered everything else - but someone who can kill his own mother is very, very disturbed to begin with.

And recall that he killed mother by poisoning her with strychnine. "Ugly way to die," noted Sheriff Chambers. In Psycho IV, The Beginning, that killing is portrayed as a flashback in all its extended, overlong agony for the woman who brought Norman into the world, and young Norman has to look into his mother's eyes as she dies(vomiting out huge amounts of liquid from her mouth.) Even without the dramatization in Psycho IV, the matricide described in Psycho sounds bad enough.

---

---

Norman I suspect was abused in some form by his controlling mother. I also read there may have been sexual stuff going on between them too. So yes that would be a reason for another personality to form but definitely not Mother the one abusing him.

---
Interesting distinction. I must say , though, that Hitchcock's film doesn't really pinpoint if the mother sexually abused Norman or not. The only version of Mrs. Bates we get in the movie seems to hate sexual matters "because they disgust me," she says. She's puritan, repressive.

----

I’d say the act of him or maybe even yet another personality killing Mother and her lover or husband disturb him a lot! I suspect he couldn’t handle his mom being gone. So he brought her body back. He was lonely so he talked to her. My great aunt use to talk to her dead husband like he was still alive but Norman definitely took this to another level. He dressed like her too.

----

Its always interesting to me that in our desire to somehow communicate with our dead loved ones -- we can see them (in a positive light) as "angels," and yet, for scary horror purposes, they can be ghosts.

But that is the metaphysical take. Certainly talking to the dead is an old style way of delivering comfort to oneself. I'm reminded of Dolly in "Hello, Dolly" always walking around talking to her dead husband as if she has created him as an imaginary friend(until "he" communicates with her, through Vandergelder.)

I once worked in an office, as a very young person, with two older women, both widows. I recall how most of their day's conversation was all about their late men -- how one did this all the time, and one did that all the time. It was as if the men weren't really gone. I felt that I came to "know" these men long after they were dead.

----

My guess for the murders were his fear of others finding out about the body of Mother being there.

---

One of the ways in which both Marion and Arbogast are doomed is that -- Norman tells them each about Mother. Norman volunteers mother's existence to Marion(Marion heard mother's voice -- and maybe Norman staged that, WANTED Marion to hear Mother's voice); Arbogast forces Norman to admit there is a mother up there in the house. With Arbogast in particular, Norman is probably so afraid to let the detective go up "to meet the mother" not so much because he is worried that Mother will kill the private eye - but that the private eye will discover the secret: mother is dead. Norman has the same panic when he realizes that Lila is up alone in the house with Mother -- likely deep in his mind, he KNOWS the woman is dead, and must never be "met" by anyone.

And to my original point here: once Norman knows that Marion and Arbogast know about mother even existing -- a time comes when each of them must die.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Someone said he was now Mother forever. His guilt drove him even more mad and he can’t live without her so he eventually becomes her full time.

---

"When the mind houses two personalities, there is always a conflict, a battle. In Norman's case, the battle is over, and the dominant personality has won."

One reason I really don't like any of the Psycho sequels: they all rather negate the Norman's final transformation into mother permanently("probably for all time") at the end of the original. The sequels keep giving us a Norman who "returns back to normal, cured" -- though in both sequels, he ends up with the split personality again.

---

He can’t live with himself for murdering others either.

---

Hitchcock, not usually one for deep quotes, gave Truffaut one about Psycho and Norman's stuffed birds: "He knows they are watching him, and this appeals to his masochism. He can see his guilt reflected in their eyes."

Though outwardly Norman seems unruffled by the murders of Marion and Arbogast("He came after the girl, and now someone will come after him," he says to Mother with little upset)....I would expect that a killer with Norman's "nice" side could be haunted by those killings, even if he was supposedly in a blackout when he committed them.

reply