Hitchcock's "Pay Off the Interest on the First Big Shock" Strategy for Psycho (SPOILERS)

In his various interviews, Hitchcock had a lot of quotes that he repeated and repeated and repeated. Some were pretty intelligent and interesting; some just "quotes for quotes sake."

But I always liked how he described the structure of Psycho, which was:

To put into the film, "very early on," one great big violent shocker of a scene -- the shower scene of course -- and then to "decrease the violence" as the film went on until "it was transferred into the minds of the audience."

Thus does a skilled storyteller decide on how to tell his story. Now, this is exactly the story structure that was given to him via Robert Bloch's novel -- hell, the shower murder happens at the end of three short chapters -- but to turn it into a "filmic version" required some finesse. Bloch's quick shockeroo on the page ("It was the knife that cut off her scream. And her Head.") becomes a big montage flourish on the screen, with a famous actress getting the knife.

But that's how a suspense film COULD work in 1960. Once Janet Leigh has died -- and so horribly, and for such a lengthy amount of time -- any time anyone comes to the Bates Motel, the suspense kicks in immediately and terror rules the screen (in our minds.)

Take Arbogast. His long sequence with Norman Bates is fun enough to watch as a ping-pong tempo interrogation. But to 1960 audiences, every moment of the scene HAD to have been fraught with terror. Because we knew what happened to Janet Leigh. We KNEW how vicious and monstrous and, yes -- psycho -- Mrs. Bates was. As Arbogast kept getting closer to the truth, audiences kept waiting for mother to appear behind him(particularly when he went out on the porch the second time with Norman, his back turned to the House.)

And eventually , the trap DOES spring on Arbogast. Hitch doesn't spend the rest of Psycho after the shower murder "selling the sizzle but no steak." He doesn't cheat. We get a second murder. A very necessary second murder -- PROOF that Mother is a psycho, a killer, able to kill men as well as women.

But, per Hitchcock , there is less violence to the Arbogast killing. Actually what he said in one interview was "the second murder is quicker, but more terrifying" -- which is true, because its one of those big jump-scare BOO! attacks that used to make screen history. (See also: Wait Until Dark, Jaws.) Now...not so much. Me, I'm not sure the second murder is "less violent" than the first. The shower murder is more abstract. With Arbogast, that big ol' knife slashes him right in the face, and he is finished off savagely. But the whole thing is sure quicker than the shower murder.

From Arbogast's death on, Hitchcock's theory is really working. Now the audience is in trembling terror the second that Sam and Lila drive out to the Bates Motel, and when Lila enters the HOUSE?!! Fuggeddaboudit! Rarely in movie history has one cheap movie ticket so much shake-and-quake to the human nervous system. And -- without a drop of blood being spilled after Arbogast gets it.

Ah, but it seems so "quaint," now. Hitchocck's strategy. "One big murder up front" paying off in the rest of the movie being so suspenseful. Modernly, audiences want one big murder AFTER the big murder up front, and then another, and then another. To diminishing effect.

And: in Psycho II, the most violent murder is one near the end. A total reversal of Hitchocck's rule. (You could say this applies to Jaws, too -- Spielberg saves the worst for last.)

And this: that "one big shock murder up front" that launches all the terror in Psycho famously comes...47 minutes in! That's 47 minutes before there even IS a shock in Psycho. Good thing Hitchcock loaded those minutes with a sex scene(of sorts) to open, and plenty of paranoia, suspense and superior filmmaking. The movie probably becomes a horror movie at the 30 minute mark...when we first see The House and Mother in the Window, classic horror tropes in a modern context. But that big shockeroo that launches the whole terror of Psycho? 47 minute mark. With only 62 minutes left...about an hour of terror, all things considered.

Still, Hitchcock prided himself on doing this -- on putting the big violence up front in Psycho and then decreasing it -- and it sure did work that time (Said Peter Bogdanovich to Hitchocck in an interview: "You did that in Frenzy, too" and Hitchocck said "Yes, same thing" -- except it wasn't really. No screams.)

Isn't it charming to think that a director once even THOUGHT about how to structure a shocker?

And it still works, if you've a mind to watch it that way....