MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Frank Albertson as Cassidy

Frank Albertson as Cassidy


Some years ago, probably at imdb, I did a post which, I suppose was considered a bit distasteful. I think it was removed by an administrator. My working premise at the time was that only three leads from Psycho remained alive -- John Gavin, Vera Miles, and Pat Hitchcock. (Gavin has since passed, leaving only the reclusive Miles and Hitchcock -- in their 80's and 90's.)

My premise was to research when all the OTHER cast members of Psycho passed away. As actors in a 1960 film, most of them made it just fine through the 60s, 70s and 80's. It was in the 90's that we started losing them. Anthony Perkins -- so young in Psycho in '60 (he was 27) died in 1992(at 60), four years before Martin Balsam(1996, at 76). Janet Leigh passed in 2003. So the young lead of Psycho actually passed before the rest of the leads.

I'll leave alone when the Highway Patrolman and California Charlie left us, but my research turned up one surprise: Frank Albertson(Cassidy), passed in 1964, only four years after Psycho came out, the first loss from the cast of this very famous movie.

And I think this rather informs the movie. Because we film and TV watchers got DECADES more to watch Perkins and Leigh and Balsam and Miles work and age, but Albertson seems to have disappeared almost immediately. He's the "unique" player in Psycho, the one with a pittance of other roles to compare his Psycho role TO.

The big one is from way back in 1946 -- It's a Wonderful Life. He's the guy who comes up with the most money to save James Stewart at the end; he's not AROUND at the end, but we meet him earlier in the film. I honestly can't remember how many scenes he has.

A cursory review of his imdb credits show us that he made 194 appearances in film and TV! From 1928 on. A ton of TV shows in the fifties and early sixties. After Psycho, he appeared in Bye Bye Birdie(with Janet Leigh) and the TV show Destry(starring John Gavin) so...a reunion.

He died "suddenly" says imdb, at 55. (I'll guess heart attack.)

And that was it. But Psycho is his big one now, a famous bit of work by a man who, despite 194 appearances, seems pretty mysterious and unknown now (oh, to a younger generation, EVERYBODY in Psycho is mysterious and unknown now, let's face it -- but Albertson was sooner.)

I've always felt that, compared to NXNW on one side of it and The Birds on the other, Psycho begins quite weirdly in its line-up of supporting characters. Even in the "normal" first 30 minutes of this horror movie(before any horror comes), these folks are all out of kilter, oppressive, and very much of their 1959/1960 era. The nervous, rodentoid real estate boss who won't air condition his secretaries' office in Arizona heat; the menacing yet helpful highway cop; the car salesman who doesn't seem like he wants to MAKE a sale -- something a bit off with all of them. But none worse than Cassidy, who, as captured by Frank Albertson, comes on as slimy and lecherous and creepy, with a weirdly handsome Southwestern courtliness to him, too(something about the Stetson and the pencil thin moustache, I suppose.)

There are two things, that I think Cassidy ISN'T, though some writers have accused him of it. One called him "fat." No, actually he's rather slim and reedy, something of the horse riding cowboy to him. And -- despite all his talk of "getting a little drinkin' done" and being "dyin' of thirstiroonie"(heh -- thirstiroonie?) we don't see him as a sloppy, slurring drunk. He's perhaps too demonstrative, and his lecherous looks at Marion seem a little wobbly at times but -- its a good performance. Some lesser actor(for a lesser director) could have played Cassidy as more of a staggering lush and lecher. This guy has a certain amount of control to him, he's a noveau riche boor.

Cassidy takes a position of sitting on Marion's desk and leaning into her while looming over her. Interesting -- 12 years later, Barry Foster's Bob Rusk will assume the same position on the desk of marriage counselor Brenda Blaney -- and I wonder if Hitchcockian fans in 1972 made the connection back to Cassidy. Rusk, of course, will 'go all the way" and assault Blaney. Cassidy - with witnesses all around him(Lowery, Caroline) will settle for unnerving Marion with his invasion of her space (and man, he looks her up and down and clearly undresses her with his eyes -- MORE great acting. You can SEE it.)

What's odd is that Cassidy connects his lecherous domination of Marion's desk with a discussion of his fatherly love for "my baby" the 18-year old (young today, not so much then) who is "getting married away from me" and to whom he is awarding $40,000 for a house(do the inflation math -- this is a rich dad.) Somehow, the mix of Cassidy the Father and Cassidy the Lecher (he nastily notes to Marion that "my baby "is his daughter and NOT Marion) comes out to suggest: The Father as a Lecher to his own daughter! (There's just something not right about it.)




reply

As I've noted before, one weird aspect of Psycho is the feeling that when Cassidy leaves Psycho, he very likely enters ANOTHER horror movie of his own making: his family life. He's just that creepy. I also like how he brings up Las Vegas("The playground of the world!") to Marion, suggesting Rat Pack 1960 in a brief line and reminding us that a lot of Arizona rich folk played in Vegas back then. (I see Arbogast as of this crowd, too, not Arizona rich -- but serving them, and probably quite familiar with Vegas in his PI work and extracurricular dating.)

Of course, the main course of Psycho is served long after Cassidy leaves the movie(last seen looking pretty happy and high behind Lowery at the crosswalk), and Marion has left Phoenix far behind. Norman Bates, the Bates Motel and the Bates House are the main elements of the main story of Psycho. But I gotta hand it to Frank Albertson as Cassidy to make sure that the first half hour of Psycho is almost as unsettling as the later Gothic parts.

One more thing: Cassidy is one of two characters who, if we want , we can picture doing things on the same Saturday that is the last day of Marion Crane's life. Cassidy is at his daughter's wedding(probably dominating everything and everybody with his wealth and power); Lila Crane is dutifully using the weekend to do some buying in Tuscon (and likely staying at a motel on Saturday night, too.)

reply

And he inspired the funniest line in the movie, by Pat Hitchcock...He was flirting with you, he must've noticed my wedding ring.

reply

That's a great line.

Funny thing: in the 1960 original, Hitchcock pretty much dissed his own daughter by casting her as the "dowdy" secretary who saying that was basically dissing herself.

But in Gus Van Sant's 1998 remake, he gave the role and the line to Rita Wilson -- an attractive woman arguably more attractive than Anne Heche(as Marion) and -- the joke went away. Suddenly it was just one attractive female hassling another one(and maybe upset she wasn't flirted with.)

Anyway, the Hitchcock original is better...even at the expense of his own daughter!

reply

Great analyses, and you have to admire her spunk and self-confidence...she actually thought she was just as flirtable as Janet.

reply

she actually thought she was just as flirtable as Janet.

---

Yes, she did. The joke is kind of on us, and our meanness about "how people look."

I always compare Hitchcock casting his daughter Pat (in three movies) to Francis Coppola casting his daughter Sofia in Godfather III. Sofia substituted in for Winona Ryder in a role meant, frankly, for a pretty young woman who could drive a young Mafia man(Andy Garcia) mad with love. Sofia Coppola was not particularly beautiful and not a particularly good actress, and she proved miscast by her father, albeit in a glamour role.

But Hitchcock cast HIS daughter in dowdy, comic relief roles. He was a professional: he cast his daughter correctly. No reason to embarrass her with a glamour lead. Now that said, in Strangers on a Train, Pat Hitchcock's "mouthy little sister" manages to attract a cop as a sweetheart, and in Psycho, its clear she found a man to marry her (albeit for a "wedding night with tranquilizers.") In other words, Hitchcock cast his daughter as attractive ENOUGH. She was classically trained as an actress and GOOD as an actress.

reply

Side-note:

The character of Tom Cassidy is one of the few where scholars have given us Hitchcock's first choice of casting and he was interesting:

Hitchcock wanted an actor named Alan Reed for the role.

In 1960, the year that Psycho came out, Alan Reed got very famous for another cultural artifact: he was the voice of Fred Flintstone. Psycho came out in the summer of '60; The Flintstones debuted that fall.

We dodged a bullet in movie history! Can you imagine Janet Leigh being flirted with by FRED FLINTSTONE? Voice-wise, at least. In looks, Alan Reed was tough looking Broderick Crawford type, except uglier. (He is the convict who Audrey Hepburn visits in Breakfast at Tiffany's made in 1961.)

As it stands, Psycho has an inadvertent laugh at the end when Ted "Ted Baxter" Knight of the Mary Tyler Moore show silently hands Norman a blanket in the cell. At screenings of Psyhco in the 70's and 80's, that got a big laugh. About 10 years ago, I saw Psycho with a crowd and: no laugh. Nobody knew who Ted Knight WAS, anymore. Except older folks like me.

reply

But in Gus Van Sant's 1998 remake, he gave the role and the line to Rita Wilson -- an attractive woman arguably more attractive than Anne Heche (as Marion) and -- the joke went away.
I'd forgotten that! Van Sant's picture is really something of a marvel: at first glance it's just a little flat and disappointing/pointless, but once you start to take a *close* look at it, it starts to seem completely insane. Almost every micro-decision it involves is at best a baffling provocation. Maybe Van Sant's awareness of Psycho's status (after Hitchcock-Truffaut & the Anobile book) as *the* most pored over film ever made led him (at least subconsciously) to try to *get the goat* of a certain sort of film-obsessive by travestying the original. Miscasting without adjusting dialogue appropriately is just one aspect of that. Rewatching the scene I'm reminded that I *hated* it. For example, the first lines about getting tranquilizers from Mom's doctor for a (loss-of virginity) wedding night seem utterly bizarre in 1998 period, let alone coming from sexy, ray of sunshine Rita Wilson. In effect those lines make us feel like Van Sant's offering us a spoof of period incongruity a la The Brady Bunch Movie or (later) The Stepford Wives remake. I could go on.... all the mugging and winking between the women in the scene not only (goat-gettingly?) flouts Hitchcock's general preference for relatively impassive acting styles, it also puts the women 'on the same level' rather than Marion being Caroline's social superior & very much in her own world as in the original. The whole thing is just a big mess and the closer you look the dafter it gets.

Of course Psycho (1998) is a *fascinating* omnishambles if you're in the right mood! The micro-wrongness of so much in Van Sant's version *does* help one see & appreciate the original's clarity of intention & Swiss watch precision.

reply

But in Gus Van Sant's 1998 remake, he gave the role and the line to Rita Wilson -- an attractive woman arguably more attractive than Anne Heche (as Marion) and -- the joke went away.

----

I'd forgotten that! Van Sant's picture is really something of a marvel: at first glance it's just a little flat and disappointing/pointless, but once you start to take a *close* look at it, it starts to seem completely insane. Almost every micro-decision it involves is at best a baffling provocation.

---

I think it is rather a marvel of provocation, in its own backfiring way. Remakes CAN work (True Grit comes to mind), and Van Sant "gifted" himself by saying that THIS remake would be "shot for shot, line for line" so all he really had to do was to "deliver the same movie Hitchcock did." Which he DID(plot-wise, line-wise, and shot-wise) but with so many things "off" that one wondered why he sabotaged himself.

---

Maybe Van Sant's awareness of Psycho's status (after Hitchcock-Truffaut & the Anobile book) as *the* most pored over film ever made led him (at least subconsciously) to try to *get the goat* of a certain sort of film-obsessive by travestying the original.

---

Well, he got us. One of my OTHER statements about Van Sant's Psycho (the big one is coming up later, overused though I've made it) is that "Van Sant's Psycho was made by a man who saw Psycho three times for an audience that saw Psycho 103 times." He just didn't "zero in" on things that clicked(for instance, the "Hitchcock rhyme" of Arbogast walking away from Norman on the porch the same way he walked away from Sam and Lila at the hardware store; the shots were different this time.

reply

And in a weirdly egregious error, he cut Arbogast's phone booth line ("I'll be back in an hour or less" ) so that it made no sense later when Lila told Sam "Sam..he said an hour...or less.") NO he didn't. Not in the Van Sant version. Somebody forgot how a line in the phone booth scene connected to a line at the hardware store later. I think Van Sant lost track of the exactitude of the Psycho screenplay, make "spur of the moment decisions"("oh drop that line about an hour or less") that screwed up the script. Its rather embarrassing how badly some of those decisions played out.

reply

Miscasting without adjusting dialogue appropriately is just one aspect of that.

---

Yes. With Rita Wilson as Caroline with no line changes, the whole scene went wrong. Interestingly, Van Sant got Cassidy very RIGHT: handsome Chad Everett now severely wrinkled and rotted looking, channeling Frank Albertson's lech routine quite well. A few other Psycho remake castings were similarly "on target" -- the highway patrolman for one, and even a slightly less bucolic sheriff chambers.
But miscasting was more the name of the game. Several directors said the key to a good movie-- maybe a great one -- is to get the casting right. Kubrick said that he believed The Godfather to be "the best cast movie ever made." It might be. Hitchcock's Psycho comes close, even with John Gavin(an MCA forced-casting) in it.

---

Rewatching the scene I'm reminded that I *hated* it. For example, the first lines about getting tranquilizers from Mom's doctor for a (loss-of virginity) wedding night seem utterly bizarre in 1998 period,

---

Another lesson from Van Sant's Psycho. No movie is totally timeless. Psycho is OF 1960.

---

reply

let alone coming from sexy, ray of sunshine Rita Wilson. In effect those lines make us feel like Van Sant's offering us a spoof of period incongruity a la The Brady Bunch Movie or (later) The Stepford Wives remake. I could go on.... all the mugging and winking between the women in the scene not only (goat-gettingly?) flouts Hitchcock's general preference for relatively impassive acting styles, it also puts the women 'on the same level' rather than Marion being Caroline's social superior & very much in her own world as in the original.

---

A fairly fine scene from Hitchcock(Hamlet it wasn't, but crisp American dialogue and staging it was) becomes pretty bad in the Van Sant. Case in point: the massive mugging Anne Heche does when Cassidy walks away from her -- Janet Leigh just gave Cassidy a neutral sideways glance that suggested her hidden contempt. We got it.

---

The whole thing is just a big mess and the closer you look the dafter it gets.

---

I had not seen Van Sant's Psycho in a long time, but the other night it was on cable(uncut) and I watched it all the way through. It seemed worse with the passage of time -- dated to 1998 in its color and costumes. Though I will say that all five leads in the remake are still going strong today -- Heche and Macy on cable, the rest prominent in movies. Viggo is a pretty big star. Julianne Moore is bankable. VV has his wacky/serious career.

And, oh, my favorite self-coined phrase for Van Sant's Psycho: "The experiment that succeeded by failing." I still believe that. An experiment it was.

reply

About Cassidy:

Coupled with his lechery, his high-living, freewheeling manner and repeated references to "my" baby is the noteworthy absence of any mention of a Mrs. Cassidy, current, former or deceased. And from this, the picture one can conjure is of a girl who's been dominated and controlled by him her entire life. Is the marriage an attempt to break free the minute she's of age? A futile one, of course, given daddy's intent to maintain that presence and control by way of his purchase of a house for them.

There's another possibility: is it simply an example of an indulgent father's acceding to a spoiled daughter's every wish? It's rather fun to consider 18-year-old "Baby" as a selfish and manipulative child who's always had him wrapped around her little finger. The script as written even offers this expansion of his attitude:

"That penniless punk she's marryin'... (laughs). Probably a good kid. It's just that I hate him."

In either case, we get rather a paternal flip-side of the maternal figures the film offers: innocuously nosy and meddlesome in the case of Caroline's mother (who'll go so far as plying her daughter with tranquilizers to forestall wedding-night sex); dictatorial and hypercritical in the case of Mrs. Bates. Cassidy, whether domineering or led-by-the-nose, is positively worshipful toward his offspring, and will benefit her with his magnanimity to suit her purposes...or his own.

reply

About Albertson:

Most of my exposure to his other work came after having seen Psycho, and I've come to admire his reliable versatility, from "mangenue" roles in early talkie musicals, as Katharine Hepburn's desperate, underachieving brother in Alice Adams or the eager hayseed playwright in Room Service to the back-slapping Sam Wainwright, a cynically weary comedy writer in The Hucksters and an acerbic naval officer in The Enemy Below, along with a collection of fast-talking reporters, politicians and such.

Cassidy's one of those "five minute wonder" performances that's such a delight to see a player pull out of his back pocket toward the end of his career, displaying dimensions at which even three prior decades of work hadn't hinted.

That said, I can easily see Reed having carried it off just fine, Fred Flintstone notwithstanding. Some of his most noteworthy work came quite early in his film career, as a seedy blackmailer who gets brutally abused by John Garfield in The Postman Always Rings Twice.

reply

About Cassidy:

---

Hey, Doghouse!

Coupled with his lechery, his high-living, freewheeling manner and repeated references to "my" baby is the noteworthy absence of any mention of a Mrs. Cassidy, current, former or deceased.

---

Indeed. Maybe's he's divorced and on a second younger wife. Maybe he's still married...but he likely fools around, in Vegas, the playground of the world.

---


And from this, the picture one can conjure is of a girl who's been dominated and controlled by him her entire life. Is the marriage an attempt to break free the minute she's of age? A futile one, of course, given daddy's intent to maintain that presence and control by way of his purchase of a house for them.

---

Yes, one senses all of that in just a few crisp sentences of dialogue. Even back then 18 year old marrieds suggested "kids who wanted out of the house." But in a house BOUGHT by daddy? His control is heavy. And when he says the girl "never had an unhappy day in one of those 18 years" well -- maybe yes. Maybe not. (This "rhymes" with Norman later saying that he had a very happy childhood, that he and his mother were "more than happy.")



reply

There's another possibility: is it simply an example of an indulgent father's acceding to a spoiled daughter's every wish? It's rather fun to consider 18-year-old "Baby" as a selfish and manipulative child who's always had him wrapped around her little finger.

---

Yes. Maybe she DID never have an unhappy day in her life. If daddy gave her everything she wanted, when she wanted it. This is contrasted, of course, with Marion Crane, clearly working for a living for a long time, suggested to not have parents of any help to her.

--

The script as written even offers this expansion of his attitude:

"That penniless punk she's marryin'... (laughs). Probably a good kid. It's just that I hate him."

---

I love the published 'raw" Psycho script and the "raw" North by Northwest script because one can see lines getting deleted all the time. But usually just one or two lines per scene. Its as if Hitchcock himself made the "edit" decision on set(asking the actor to skip the line), or maybe he cut it in the editing room. Very few bad lines survived Hitchcock's cuts -- you can find them in the scripts, but not in the movies. (Example from NXNW: Eve on Mount Rushmore saying "I just thought of a new drink: people on the rocks.").

Here, perhaps Hitchcock felt it was too much information -- if the boy is penniless, its not a marriage of two wealthy families, and that's going to matter. But not enough for Hitchcock to want the information out there.


reply

In either case, we get rather a paternal flip-side of the maternal figures the film offers: innocuously nosy and meddlesome in the case of Caroline's mother (who'll go so far as plying her daughter with tranquilizers to forestall wedding-night sex); dictatorial and hypercritical in the case of Mrs. Bates.

---

Joe Stefano said that he offered up Caroline's unseen mother so as to lay the groundwork for Mrs. Bates: a woman talked about but not fully seen(at all with Caroline's mother, just a little bit with Mrs. Bates.) Actually, Stefano said that ALL the references to parents in the beginning(Sam's dead father, Marion's likely dead mother) was to create a universe where we got used to parents being around, dead or alive.

Stefano said that he almost gave Cassidy a line or two about HIS mother, but decided it was overkill.

----


-----

Cassidy, whether domineering or led-by-the-nose, is positively worshipful toward his offspring, and will benefit her with his magnanimity to suit her purposes...or his own.

--

Either/or, with Hitchcock and Stefano giving us just enough information to wonder. And indeed, Cassidy is a father figure in a movie about Mother. Though Sam Loomis has a dead father(as does Norman), and both the highway cop and California Charlie are variants on father figures. Especially California Charlie(Even though John Anderson was 39!)

reply

Most of my exposure to his other work came after having seen Psycho,

---

He made 194 film and TV appearances!

---

and I've come to admire his reliable versatility,

--

I guess that's why he made 194 appearances...durable.

---

from "mangenue" roles in early talkie musicals, as Katharine Hepburn's desperate, underachieving brother in Alice Adams or the eager hayseed playwright in Room Service to the back-slapping Sam Wainwright, a cynically weary comedy writer in The Hucksters and an acerbic naval officer in The Enemy Below, along with a collection of fast-talking reporters, politicians and such.

---

Of all of those, other than IAWL, I've only seen Room Service and he had the "straight guy" role in that, usually given to Zeppo or singers. I barely remember him.

One "sad" key to my movie watching history is that its mainly movies made after I was born that I know. As I've said before, I've seen all of Jack Nicholson's movies, but barely 10 of Spencer Tracy's. And so Frank Albertson is pretty much "Psycho and out" for me. Whereas Martin Balsam was memorable in Breakfast at Tiffany's, Seven Days in May, Hombre.. Little Big Man, Catch 22, Taking of Pelham 123 (and yes, that one he won the Oscar for.) Those were all AFTER Psycho. 12 Angry Men, before Psycho, is about as far back as I go with Balsam(other than his silent barely-there role in On the Waterfront.)

---

reply

Cassidy's one of those "five minute wonder" performances that's such a delight to see a player pull out of his back pocket toward the end of his career, displaying dimensions at which even three prior decades of work hadn't hinted.

---

There you go. I recently DID see Frank Albertson in an episode of Peter Gunn made around the time of Psycho, and his role was utterly bland and colorless, just a "straight guy." Goes to show you, he needed Cassidy, the character, Stefano's lines, and Hitchcock's direction bring forth such a weirdly compelling cad.

---

That said, I can easily see Reed having carried it off just fine, Fred Flintstone notwithstanding. Some of his most noteworthy work came quite early in his film career, as a seedy blackmailer who gets brutally abused by John Garfield in The Postman Always Rings Twice.

---

Yes, that's true. Reed in Breakfast at Tiffany's gives off no "Flintstone vibe" at all. First of all he didn't look like Fred Flintstone, secondly, the Flintstone voice as a cartoon exaggeration. Reed had a more real voice in the movies.

So scratch my "dodged the bullet" remark. I'm easily persuaded, doghouse!

reply