MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Ranking Psycho Against SF Chronicle's "S...

Ranking Psycho Against SF Chronicle's "Six Ways to Tell a Classic"

posted 6 years ago by ecarle (14979)
129 replies | jump to latest

Here from a March 13, 2019 issue of the San Francisco Chronicle: critic Mick LaSalle's "six ways to tell if a movie is a classic":

ONE: Topicality. Great movies often start out as topical films, about things in the news or about social issues in contention.
TWO: Timelessness. Great movies deal in emotional issues and subjects that anyone might understand, no matter what era they happen to be living in.
THREE: One great scene. In a great movie, there’s usually at least one scene that stands out, like a horse’s head on satin sheets.
FOUR: A great performance. In a great movie, there’s usually some performance that’s hard to forget.
FIVE: An overarching consciousness or personality. In a great film, there’s usually a dominant personality that acts as a sort of organizing principle for the entire film. That’s usually, but not always, the director.
SIX:A complex finish. Great movies are like great wine. They end on a note of complexity.

How does Psycho fare against such criteria:

ONE: Topicality. Great movies often start out as topical films, about things in the news or about social issues in contention.

Psycho didn't strike people as "topical" in its year of release. Not topical like Inherit the Wind or The Alamo(or a year later, Judgment at Nuremberg.) It was a horror movie and a rather cheap one at that. But it WAS topical, wasn't it? One topic was: Ed Gein, a real-life psychopath whose crimes were so horrific that America literally wanted to bury them. And yet: Gein foretold a future of psychopaths, didn't he? Psycho was also topical about: The Hays Code at the movies. Challenging it. Pushing the envelope on violence(especially), sex(somewhat) and subject matter(mind-boggling.) So: YES.

TWO: Timelessness. Great movies deal in emotional issues and subjects that anyone might understand, no matter what era they happen to be living in.

I get this, but I've always felt that classics are simultaneously timeless and OF THEIR TIME. Van Sant found this out when he remade Psycho close to verbatim in 1998. It isn't simply that 38 years of gorier murders had taken place on screen; Psycho rather "belonged" to 1959/1960 in its sense of the 60's aborning, with Ike yielding to JFK and a crazy decade. Also the "gotta getta husband" angle has dated. Still, sure, Psycho is timeless horror: the house, the motel, the swamp, the mother, the shower...all elements that have stood the test of time.

THREE: One great scene. In a great movie, there’s usually at least one scene that stands out, like a horse’s head on satin sheets.

Get outta here. Actually, in his article LaSalle does single out the shower scene as an example, though he puts it at the end of his list, like he's saying: "Oh, EVERYBODY says the shower scene. Here are some other ones." But no. The shower scene. Its a bigger deal than the horse's head in the bed(which is in a movie with OTHER great scenes. But then, Psycho has other great scenes, too.)

FOUR: A great performance. In a great movie, there’s usually some performance that’s hard to forget.

Oh, yeah. Its Anthony Perkins as Norman of course. Not even nominated by the Academy, but one of the greatest movie characters of all time, and one that subsumed its actor almost as badly as Count Dracula nailed Bela Lugosi(except Perkins fought hard to play non-horror parts and succeeded.) Funny: as Perkins said "Have you ever noticed how little Norman is in Psycho?" True enough. He doesn't show up until the 30 minute mark and he is absent from the Fairvale scenes. And -- hah -- from the murder scenes. But what time he is there, he is GREAT. Especially in his final scene and, says I, in his fruit cellar reveal(EXACTLY the right expression on his face.)

But Janet Leigh's is a great performance too -- the Academy DID nominate her. She commands the screen, does sexually landmark things, and enacts death with a power few if any actors ever matched.

And hey: Martin Balsam. The same as Leigh, except without the sex part.

FIVE: An overarching consciousness or personality. In a great film, there’s usually a dominant personality that acts as a sort of organizing principle for the entire film. That’s usually, but not always, the director.

Well, duh. LaSalle does mention Hitchcock in his article, but lists him after a few other names(Hitchcock never seems to get "listed first." Too obvious. But still, he was the most famous and so, says I , was his directorial technique.

SIX:A complex finish. Great movies are like great wine. They end on a note of complexity.

Yes, certainly. Psycho famously ALMOST ends with a psychiatrist explaining everything, but then it REALLY ends with "Mother"(through Norman's face) explaining everything again, except different. I think I"ve got that ending all figured out -- but others would debate me. In any event, an ending that is both complex AND final. And damn profound.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I daresay that Psycho passes LaSalle's tests pretty easily. Though I expect one of the categories is flawed: "timeless." What exactly does that mean? I'm not sure that ANY movie is timeless. They all date themselves in one way or another. The stories can be timeless, but they are of the time they are made. And this even extends to a "period piece" like The Godfather, which is set in the forties(and early fifties?) but is very much of 1972.

Speaking of The Godfather, that's what I call "an instant classic." It got great reviews, it was a blockbuster for months on end(that's how movies rolled out back then); it won Best Picture (rather a squeaker against Cabaret, but still) --we KNEW it was a classic.

Psycho evidently was only considered a blockbuster in 1960, kind of "beneath Hitchcock". As Hitchcock said with Psycho in mind, "My movies go from being failures to classics without being successes." True enough with Psycho. Truer still with Vertigo -- it wasn't even a hit.

But Psycho surely is a classic now, and became such no later than the end of the sixties.

Not all blockbusters are classics. I can't affix the word "classic" to "Rambo: First Blood Part II" or "Top Gun" or even (sorry folks), Grease. But that's just me.

And I personally think that some classics DON"T stand the test of time: Exhibit Number One: Bogdanovich's The Last Picture Show. It got some great reviews(including one from Newsweek that linked it to Citizen Kane), and it almost won Best Picture, but it just doesn't seem to get much play anymore. To me it has a kind of amateurish film school studied quality; though I will admit it had a fair dose of 1971 nudity and sexual content to make it a bit more "raw" than most nostalgia films. Ben Johnson was OK, not great, in his Oscar winning role; Cloris Leachman a bit too...Cloris Leachman.

But that's just me.



reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

One element I think LaSalle left out in his ways to locate a classic: a great screenplay. I can't think of a great movie without one. Well, maybe ET.

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2715) 6 years ago

Well, duh. LaSalle does mention Hitchcock in his article, but lists him after a few other names(Hitchcock never seems to get "listed first." Too obvious. But still, he was the most famous and so, says I , was his directorial technique.

The amount of attention Hitch, and Psycho esp., has received over the last 10 years has made him (& P. in particular) just too central & canonical & familiar to ever be 'cool' again (or at least until Hitch gets forgotten about or sneered at for a while).

This point was crystallized for me recently as I've started to psych myself up to be brave & see S. Craig Zahler's latest opus, Dragged Across Concrete. Zahler's films are authentically Peckinpah-ish genre mash-ups that are fiercely funny and disturbing as hell. There *will* be scenes about which you'll be saying afterwards, 'I wish I could un-see that' - you know that going in. Bone Tomahawk & Brawl in Cell Block 99 both kind of broke me.

Anyhow in some respects Zahler *is* QT's more comic & internet savvy heir and as part of that he posts all sort of lists, of his fave films, fave directors, etc., on IMDb. Here's the link:
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur28840957/?ref_=_usr
A quick survey reveals that Hitchcock etc. is *nowhere* on his lists of 66 fave directors & 102 fave films. Strangers on a Train does make #59 on his list of fave Crime&Noir films, but really it must have taken a *lot* of effort to get that little Hitch in the mix!

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Well, duh. LaSalle does mention Hitchcock in his article, but lists him after a few other names(Hitchcock never seems to get "listed first." Too obvious. But still, he was the most famous and so, says I , was his directorial technique.

The amount of attention Hitch, and Psycho esp., has received over the last 10 years has made him (& P. in particular) just too central & canonical & familiar to ever be 'cool' again (or at least until Hitch gets forgotten about or sneered at for a while).

---

Yeah, that's about right. I rather have to fight the "fanboy" in me when I take note how Hitchcock is often "moved down the list" of great directors. Its funny -- I think he does better against his Golden Era peers(like John Ford, who really seems to have taken some hits for his conservatism) as a Great Director than against all the auteurs who came after him(the names like Scorsese, but all those more "deep think" directors of our time.)

But with Hitchcock my feeling is this: he was ABOVE the rest of his peers, apart from them, achieving a level of movie stardom AND TV stardom that was simply not reachable by his peers. This was the showmanship/businessman side of his fame -- but that it was matched by a fully identifiable style only set him apart further. For me growing, up, I wasn't much of a movie fan -- so many of them were dull and static -- but I WAS a Hitchcock fan.


reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

This point was crystallized for me recently as I've started to psych myself up to be brave & see S. Craig Zahler's latest opus, Dragged Across Concrete. Zahler's films are authentically Peckinpah-ish genre mash-ups that are fiercely funny and disturbing as hell. There *will* be scenes about which you'll be saying afterwards, 'I wish I could un-see that' - you know that going in. Bone Tomahawk & Riot in Cell Block 99 both kind of broke me.

---

I"ve been reading about Dragged Across Concrete and this particular director. I read something about Bone Tomahawk that turned my stomach and it scared me off (even though My Man Kurt Russell is in it.) I'm intrigued that Vince Vaughn is in both Cell Block and the new one (Dragged Across Concrete.) I can't say I've seen every VV movie, but I'm a BIG fan.

Which is why Vaughn's miscast performance in Psycho have always really bugged me. I put it this way: I thought in 1960, Dean Martin was a funny and charismatic movie star in the right vehicle. But I would have been appalled to see Dean Martin play Norman Bates. That's how I felt with VV in the role in 1998. He's Dean Martin, not Anthony Perkins.

VV "soldiers on." I just saw that he was the name star(other than a Rock cameo) in a movie produced by the World Wrestling Entertainment. I'm guess VV was like: "Hey, pay me good -- I'll work for World Wrestling Entertainment." He's survived the 20-plus years since Van Sant's Psycho as both a comic actor(hip snark division) and a serious actor. He's got the goods.

Now, if I can only summon up the stomach to watch Cell Block 99 and Dragged Across Concrete(the latter of which pairs VV perfectly with another survivor, Mel Gibson, now all gray-haired and wrinkled and damaged goods -- but still a star.)

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2715) 6 years ago

I'm intrigued that Vince Vaughn is in both Cell Block and the new one (Dragged Across Concrete.) I can't say I've seen every VV movie, but I'm a BIG fan.
VV is *very* good in Cell Block 99. I'm not sure anyone had tried to exploit VV's hulking-ness before this. At any rate, Zahler did it: wrote for VV one of the all-time physically extreme, brutal roles & he delivered. It's not the sort of film that a *whole lot* of people are going to be eager to watch... but if you're in the market for an update of early '70s Aldrich & Peckinpah and don't mind a slow build/burn then Cell Block 99 is definitely worth a look.

But, yeah, if you are a moderate fan like me, as opposed to being a fully-blown exploitation-film-hound, then a new Zahler film does require some building up towards.


reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

VV is *very* good in Cell Block 99. I'm not sure anyone had tried to exploit VV's hulking-ness before this.

---

Most male movie stars are, reportedly, fairly short to average height. VV has called himself "circus giant tall" and it is noticeable. Also, he's put on some pounds since his "Swingers" weight. But haven't we all...

---

At any rate, Zahler did it: wrote for VV one of the all-time physically extreme, brutal roles & he delivered. It's not the sort of film that a *whole lot* of people are going to be eager to watch... but if you're in the market for an update of early '70s Aldrich & Peckinpah and don't mind a slow build/burn then Cell Block 99 is definitely worth a look.

---

I like Aldrich and Peckinpah but I expect I'll have to up my shock ante for the violence in these Zahler films. I'm probably better prepared than I think -- after all, QT hasn't gotten my goat yet.

But, yeah, if you are a moderate fan like me, as opposed to being a fully-blown exploitation-film-hound, then a new Zahler film does require some building up towards.

reply
formatting help
[–] yatzo376 (7717) 6 years ago

Love Zahlers three films.
Tarantino, Coen bros and Peckinpah

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

!!! MAJOR SPOILERS !!! MAJOR SPOILERS !!! MAJOR SPOILERS !!!
DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN 'US'

I just saw Us last week and it has the explain-it-all ending like Psycho, but I think the film needed it because it would not be something that people are that familiar with unlike Norman's problem. I thought the psychiatrist at the end with Psycho had to do with the Alfred Hitchcock Presents formula, but after reading Roger Ebert's review again he makes it that it could be eliminated and still we as an audience would figure it out.

Ebert's Review of Psycho
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-psycho-1960

Us Ending Reviewed
https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/us-psycho-and-the-challenges-of-the-explain-it-all-ending

That said, if Us didn't explain-it-all, then we may have still figured it out but probably not for some time.

ETA: BTW Psycho deserves better on Ranker -- https://www.ranker.com/list/best-horror-movie-franchises/ranker-horror?ref=list_ticker.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Interesting to see, jasonbourne, that Us seems to have stimulated the darn-near-eternal "psychiatrist scene" debate about Psycho. I swear, this may end up being the most famous scene IN Psycho. What was that about a shower?

The Ebert article has Ebert cutting down the psychiatrist scene to near nothing and then Ebert says this:

BEGIN:

Those edits, I submit, would have made "Psycho" very nearly perfect.

END

No they wouldn't. Too little is said. I'm reminded that (bad but successful screenwriter Joe Esterhas(Basic Instinct) wrote of Ebert: "Remember...he's a failed screenwriter."

And then from Ebert:

BEGIN:

I have never encountered a single convincing defense of the psychiatric blather;

END

Well, he should have come over here -- and not just to hear from me. We have quite a few defenders of it.

I won't even mention the three vitally important nowhere-else-to-be found plot solutions in the psychiatrist's speech. You know what they are. i contend that Psycho would be an "unfinished story" if these points had NOT been mentioned.

I was intrigued by the article that ranks Sam Jackson's final remarks in Unbreakable(M. Night's best movie, IMHO) as being of the "explain it all" ilk. I must admit, Sam really had to "stretch it" to make the explanation work. But: we got flashbacks to crimes committed by Sam. I've always felt the shrink scene might have played better with flashbacks to Norman getting dressed and creeping up on his victims while in drag but -- no -- better not to show that. Allow Murderous Mother to stand on her own as a memory of terror.

And how about the ending of the Albert Finney "Murder on the Orient Express"? That's about ten minutes of explanation, and not nearly as interesting as what the Psycho shrink tells us.




reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Not to mention: OTHER Hitchcock films also have psychiatrists(Spellbound, The Wrong Man, Vertigo), laymen(Sean Connery in Marnie) or lawmen(Frenzy) explaining mental states. Hitchcock DUG on shrink scenes.

In any event, wow: The Psycho psychiatrist scene continues to haunt history as a great movie debate.

And it sounds like Us has got some 'splainin to do, too.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

ETA: BTW Psycho deserves better on Ranker --

--

So the "Psycho franchise" ends up pretty well down the list, near the bottom. I'm not so sure that's not a good place for it. In other words, its a good place for it.

For many of those other franchises were INTENDED to be franchises. When Robert Bloch wrote Psycho, and definitely when Hitchcock filmed it, the story of Norman Bates was meant to be a "one time deal" -- a historic event that wasn't intended to continue on and on. Nor did Psycho need a remake. Moreover, the entries in some of those other franchises were all about of the same quality..with Psycho, you get one starter masterpiece and a steady drop-off in quality.

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 6 years ago

"And how about the ending of the Albert Finney "Murder on the Orient Express"? That's about ten minutes of explanation, and not nearly as interesting as what the Psycho shrink tells us."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And every other Christie screen adaptation, from Poirot to Marple. And every Thin Man movie. And every Charlie Chan. And many of the Sherlock Holmes's, along with the '30s Perry Mason films, Philo Vances, Torchy Blanes, Bulldog Drummonds and dozens of other solve-the-case series, knock-offs or one-offs.

As well as Hitchcock's own Stage Fright (livened up by having the female protagonist in jeopardy from the killer during the confession). And with both that and Psycho, Hitchcock was giving us whodunits in disguise. We think we know who dun it, but we dun't, and we dun't know that we din't...until the final reel.

Perhaps what Ebert objected to about what had amounted to an accepted cinematic convention was a complete lack of suspense, even that of waiting through the whole explanation - "Mimi didn't know that Morelli was blackmailing Flora about Lady Anne's letters, until Kavanaugh got wise to Lillibeth double-crossing Blackie with the stolen bonds, and when I realized that Stockwell had discovered that Mrs. McGinty was Dorothy's real mother, I knew that..." - until the big reveal: "...the killer was YOU, Major Galloway!"

So we get a how-and-why-dunit, which was necessary in order for viewers to process what had just been revealed, and so that they can make sense of that final scene with Norman/Mother. And I've always maintained that it's also a matter of crucial dramatic rhythm: the roller coaster had taken us slowly up to a peak (the basement and Mrs. Bates), sent us screaming down the other side (the corpse, Norman and the last-minute "save"), and gives us a breather before beginning that tantalizing monologue (Is it over? Is there more?) and leaving us neither up nor down, but done.



reply
formatting help
[–] MizhuB (165) 6 years ago

BEGIN:

Those edits, I submit, would have made "Psycho" very nearly perfect.

END

========

It seems as the years go by, I'm more and more in the minority, but having been a PSYCHO fan since childhood, and to this date, I see NOTHING wrong with the psychiatrist scene. Maybe the dialogue could've been pared down a little, but I wouldn't cut one single point the psychiatrist made.

The audience NEEDED that explanation to get the whole story. Otherwise, I can see people nowadays griping, 'But why did he do this or that? We should've been told more.'

Good point about movies made from Agatha Christie's novels. Murder on the Orient Express. Death on the Nile. Evil Under the Sun. All had expositions that made Psycho's Psyche Scene seem like a blip.

I saw 'Evil Under the Sun' at a house party thrown by a friend. This was when attention spans were longer and it was the story, not the effects, that drove the movie. Right before Poirot gave his explanation, the girl's brother said, 'You've GOTTA watch the way he does this. It's great!'

And for the next 10 minutes or so, everyone sat, rapt, watching the TV

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

It seems as the years go by, I'm more and more in the minority, but having been a PSYCHO fan since childhood, and to this date, I see NOTHING wrong with the psychiatrist scene. Maybe the dialogue could've been pared down a little, but I wouldn't cut one single point the psychiatrist made.

--

This is why, I suppose , that I still take some umbrage with articles like the ones that jasonbourne supplied. When there is this "automatic assumption" that the psychiatrist scene is terrible and overlong and unnecessary, "everybody knows that" -- I feel compelled to respond: "No, it is very well written and much key information is given in a nicely acted speech." Others can take "the other side"(its terrible) but there ARE two sides.

---

The audience NEEDED that explanation to get the whole story. Otherwise, I can see people nowadays griping, 'But why did he do this or that? We should've been told more.'

---

Yes. Just the sight of dead mother and Norman in a dress doesn't really get it done. for one thing, there is the issue of how "invested" Norman is , in wearing that dress. Not to mention -- what IS mother's corpse doing there? How'd it get there?

But those are "basics." The psychiatrist has much more to tell us...



reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

"And how about the ending of the Albert Finney "Murder on the Orient Express"? That's about ten minutes of explanation, and not nearly as interesting as what the Psycho shrink tells us."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And every other Christie screen adaptation, from Poirot to Marple. And every Thin Man movie. And every Charlie Chan. And many of the Sherlock Holmes's, along with the '30s Perry Mason films, Philo Vances, Torchy Blanes, Bulldog Drummonds and dozens of other solve-the-case series, knock-offs or one-offs.

---

Ha. There you go. Pretty standard operating procedure when you think about it, the reason WHY you go to a mystery: to learn the solution and to see how much you can figure out in advance. Columbo did it too...TO the villains.

----

As well as Hitchcock's own Stage Fright (livened up by having the female protagonist in jeopardy from the killer during the confession).

---

There have been a few movies like that, in which its the VILLAIN who does the explaining and the hero/ine realizes they are now in grave danger.

---

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

And with both that and Psycho, Hitchcock was giving us whodunits in disguise. We think we know who dun it, but we dun't, and we dun't know that we din't...until the final reel.

---

With Psycho, especially -- yes. In some ways, the "mystery" in Psycho is in plain sight, but we can't identify it until it is identified for us:

Why don't we ever see Mother's face? I think especially when Arbogast comes face to face with her in good light, we start to CRAVE seeing that woman's face.

But there are also "clues" along the way to mysteries that need solving: who IS that woman buried in Greenlawn cemetary? How DID the boyfriend die?("Its not something to discuss while you're eating") How does the murder-suicide revealed by Sheriff Chambers fit what we have seen of Murdering Mother killing Marion and Arbogast? How HAS this psycho killer been able to flourish undetected for years? DID she kill others along the way? And exactly how complicit IS Norman in his mother's crimes...is he truly a villain himself?

Etc. But mainly: we want to see Mother's face. And boy, when we see it, its a doozy. Twice -- Mother's skull face and Norman's killer bloodthirsty grin...

I feel that those who so quickly disparage the psychiatrist scene in Psycho seem to have ignored all the mysteries that the film so cleverly develops as part of the suspense.

Not to mention: we gotta see Sam and Lila (and Deputy Sheriff Chambers) learn the truth. It ends the suspense, however sadly.



reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Perhaps what Ebert objected to about what had amounted to an accepted cinematic convention was a complete lack of suspense, even that of waiting through the whole explanation

---

Well, Ebert and a few others(the late screenwriter William Goldman) seemed to be "triggered" 'by the static banality of the setting and the sheer length of Oakland's speech. I'm sensitive to it myself...but I've always felt that just around the time it feels like Oakland has been talking for too long...the scene wraps up("Who got the $40,000? "The swamp -- these were crimes of passion, not profit.") A GREAT dialogue wrap-up to the scene, why the doc even produces a cigarette and smokes; its almost post-coital(he got off on being Mr. Wise Guy.)

--

- "Mimi didn't know that Morelli was blackmailing Flora about Lady Anne's letters, until Kavanaugh got wise to Lillibeth double-crossing Blackie with the stolen bonds, and when I realized that Stockwell had discovered that Mrs. McGinty was Dorothy's real mother, I knew that..." - until the big reveal: "...the killer was YOU, Major Galloway!"

---

Ha. Probably the best one of those I ever saw was a Thin Man sequel where William Powell gives that speech and the killer is (SPOILER but what the hell)...Jimmy Stewart! The killer! And he pulls a gun and tries to escape. Classic.

---

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

So we get a how-and-why-dunit, which was necessary in order for viewers to process what had just been revealed, and so that they can make sense of that final scene with Norman/Mother. And I've always maintained that it's also a matter of crucial dramatic rhythm: the roller coaster had taken us slowly up to a peak (the basement and Mrs. Bates), sent us screaming down the other side (the corpse, Norman and the last-minute "save"), and gives us a breather before beginning that tantalizing monologue (Is it over? Is there more?) and leaving us neither up nor down, but done.

---

The "breather" effect -- the rhythm indeed -- is pretty crucial to how Psycho rolls to a conclusion. Fruit cellar screamathon climax; psychiatrist "breather and explanation" -- final ultra-profound "gotcha" ending in Norman's cell. Remove the psychiatrist scene and the pacing is too fast.

And I suppose some leftover screaming from the fruit cellar drowned out some of the shrink scene, but likely not much...it takes awhile for him to come in after an establishing shot of the courthouse outdoors. (Note in passing, Van Sant put an entirely fictional "Victoria County" sign out there. Why?)

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Good point about movies made from Agatha Christie's novels. Murder on the Orient Express. Death on the Nile. Evil Under the Sun. All had expositions that made Psycho's Psyche Scene seem like a blip.

I saw 'Evil Under the Sun' at a house party thrown by a friend. This was when attention spans were longer and it was the story, not the effects, that drove the movie. Right before Poirot gave his explanation, the girl's brother said, 'You've GOTTA watch the way he does this. It's great!'

And for the next 10 minutes or so, everyone sat, rapt, watching the TV

---

Exactly. I'm still not sure why the psychiatrist scene wasn't taken as part of that tradition. And he certainly has a horror story to tell...

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

And now...

...the "cinematics" of the psychiatrist scene.

Psycho sometimes gets perhaps too extravagant the praise(from me, certainly) for its "dazzling cinematic style." As we know, Hitchcock himself filmed much of it in a fairly basic and perfunctory way, at once using his TV series techniques AND emulating the cheapjack budgetary stagings of William Castle.

I'm hard pressed to hold forth on the "great cinema" of Sam and Lila talking to Sheriff Chambers and wife in front of the church, or talking to each other in Cabin Ten of the Bates Motel, or talking in the car en route TO the Bates Motel. That's all pretty basic stuff. By contrast, I think every single shot in Citizen Kane has something "dazzling" going on.

Still, when Psycho IS cinematic, its landmark. The shower scene -- especially the dissolve out of Marion's eye. NORMAN's eye at the peephole. The swinging camera under Norman's throat as he talks to Arbogast. The "camera climb" over Norman as he climbs the stairs to get mother. Not to mention the "oppressive abstract imagery" that puts the highway cop's impassive giant face right int to the lens.

And even a "basic" scene like the one at the Chambers home in the middle of the night has atmospherics(the middle of the night, and the lighting suggests that), and nifty compositions of the characters.


reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Which brings me to: the staging of the psychiatrist scene. It has its "cinematic elements." Let's take a look.

The scene with a "bridge" of the exterior of the courthouse and a TV reporter in front of it, the scene proper begins in the DA's office with an effect borrowed from the shower scene: the audience (US) are in a "magical position": in the wall behind Sam and Lila. They are seated in FRONT of us. The effect -- as everyone waits for the shrink to come in, is that we are positioned just like an audience at a theater...facing a stage, right behind Sam and Lila(our identification figures) -- with "officals" to the left of the screen(a now dapper-looking Deputy Sheriff Chambers in suit and vest; no more pajamas) and to the right of the screen(two "new" local officals who, a little guessing will tell us, are the DA("Alan Deats," his name is on the door) and likely the county sheriff(the boss of Deputy Sheriff Chambers.)

The psychiatrist enters -- with Sheriff Chambers announcing that he TRIED to talk to Norman("He wouldn't talk to me, and he KNOWS me") and hopefully the psychiatrist has the answers.

The psychiatrist "takes the stage" and positions himself at its center: Lila and Sam in front of him, and getting the main parts of his speech, but the officials nearby to "get the facts"(and, possibly to help the shrink avoid having to look too long at Lila, he might get sad and rattled.)

The "props" in the room are all meaningful. A photo of a MOTORCYCLE cop who brings back memories of the "car cop"(some folks think he drives a cycle too, but of course he doesn't.) A fan -- matching the one in the hotel room at the beginning of the film. A map that clearly says(on the big screen): "Shasta County." (Tells Californians exactly where we are, way up north near Oregon border; tells the rest of the world where to look.) And a calendar page on the wall that is wrong: 17. (Its Sunday the 20th; but maybe nobody took the pages down going into the weekend.)

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

So the DA's office is "built like a theater stage," and decorated with all sorts of references to earlier points in Psycho, and "checkpoints"(Shasta County, 17.)

The shrink begins his speech, and some writer on Psycho SALUTED both Simon Oakland's line readings(loud, brash, show-offy -- making sure the audience doesn't fall asleep) and Joseph Stefano's lines ("Matricide is the most unbearable crime of all...most unbearable to the son who commits it.") Oakland doesn't stand stock still either(as Robert Forster will in the remake). He moves back and forth, pausing for effect.

He moves "on" Lila in a "too intimate" moment where he zeroes in on Marions' murder ("When he met your sister, he was TOUCHED by her, AROUSED by her...and that set off the jealous mother, and MOTHER killed the girl.") Its a bit callous how the psychiatrist hits Lila with this information, and she breathes hard in response. I think its a dramatic moment. I also think it is interesting to think that Norman was "touched" by Marion(she appealed to his lonliness and empathy) yet also aroused by her(a 1960 sexual cue)....

Hitchcock uses the various other characters in the room to very sparingly "break up" the shrink's speech with specific questions or points:

"But, my sister is...."? (Lila, she can't even bring herself to say dead, so the shrink doesn't use that word either, he just says "Yes...the private investigator too" and relegates Arbogast to also-ran status.

"Why was he ...dressed like that?"( Sam..fittingly)
"He was a transvestite"(the DA? the sheriff? )
"Now look, if you are trying to lay the psyhchiatric groundwork for some insanity plea he's going to cop"(the DA -- Norman is already moving from Grand Mystery to Case Number 501, Shasta County courthouse.)
"And the forty thousand dollars? Who got that?"(Deputy Sheriff Chambers --its a crusty wry line befitting him and it helps bring the scene to a close.)






reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Though I've seen the psychiatrist scene many times, I haven't memorized how many varying shot sizes there are of him. I will guess: long shot(when he enters), medium shot(mostly) and when necessary close-ups (particularly when he advances on Lila to get to the guts of Marion's murder...though he spares her the shower detail; I expect she will learn soon enough.)

And as Hitchcock doles out these various shots(I assume Oakland had to do the speech, or portions of the speech, several times to match each shot), Hitchcock also doles out cuts to the other players in the room -- the DA and the Sheriff are a "unit"(befitting their role as "authority"); Sam and Lila are shown with the wall behind them which is where WE were at the beginning of the scene(impossible! like the shower wall!) and I think Deputy Sheriff Chambers is saved for the very end, getting his medium shot. Though I can't remember -- maybe Chambers and others get some "silent shots" when they aren't speaking. I'll have to look.

Though "The swamp..these were crimes of passion, not profit" ends the shrink's dissertation, this does NOT end the scene. We have the guard (with a Shasta Police patch on his shoulder) enter in a trademark "Hitchcock profile shot" from "stage left"(thus keeping with the "theatrical staging" of the scene, and he offers his prosaic question: "He's feeling a little cold...can I give him this blanket?" The shrink still controls the room and gives the OK: "Sure." (Stefano , a compassionate man, said this blanket request was meant to show that the Shasta cops will TAKE CARE of Norman, they won't beat him or torture him.)

And the scene now ends perhaps prematurely for such a long scene -- there are no lingering shots on Lila(especially) or Sam taking it all in. Hitchcock literally abandons them(Stefano's script called for Lila to cry, but Hitchcock evidently didn't want the horror messed with -- these were shock murders, not sad murders, not really...)


reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Hitchcock's decisions about NOT showing things -- NOT showing Lila crying or Sam and Lila hugging and emotion; NOT showing flashbacks to the murders from viewpoint of Norman in drag, or showing him digging mother up, or showing him stuffing her -- well, some of this couldn't be shown in 1960(the stuffing) but other things Hitchcock elected not TO show(Norman in drag committing the murders with his face visible.) That's good: our memory is of MOTHER killing people, not Norman.

I suppose because Hitchcock didn't add in flashback clips (which everything from Murder on the Orient Express to The Sixth Sense used) probably is another reason Ebert and the rest don't much like the shrink scene. It is cinematic ENOUGH(all the shot sizes and compositions) but the staging avoids any "flavor": no flashbacks, no emotion, let's get this story explained and go home.

A "re-visit" to the psychiatrist scene is never a chore around here, I think it is less queasy talking about that scene than, say, getting into the grisly visual and sound details of the shower scene. Controversial, the psychiatrist scene will always be. But for some of us on its "good side," it is an argument worth having.

reply
formatting help
[–] jay440 (107) 6 years ago

"But, my sister is...."? (Lila, she can't even bring herself to say dead, so the shrink doesn't use that word either, he just says "Yes...the private investigator too" and relegates Arbogast to also-ran status
---------------------------------------

In another movie, this scene would belong to Arbogast, and he'd be giving the Poirot explanation after all his dogged hard work. And he wouldn't have gotten in Lila's face, barking "He was AROUSED by her!" like Simon Oakland does. Oakland does lower his voice to confirm Marion's death, sounding a little like Arbogast did when he reassured Lila, "I'll find her."

While killing off the lead character halfway through was shocking enough, doing the same to the leading investigator was another big violation of genre expectations to audiences who expected the detective to stick around, solve the crime, and tell us all Whodunit. At least he went out providing just enough info to further the investigation, through Sam and Lila, to its conclusion.

-------------------------------
Oakland doesn't stand stock still either(as Robert Forster will in the remake). He moves back and forth, pausing for effect.
-------------------------------
That's my problem with the "Stand-and-Deliver" style of modern Hollywood dialogue scenes, it's much easier to edit but just so darn monotonous visually.


reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

"But, my sister is...."? (Lila, she can't even bring herself to say dead, so the shrink doesn't use that word either, he just says "Yes...the private investigator too" and relegates Arbogast to also-ran status
---------------------------------------

In another movie, this scene would belong to Arbogast, and he'd be giving the Poirot explanation after all his dogged hard work.


---

One of my musings somehwere along the line was 'what if Arbogast DIDN'T get killed"? The shower murder is shocker enough that Psycho would have been powerful stuff without the second murder, and indeed, Arbogast is set up as 'the detective" and likely would report at the end.

On the other hand, how to use him in that third act, otherwise?(He dies at the end of Act Two)

Well, I suppose when Norman throws him off the porch, he could go back to Sam and Lila, join them in their visit to Sheriff Chambers, receive the report from Chambers at church the next morning with Sam and Lila, and travel with them to the Bates Motel for the finale.

But that doesn't quite work, either. Can't have Arbogast with either Sam or Lila at the Bates Motel, removes the terror of their "being alone(Sam with Norman, Lila with Mother.)

So: Arbogast stays back in Fairvale, perhaps with a promise that he will go seek that warrant tomorrow(Monday) from some local judge, to search Norman's premises. But Lila is impatient, takes Sam out to the motel, same climax ensues.

And thus, while a psychiatrist is more appropriate to do the interrogating perhaps Arbogast is all they have on a Sunday night, he does it, he reports -- more layman than psychiatrist.

This COULD work, and again, Psycho with one shower murder only would have been plenty shocking.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

But Robert Bloch had given Hitchcock the story in which Arbogast dies, too and -- it allowed for Hitchcock to put a "double whammy" on his approach in Psycho: the heroine dies(however "tainted"); the detective dies. Expected outcomes disappear as charcters expected to live, don't.

Which reminds me: two shock murders may seem rather lightweight in the era of Friday the 13th reboots, but as I've understood it from some critics of the time, the fact that there WAS a second murder -- bloody and more scary than the first, really-- evidently reduced 1960 audiences to jelly. Two was too much, they'd just barely gotten over Marion's slaughter when Arbogast went down.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

And he wouldn't have gotten in Lila's face, barking "He was AROUSED by her!" like Simon Oakland does. Oakland does lower his voice to confirm Marion's death, sounding a little like Arbogast did when he reassured Lila, "I'll find her."

---

The record shows that screenwriter Joe Stefano recommended both Martin Balsam and Simon Oakland to Hitch for their roles. He must have seen them in other movies or on television.

I assume Stefano was "precise" enough to see Balsam as Arbogast and Oakland as the psychiatrist, but, their roles could have been switched. Balsam could have been a very erudite psychiatrist; Oakland a rather "blunt cop" private eye. Still, it feels right how we have them. Arbogast can remain cool because he has no expectations about what REALLY happened at the Bates Motel(shower murder) or about what is REALLY going to happen at the Bates Motel(he will be killed up in the house._

The psychiatrist can be a bit more emotional and flamboyant because, well...he's just stumbled upon the psychotic crime of the decade(the 50's).

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

At least he went out providing just enough info to further the investigation, through Sam and Lila, to its conclusion.

---

Yes, Arbogast is a magnificent plot device. Imagine the story without him. Sam and Lila might NEVER check out the Bates Motel; Deputy Sheriff Chambers might investigate, but he'd never really push Norman.

Arbogast methodically makes his way to the Bates Motel, methodically interrogates Norman -- and hits paydirt("Marion was up here.") Then , befitting the caring guy he turns out to be(which will make his murder even more hard to watch), he takes the time to drive to a gas station, call Lila and deliver his "plot device information." Personally, i think that Arbogast is proud of himself and wants to share with somebody other than Cassidy.

Though Norman threw him out, I've always felt that Arbogast deciding to call Lila with his information before returning to the motel and house was a smart man's ploy: money was involved and a woman has disappeared. Who knows what's waiting for him back at the Bates Motel. Best to check in with all the information before venturing off alone back to the Bates House. I do think that Arbogast returned to the motel somewhat "on guard," but it was on guard for the wrong menace.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Oakland doesn't stand stock still either(as Robert Forster will in the remake). He moves back and forth, pausing for effect.
-------------------------------
That's my problem with the "Stand-and-Deliver" style of modern Hollywood dialogue scenes, it's much easier to edit but just so darn monotonous visually

---

Yes. I think someone who wrote favorably about Oakland's work in this scene pointed out that he used gestures(pointing, sweeping his hand at key moments; doesn't his arm go "up and over" on "and MOTHER killed the girl") to keep the speech "active." I reminded of my idol Richard Boone, who seemed to split his line reading between what he said and how his hands and fingers moved. For Boone, it was entertaining. For Oakland...dramatic.

BONUS TRIVIA: Spielberg's remake of West Side Story is taking shape, and the role played by Simon Oakland in the original(Lieutnant Schrank?) will now be played by Corey Stoll, an actor I recall from Season One of House of Cards(the only season I watched) and as a villain in the first Ant Man movie. I'm sure he's worked elsewhere -- wait, wasn't he Hemingway or somebody in that Woody Allen movie where Owen Wilson visited writers of the past?

So Simon Oakland's two most famous roles have now been played by Robert Forster(Psycho) and will be played by Corey Stoll(West Side Story.) Well, he was also famous in "I Want to Live" ((1958) and Kolchak the Night Stalker(as the hero reporter's boss.) So maybe those need remakes. I trust Bullitt will never be remade, Oakland was pretty famous in that too, as Bullitt's boss...

ALSO: Rita Moreno FROM West Side Story 1961 will be IN Spielberg's West Side Story. The Ned Glass shopkeeper role has been "sex-changed, enhanced, and combined." And Rita will play it.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

For the longest time, I disagreed with Roger Ebert and those who said Psycho didn't need the full explanation, but thought that was Hitch using the AHP formula. He didn't want the audience to go off not knowing about Norman despite understanding what happened to him. Then reading Ebert's review again for like the third time (decades later), I thought maybe he's right. Hitch should have left it out. I just read it a fourth time to make sure of what Ebert said.

"If I were bold enough to reedit Hitchcock's film, I would include only the doctor's first explanation of Norman's dual personality: "Norman Bates no longer exists. He only half existed to begin with. And now, the other half has taken over, probably for all time." Then I would cut out everything else the psychiatrist says, and cut to the shots of Norman wrapped in the blanket while his mother's voice speaks ("It's sad when a mother has to speak the words that condemn her own son..."). Those edits, I submit, would have made "Psycho" very nearly perfect. I have never encountered a single convincing defense of the psychiatric blather; Truffaut tactfully avoids it in his famous interview.

What makes "Psycho" immortal, when so many films are already half-forgotten as we leave the theater, is that it connects directly with our fears: Our fears that we might impulsively commit a crime, our fears of the police, our fears of becoming the victim of a madman, and of course our fears of disappointing our mothers."

The audience would figure it out or put out some theories as to what happened to him. They would go watch it again. It's like figuring out what the sheriff said. Anyway, I would love to see the Director's Cut if it ever comes out, especially in a theater. I assume the extended psychiatrist part is left out or it MUST be left out!!! Mwahaha.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

"If I were bold enough to reedit Hitchcock's film, I would include only the doctor's first explanation of Norman's dual personality: "Norman Bates no longer exists. He only half existed to begin with. And now, the other half has taken over, probably for all time." Then I would cut out everything else the psychiatrist says, and cut to the shots of Norman wrapped in the blanket while his mother's voice speaks ("It's sad when a mother has to speak the words that condemn her own son..."). Those edits, I submit, would have made "Psycho" very nearly perfect. I have never encountered a single convincing defense of the psychiatric blather; Truffaut tactfully avoids it in his famous interview.

---

Well, I guess here I WILL have to bring up my "three plot points," two of which I think are pretty darn vital that Ebert simply missed:

ONE: Norman murdered his mother and his lover. The movie was REQUIRED to tell us this, to have not done so would be "storytelling malpractice." Why? Because the sheriff tells us Mother killed her lover and herself. That's false information and would render the story false if not corrected. Norman having murdered his own mother is the BIGGEST reason he snapped totally.

TWO: Norman dug up his mother's corpse (or stole it -- " a weighted coffin was buried" GUESSES the shrink) and stuffed it. Mother's body in the fruit cellar didn't simply decompose. Norman "kept it as well as it would keep." I'd say this was important information -- and brought us back to Norman's hobby of taxidermy. Hitchcock liked his characters and their trades or hobbies to "fit the story." (Example: psycho Bob Rusk in Frenzy as a food seller in Covent Garden who uses a potato truck to stash a body.)



reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

THREE: Norman killed two women("young girls") BEFORE Marion. The movie could have skipped this entirely, yes, but being told it told us: the killing of Marion Crane wasn't a "one time thing" for Norman. He was a serial killer, a multiple murderer, and when Marion arrived alone...somewhere deep in his mind, Norman knew Mother would be killing her.

Roger Ebert, in missing all of this, was wrong. Roger Ebert, in writing this as the ENTIRETY of the psychiatrist's dialogue, was simply a bad screenwriter:

Psychiatrist: "Hello, thank you all for waiting three hours for me. Norman Bates no longer exists. He only half existed to begin with. And now, the other half has taken over, probably for all time. Thank you, I'll be leaving you now."

And he walks out.

The hell kind of scene is THAT? Sam, Lila, Deputy Sheriff Chambers, the Sheriff and the DA all gather for "the big story," and THAT's all that the psychiatrist says?

I'm afraid that Roger Ebert(sometimes at least) was one of those critics who criticized things and then explained his criticisms, and revealed he didn't really know what he was talking about.

Screenwriter William Goldman, aggravated at what Ebert wrote one time(figuring Ebert was dead wrong) wrote: "And Ebert is supposed to be one of the good ones. There are no good ones."

Mean words, but the real truth is that very few film critics ever really became good screenwriters.

PS. Much of Roger Ebert's 1972 review of Frenzy is wrong, too. He says its like one of the movies Hitchcock made in the 40's(no, the 30's, THAT's when Hitch operated from London) and that the story is filled with "gangsters, prostitutes, and bookies." Not much -- though Rusk is a bit of a bookie, none of the rest of this rings true. No gangsters, no prostitutes, nor really bookies. In short, Ebert could fall short. (That said, he got it right a lot of the time, and I enjoyed reading him. Except when I didn't, which was when he painted in too broad a stroke.)



reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Well, I decided to go and actually look at the psychiatrist scene again.

It held up, but I'll admit that Simon Oakland does go a bit hammy in it, and yells a bit when he should just talk. But I'd like to hope that either Oakland was directed to be this hammy or convinced Hitchcock it was the way to go: this psychiatrist is a "showboat," in love with his theories, callous about the grieving loved ones right in front of him.

I noticed that in many shots, Lila, Sam and Deputy Sheriff Chambers are kept together, as a group of three counterbalancing the group of two on the other side of the room(
DA and Sheriff). This shot repeats several times, always from the same angle: Lila, Sam, chambers.

As with Norman's parlor, I think this was a fairly small room "expanded" likely by choice of lens. The shrink doesn't have to cross the room to put his hands on the DA's desk; he just turns and does it. Sam, Lila, and Chambers aren't that far away from him, either.

The psychiatrist's physical movements are interesting. At one point, he backs up into the file drawers behind him and leans backwards on them while he talks. He moves back and forth, pointing, cutting the air with his hands.

And, indeed, he "advances" on Lila to discuss Marion's death. He speaks THREE phrases, as it turns out, not two as I had remembered:

"He was touched by her.
He was aroused by her.
He WANTED her...

...and that set off the jealous mother, and mother killed the girl."

In short, actually watching the scene revealed to me that I had misremembered it, visually(like how often Sheriff Chambers is framed WITH Sam and Lila, and not by himself.) And I'll give a point or two to the "dislikers"(I can't call them haters) if only for how hammy some of Oakland's delivery is(probably on purpose, he sounds a lot more cool in Bullitt.)

A damn interesting scene, maybe -- or maybe not -- otherwise marring a stone cold classic. Maybe not, says I.


reply
formatting help
[–] jay440 (107) 6 years ago

And, indeed, he "advances" on Lila to discuss Marion's death.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The staging of his slow advance to a captive female audience is a bit like Rusk closing in on Brenda Blaney in her office in Frenzy.

And he joins Cassidy and Highway Cop as males who "lean in" uncomfortably close to the female characters.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

The staging of his slow advance to a captive female audience is a bit like Rusk closing in on Brenda Blaney in her office in Frenzy.

And he joins Cassidy and Highway Cop as males who "lean in" uncomfortably close to the female characters.

---

Its notable, isn't it? Hitchcock had all these tricks and secrets for creating paranoia and menace and suspense. I suppose having male characters "lean in" or "close in" on female characters was part of that. We make a big deal these days about "invading personal space."

It took me years to realize that Rusk sits on Brenda's desk just like Cassidy sits on Marion's desk and then I understood Hitchcock's wry comment: "Self-plagiarism is style." Well...if the schtick fits again, use it.

Back to the psychiatrist. He's only got so many moves he can make in that DA's office, physically. So I think it is interesting that Oakland(likely with Hitchcock's approval) elected to "move in" on Lila to give her the tough sexual information about Norman and Marion. It is possible that the psychiatrist enjoyed(a little?) getting to confront a pretty woman with this information about her pretty sister being sexually coveted? . Who knows? But the effect is very direct, as so often in Hitchcock, even as it is subtle, as so often in Hitchcock.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

I still agree with Roger Ebert in that that Norman did not have to be explained as it was sufficient to know what happened. There was not any plot holes as to what happened. The audience would be discussing the points you brought up and have answered the questions and filled in what happened to Norman. The sheriff explained what happened and it was enough. This would have made it more creepy in analyzing Norman's actions. He did keep his room in order like the way it was as a teen and probably slept there and used it as his room. Besides, Oakland's psychiatrist did not explain every little detail. Originally, I thought it was to explain Norman and make sure that he was punished for it as in the AHP episodes regarding the moral code. But Hitchcock was already revolting against the censors with this movie. In a way, it satisfied the moral code and he got away with doing it the way he wanted except for the extended psychiatrist scene. He should've stood his ground and left it out. He had it right in giving the audience credit to figure things out.

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 6 years ago

Let's take a look, then, at the information we had only up to the point of the psychiatrist's explanation.

We knew that Mrs. Bates had been dead ten years, and all we'd been told about that came from Sheriff Chambers: "Mrs. Bates killed this fella she was involved with when she found out he was married, then took a helping of the same stuff herself." And we knew that Norman had kept and hidden her body.

We knew that Norman had dressed up as his mother to carry out the murders.

And that's about it.

Here's what we wouldn't have known without the explanation:

1) That Norman himself had killed his mother and her boyfriend;
2) Why he kept her body
3) Why he dressed as his mother to commit the murders
4) That Norman had murdered other young women before Marion

And most importantly:

5) The reason(s) he committed any of the murders in the first place

And without any of that information, Mrs. Bates's interior monologue in the final scene would have made very little sense, and sent viewers home more mystified than informed, left with more questions than answers. As well, all the work Hitchcock and Stefano had done to establish themes of duality and guilt, and the many details conveying them, would have gone for naught, having no dramatic resonance whatsoever.

We'd have been left with a movie that turned out in the end to have been about nothing more than a guy who dresses as his dead mother and kills people.


reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago


1) That Norman himself had killed his mother and her boyfriend;

---

In certain ways, that's "the big one." Its really another twist to the story if you think about it. Chambers told us that the world had accepted that mother killed her boyfriend and herself. No, quite different. Norman was the killer. Norman was A killer. All along.

And had the movie ended without THIS being explained well....it HAD to be explained.

This is the key thing that Roger Ebert didn't see..because when he "re-wrote it," he left out that explanation.If Hitchcock had hired Ebert to write "Psycho," -- Hitchcock would have MADE Ebert put in the information about Norman killing mom and boyfriend.

Recall that in the book, this scene exists but its Sam relating to Lila(weeks after the fruit cellar) what a psychiatrist told HIM. If anything, Hitchcock and Stefano "tightened up" the explanation scene and eliminated the middleman(Sam.)

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

Yes, but this is Hitchcock we are discussing. Originally, I thought he put the psychiatrist scene in because of using his AHP crew and his coming back on at the end of AHP to explain how to antagonist paid for his crimes. It was probably due to the moral code of the times. However, Hitch always tried to get things past the censors and he cleverly did so with Psycho. He did it with the shower scene, Arbogast's killing and more.

Thus, while you rationalize that Norman "had" to be explained, an artistic ending with Norman's face being superimposed as a skull would have ended the movie quite magnificently. The audience would be shocked/scared from the ending and would discuss why Norman killed, dressed up like his mother and discuss his background, his relationship with his mother and other girls/women.

Even without the internet, the audience of the 60s would have figured it out, have journalists write articles about it and discuss it with them. Hitchcock would have immediately become a big interview. Thus, for the sake of Hitchcock's artistic masterpiece, the psychiatrist scene should have been left out. I think he wanted it that way and Roger Ebert presents the same. He lived through the times and knew the type of director Alfred Hitchcock was.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I still agree with Roger Ebert in that that Norman did not have to be explained as it was sufficient to know what happened.

---

Well...you are not alone. In addition to Ebert, the late, Oscar-winning screenwriter William Goldman felt the explanation was terrible and unnecessary(Goldman opined that 1960 audiences still screaming and chattering from the fruit cellar climax, "didn't even listen to what the psychiatrist was saying.")

That's why I feel that the psychiatrist scene in Psycho has taken on a certain importance of its own. Like the infamous final shots of "The Sopranos"(in which whether or not Tony Soprano is killed is an unanswerable question)...the scene became its own source of debate(sometimes angry debate) of two sides unable to reconcile. Its rather dangerous, this Psycho psychiatrist scene. Just like the ending of The Sopranos. People can get really riled up. On the other hand, "its only a movie."



reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

What I see pretty clearly about why the Psycho psychiatrist scene is disliked in some quarters is that there is no getting around two things: (1) It is a pretty long scene; and (2) is mainly just one man explaining things. (Flashbacks might well have saved it for posterity, but we really should NOT see Norman doing the killings.)

I've never quite gotten how the great scene in Network in which TV conglomerate head Ned Beatty (in his only scene in the movie) goes on and on and on and on speechifying to Peter Finch and...Beatty gets Oscar nommed. Simon Oakland gets mocked. Is it the nature of the speech? Beatty isn't explaining plot, but he sure is explaining THEME ("There are no nations, there is no government, there is only IBM, ITT, AT and T...")

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Besides, Oakland's psychiatrist did not explain every little detail.

---

Nope. As some critic noted, the psychiatrist didn't say this: "Norman was sexually aroused by Marion and wanted to rape her. But it was a rape that he could not carry out. So he stabbed her to death instead."

Yep.

---

Originally, I thought it was to explain Norman and make sure that he was punished for it as in the AHP episodes regarding the moral code.

---

Well, there is some of that. We learn that "sweet Norman" killed Marion, Arbogast....Mrs. Bates, her boyfriend...two other women. Six. That's a serial killer.

---

But Hitchcock was already revolting against the censors with this movie.

---

That's for damn sure. Recall that when Hitch came on at the end of his AHP/AHH episodes to say "the killer was captured later," he was actually allowing the killer to GET AWAY WITH MURDER in the episode we saw: as in Psycho, heroines and heroes could DIE on AHP as long as he said "crime doesn't pay" at the end. (I am thinking specifically of An Unlocked Window, where a very sympathetic heroine played by Dana Wynter is strangled at the end.)

---

In a way, it satisfied the moral code and he got away with doing it the way he wanted except for the extended psychiatrist scene. He should've stood his ground and left it out. He had it right in giving the audience credit to figure things out.

---

Well, we know(from witnesses) that when Simon Oakland finished the scene, Hitchcock walked up to the actor and shook his hand, saying "Thank you, Mr. Oakland. You've just saved my picture." So Hitchcock must have felt that the scene was necessary in some way. Possibly to allow some of the Hays Code-busting stuff to stay in the movie?

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

And most importantly:

5) The reason(s) he committed any of the murders in the first place


--

Very key as well, isn't it, doghouse? This isn't just an explanation scene about "the surface"(oh, Norman dressed like his mother to kill people),its about the WHY for all of that, as best as can BE explained. Father died, clinging demanding mother(how'd the shrink know THAT?), no siblings, lived like no one else in the world, boyfriend comes along....but a LOT of boys grow up that way. It takes a "dangerously disturbed" boy to use those triggers to become a killer. Once Norman killed his mother(the most unbearable crime of all)...he snapped all the way.

---
And without any of that information, Mrs. Bates's interior monologue in the final scene would have made very little sense, and sent viewers home more mystified than informed, left with more questions than answers.

---

Exactly. The psychiatrist has told us what we need to know to understand Mother's monologue in the cell. Consider "the homicidal maniac" as Norman's evil soul. Norman as Norman said that MOTHER was "the homicidal maniac." Norman as Mother is saying that NORMAN was "the homicidal maniac." ("He was always bad...and he tried to tell them I killed those girls and that man, as if I could do anything other than sit and stare.") Norman refuses to take responsibility for his evil. He is always passing the blame.

---

As well, all the work Hitchcock and Stefano had done to establish themes of duality and guilt, and the many details conveying them, would have gone for naught, having no dramatic resonance whatsoever.

---

Yes.

--

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

We'd have been left with a movie that turned out in the end to have been about nothing more than a guy who dresses as his dead mother and kills people.

---

Much as I like "Frenzy," I think that that film is actually missing something as powerful as the psychiatrist scene in "Psycho." We never really learn a damn thing about how Bob Rusk became the sex killer that we see on screen. And in real life, these psychos are "one in a million." Its worth learning about what formed them. ("Born psychos" yes -- brain chemistry foul-ups -- but other factors enter in.)

With Rusk there is the issue that he lived a long time, probably into his thirties, before actually killing women. He has impotence issues which are dangerous. He has a penchant for sadomasochistic sex. As a sub-cult of society does. But how did those things eventually give way to murderous mania? Frenzy has no interest in a back story for Bob Rusk. I guess he's just too kinky....but we are given a clue that his LIVE Mother(Mrs. Rusk) has something to do with it. Only her photo is on his mantle....

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 6 years ago

I could advance a number of suppositions about Hitchcock's choice to forego a cumulative examination of Rusk's pathology, and they'd be just that: supposition. Instead, it might be informative to remember that the '60s was a decade of sensationalistic coverage of serial killers/mass murderers. In between Psycho and Frenzy, there were Albert DeSalvo (The Boston Strangler), Richard Speck (rapist and murderer of eight Chicago student nurses) and Charles Whitman (the Texas Tower Sniper, upon whom Bogdo had patterned his Targets killer in '68).

Way back in 1950, Nancy Olson and William Holden are discussing one of his story ideas in Sunset Blvd. She suggests, "To begin with, you should throw out all that psychological mess, exploring the killer's sick mind," to which Holden cynically replies, "Psychopaths sell like hotcakes."

Six years later in While the City Sleeps, news reporter and commentator Dana Andrews goes on TV to taunt "the lipstick killer" who's been terrorizing the city: "You read the so-called comic books. You're young. You're a mama's boy. The normal feeling of love that you should have toward your mother has been twisted into hatred, for her and all of her sex." And we then get a scene in which that killer's mother comes into his room and demonstrates her brand of passive/aggressive emasculation.

So in 1959-60, psychopaths were still selling like hotcakes. By 1971-72, they were in the news and all too real, and no one in authority could really explain them. Just the same, Hitchcock sprinkles in bits here and there of "exploring the killer's sick mind" - if only in the most general sense - courtesy of the two men in the pub and Insp. Oxford's mini-lecture to Sgt. Spearman on the psychology of the sexual psychopath...rather as he'd done previously in Shadow Of A Doubt, Rope and Strangers On A Train.

As Norman said and Arbogast repeated, old habits die hard. It's only that, in Psycho, there was no way to weave them in as the story played out.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I could advance a number of suppositions about Hitchcock's choice to forego a cumulative examination of Rusk's pathology, and they'd be just that: supposition.

---

Well, I suppose Hitchcock knew that the psychiatrist scene in Psycho already had some detractors. He was questioned about it often enough in interviews. The Goldman and Ebert disses didn't emerge until after Hitchcock's death, but he seemed defensive about it in life.

And again, Hitchcock was following the source novel. Psycho has a long psychological explanation at the end(from Sam based on his talks with a psychiatrist.) Frenzy has no such parts -- except in the movie, we do indeed get the two men in the pub and Oxford's speech to his assistant, Spearman.

---

Instead, it might be informative to remember that the '60s was a decade of sensationalistic coverage of serial killers/mass murderers. In between Psycho and Frenzy, there were Albert DeSalvo (The Boston Strangler), Richard Speck (rapist and murderer of eight Chicago student nurses) and Charles Whitman (the Texas Tower Sniper, upon whom Bogdo had patterned his Targets killer in '68).

---

Rather chilling to think about, yes? Its as if Psycho predicted a decade of psychos to come, and Frenzy was "same old, same old." (That's why Frenzy is as much wrong man movie as a psycho movie. Psycho is NOT a wrong man movie.)

And it turns out that Charles Whitman predicted our psychos of today: mass shooters.

----

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Way back in 1950, Nancy Olson and William Holden are discussing one of his story ideas in Sunset Blvd. She suggests, "To begin with, you should throw out all that psychological mess, exploring the killer's sick mind," to which Holden cynically replies, "Psychopaths sell like hotcakes."

---

Holden was right. His character might have been thinking of the "gangster psychos" like Richard Widmark in Kiss of Death, or James Cagney in White Heat, but they were starting to emerge in "non gangster form."

---

Six years later in While the City Sleeps, news reporter and commentator Dana Andrews goes on TV to taunt "the lipstick killer" who's been terrorizing the city: "You read the so-called comic books. You're young. You're a mama's boy. The normal feeling of love that you should have toward your mother has been twisted into hatred, for her and all of her sex." And we then get a scene in which that killer's mother comes into his room and demonstrates her brand of passive/aggressive emasculation.

---

Hmmm. I'm not familiar with this movie, but it looks like Mother and "women-hating" were predictors of psychopathy well before Psycho. Meanwhile: Cagney's mother is quite the gangster herself in White Heat(and he loves her WAY too much.)

Hitchcock's psychos pre-Norman include one with a nutty mother: Bruno Anthony in Strangers on a Train. They are too close, too.

Uncle Charlie has a sister who at once mothers him and is rather his girlfriend in Shadow of a Doubt.

---

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

So in 1959-60, psychopaths were still selling like hotcakes.

---

Well, even as Hitchcock had his "mainstream blockbuster" hit in Psycho, we have Peeping Tom getting its notoriety, and I think a wide release shocker about "Jack the Ripper" was a hit, too. But Psycho had it all -- the biggest shock set-pieces, the greatest setting(that house! that motel!), quality script, acting, and direction...

---

By 1971-72, they were in the news and all too real, and no one in authority could really explain them.

---

One wonders, just a little, if Psycho and its cheaper knockoffs(Homicidal, Strait-Jacket) and the coming of the R rating, didn't have just a LITTLE role in bringing forth so many real-life psychos(mainly sexual psychos), or if something was in the ever growing world population that just allowed more of them to appear "as part of the numbers." (If one in 100 is a psycho...you start getting more as population grows.)

"No one in authority could really explain them." This remains a truly profound key to all this. On the one hand, real life sexual psychos are rather dismissed as aberrational mutants -- there's no point in caring about the roots of a mental defective(um, that's not PC, but I mean a MURDEROUS defect.)

At heart, psychos are missing the brain mechanism that tells us "Don't kill. Don't rape." They don't even much care about incarceration or execution. They can't help themselves. But for all of that "banality," they ARE profound. What goes wrong with the human brain to produce such a killer? I'll say one thing for Barry Foster's performance in Frenzy: unlike Anthony Perkins, Foster gets one scene where we see his murderous side take over and express itself(with Brenda Blaney) and the literal lack of humanity in Rusk is something that's never left me. THAT's insanity. And it is profound in this way: men like this walk among us. How did their brains mutate to bring them about? (Not to mention the metaphysical aspect: is "evil" a state of mind?)

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Just the same, Hitchcock sprinkles in bits here and there of "exploring the killer's sick mind" - if only in the most general sense - courtesy of the two men in the pub and Insp. Oxford's mini-lecture to Sgt. Spearman on the psychology of the sexual psychopath...rather as he'd done previously in Shadow Of A Doubt, Rope and Strangers On A Train.

--

One feels the psychiatrist scene from Psycho "floating in and out" of those two scenes. Perhaps Hitchcock felt if he divided one explanation scene into two -- and had two men discuss the situation in each of the two scenes -- it would be more natural.

About the two men in the pub...its been hard for me to determine their professions. One lawyer and one doctor ? Or two laywers(of course in England, there are barristers and solicitors, they do different types of work.)

What's interesting about the men in the pub is that they outline behavior that we will see Rusk enact ("Seem like normal adults...really dangerous children...will kill when the mood strikes them..particularly dangerous when their desires are being thwarted.") Whereas Oxford opines AFTER we have seen Rusk in action, and thus Oxford spells out something we only intuitied: "Its the strangling, not the sex, that brings them on." Ick. But -- 1972 content, for adults.

It remains with me(without too much shame) that I talk a lot about Frenzy, because I do find it very much the movie that Hitchcock made that was most CONNECTED to Psycho. I find the two films almost to be an inseparable pair, even if Psycho was a big fun blockbuster and Frenzy was a grim, smallish hit with entirely too much sexual bullying to enjoy. Still..they are from the same directorial vision, they ARE linked, and they posit one same theory: the psychopath as charmer, luring victims in as a friend, and hiding the darkness within until it is too late for the victim.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I also find Bob Rusk much closer in spirt to Norman Bates than the more "movie-ish" Uncle Charlie and Bruno Anthony. Indeed, its no fault of Robert Walker's but Bruno seems to get too many goofy lines to take him that seriously as Bruno in today's context (as when he tells someone that he can smell a flower on Mars, or in his comical interactions with his Mother and even with the older woman he almost strangles.) And Uncle Charlie is a seething rager.

But Norman and Rusk have just enough charm to make us squirm: how can we LIKE these men? And both psychos were given movies in which new screen freedoms could render them far more horrifying in their actions than their predecessors. But both psychos were not really in movies that LINGERED on their crimes. Hitchcock was very careful in story structure and did not make either Psycho or Frenzy as "wall to wall murderfests."

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 6 years ago

"That's why Frenzy is as much wrong man movie as a psycho movie. Psycho is NOT a wrong man movie."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I'm reminded again of Stage Fright, which in its way bears as much kinship to Frenzy as Psycho does: modest little murder stories with plenty of eccentric humor, played out in English environs familiar to Hitch, with surly male protagonists at their centers.

And where it intersects with Psycho is in the final act trickeroo: we've been led up the garden path, believing we're watching a "wrong man" story when we're not; Psycho flips the coin and reveals we've been watching a "wrong woman" story without realizing it, only it's we who've been wrong rather than the cops.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"One wonders, just a little, if Psycho and its cheaper knockoffs(Homicidal, Strait-Jacket) and the coming of the R rating, didn't have just a LITTLE role in bringing forth so many real-life psychos"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There was a time not all that long ago at which I would have resisted such ideas. But hubby and I were perusing the cable channels just last night and, presented with the array of rednecks, trailer trash, ancient aliens and battling chefs, housewives or brides on offer, along with the action-oriented CGI superheroes and fantasy worlds on the movie channels, I began to re-evaluate the effects an ever-cheapening culture may have had on behaviors and the motivations behind them (among which were 63 million votes for a belligerent, know-nothing loudmouth with the emotional maturity of a nine-year-old), and was forced to confront the possibilities of such causes-and-effects.

Sorry for getting political.

Now back to the movies.

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 6 years ago

"I'll say one thing for Barry Foster's performance in Frenzy: unlike Anthony Perkins, Foster gets one scene where we see his murderous side take over and express itself(with Brenda Blaney) and the literal lack of humanity in Rusk is something that's never left me. THAT's insanity."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
That's what, to me, is the most fascinating aspect of comparing Norman and Rusk. Norman's got a functional wall between his charming and murderous selves; he doesn't consciously know he's guilty, but he does know this much: "We all go a little mad sometimes." With Rusk, it's all integrated, of which he's fully aware.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"About the two men in the pub...its been hard for me to determine their professions. One lawyer and one doctor ? Or two laywers(of course in England, there are barristers and solicitors, they do different types of work.)"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yeah, I've gone back and forth with myself on that, and have settled my own mind on a doctor and a lawyer (of either type).

The first one talks about not envying the lot of "any medical man giving evidence" in such cases. The other responds with legalese about "diminished responsibility" (sounds like a crown prosecutor), to which the first then replies with a detailed description of the pathology.

Doesn't really matter who's what, though, does it? Just a curiosity.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

"I'll say one thing for Barry Foster's performance in Frenzy: unlike Anthony Perkins, Foster gets one scene where we see his murderous side take over and express itself(with Brenda Blaney) and the literal lack of humanity in Rusk is something that's never left me. THAT's insanity."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
That's what, to me, is the most fascinating aspect of comparing Norman and Rusk. Norman's got a functional wall between his charming and murderous selves; he doesn't consciously know he's guilty, but he does know this much: "We all go a little mad sometimes." With Rusk, it's all integrated, of which he's fully aware.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Yes, I think so...and I think Hitchcock, in making Frenzy, elected to give us a "new kind of psycho."

I've noted from time to time that I think Hitchcock made "one psycho movie a decade" -- Shadow of a Doubt for the 40's, Strangers on a Train for the 50's, Psycho for the 60's, and Frenzy for the 70's -- and my feeling is: he didn't want to make too many of these things. He didn't want to overdo the studies of madness.

Rusk allowed Hitchcock to show a psycho BEING a psycho and it was a new type of study for him. And if Rusk has indeed "integrated" his madness into a "normal" personality that he uses as a knowing "front"("Got a place to stay?"), that's a pretty bad guy. A predator who knows he is a predator.

Norman evidently has no conscious knowledge of his murderous side; he has given it to "the other" who only arises when Norman(per the novel at least) passes out. Since we can't use the novel to read the movie, we get to go with (ta da!) the psychiatrist again: "After the murder, Norman awoke as if from a deep sleep...."


reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

"That's why Frenzy is as much wrong man movie as a psycho movie. Psycho is NOT a wrong man movie."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I'm reminded again of Stage Fright, which in its way bears as much kinship to Frenzy as Psycho does: modest little murder stories with plenty of eccentric humor, played out in English environs familiar to Hitch, with surly male protagonists at their centers.

--

True. Hitchcock movies rather match up to each other in different ways, different pairings. He made 53 of them, give or take, it was bound to happen.

Indeed, critics always seemed to get something wrong when Frenzy came out in 1972: how many years had it been since Hitchcock had last made a movie in England?

Some reached back to Stage Fright(1950.) But of course, the second half of The Man Who Knew Too Much(1956) took place in London, too. Still, Stage Fright -- though a Warner Brothers film with at least one American star in it(Jane Wyman) -- "felt" like the last Hitchcock movie made in England before Frenzy.

And what of Dial M for Murder in 1954? It is entirely set IN London. Neither Hitch nor his cast travelled to London to make the film, but SOMEBODY came up with some process plates of a "typical London residential street."

In short, London had figured in 1950, 1954 and 1956 in Hitchcock films before Hitchcock "came home" in 1972. (Not to mention Hitchcock's "British American films" that peppered the 40's.)

That said, Frenzy is British through and through -- not a frame filmed at Universal Studios or in America at all. Not one fake-British- accented American actor in it. Frenzy is possibly the first "real British film" made by Hitchcock since The Lady Vanishes.



reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

And where it intersects with Psycho is in the final act trickeroo: we've been led up the garden path, believing we're watching a "wrong man" story when we're not; Psycho flips the coin and reveals we've been watching a "wrong woman" story without realizing it, only it's we who've been wrong rather than the cops.

---

Yes, it is interesting to see how Hitchcock "toyed with his themes" in some movie. I suppose it is another reason that Psycho is a true classic and Frenzy is not. The "wrong man" theme in Frenzy is rather familiar; the "wrong woman" theme in Psycho is an entirely different game afoot.

Psycho circa 1960 to an uninitiated audience that hadn't read the book and didn't guess the twist ending.must have been a real lollapalooza of a surprise. We spend the whole movie from the shower scene on, fearing Mrs. Bates and it turns out not to be her doing the killing. That's pretty nifty.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

"One wonders, just a little, if Psycho and its cheaper knockoffs(Homicidal, Strait-Jacket) and the coming of the R rating, didn't have just a LITTLE role in bringing forth so many real-life psychos"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There was a time not all that long ago at which I would have resisted such ideas.

---

Me, too...but....

---

But hubby and I were perusing the cable channels just last night and, presented with the array of rednecks, trailer trash, ancient aliens and battling chefs, housewives or brides on offer, along with the action-oriented CGI superheroes and fantasy worlds on the movie channels, I began to re-evaluate the effects an ever-cheapening culture may have had on behaviors and the motivations behind them (among which were 63 million votes for a belligerent, know-nothing loudmouth with the emotional maturity of a nine-year-old), and was forced to confront the possibilities of such causes-and-effects.

---

I'd say there are possibilities of this nature now. This very machine that allows you and me to talk about movies of long ago that don't get much ink today is rather a positive miracle for those of us who want to talk such minutae -- but in so many other ways, the internet and Twitter and everything else have been manipulated for very bad things to accelerate. Not to mention, indeed, the kind of TV and movies that gets made now. Indeed, the President who has been elected and what he says is unheard of for the 200 some odd years before he arrived and yet-- is not his arrival the natural consequence of all this? The Presidency was devalued in recent years anyway. Silicon Valley moguls, baseball players, movie stars -- all get paid far more and are far more revered than Presidents. Part of what Trump did -- as Arnold Schwarzenegger in California did before him -- was to say "why elect one of these nobodies? Go with a STAR."

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

And this: with 20 some odd Democrats elbowing to take Trump on, the one candidate who gives me pause is this Beto guy.

Why? Because there seems to be proof that he wrote some sort of short story, years ago, in which he fantasized about the thrill of running over young kids with his car!

And yet, he's still in the race. Why? Because now anything and anyone goes in these things. Makes you miss brokered conventions, smoke filled rooms, and kingmakers...

---

Sorry for getting political.

Now back to the movies.

---
Oh, well. Politics aside, I do believe that in this era of school shootings, Vegas mass shootings, etc, gun control can be the objective topic of debate, but lurking behind that debate is something maybe people don't want to confront: society itself has so debased itself in some corners that this kind of murder is more a symptom than a cause.

And yet..you can't legislate against that. And the Hays Code -- which among other things was against "cheapening the taking of human life" is gone, too.

I'm still glad the Hays Code is gone. But perhaps that loss was a gateway to today. Inevitable once underway.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

"About the two men in the pub...its been hard for me to determine their professions. One lawyer and one doctor ? Or two laywers(of course in England, there are barristers and solicitors, they do different types of work.)"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yeah, I've gone back and forth with myself on that, and have settled my own mind on a doctor and a lawyer (of either type).

The first one talks about not envying the lot of "any medical man giving evidence" in such cases. The other responds with legalese about "diminished responsibility" (sounds like a crown prosecutor), to which the first then replies with a detailed description of the pathology.

Doesn't really matter who's what, though, does it? Just a curiosity.

---

No, it doesn't much matter. As with other things in Frenzy( and in all movies I have viewed), these are two guys I pretty much took for granted the first time I saw the film, and then, on some later viewing, I just sort of wondered.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

The two professional men are an interesting "set up" part of Frenzy, by the way. Recall how in The Birds, Hitchcock kept giving us little clues that "the birds is coming." One pecks Tippi's forehead. Another crashes into Annie's door. And Mitch sees too many of them perched on phone wires. We are being conditioned to await and respond to their "big arrival."

So it goes in Frenzy. We are conditioned to await the first appearance of the Necktie Strangler.

The film opens with a naked female body floating to shore on the Thames River . We hear "another necktie murder!" Someone notes that in comparison to Jack the Ripper, this killer is a strangler.

Then Blaney buys a paper from a stand with "ANOTHER NECKTIE MURDER" blaring out.

And THEN those two professionals turn up to discuss the case, and we get a new piece of information from the barmaid and a terrible response from one of the professionals:

Barmaid: I 'ear he rapes 'em first.
Lawyer: Well, its good to know that every cloud has a silver lining.

Awful remark, and I think it was meant to be awful even in 1972. But ALSO for 1972, it was meant to let us know that this would be a new kind of Hitchcock thriller. Sex would be on the table. Censorship was over beyond "R" musings...

All of this is dropped into the story from place to place, as Blaney's story proceeds as its own little drama with no inkling of the strangler story being a part of it. And the same goes for poor Brenda. She's involved in a small scale emotional drama with her newly fired ex-husband. She has no idea a clock is ticking on her very life.

And then Rusk comes through Brenda's office door with a bit of weird music. In the theater, people yelled out: "Its HIM!" You see...we'd been waiting all along to meet the Necktie Strangler. Hitchcock had prepared us well...and prepared Blaney to be the wrong man.

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 6 years ago

Always interesting to compare notes on first impressions. When I first saw Psycho, I'd known well in advance of the two big surprises, and by the time I saw Stage Fright, I'd already read the Truffaut book (and about "the flashback that lied").

Other than it being the new Hitchcock film, I came to Frenzy cold and could buy into everything it was selling. It's here that I wonder if our impressions differed.

It seemed to me Hitchcock spent the first 20 or so minutes hinting very strongly that Blaney WAS the "necktie strangler:" we go directly from a closeup of the tie on the body in the Thames to Blaney donning one - in identical colors - in his room; following scenes establish his volatile nature, one of which is the pub scene in which the doctor* describes the behavior - "They're particularly dangerous when their desires are being frustrated" - which Blaney then exhibits with his hostility toward the barman over the brandy he's just been served; he abruptly vanishes when the bobby shows up at Rusk's stall to talk about the murders; he again quickly loses his temper in the scenes with Brenda in her office and at dinner.

I was perhaps not as sophisticated as a late-teens viewer as you were, but I was completely taken in by all of it, and bought into all these visual and thematic associations between Blaney and the strangler.

*I took a quick look at the pub scene, and when the two men come in, one of them indeed says to the other, "What'll you have, Doctor?"

Funny we could both see the film who-knows-how-many times and not recall that detail. I shall chide myself with some thick-tongue-clicking.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Always interesting to compare notes on first impressions. When I first saw Psycho, I'd known well in advance of the two big surprises,

---

Hell, I knew ALL the surprises. In fact, I kind of believe that I FIRST "saw" Psycho when it was told to me, by about three separate childhood friends on three occasions. I merged their memories into one, and got the whole movie.

---

and by the time I saw Stage Fright, I'd already read the Truffaut book (and about "the flashback that lied").

---

Can't say which I dealt with first, there.

---

Other than it being the new Hitchcock film, I came to Frenzy cold and could buy into everything it was selling. It's here that I wonder if our impressions differed.

---

Well, I'm afraid I came into Frenzy having read the novel so...no surprises.

Though a "re-check" of the novel reveals this: in the book, Rusk isn't revealed as the killer until he gets off the potato truck with the tiepin(er, latchkey in the book, but Dial M nixed that.)

One reads the book thinking that Blaney(Blamey in the book) COULD be the killer all the way until Rusk is revealed. (Before then, it is just passages like "Brenda Blaney looked up to see a man coming into her office. The man spoke...")


reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

It seemed to me Hitchcock spent the first 20 or so minutes hinting very strongly that Blaney WAS the "necktie strangler:"

--

Oh, yes...absolutely...I really should have covered this aspect of the set-up. Oops. And as Hitchcock told Bogdanovich, Blaney is being set up to US as a killer, but also to the POLICE for later when the various clues(Brenda's cash and make-up) point to him.

---

we go directly from a closeup of the tie on the body in the Thames to Blaney donning one - in identical colors - in his room; following scenes establish his volatile nature, one of which is the pub scene in which the doctor* describes the behavior - "They're particularly dangerous when their desires are being frustrated" - which Blaney then exhibits with his hostility toward the barman over the brandy he's just been served;

---

That bit where Blaney rages right after the men talk about the killer's rage always struck me as a bit ham handed. It seemed that sophisticated Hitch would sometimes lose the sophistication and go for the obvious. (Another example: Uncle Charlile noisily turning up the radio to drown out Young Charlie's screams from the garage in Shadow of a Doubt.)

---
he abruptly vanishes when the bobby shows up at Rusk's stall to talk about the murders;

---

That one was nice -- a Hitchocck specialty: "Absence as presence." (Joe Maloney does it in Arthur Adamson's office only one film later in Family Plot; self-plagiarism is style)

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

he again quickly loses his temper in the scenes with Brenda in her office and at dinner.

---

Here I felt that character was being established for Blaney, not for the Necktie Killer, though again, everything seemed too sudden...he flashed from nice guy to rager. Later on, too, with the couple who took him in; same thing. A bit broad, IMHO.

But again, I will certainly take that Blaney is looking like the killer for much of the first 30 minutes of Frenzy; still I expect my 1972 audience members who yelled "Its' him!" as Rusk entered Brenda's office knew all too quickly who the real killer was.

My analysis is really perhaps more about what Hitchcock DOESN'T take up: Richard Blaney going through a very bad day and revealing a very bad temper, with no inkling that the Necktie Strangler headlines will soon feature him.

Interesting: per the book on the making of Frenzy, Hitchcock interviewed all sorts of near-unknown actors for Rusk after Michael Caine turned the part down.

And one actor considered to play Bob Rusk... was Jon Finch.

For the life of me, I can't picture Finch as the psycho -- too earthy and realistic. Barry Foster with his butterscotch-blonde hair and pseudo-Caine manner, much more flamboyant in the Hitchcock villain tradition.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I was perhaps not as sophisticated as a late-teens viewer as you were,

---

No, no, no. I apologize for giving that impression. "Hardly THAT," as Madame Blanche said. I wasn't that sophisticated at all. My comment about my level of sophistication in 1972 was left unfinished by me. I think the answer is: I was FAIRLY sophisticated(read a lot of reviews, had some opinions) but I really had some growing up to do to understand the full depth of The Godfather or the sexual details of Frenzy or the Nazi/historical power of Cabaret.

I remember Klute utterly disappointing me; I was expecting a "Wait Until Dark" like thriller. It took DECADES to "get" that movie.

All I really got in 1972 was the murder scenes and the musical numbers. Hah.

---

but I was completely taken in by all of it,

---

That's great! A satisfied Hitchcock customer.

---

and bought into all these visual and thematic associations between Blaney and the strangler.

---

One can imagine the movie changing gears if Blaney WAS the killer. I'm not sure he'd kill Brenda; that would throw the plot off.

Maybe he would kill other women and RUSK would be the wrong man. Hah.

Which reminds me: to the unitiated, the first scene between Rusk and Blaney at Rusk's fruit market must have been something if you "didn't know." Neither actor was a familiar star, so we started from scratch: Which one's the hero?(seems like Rusk) Which one's the villain?(seems like Blaney) Or will they team up like buddies to find the killer?

Only one answer was right.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

*I took a quick look at the pub scene, and when the two men come in, one of them indeed says to the other, "What'll you have, Doctor?"

Funny we could both see the film who-knows-how-many times and not recall that detail. I shall chide myself with some thick-tongue-clicking

---

Hah. Well, I think back in 1984 I knew it was a doctor(from VHS), but then I forgot.

This scene is good not only for the "shrink scene" psychiatric detail, but for how the two men(one in particular) talk about the "Jack the Ripper" flavor of the story --- "sex murders are so good for the tourist trade," he says, remaking on clichés of "fog-shrouded streets cluttered with ripped whores.")

In short this scene is about atmosphere as well as about psychiatry.

And this: Frenzy IS a Jack the Ripper tale, about a mysterious killer terrorizing a city; everybody knows about him(and the men are cool and cocky about him because his victims are only women.) Psycho is about a "hidden" psycho killer whom nobody knows about, except his victims...

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

I read all your other posts. Sorry I could not get to them earlier. Even if the screenwriter or execs cajoled or forced Hitchcock to add the psychiatrist scene, I think Hitchcock would have fought them. There was no need despite your's and many other's strong opinions that Norman had to be explained. I doubt you got all of your reasons from the psychiatrist anyway. Like Ebert says, he could have explained a bit and then cut to the blanket scene. People have a way of figuring these things out and it adds to the attractiveness of the movie. The psychiatrist did not explain everything and we still found things to add to the movie like Norman being sexually abused by his mother. I do not mind watching a good movie again to figure it out. You may still be discussing it decades later haha.

ETA: I found more on the Edwin Hopper painting that inspired the Psycho house. You may know it since you are the resident expert on the movie on MC. I didn't know there was a house that inspired Hopper's painting and it still stands today.

https://dustyoldthing.com/hopper-house-hitchcock-psycho/

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

There was no need despite your's and many other's strong opinions that Norman had to be explained.

---

Its come to almost...delight?...me, that Psycho -- such a landmark film, such an unforgettable shock entertainment with such great cinematic sequences... such great performances...still has this massive argument going on about a scene that some say is just AWFUL. Honestly, I think William Goldman, the late screenwriter who hated this scene said the movie was a masterpiece even WITH "the bad scene."

----

I doubt you got all of your reasons from the psychiatrist anyway.

---

Well, some of the reasons were set up elsewhere in the film. As when Deputy Sheriff Chambers that Mrs. Bates poisoned her lover and herself. All the psychiatrist "explained" here was fact: no, Norman killed them both.

In fact, very much in your favor, jasonbourne, you have forced me to re-think exactly what the psychiatrist HAD to explain.

I think he HAD to explain that Norman, not Mother, killed Mother and her boyfriend. Otherwise Chambers' wrong information would...remain wrong. It had to be explained -- and it solved a mystery we didn't know needed to be solved(who REALLY killed Mother?)

--

OK, that one HAD to be explained. But not these two:

ONE: Norman gutted and stuffed his mother. I think it is gruesome information that takes Psycho that much higher into landmark taboo-breaking horror, but we didn't HAVE to know that. We could just figure that Mother was rotting away naturally.

TWO: Norman killed two women("young girls" when that was the term) before Marion. Now, here we really didn't NEED to know this, but I think it was something people were wondering: was Norman a "one time killer"(Marion) ...or a serial killer? We get our answer here, but we didn't HAVE to have it.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Like Ebert says, he could have explained a bit and then cut to the blanket scene. People have a way of figuring these things out and it adds to the attractiveness of the movie.

--

Certainly. The vast majority of psychopaths in the movies don't get explained anymore. I am thinking of Scorpio in Dirty Harry and Tom Cruise in Collateral. They're just crazy. And evil. And we can only guess why.

Though that's kind of true about Norman, too. Yes he killed his mother and yes that drove him to half-become her and to stuff her, etc. But "in the beginning" (when he killed Mother and her lover) Norman was a "born psycho." Evidently. Its in the brain chemistry, so they say. Or evil.

---

The psychiatrist did not explain everything and we still found things to add to the movie like Norman being sexually abused by his mother.

---

Interestingly, some that backstory WAS in Bloch's novel, but evidently deemed too hot for the Hays Code(also, how do you SHOW it? Who plays Mrs. Bates?)

---

I do not mind watching a good movie again to figure it out.

--

Well, remember: Psycho in 1960 got some of the biggest "return visits" in distribution history. People came back to see if it all fit.

Hitchcock felt his movies should be seen three times each. Yeah, I'll bet. $$$

And he made one movie expressly to MAKE audiences go back: Family Plot. The poster said "You must see it twice." Why? To find out if Madame Blanche really IS psychic when she finds the diamond at the end.

---

You may still be discussing it decades later haha.

--

Hitchcock lived to see lots of books and articles written about his movies, but I'll bet he couldn't even dream of internet chat rooms. I couldn't. That and YouTube to put his greatest scenes right at our fingertips.

The internet: a miracle and an act of Satan, all at the same time.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

ETA: I found more on the Edwin Hopper painting that inspired the Psycho house. You may know it since you are the resident expert on the movie on MC. I didn't know there was a house that inspired Hopper's painting and it still stands today.

https://dustyoldthing.com/hopper-house-hitchcock-psycho/

---

I'd seen SOME of that, but not all of that. The painting, yes. The real house, no. Thank you!

One of the weird things, I think, about Psycho, is that evidently no production sketches of the exterior Bates House seem to have been kept. But you never know: only in the last couple of years has a sketch emerged of the INTERIOR of the house as hoped for(a big clock against the wall was rejected.)

So maybe Hitch just went with the Hopper painting as his guide. The stories are all over the place, but it seems that Hitchcock grabbed one of the old houses from the Universal lot and "re-worked it," adding the cupola from the "Harvey" house and probably making a few more changes to an existing Universal set.

That and -- the famous house we see in Psycho 1960 was only built on TWO SIDES: the front and the side we always see to the left of Mother's window. Neither the other side of the house nor the back of the house(exterior) were built. Cheapo Hitch!

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

You may know it since you are the resident expert on the movie on MC.

--

Ha. Oh, somewhat. We have a number of people here who know the movie very well -- and you seem to be one of them.

I think I add these things to the mix:

I'm older than some folks here. Not old enough to have seen Psycho on release in 1960, but old enough to have lived through its re-releases, aborted TV showings, and constant shadow over American culture in the 60's.

I was alive to see things others were not, like a commercial for Psycho coming on the CBS Friday Night movie that made my hair stand on end -- Mother swinging her knife down the first time in the shower. They showed this on a summer weekday morning. I only saw that commercial once. I wonder if it was banned thereafter.

I read the requisite books -- and you can too: Hitchocck/Truffaut(with its landmark photos of the two murders, Arbogast's bloodied face being quite terrifying in freeze frame); Hitchcock's Films; The Art of Alfred Hitchcock, The Dark Side of Genius, Alfred Hitchcock and the making of Psycho. Hitchcock in Dark and Light. And two books about Anthony Perkins. And Janet Leigh's book about Psycho.

But through some microfiche research reading over the years, I stumbled onto all sorts of nifty quotes over time.

Like Tony Perkins saying of the impending Oscar nominations in 1961(for 1960 films): "I think I'll be nominated. Janet, too." Oops Tony. One out of two aint bad. Janet.

Like Tony Perkins saying of Norman Bates in Psycho(the original) "Have you ever noticed how little he is IN it?"

Like Alfred Hitchcock saying: "the second murder is shorter...and more terrifying...than the first." Playing favorites, Hitch?

Like a photo of Hitchcock shaking Janet Leigh's hand over their Psycho nominations. (Janet is wearing Marion's dress, but not Marion's hairstyle.

Like a photo of a big photo of Janet Leigh screaming in the shower on the wall on the side of the West Los Angeles Crest Theater -- "Academy Members! Have You Seen Psycho Yet?"

Etc

Anyway, you add up a few decades of this sort of thing on one movie and yes, you become a bit of an expert.

I'll note I'm about that good on North by Northwest and The Wild Bunch, too. And The Godfather -- but EVERYBODY is up on The Godfather.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

>>Though that's kind of true about Norman, too. Yes he killed his mother and yes that drove him to half-become her and to stuff her, etc. But "in the beginning" (when he killed Mother and her lover) Norman was a "born psycho." Evidently. Its in the brain chemistry, so they say. Or evil.<<

It was jealousy and probably a crime of passion that drove him to kill his mother and lover. After all, she was his lover first. I suppose you are getting at the matricide that drove him to become his mother...

This would be one of the parts to re-watch. The question would come up whether Norman was a transvestite, but we would be able to figure out that he wasn't doing it for sexual arousal or masturbation. At first, we thought she was still alive and the killer until he was exposed and her corpse found.

The questions would lead back to the Sheriff scene where he tells us what happened to the mother and her lover. The big question would be WHY IS HE DRESSING UP AS HIS MOTHER???!!!???!!! However, the Sheriff's explanation doesn't explain Norman so more digging would be required.

We do not know if Norman was born psycho. Where do you get that?

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

We do not know if Norman was born psycho. Where do you get that?

---

Conjecture, on the one hand(more on that in a moment.)

Now the psychiatrist puts it a little later than birth, saying:

"Now, Norman was already dangerously disturbed..had been ever since his father died."

Hmm. Norman told Marion (in the parlor) that his father died when he was FIVE. So Norman was disturbed ONLY since age five?

And honestly, on a brief few hours interview with "Mother," how did the psychiatrist come up with THAT idea? (I suppose if you are an only male child, and your father dies at five, and your mother gets way too close with you , and you live like there was no one else in the world...you could start to go crazy.)

But back to my surmise: Norman was a born psycho.

Well, I think he was a born KILLER. Something was missing in his genetic make-up, in his brain's ability to control jealously and rage. LOTS of boys' mothers take on boyfriends and the boys don't kill them. I'm willing to bet that LOTS of boys' fathers die at age five and the boy is raised alone by the mother.

In fact, ANTHONY PERKINS' father died when he was five, and Perkins was raised all alone by his mother.

In fact, with Hitchcock's permission, Perkins wrote those lines in the parlor scene about Norman's father dying when Norman was five. Perkins helped recreate Norman Bates as...Anthony Perkins.

No, I think Norman was born a killer -- a POSSIBLE killer -- and it took until his teens to unleash it by killing his mother and her boyfriend. But...and I think we can certainly accept this -- the matricide forced Norman to "split" -- and to give Mother all of his murderous power -- Norman would always blame mother for the killings. At the end, in the cell, Norman has shifted the "good person" TO Mother -- and "she" tells us that Norman was the killer.


reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

My surmise here, by the way, is an example of exactly what you are talking about: the psychiatrist didn't TELL me that Norman was a born killer, but I felt that the historical facts presented and parts of the psychiatrist's speech allowed me to come up with my theory as to how/why/when Norman became a killer. He was born one; his youthful life story shaped him and unleashed his killer within.

You know, I've read about a few serial killers in my time, but its never as mysterious and entertaining(yes, entertaining) as the fictional back story of the fictional Norman Bates.

Serial killers are indeed born psycho, and indeed the family to which they are born accelerates the psychopathy. If the home has abuse(punishment or sexual), substance-abusing parents, poverty(though there are certainly some well off psychos -- the suburban Columbine killers are an example), a criminal element(dad's an armed robber)....these factors bring out the psycho in the psycho.

But it is worse than that. So "genetically inbred" is the homicidal tendency in the psychopath that their first sign of murderousness is...as children, they torture and kill pets and small animals. Yep. Imagine if Psycho told us THAT about handsome sweet Norman Bates.

No..Norman Bates as portrayed by Anthony Perkins is a rather "sanitized" version of the psychopath..even if his movie was called "the sickest movie ever made" by one 1960 critic.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

I don't deny that it is a sick and disturbing movie. It's made more sicker and more disturbing as you piece together the clues. It is suppose to be as Hitchcock told us in his trailer. Did you watch the different trailers? I'm sure you did and you know it's not like other trailers. He even tells us more about what happened to Arbogast when he fell down the stairs. Then we see the mother pounce even though Arbogast couldn't move. Why is the mother so vicious in her killings?

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I don't deny that it is a sick and disturbing movie.

---

It sure was considered such in its time from many reviews I've read -- and a lot of parental neighborhood warnings I lived through .

The primacy I have given Psycho as expressed at this board is that in MY childhood/early youth, there were "regular movies"( Doris Day movies, John Wayne movies, Biblical epics, musicals) and there was Psycho. Yes, it was from the mystery/horror genre where other movies came from but it supposedly went further (in that shower especially) than any of them. I like what Bogdanovich has written of Psycho: "the first movie that made it dangerous to go into a movie theater."

As one critic wrote of Psycho, it created a "lurking nostalgia for evil" that haunted at least two generations.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

It's made more sicker and more disturbing as you piece together the clues.

---

Yep. Where Norman Bates starts out in the story, and where he finishes...is an epic journey into madness. Oh, its always there, but we have to find out about it "up close and personal."

---

It is suppose to be as Hitchcock told us in his trailer. Did you watch the different trailers? I'm sure you did and you know it's not like other trailers.

---

Absolutely. I consider Hitchcock's "tour guide" 1960 trailer to be the greatest trailer ever made because...it doesn't look like a regular trailer. There are no scenes from the movie in it! Not a one. Even the "shower scene" at the end is re-staged with Vera Miles!

Hitchcock was a big star by then thanks to his TV show, and though I don't approve of all of his "hammy bits" in the trailer, it is well written and lays out a few things that the movie will demonstrate to be themes.

Example: "Of course, the victim -- or should I say victims -- had no idea of the kind of people they were dealing with in this house."

Hitch had been talking about one murder(the staircase) and hinting that there would be more("victim or should I say victims").

But indeed, the key to the suspense in Psycho is that no one -- Marion, Arbogast, Sam, Lila DOES have an idea of the kind of people(hah, Hitch -- you mean "kind of PERSON" really) With Marion's story, we are in the same place. But once she is so horribly killed, now we go NUTS realizing that the characters who follow don't know who they are dealing with ("I can handle a sick old woman.")



reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

He even tells us more about what happened to Arbogast when he fell down the stairs.

---

"The victim tumbled and fell with a horrible crash -- the back broke immediately --"

I saw that trailer long AFTER I'd seen the movie a few times and it never really occurred to me that Arbogast's back broke immediately, but yeah, I guess a stair fall would do that. That's one thing that makes the Arbogast killing so vicious. Had he only been PUSHED down the stairs it likely would have been a fatal or near-fatal fall. But he has to undergo all those stab wounds, too.

---

Then we see the mother pounce even though Arbogast couldn't move.

---

Well, I think with Arbogast -- specifically from the viewpoint of an "old lady" -- she felt that in having to kill a fairly tough looking man, she had to move fast and without mercy. With both Marion and later, Lila, "Mother" stops to pose with knife raised high to announce her terrifying presence. With Arbogast? Nope -- she runs right out at him, slashes at him, forces him backwards onto the stairs -- and indeed pounces on him to finish him off without mercy, as quickly as possible. You can FEEL the merciliess rage in this murder -- its part of the reason it is such a work of landmark horror on top of the more lengthy and fragmented shower slaughter.

--



reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago


Why is the mother so vicious in her killings?

--

Before answering that, I'll say that the fact that she IS so vicious in her killings is part of what elevated Psycho from mystery thriller to horror movie. She's not just a killer, she's a MONSTER. And she doesn't just kill people(one stab would do, done right)...she SLAUGHTERS them. That scared people when watching the murders, and kept them in suspense between and after murders.

I think one critic postulated that when Mother stabs Marion over and over and over, from Mother's viewpoint, she is "extinguishing a dangerous intruder" -- she's out to destroy and annihilate her victim as you or I might squash a
Black Widow spider. (And Marion is an intruder upon Mother's life with Norman as Arbogast is later an intruder into her house.)

There is also the issue of deep-seated rage. We see Norman's rage on "slow boil" a few times in the movie(with Marion in the parlor, with Arbogast on the motel porch)...but it proves far worse than we thought. Norman likely HATES Marion even as he desires her -- she's pretty, she's decided to go home, she's FREE and he can't achieve any sexual satisfaction with her. So he kills her. Mercilessly.

With Arbogast, the lack of mercy comes with needing to kill a MAN off...but Arbogast had also pushed Norman hard, embarrassed him and called Mother "a sick old woman." There's some payback in this killing(which I always see in that angry slash to his face...its not a killing wound, its a RAGE wound.)


reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

New York Times critic Bosley Crowther wrote a positive review and then a second even more positive column on Psycho in 1960, but a few years later in a book on films, he wrote about Psycho and offered this(paraphrased):

"Why was Psycho so terrifying to so many people around the world? I now believe it is because of the monstrous demon Hitchcock created to commit the murders."

An old lady with superhuman strength , a big knife, and no mercy.

Me, I find her much scarier(when killing) than Michael Myers or Jason -- those guys with their masks are like Frankenstein Robots. Mother's much more "up close and personal."

reply
formatting help
[–] twinA (4921) 6 years ago

This retrospective is wonderfully conductive in detailing Norman's Bates's ordinate need to feel protected from encroaching forces from the outside world, living in an environment that matches the intrinsic psyche of his mind: secluded and mysterious. The level of insight on this film's board is to be personally commended on its depth and quality.

It's not what we know about him that makes him so illuminating to us, the viewer, but what we do not know.

Let's examine the final scene in "Psycho II" (1983) for further context on the relationship between him and his mother, quoting two YouTube commenters on the keen observations they make.
(Spoilers Ahead)




"Ultimately, in Psycho II, Norman made an honest attempt to recover from his insanity, but the cruelty and schemes everyone else pulled on him caused him to lapse back into the same old insanity where all he had was an illusion of his mother being with him, the only person who would love him unconditionally and protect him from whoever would try to hurt him, fool him, or take advantage of him."

/

"0:38 the second he decides he's going to kill her. The sandwiches were the only good memory he has left of his real mother. When she swiftly turns down the sandwiches he kills her to replace her with 'Mother.'"

All of this is very stimulating.

Reference:
Fear: The Home of Horror
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5AicnM00Hg

~~/o/

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

This retrospective is wonderfully conductive in detailing Norman's Bates's ordinate need to feel protected from encroaching forces from the outside world, living in an environment that matches the intrinsic psyche of his mind: secluded and mysterious.

---

That's a great call on another element of the greatness of Psycho. That setting of "house and motel" is also a setting of great isolation and seclusion, and Norman (and Mother) spend most of their time there utterly alone. There is the irony that his "business" invites outsiders in (its a motel), but it doesn't get much business so most of the time its just Norman and Mom. Or really, just Norman with Mom in his head.

In the great, original Psycho, one "welcome and beautiful intruder" to Norman's world(Marion) probably pleases him for awhile -- human contact with a beautiful woman willing to dine with him.

But once she's dead, the sequential intruders to Norman's private world are nothing but trouble: Arbogast(the first sign that "mother killed the wrong girl this time), Deputy Sheriff Chambers, SamandLila(they are like one character.) And SamandLila make the ultimate intrusion and expose all.

--

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

The level of insight on this film's board is to be personally commended on its depth and quality.

---

On behalf of everybody here, thank you. And...please join us ifyou wish.

---

It's not what we know about him that makes him so illuminating to us, the viewer, but what we do not know.

---

I think I see where you are going here -- the idea that the psychiatrist scene undercuts the mysterious nature of Norman Bates. Well, I think maybe the answer to that is like the psychiatrist says in the movie: "Yes...AND No."

Yes , we get some background on Norman that lessens his mystery, but I think he remains wonderfully inscrutable up to that point -- some of us crave that psychiatrist scene BECAUSE Norman is inscrutable.

...and I think he remains pretty inscrutable AFTER the psychiatrist scene, too. We'll never fully understand the depths of Norman's madness. And it is only at the end that "sweet nice Norman" finally has the face of the monster within.

In short, I don't think the psychiatric explanation neither fully explains Norman, nor ruins his mystery.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Let's examine the final scene in "Psycho II" (1983) for further context on the relationship between him and his mother, quoting two YouTube commenters on the keen observations they make.
(Spoilers Ahead)

--

You know, I've always been a little wary of giving the same weight to Psychos II, III, and IV as to the original film - something about the lesser scripts and directorial talents on the films. But it must be said that all three sequels allowed "new people" to run their own thoughts about Norman Bates up on the big screen for audiences to consider. Of the three, I think that Psycho III is most insightful and best connected to the original, but Psycho II was the big hit of the sequels.

And hence...let's talk a bit about Psycho II.

---



"Ultimately, in Psycho II, Norman made an honest attempt to recover from his insanity, but the cruelty and schemes everyone else pulled on him caused him to lapse back into the same old insanity where all he had was an illusion of his mother being with him, the only person who would love him unconditionally and protect him from whoever would try to hurt him, fool him, or take advantage of him."

---

The big "hook" of the sequels , I think is two-fold: Norman now seems to know exactly the monster he is capable of being, and he is desperately trying not to return there. He starts Psycho II "declared sane" by the State, and one wonders: he killed at least six people, BUTCHERED two of them with a knife and...he's OK now?

Well, the law says so. And Lila Crane Loomis (ala Dirty Harry) says: "Then the law's crazy." And it is Lila who comes most forcefully at Norman, with the goal(we surmise) of either driving him crazy again, or proving that he was never really cured.



/

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

But first, Toomey the Motel Manager, played in his wonderful greasy style by Dennis Franz. HE comes at Norman directly: "Ya psycho, ya!" and actually challenges Norman to a fight in which Norman can use a butcher knife. Norman's once-vaunted "secret life" as a killer is out in the open here, and Norman cannot give Toomey a fight. (Mother is Norman's protector, the true psycho and Mother -- later -- takes care of Toomey.)

Anyway, with Toomey coming directly at NOrman, and Lila indirectly -- with the Meg Tilly character helping torment him before switching sides, I suppose Norman didn't have a chance.

But this: in Psycho II, Norman commits none of the psycho killings in the film(including the rather contrived and banal one of the teenage boy.) All he does is the one killing at the end, evidently to "end it all for good." But for other reasons, as your analysts point out.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

"0:38 the second he decides he's going to kill her. The sandwiches were the only good memory he has left of his real mother. When she swiftly turns down the sandwiches he kills her to replace her with 'Mother.'"

--

I never really caught that detail at 0:38, but its there, isn't it?

And to me it "helped restore the original" for Norman to kill Mrs. Spool and pretty much recreate as the Mother from the first movie. At the very end of Psycho II, we finally hear the Voice of Mother from 1960(well, one of them: Virginia Gregg) and the nostalgia is very powerful. Norman is Back in Business: he's at the house and motel(not exposed to the world working in a diner); he runs the motel(Toomey is dead and gone), and best of all...Mother's back. The final shot of Psycho II is , yeah, pretty darn great(it even became the poster for the movie!)

But...I still can't equate any of the sequels with the historic cinematic brilliance of what Hitchcock did first. (Even though, OK -- Quentin Tarantino likes Psycho II with its ultragore better than Psycho.)

reply
formatting help
[–] twinA (4921) 6 years ago

Norman is not used to not being confronted by so many people at once. The only reason why "mother" is able to murder them is because they're separated from the crowd present in the closest town over away from the beaten path where Norman's activities can go by unnoticed and unchallenged, or rather, unabated (pun intended).

All the victims in mother's murder spree were picked off one-by-one like grapes sampled from a vineyard, the fruit either tasting the tender love that is cared for it or is rotting off the vine and impacting the floor from neglect; the qualities which both simultaneously reflect Norman's upbringing.

This dichotomy, this vineyard branch, snaps the moment pressure is applied to it, bending it in half, getting to the root of the cause. The foundation crumbles in Norman's pyche and the blur between his personality and mother's merges to reveal a truth even he does not understand because "mother" is there to protect him.

Your impersonation of Mr. Hitchcock, his vocal mannerisms, is impeccable. Truth is the most sincerest form of flattery.

I will ponder on your other deluctable commentaries, contributing to these fine ammenities when time provides new frutition. After all, the very nature of ourselves is reflected in our smallest contrivances, most often through our eyes, the gateway to our soul. Everyone is free to do what they wish with their inner will, which Norman vehemently struggles with his.

His eyes cry for help, the pleas of a helpless person whose echoes are drowned out in a storming sea. He is Icarus, the Greek mythological figure, who despite his best attempts to escape the most daunting of obstacles (in Norman's case, the "tower" within his mind), is unable to truly break free even with support from others when his condition is recognized (going strictly by the events of the Psycho film).

~~/o/

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Norman is not used to not being confronted by so many people at once.

---

That's right. This "hermit" is besieged over a matter of 24 hours by Arbogast, Deputy Sheriff Chambers, Sam, and Lila. And all of them have questions.

I might add that when Psycho is called "a comedy"(which it isn't), it DOES manifest some humor.

And it IS funny -- for poor Norman -- as investigator after investigator after investigator comes out the Bates Motel to bug him with questions.

--

The only reason why "mother" is able to murder them is because they're separated from the crowd present in the closest town over away from the beaten path where Norman's activities can go by unnoticed and unchallenged, or rather, unabated (pun intended).

---

Yep. Marion and Arbogast die because they are alone. Lila was fated for the same, but Sam came in in time.

==



All the victims in mother's murder spree were picked off one-by-one like grapes sampled from a vineyard, the fruit either tasting the tender love that is cared for it or is rotting off the vine and impacting the floor from neglect; the qualities which both simultaneously reflect Norman's upbringing

--

Well, that paragraph is downright poetic..I really admire it.

I think that's all I have to say...its too impressive.

reply
formatting help
[–] twinA (4921) 6 years ago

I'm touched. Thank you very kindly.

The following may be an oversimplification of the film's inherent message regarding Norman's unique problem and the underlying factors preventing spectators from properly intervening to resolve the dispute at hand:

Often times we can't see things clearly because they are directly in front of us, things we take for granted because the problems are in places we would not look for in the first place.

Living as a hermit, he has two choices coming into contact with the outside world:

1) He embraces change

or

2) He becomes angry and fights the things he does not understand.

It's kind of like the fight or flight response scenario.

EDIT: Give and take is a better analogy here, not flight or fight.

~~/o/

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2715) 6 years ago

Living as a hermit
Note that this was the *big* change to Norman's situation & character in the Bates Motel. The Bates Motel is glamorously on the coast and very far from 'out of the way' or 'by-passed'. Norman has (half-)siblings and a rich set of friends and dates & social contacts in town. The town and surrounding areas are large enough to support gay bars and by the end we learn that a mother-personality, cross-dressing Norman has been cruising those bars for a long time. So Mother too is no Hermit in this version!

reply
formatting help
[–] twinA (4921) 6 years ago

The psycho angle still works even with your description of the setting change. Look at it this way:

Norman in this version, which I have yet to see, knows a lot of people, is able to blend in, charismatic and engaging, the opposite of being Perkin's socially inept Bates.

We know that serial killers often tend to be physically handsome, possessing traits a lot of potential partners would find desirable, lowering red flags or warning signs their brains would have easily signaled if not feeling high off the strange case of lovin'. Gosh darn, those happiness endorphin molecules! (O_o)

That's a great example you give.

~~/o/

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

>>No..Norman Bates as portrayed by Anthony Perkins is a rather "sanitized" version of the psychopath..even if his movie was called "the sickest movie ever made" by one 1960 critic.<<

I think you're focusing too much on Norman. Who else was psycho?

That's right and that would lead us to what? His father?

One of the New York critics, Andrew Sarris, wrote:
"“Psycho” should be seen at least three times by any discerning film-goer, the first time for the sheer terror of the experience, and on this occasion I fully agree with Hitchcock that only a congenital spoilsport would reveal the plot; the second time for the macabre comedy inherent in the conception of the film; and the third for all the hidden meanings and symbols lurking beneath the surface of the first American movie since “Touch of Evil” to stand in the same creative rank as the great European films."

You don't need the psychiatrist scene. What's left? The two girls who were killed by "mother?"

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

I guess I'm not much good for carrying on a conversation. Just got others things to do right now and haven't been seeing many movies.

Forget the psychiatrist. He should've just made a token appearance instead of telling us the mystery. This would be a Hitchcock story where he leaves us with a mystery. I think the chain pulling the car out of the swamp would let us in on what the sheriff figured out.

I think you are getting the hang of figuring out this mystery as Norman revealed something in his background to Marion. Hitchcock provided the clues. We have to see the movie again with different eyes knowing that Norman was the only one and dressing up as his mother and speaking as his mother. He is protecting his mother as Norman as he thinks his mother is doing the killings. That tells us he has a split personality.

As for Norman being born psycho, you would have to find clues in the movie that lets us know that. Perhaps there is something that lets us know about his father and his death when he was five that disturbed him besides the psychiatrist.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I guess I'm not much good for carrying on a conversation. Just got others things to do right now and haven't been seeing many movies.

---

That's OK and understood. I'm roughly in the same place -- and I definitely haven't been seeing many new movies, though the summer of 2019 looks to be finally bringing in some titles of interest to me. I appreciate that you converse with what time you have.

And I'm not having a combative argument with you. Just talking. In fact, you've shifted my thinking on exactly how much data NEEDED to be in the psychiatrist scene.

I'll say this: I like the psychiatrist scene, but nowadays I watch it with a little worry in my heart. Yeah, I think -- it DOES feel a little too long. Yeah,I think -- Simon Oakland IS too loud and hammy at times (and that line "Yes...and NO!" is almost a laughable clunker, I think it works because Hitch wanted this scene to be just a little funny.)

But I still like the scene. Maybe because, in the final analysis, I LIKE getting all that back story. I LIKE learning that Norman killed other women. It fills in some blanks for me.

----

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Forget the psychiatrist. He should've just made a token appearance instead of telling us the mystery. This would be a Hitchcock story where he leaves us with a mystery. I think the chain pulling the car out of the swamp would let us in on what the sheriff figured out.

---

OK.
---

I think you are getting the hang of figuring out this mystery as Norman revealed something in his background to Marion. Hitchcock provided the clues. We have to see the movie again with different eyes knowing that Norman was the only one and dressing up as his mother and speaking as his mother. He is protecting his mother as Norman as he thinks his mother is doing the killings. That tells us he has a split personality.

---

Many people saw Psycho several times when it came out, the record books tell us. In addition to making Hitchcock that much richer, the movie did yield up more and more clues about Norman and his secrets, and of course for the most part(as Hitchcock intended), the movie "stood up to a second check."

Example: on a second viewing one can see that when Norman scurries away when Arbogast drives back up to the motel, where Norman WENT was to an opening between the two parts of the motel(Lila will use it later), so he could run up the hill, up the stairs, into Mother's bedroom and dress like mother(quickly done; wig on head, dress over clothes) "to greet his visitor." Meanwhile, the time it takes for Norman to do all of this is eaten up on Arbogast's side by his exploration of the motel office, parlor, and safe, and his walk up the hill to the house.


reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

As for Norman being born psycho, you would have to find clues in the movie that lets us know that. Perhaps there is something that lets us know about his father and his death when he was five that disturbed him besides the psychiatrist.

---

Well, I think to me the main clue is that I don't think its all that normal for jealous sons to murder their mothers and boyfriends. I'm sure sometimes these are "one time crimes of passion" -- or maybe just the boyfriend is killed, but Norman had to be pretty "off" mentally to do what he did. Yes, it was "fed" by his father dying, Norman and Mother living all alone, and a boyfriend coming along but....it seems a bit extreme to me. I think true homicidal maniacs are born, not made.

But maybe that's just me. I'll leave it at that.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

>>Well, I think to me the main clue is that I don't think its all that normal for jealous sons to murder their mothers and boyfriends.<<

I think you got it, but am not sure. There was the double entendres in this movie and the duplicity with Norman, but there was also duplicity with mother. She was also PSYCHO. We're not told who she killed? The sheriff thought it was murder suicide and even though Norman did it, he could have thought that is what happened. Could she have killed the two girls Norman brought home due to jealousy? He was supposed to be 25-yrs old in the movie and would've been 15 at the time. We don't know how the father died, but it could have been mother, too. Thus, what I was getting at was mother is the one who made Norman psycho. She was the jealous one first and cut Norman off from seeing girls his own age because of jealousy. She could have killed the father. That's pretty sick having a mother do that to her son as we see that he was a dutiful son until mother got herself a boyfriend. In the last scene, we see that she has even taken over his life and all she cares about is trying to get out of the crime she committed. Isn't that really sicko?

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I think you got it, but am not sure.

--

I tell ya...I'm not sure either. Hah.

Honestly, I've come to believe now that since we don't know EXACTLY what happened(even in this work of fiction) in Norman's childhood, maybe I should quit guessing if he was born bad, or if mother was a psycho from the get go(the real mother as taken over by Norman), or if they BOTH were, or if the father was (and DID they kill him? Nobody talks about a suspicious death. Hey, didn't the cable series Bates Motel start with the murder of Mr. Bates.)

So I guess I can only go with "just the facts" as given to us by the shrink:

Norman killed his mother and her boyfriend.

Norman killed two other women before Marion(hey, this is fiction, too -- but it is in the "text of Psycho." We are being told it.)

Norman dug up his mother's corpse, gutted in, stuffed it, and kept it around to love.

And that's it. Whether Norman was born bad or not...now I'm just not sure.

---

In the last scene, we see that she has even taken over his life and all she cares about is trying to get out of the crime she committed. Isn't that really sicko?

--

Well, my quibble here, is that may be "Mother" thinking and talking to us(in her mind), but the human being is Norman Bates. That's remains bedrock.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

We take you back to November 1960:

INT. DAY -- PARAMOUNT PRIVATE SCREENING ROOM

Alfred Hitchcock and his screenwriter, Joseph Stefano , smile at each other as the lights come up as Psycho comes to a close.

Stefano: Well, Hitch, I tell you. I wasn't so sure about this movie before, but now that I've heard it with Herrmann's music -- especially those screeching strings -- I think this is very good.
Hitchcock: I think so, too. If the censors will pass those murders and that explanation, we could have something here.
Stefano: Those murders. Wow, Hitch. Just wow. Wait til an audience sees them.
Hitchcock: I'm still not sure about that psychiatrist scene near the end, though. Somehow, on paper, it was a quick read. On the screen, it does go on and on. Do you think it will be a "hat grabber"?
Stefano: What's a hat grabber?
Hitchcock: A scene that compels the viewer to grab their hat, put it on, and leave the theater before the movie is over.
Stefano: No, Hitch, i don't. I don't think anybody is going to leave while that scene is on. It has too much gruesome information that people are dying to know.
Hitchcock: All right then, I'll leave the scene in. I tell you, its the only scene in the whole movie I'm not entirely confident about.
Stefano: I know I wrote it, but its from the Bloch novel solution, and I think its good.
Hitchcock: Oh, well...I tell you what I think will probably happen. With all the landmark shocks I have put in this film, with all the great cinema, I think this psychiatrist scene will be debated for years...for decades. 60 years from now, people will still be talking about Psycho, and they'll still be debating this scene.


reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

Wow. I never heard that interview and discussion between the screenwriter and Hitchcock. It does give weight to those who argue that the psychiatrist scene should not be there. I'm not trying win the argument over its inclusion. I just think without it, then it would give a mystery that the audience would CRAVE. They would've been discussing this movie for weeks and months afterward as to what they just saw. It is a fact that one of the, I'm not sure what is the right word, most troubling things in solving a mystery is the creepy feeling one gets as they find out the answers. It could make the hairs on the back of the neck stand up. The truth is that powerful, and stranger than fiction. In AHP, there is the episode called "Banquo's Chair (1959)" where the detective stages a situation in order to get the murderer to confess. There is a twist at the end and the lead detective ends up being startled out of his wits.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

This is a little embarrassing.

I got called away from the computer and I didn't have time to put my "postscript" on that dialogue between Hitch and Stefano.

Simply put: about half of it was REAL(I read it in different places, or saw it on the Psycho DVD) but about half of it was GUESSING(not FALSE, just...GUESSING.)

Here's what's REAL: Stefano and Hitch really said this to each other:

Stefano: Well, Hitch, I tell you. I wasn't so sure about this movie before, but now that I've heard it with Herrmann's music -- especially those screeching strings -- I think this is very good.

---

Do you think it will be a "hat grabber"?
Stefano: What's a hat grabber?
Hitchcock: A scene that compels the viewer to grab their hat, put it on, and leave the theater before the movie is over.
Stefano: No, Hitch, i don't. I don't think anybody is going to leave while that scene is on. It has too much gruesome information that people are dying to know.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Here is what was GUESSING:


Hitchcock: I think so, too. If the censors will pass those murders and that explanation, we could have something here.
Stefano: Those murders. Wow, Hitch. Just wow. Wait til an audience sees them.
Hitchcock: I'm still not sure about that psychiatrist scene near the end, though. Somehow, on paper, it was a quick read. On the screen, it does go on and on.

Hitchcock: All right then, I'll leave the scene in. I tell you, its the only scene in the whole movie I'm not entirely confident about.
Stefano: I know I wrote it, but its from the Bloch novel solution, and I think its good.
Hitchcock: Oh, well...I tell you what I think will probably happen. With all the landmark shocks I have put in this film, with all the great cinema, I think this psychiatrist scene will be debated for years...for decades. 60 years from now, people will still be talking about Psycho, and they'll still be debating this scene.

---

So, I was guessing there, and also, perhaps, trying to be a little funny: what IF Hitchcock figured out that the psychiatrist scene would always be controversial, too much exposition, hated in some quarters?

I'm willing to be he was at least WORRIED about that.

Though I can't say that any of the 50 or so 1960 reviews I've read of Psycho ever didn't like that scene -- and many mentioned it.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I'm not trying win the argument over its inclusion.

---

That's OK. The fun is in the thinking about it...in putting the analytical mind to work. You've certainly got me "re-thinking" the scene in some respects.
--

I just think without it, then it would give a mystery that the audience would CRAVE. They would've been discussing this movie for weeks and months afterward as to what they just saw.

---

Hitchcock counted on that. He called it "the icebox talk." He was old -- he meant "refrigerator talk," where people go home and talk about the movie while getting snacks out of the refrigerator.

I think even with the explanation, people still wondered about Norman Bates and how he came to be. Indeed, we don't know if the real mom was nice or evil; if the real dad was nice or evil; if Norman "started nice" and turned evil.

---

It is a fact that one of the, I'm not sure what is the right word, most troubling things in solving a mystery is the creepy feeling one gets as they find out the answers. It could make the hairs on the back of the neck stand up.

---

Well, I think we get some of that from the psychiatrist: Norman dug up his mother, gutted her, stuffed her. THAT'S creepy.

---

The truth is that powerful, and stranger than fiction. In AHP, there is the episode called "Banquo's Chair (1959)" where the detective stages a situation in order to get the murderer to confess. There is a twist at the end and the lead detective ends up being startled out of his wits.

--

That was a great twist, and turned the story into a supernatural one.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

>>I think even with the explanation, people still wondered about Norman Bates and how he came to be. Indeed, we don't know if the real mom was nice or evil; if the real dad was nice or evil; if Norman "started nice" and turned evil.<<

This is a different take than what I've heard. Why is Norman evil to you? Who did you think HE killed?

I was going by what Hitchcock presented and that was mother was evil. The ending says it all and after analyzing, we realize mother was violent, jealous, a killer, conniving, evil, and psycho. Remember the duality, so she had to be involved along with Norman.

Anyway, you have a point about Norman and how people would interpret him. However, what is his motivation for killing the two girls? What about Marion? What about Arbogast? What's his motivation for committing crimes of passion? Is it jealousy? If so, then what was he jealous about? Ideally, can you explain your theories from what the mother told the psychiatrist?

What I am getting at is how can mother be innocent?

>>Well, I think we get some of that from the psychiatrist: Norman dug up his mother, gutted her, stuffed her. THAT'S creepy.<<

Not creepy at all for me. I thought it was PRACTICAL from Norman's point of view and the psychiatrist's explanation that it wasn't enough.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

LOL.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

>>So I guess I can only go with "just the facts" as given to us by the shrink:

Norman killed his mother and her boyfriend.<<

It's a mystery, so everything may not be known. You are assuming the psychiatrist provided the "facts." Even though you state you'll go with "just the facts," remember it's the mother who said that. The psychiatrist will testify to that. Even if it is Norman, as the mother, why would she confess to her crimes? She is the one who will be put on trial (Norman doesn't exist anymore). Also, the sheriff will testify that it was the mother who committed murder-suicide. It will be in conflict with Norman killing the mother and her lover. But let's assume the jury believes the mother/psychiatrist testimony over the sheriff. I think most of the audience did.

>>Norman killed two other women before Marion(hey, this is fiction, too -- but it is in the "text of Psycho." We are being told it.)<<

Again, it's the mother who is saying this to the psychiatrist so we do not know for certain. Are you sure the psychiatrist said it was Norman who killed the two girls? What was his motivation? The mother would be the one who is jealous. See how fun it is to figure out a mystery lol.

Without the psychiatrist, we probably would not find out about the missing girls unless the sheriff links them to Norman.

>>Norman dug up his mother's corpse, gutted in, stuffed it, and kept it around to love.<<

Agreed, these are facts that came out of the case.

>>And that's it. Whether Norman was born bad or not...now I'm just not sure.<<

So, what can we pin on mother? With the psychiatrist's testimony, we can pin Marion and Arbogast. Likely, the jury will believe him over the sheriff. Norman killed his mother and lover if indeed that was what he said. The father death is unknown. According to the psychiatrist, she confessed to her crimes of passion, but it's a mystery as to why she continues to play "innocent" in her mind, but really evil. The ending gets screwed up. (continued)

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

>>Well, my quibble here, is that may be "Mother" thinking and talking to us(in her mind), but the human being is Norman Bates. That's remains bedrock.<<

Agreed, but it's mother who has taken over Norman. Where we disagree is who killed the two girls. I think Norman brought each home on separate occasions and fifteen-year old boy is ought to do.

To me, Norman's only crime is killing his mother and lover in a heated moment of passion. You have to think mother was psycho first from the psychiatrist. Norman was not that vicious in his killings. Mother's crimes of passion were very violent. Of course, we do not see how Norman killed his mother and lover, but the sheriff said the mother poisoned her lover and then herself using strychnine.

I'm not sure how else you explain mother; it's given to us at the end by Hitchcock as cunning and evil. Norman may have become psycho after killing his mother (according to the psychiatrist?) but his crimes weren't as vicious.

And I can't emphasize enough that she's taken over Norman's life as she did when they were both alive.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Well....OK....this is getting a bit dizzying.

So we've got this here famous shower murder deal.

We see: Norman talk to Marion -- but Mother sure does seem to creep into Norman's mind("What do YOU know about caring...people cluck their thick tongues and suggest, oh so very delicately.)

We see: Norman peeping on Marion as she undresses to nudity.

We see: Norman go up to the house, back to the kitchen and sitting down at a table.

We see: Marion start to take her shower.

We see: Mother enter the bathroom, pull open the shower curtain, and stab Marion to death.

So...who killed Marion?

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

!!! SPOILERS !!!
Probably too late for the spoilers tag, lol.

>>So...who killed Marion?<<

You use the psychiatrist, so who did he say killed Marion? Also, listen closely to the psychiatrist talk about the mother. Who did he say killed the two girls? Don't just focus on Norman.

When watching the movie the first time, you thought mother was alive and she killed Marion and Arbogast. We all thought she was capable even though an older woman.

I'm trying to lead into discussing the mother and get you to understand the mother. AH wants us to understand the mother, especially in the final scene. Norman becomes secondary. It truly makes for a sick horror story.

After discussing mother, then we can discuss the indentation in the bed.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

You use the psychiatrist, so who did he say killed Marion?
---

"And...mother killed the girl."

---

Also, listen closely to the psychiatrist talk about the mother. Who did he say killed the two girls? Don't just focus on Norman.

--

"Like I said...the Mother."


---

When watching the movie the first time, you thought mother was alive and she killed Marion and Arbogast.

---

I sure did. (Well, the first time the story was TOLD to me.)

---

We all thought she was capable even though an older woman.

--

That's what made her such a scary monster. An old woman with that STRENGTH? And with that merciless? Ooooh...

I might add that I found a real disconnect between the "monster" whom we see kill Marion and Arbogast, and the voice of that monster -- rather comical, old lady schtick: 'Think I'm fruity, hah?".

---

I'm trying to lead into discussing the mother and get you to understand the mother. AH wants us to understand the mother, especially in the final scene. Norman becomes secondary. It truly makes for a sick horror story.

---

Yes.

---

After discussing mother, then we can discuss the indentation in the bed

---

OK.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

I hope I am convincing you that Mother was a mother; that she was a "psycho" in her own right and the first one, even thought we see her through Norman.

Go back to the trailer and AH describes what Mother was like.

So, what I am getting at is Mother could have just as well killed Norman if he cannot come back again. Also, she could be the one who drove Norman psycho himself and cause him to commit his own crimes of passion.

As for the indentation in the bed, you may know that it was Norman as Mother who caused it. He also continued his incestuous relationship in the form of necrophilia. I think other times he slept there dressed up as Mother.

Anyway, the last scene is important because if we know how psycho Mother was, then it just makes the hairs on one's neck stand up when they realize what she is saying. If you go as far as she killed Norman (not violently this time), or she was the one who drove Norman to kill, then it becomes very telling. You also are bowled over how sick this movie is haha.

I also think the chain pulling the car out brings us back to reality and puts a closure to what we witnessed and understood.

As for the psychiatrist, we do need him to explain about the two girls and some things about mother and Norman we discussed. Or else the Sheriff has to come back to explain what he thought after "discovering" Norman. He probably would've been the one to think about dredging the swamp if the psychiatrist wasn't allowed to explain all.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

As for the indentation in the bed, you may know that it was Norman as Mother who caused it.

---

Not so sure about that one. I think what we are being shown here is that "dead mother's body" (the one Norman carries down the stairs; the one Lila discovers in the fruit cellar), has been put in the same position for oh, around ten years or so now(maybe nine, maybe eight) and because she never moves around...the indentation. Look at the shape: its "bent at the knees" from mother's corpse sitting in the chair at the window when not in bed.

---

He also continued his incestuous relationship in the form of necrophilia.

---

Well, certainly the psychiatrist doesn't get into THIS kind of detail (he couldn't, in 1960 American film.)

I suppose "Norman and his mother lived like there was no one else in the world" is a clue. As is "And then, she met a man -- and Norman thought she threw him over for this man."

"Threw him over" is a term out of use these days, I guess...it means jilting someone. Norman thought Mother jilted him? Hmm.

---

I think other times he slept there dressed up as Mother.

---
Possibly, but the "fixed" shape of the indentation (from a body that is usually "sitting") suggests not.

--


reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Here's something to think about:

When Marion first sees Mother in the window -- MOVING, gliding across her room -- that's Norman.

Well, what exactly was Norman DOING up there as Mother?

The psychiatrist said "when danger or desire threatened -- he'd dress up." We see that as "dress up to KILL" -- Marion was desire; Arbogast was danger. He killed them to eliminate the threats.

But to our knowledge, Norman is confronted neither by danger or desire when Marion drove up -- he/she(Mother) didn't know Marion was coming.

It seems that the shrink didn't know EVERYTHING about how Norman's split personality functioned. Clearly, Norman dresses up "when he feels like" or perhaps when Mother is in takeover mood("Norman was never all Norman, but he was often only Mother.")

It makes you wonder about a "normal day" for Norman when there are NO customers around(which is likely a lot.)

Does he wake up in his tiny bedroom AS Norman? And as the day goes on, Mother takes over? And into the dress and wig he goes to "hang out as Mother."

What he can't do is ever show himself as Mother to the public. Hence when Marion arrives and starts honking for service -- Norman does a quick change and comes on down. Its possible he has not fully "shaken" mother when he does come down -- that's why she shows up in the parlor scene, in the things he says...

CONT

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

>>Well, what exactly was Norman DOING up there as Mother?<<

We thought it was Mother. As for Norman, he had to dress up in order to make it more real that she was still alive according to the psychiatrist, "And that still wasn't enough." Her stuffed body being in the house wasn't enough.

Even without the psychiatrist scene, we would think Norman was psycho upon first viewing. We didn't know to what extent. We would know that Mother was psycho, too. Again, people would have thought he was a transvestite, but that didn't fit with the story.

Here's what I give you with the psychiatrist. What also made an impact on me with the psychiatrist was his saying that Norman "gave her half his life." He said, "He was never all Norman, but he was often only mother." That explains he being seen in the window. Maybe Hitch intended to have the psychiatrist, but not there to explain everything as Roger Ebert would have done.

What Hitch said in the trailer was that Mother was "the weirdest" and Norman "dominated by an almost maniacal woman was enough to drive anyone to the extreme of..." The trailer is after everything took place in the movie. He's doing the epilogue in the trailer. What I got was he's talking more about the woman than the son.

Obviously, Norman is the protagonist in the film after Marion is killed, but the mother is the antagonist. To me, I think Hitch is trying to lead us to the ending of his film and that is to give us the creeps of how much horror there is in this movie, as much as Hitchock could get away with the censors at the time.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago


I hope I am convincing you that Mother was a mother;

---

Yes, she was a mother. She gave birth to Norman, and , we can hope, loved him very much but...something went wrong.

---

that she was a "psycho" in her own right and the first one, even thought we see her through Norman.

---

We have one movie that makes this case pretty effectively -- Psycho IV: The Beginning -- which gives us flashbacks to Mrs. Bates (Olivia Hussey) as fairly young and beautiful, but mentally out-of-control and very cruel to Norman when not borderline seducing him(and then punishing him for responding.)

My problem is: I don't accept Psycho IV as a work of art on the level of Psycho, so I don't accept the "Olivia Hussey" version as much more than fan fiction (even though Psycho screenwriter Joe Stefano wrote Psycho IV, and not nearly as well as he wrote Psycho from better source material under the guidance of a great director and story editor, Hitchcock.)


reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

I'm not sure if I watched Psycho IV. Maybe I will watch starting with II again. I think Psycho was suppose to be it and one has to figure out what happened to the characters in the end. To me, the German version is the director's cut, but the psychiatrist needs to be left out. Maybe not entirely or else the Sheriff or someone else has to return and that was never filmed AFAIK. I think Hitchcock was going to use the psychiatrist and you said the films in those days did a lot of psychoanalysis. Cut to the deputy coming in with the blanket and end it for the fans to figure it out and get creeped out in the end.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago


Go back to the trailer and AH describes what Mother was like.

---

"Of course, the victim -- or should I say, victims -- had no idea of the kind of people they were dealing with in this house. Especially the mother...she was the weirdest, the most -- well, let's go inside."

"It must have been hard for the son to live under the control of an almost maniacal woman..."

Oh, yeah, Hitch is making sure we are wondering about "the Mother" in this upcoming horror movie of his. Planting all sorts of clues...lies, really, given that Mother is dead, but oh, well...its his game.


reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

So, what I am getting at is Mother could have just as well killed Norman if he cannot come back again.

---

At the end, in the cell, right? Yes, I think some critics have said that Mother has indeed "killed" Norman , and he ISN'T coming back...which is profound..and a reason those sequels were irrititating, bringing him back and all.

---

Also, she could be the one who drove Norman psycho himself and cause him to commit his own crimes of passion.

---

Well, we really don't know. "Clinging, demanding woman" isn't necessarily a psycho. But sure, she may have been. Or she may have been a perfectly nice woman afraid of having lost her husband and only having a little boy as solace.
---

Anyway, the last scene is important because if we know how psycho Mother was, then it just makes the hairs on one's neck stand up when they realize what she is saying. If you go as far as she killed Norman (not violently this time), or she was the one who drove Norman to kill, then it becomes very telling. You also are bowled over how sick this movie is haha.

---

Well, the backstory is sick anyway you imagine it, and the murders are sick, and the idea that Norman carried Mother's rotting corpse down those stairs with her skull face inches from his own face...the whole movie is indeed "the sickest movie ever made" at that time(certainly among studio films) but just wait...Blood Feast, Night of the Living Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Last House of the Left, The Hills Have Eyes...even Hitchcock's own Frenzy, were all coming to blow that honor out of the water.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I also think the chain pulling the car out brings us back to reality and puts a closure to what we witnessed and understood.

---

It also brings back "the star of the movie"(or so we thought)..Marion. And in a horrible way. I've always figured that 1960 audiences may have braced for that trunk to pop open and reveal Marion's corpse...

But yes, it is very much a shot of great closure and an "extra additive" to the great prison cell scene. Using the "dissolve" technique, Hitchcock has Mother's skull face superimposed over Norman's face(her rotted, crooked teeth fill his close lips) and then the whole horrible creature merged into the swamp and Marion's return.

And one thinks of a line in Bloch's novel about that car:

"They found the $40,000. In the glove compartment of the car. There wasn't a speck of mud on it. Not a speck."

(I remember that line; what I can remember is: in the book, maybe Marion didn't wrap it in newspaper? Just left it in the glove compartment in an envelope?)

---

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

As for the psychiatrist, we do need him to explain about the two girls and some things about mother and Norman we discussed.

---

Well, there you go.

---

Or else the Sheriff has to come back to explain what he thought after "discovering" Norman.

---

Well, as the Sheriff says, "He wouldn't talk to me, and he knows me." Evidently a "neutral" psychiatrist was necessasry to get the information.

---

He probably would've been the one to think about dredging the swamp if the psychiatrist wasn't allowed to explain all.

---

Probably. Psycho the movie, could have been written to take the psychiatrist out entirely; Deputy Sheriff Chambers could have told everybody everything - except the psychological analysis. This was an era when Freud was big in Hollywood and psychiatrists explaining things were all over the screen...

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

As for whether Mother killed her own son is up in the air. It wasn't physical violence. It was symbolic in that the dominant personality won. Here is what she said to herself before her creepy ending line. It shows that she tried to frame Norman for the crimes. I don't know how you can just sit there and think Mother wasn't psycho. You believe Norman is psycho and I agree, but he wasn't as dangerous nor vicious as Mother. If all were crimes of passion, except for Arbogast, then we see who had the worst case.

"It's sad... when a mother has to speak the words that condemn her own son... but I couldn't allow them to believe that I would commit murder.

(A pause)

They'll put him away now... as I should have... years ago. He was always... bad. And in the end, he intended to tell them I killed those girls... and that man. As if I could do anything except just sit and
stare... like one of his stuffed birds.

(A pause)
Well, they know I can't even move a
finger. And I won't. I'll just sit here and be quiet. Just in case they do... suspect me."

Norman was fifteen when his mother killed the girls. Probably, he was abused since his father died when he was five. He was what, "dangerously disturbed" afterward according to you earlier post?

As to the man, it was probably referring to Arbogast (a tresspaser?) instead of the father.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

As for whether Mother killed her own son is up in the air. It wasn't physical violence. It was symbolic in that the dominant personality won.

---

The psychiatrist: "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."

Or as critic Raymond Durgnat wrote: "Mother has killed Norman and disguised herself as him."

Which would track with your contention, but hey, isn't that a man named Norman Bates -- with Norman Bates' fingerprints and Norman Bates' hand, and Norman Bates face -- stabbing people? You might say he doesn't have Norman Bates' brain anymore.

---

Here is what she said to herself before her creepy ending line. It shows that she tried to frame Norman for the crimes.

---

"He was always bad. And in the end, he intended to tell them that I killed those girls, and that man."

A bit of a frame up, to be sure. But..who's framin' WHO?

---

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I don't know how you can just sit there and think Mother wasn't psycho. You believe Norman is psycho and I agree, but he wasn't as dangerous nor vicious as Mother.

--

Well, I guess I will say that we really don't know WHO was Psycho "in the beginning"(before Norman murdered mom -- if he did, right?)

But the psycho we see on screen is a man named Norman Bates dressed up like his mother.

A pondering: are we entering the area of "The Exorcist," here? Is Norman "possessed" by the ghost of his late psycho mom?

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Norman was fifteen when his mother killed the girls. Probably, he was abused since his father died when he was five. He was what, "dangerously disturbed" afterward according to you earlier post?

---

Well, the psychiatrist said: "Norman was already dangerously disturbed...had been,ever since his father died."

I expect that this is what Hitchcock meant when he said this scene "just skims over" what really went on. Do we take the psychiatrist on faith?

--

As to the man, it was probably referring to Arbogast (a tresspaser?) instead of the father.

---

Yes, I think so. Mother is just talking about the murders after ...her own murder. "Those girls"(Marion and two others) and "that man"(Arbogast -- indeed killed as a snooper. In every other way, Norman was as much a sex maniac as Bob Rusk in Frenzy...female victims only.) Indeed it is hard to picture Mrs. Bates as a "sex maniac" except that Norman summons her up when he is sexually aroused - she acts on his urges with murder.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>Well, I guess I will say that we really don't know WHO was Psycho "in the beginning"(before Norman murdered mom -- if he did, right?)<<

Norman killed his mother and lover. It wasn't premeditated murder, but a crime of passion. The psychiatrist's testimony is too strong and will defeat the sheriff's testimony. If there wasn't any other killings, then the sheriff's testimony would probably prevail.

At the end, we know Mother killed the two girls because she implicates Norman. She had the motivation and the record should show how they were killed.

It's one thing to kill once due to jealousy and a crime of passion, but another to kill multiple times in the manner Mother did. In the trailer (Hitchcock's epilogue), he describes the mother as maniacal. Just who do you think he focuses on? The son? No, it's the mother.

>>But the psycho we see on screen is a man named Norman Bates dressed up like his mother.

A pondering: are we entering the area of "The Exorcist," here? Is Norman "possessed" by the ghost of his late psycho mom?<<

Like I said, it appears that you can't get past it's Norman who is physically there. You do not or cannot acknowledge two different personalities or people inside one body.

As for the Exorcist, it was demonic possession, i.e. Satan's demons (angels) taking over Reagan's mind and body. That is much different from two humans going into madness.

You also ignore the duality with Norman and his mother. There are two psychos. We have two separate stories in one movie, the double entendres, the sheriff vs the psychiatrist, Sam and Lila, two girls, Marion and Arbogast, Sam and Marion, black and white lingerie, two cars, two rented cabins, two pairs of lovers (Mother and lover and Sam and Marion), and more.


reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>The psychiatrist: "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."

Or as critic Raymond Durgnat wrote: "Mother has killed Norman and disguised herself as him."

Which would track with your contention, but hey, isn't that a man named Norman Bates -- with Norman Bates' fingerprints and Norman Bates' hand, and Norman Bates face -- stabbing people? You might say he doesn't have Norman Bates' brain anymore.<<

I didn't need the psychiatrist to tell me the dominant personality won. From the dialog, we can see which personality won.

I get the feeling that you cannot get past that it is Norman there. It was not Norman Bates who stabbed people. It was Mother. Norman didn't have it in him to stab people, so his killings were done with strychnine which reflects his personality. A brain and personality are different. Although physically she is dead, her personality lives on. We understand Norman is psycho, but Hitchcock tries to tell us that Mother is psycho, too. He shows us that she is even more dangerous. If Norman didn't commit his crimes of passion, then would he be not psycho? I doubt it. He would be disturbed even though Mother and her lover would still be around. That would eat him up.

Moreover, Norman is a dutiful son. That makes the contrast between the Mother and him even more startling. Mother didn't hesitate to implicate Norman as the stabber to save her own "hide."

>>A bit of a frame up, to be sure. But..who's framin' WHO?<<

This is a strange comment. Norman cannot frame his mother as he is gone, remember?

reply
formatting help
[–] tph890 (489) 6 years ago

To: ecarle.
Great post! Thanks for sharing.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

To tph890:

Thank you!

reply
formatting help
About | Contact | Privacy | Terms | Standards | Contribute
Top Movie Discussions
Gladiator II Discussion | Wicked Discussion | The Substance Discussion | Red One Discussion | Heretic Discussion | Smile 2 Discussion | Anora Discussion | Emilia Pérez Discussion | Venom: The Last Dance Discussion | Terrifier 3 Discussion | The Wild Robot Discussion | Conclave Discussion | Blitz Discussion | Moana 2 Discussion | We Live in Time Discussion
Copyright © 2017 - 2024 MovieChat LLC

MovieChat is not affiliated with IMDb, IMDb Message Boards, or Reddit