MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Does Psycho Fall Apart in the 3rd Act?

Does Psycho Fall Apart in the 3rd Act?

posted 5 years ago by ecarle (14979)
44 replies | jump to latest

In order to post here on Psycho from time to time, I surf the net and read occasional articles about it.

I found one where the writer posited the ol' "Psycho versus Homicidal" debate and while he basically ceded Psycho as the "greater film," he opined that he would rather watch "Homicidal" any day of the week.

You know, an unnamed Time magazine reviewer in 1961 found Homicidal to "exceed its model in pace,"which Homicidal director William Castle took as "Time liked Homicidal better than Psycho."

I get this...and I don't get it. I've seen Homicidal maybe four times...and yes, it does move faster than Psycho in certain ways. For one thing, the film's first murder -- of a man, not a woman -- happens before the 30 minute mark, I'm pretty sure. (And then there are no more murders until one at the very end.)

But jeez...no. The script, the acting, the "star casting," the cinematics (the shower scene alone is more difficult to have made than all of Homicidal)...I just don't see any competition at all between the two films. And that's ACCEPTING that Psycho -- unlike most other horror films -- goes along for 30 minutes before even SEEMING like a horror movie(up until that point, it is a great slice-of-life suspense film, with a healthy dose of sex.)

Anyway, this writer who preferred Homicidal to Psycho felt that the real problem with Psycho is that "it falls apart in the third act." After the detective's death.

I suppose we can say that we get that, too, don't we?

Once Arbogast goes, there will be no more murders(though first-time viewers don't know that, they are in heavy fear for Lila AND Sam), and Anthony Perkins has lost(actually, KILLED) his two most worthy acting sparring partners(Leigh and Balsam.)

As the writer recounts, Psycho in the third act "gallops towards its ending," and "should have been about five minutes longer." (How, says I. WHERE?)

I will take the point that the film sure does gallop after Arbogast is killed. We don't get an extended scene of his burial, as with Marion(hell, we get on SHOT of the swamp to suggest his car is already down there.) And matters get "plotty" as Sam and Lila debate points and huddle, not once, but twice, with Deputy Sheriff Chambers to get vital backstory("Mrs. Bates has been dead and buried for ten years") and to generate suspense(the sheriff never really thinks the worst.)

Hitchcock himself either cut from the script -- or didn't film -- a long dialogue scene while Sam and Lila drive to the Bates Motel and talk about Marion in some detail. The movie as we have it whittles that down to Lila telling Sam "the game plan" to investigate Norman and the Bates Motel ("We're going to register as man and wife....and then we're going to search every inch of the place.")

Indeed, in that one "mini-scene," one can FEEL Psycho accelerating(as good thrillers do) to climax.

This writer who feels that Psycho "falls apart in the third act," isn't much impressed by the fruit cellar climax, hates the psychiatrist scene(hey, welcome to the club) and well...I can't remember what he said about the final scene in the cell.

Well, comes me now to "rebut a bit."

The first thing I will say is that, to consider that third act while just watching the film alone on a TV set doesn't really give the right feeling for how that third act PLAYED. In 1960 theaters, I 've read, and in a 1979 college revival...I LIVED.

For as Hitchcock said, the big murder up front in Psycho rendered the rest of the movie nothing but suspenseful.

As Sam and Lila "rocket" out to the Bates Motel for the climax, Hitchcock has "revved up" the thriller mechanism. The suspense is intense(Lila is dying -- literally -- to know what happened to Marion, and Chambers doesn't care.) The mystery is huge(who IS that woman in the window; who IS buried out in greenlawn cemetary?) And...once Lila enters that house alone and moves from room to room...the audience is whimpering, peering thorugh their fingers, humming in shared terror...we've seen what MOther can do(twice) with her knife. Is it going to happen again?

Two big screams BEFORE the fruit cellar climax: (1) Norman appearing in the motel doorway behind Sam(looking for me?) and (2) Lila reacting to her reflection in the mirror in Mother's room(right after the zoom-in to that creeping cast of mother's hand on son's.)

Indeed, audience whimpering and begging and quick screams aside, the third act also has a masterfully profound and cinematic exploration OF the Bates House. The Victoriana of Mother's room -- the indentation in the bed. The dresses in the cabinet(Hitchcock in his trailer opened the door and winced at the sight -- but didn't show us; now we get to see.)

Norman's room: a mix of forlorn childhood dolls and toys and adult sensibilities. A tiny, rumpled bed -- Norman still sleeps in his childhood bed! The Eroica symphony on the turntable(mass audience for "Erotica" -- or did Hitchcock REALLY know what this record REALLY was?)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The terror revs up to a maximum when Norman knocks Sam out. "(OH NO! shouted my 1979 audience); when Marion runs down the staircase only to see Norman running up the hill(we realize: it has happened -- Norman is now a figure of terror himself, he doesn't NEED Mother to scare us); the split second precision of Lila getting under the staircase just as Norman enters the house(more screams) and then...

...the BIG SCREAM:

Lila turning and seeing the door to the fruit cellar, and moving towards it.

(Oh, there are two bigger screams ahead, but this one is CONTINUAL , breaking to silence only when Lila says ""Mrs. Bates?")

I'll grant you that the fruit cellar climax lacks the "cinematics" of the shower murder and the staircase murder, but it more than equals them in sheer content and presentation. Lila's advance on Mrs. Bates in travelling POV: is Lila about to be killed? Mother spinning around -- is that the face OF the killer?(Mrs. Bates -- zombie?) The realization that no, that's simply a corpse. BIG SCREAM and then

BIGGER SCREAM when Norman enters and makes HIS reveal.

And then more screaming all the way over and into the start of the psychiatrist scene.

For the reasons above...and the power of the cell scene(which didn't merit screams, but DID merit groans of deep terror, when I saw the film in '79)..no, Psycho doesn't fall apart or collapse in the third act.

Rather, it builds to climax and explodes.

To do that , the film DOES rather eliminate "the usual chit-chat" and Vera Miles will not be used at all(as Janet Leigh ) was , as a sexy sensual presence. Nor does John Gavin get the screen time or nifty manner of Balsam's Arbogast. Character studies are over now in Psycho -- we're running headlong into terror.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I suppose that is something that IS interesting about Psycho. The flavor of Act One(Marion) is entirely different from the flavor of Act Two(Arbogast) and so, yes, Act Three is different yet still -- faster, more expository, far less character-based.

But a benefit of Psycho, I think, is that the audience can approach each act with strong interest each time -- just different each time. With Marion, there is all that focus on her terrible life, her futile theft and flight, her tentative connection with Norman Bates -- and the male audience's lust for her(even as I expect the female audience is identifying with her.) And Marion "is there" for that horrifying nine minutes after her murder, where now she is just lifeless matter, a corpse to be dragged, wrapped, dumped in a trunk and buried.

The Arbogast sequence is a "Peter Gunn" episode with better writing and more Gothic direction, it is fast and funny and semi-improvised and feels like "Hitchcock does Brando" in its naturalism. There is something landmark about how loose the Norman/Arbogast chat is.

And with Marion first, and Arbogast next, so horribly killed(for 1960), the third acts feeds off the horror with terror..en route to more horror.

Nope. I like all three acts of Psycho. I like any part of Psycho better than all of Homicidal, too.

SPOILERS for the Homicidal murders.

There are two, and neither are filmed with anything approaching the technical prowess of Psycho. The stab into the white-shirted big belly of a justice of the peace(James Westerfield) in Homicidal begins with CARTOON BLOOD, animated on his belly, then some nicely grisly "real stabs" and a lot of blood. Its gory enough, but that animated start is pretty poor.

The final decapitation of a victim is shown only in shadow.

As good as the murders in Psycho? No.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>BIGGER SCREAM when Norman enters and makes HIS reveal.<<

That was great and it still is great after many re-watchings. From the last thread on it that I read, Norman didn't have to SAY it, but there are different versions. Some think it's better that he said it. Personally, I think it's better without it as that's how I saw it first in the AH Masterpiece Collection. That said, one does wonder what he is screaming?

The other thing I will take away from our discussions is that we saw two different movies. I probably did see the Norman version in the beginning, but I think once you understand what AH was talking about then you can't go back to seeing it as just Norman again.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

>>BIGGER SCREAM when Norman enters and makes HIS reveal.<<

That was great and it still is great after many re-watchings.

---

I was gifted -- just walking in off the street after reading a poster on a wall -- to see Psycho once -- and only once -- with a full screaming audience.

And the thing about that fruit cellar climax is that the screams just got bigger and bigger and bigger:

Lila deciding to go down there (BIG AND CONTINUOUS)
Mother's face(BIGGER)
Norman runs in (THE BIGGEST OF THEM ALL)

You could FEEL the noise level keep surging up, up, up. It made going to the movies a "visceral experience."

(Same thing with the Arbogast murder: Mother runs out BIG SCREAM. Slash to Arbo's face BIGGER SCREAM. Mother jumps on Arbogast on the floor, BIGGEST SCREAM.)

I'll note that one could not hear Arbogast's scream from all the audience screaming, and one definitely couldn't hear Norman scream "Immmmm Norma Bates!"

Now all that screaming is one reason why Psycho "doesn't fall apart at the end." But if you see Psycho without that screaming...you never really see Psycho. Which means that three generations now, have seen Psycho...but never REALLY seen Psycho.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

From the last thread on it that I read, Norman didn't have to SAY it, but there are different versions. Some think it's better that he said it. Personally, I think it's better without it as that's how I saw it first in the AH Masterpiece Collection. That said, one does wonder what he is screaming?

---

On the set, Anthony Perkins opened his mouth to scream and...nothing came out. He asked Hitchcock if he could save his vocal chords because he was starting a Broadway musical ("Greenwillow") right after Psycho was finished filming.

Later, one of the "Psycho mother voices"(either Virginia Gregg or Paul Jasmin) overdubbed "I'm mmmmmm...Norma Bates!" but as discussed elsewhere, nobody knows if it was that clear on the soundtrack in 1960. Doesn't matter. Everybody was screaming. Nobody could hear anyway.

---

The other thing I will take away from our discussions is that we saw two different movies.

---

Oh, we saw two different movies alright. Even if the soundtrack and the prints were exactly the same. Everyone sees movies and characters in different ways. Hitchcock said that...Hitchcock HIMSELF saw his OWN movies and characters differently than other people.

That said, different prints of Psycho have been out on VHS and DVD over the years. One print used to show a truck in the distance while Norman waits on Arbogast's car to sink. The shot has been re-framed. The truck is gone.

---

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>I was gifted -- just walking in off the street after reading a poster on a wall -- to see Psycho once -- and only once -- with a full screaming audience.<<

Lucky you. I first saw it on VHS on the little screen, but still thought it was pretty good. Come to think of it, I must've seen parts of it on tv before that, but didn't really get into it. My memory is failing me. Before seeing the WHOLE movie, I didn't know anything about Saul Bass titles, the lack of Christmas decorations, how much $40 K was in today's dollars, the double entendres, first slasher movie, and so on, except for the shower scene. I had heard about that. It was a painful, vulnerable, and violent way to die. I thought it was really vicious in that you could hear the knife go in along with the sexy, violent visuals. Maybe in my mind I saw a breast. What did you see during the shower scene? Younger guys must've "seen" a breast or ass lol.

>>(Same thing with the Arbogast murder: Mother runs out BIG SCREAM. Slash to Arbo's face BIGGER SCREAM. Mother jumps on Arbogast on the floor, BIGGEST SCREAM.)

I'll note that one could not hear Arbogast's scream from all the audience screaming, and one definitely couldn't hear Norman scream "Immmmm Norma Bates!"<<

I didn't really think about how Arbogast died until after watching the trailer again and realizing it was AH's epilogue like he does in AHP. It was a horror experience. There is the jump scare with the door being slightly opened and suddenly we see Mother pop out with her huge knife ready to strike and the shocking big gash on Arbogast's face along with his violent tumbling down the stairs, and then getting stabbed so hard and violently. Maybe the censors made AH tone down his screams.

CONTINUED

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

My opinion is there are more stabbing/slasher related incidents in real life than guns, even though everyone thinks it's a gun society in the US. It's usually very bloody unless the perpetrator knows something about anatomy and where to stab, i.e. he knows something about edge weapons. I've seen that, too. Practically, no blood anywhere. The victim may have felt little pain, but died on his way to emergency. That said, the two killings in Psycho is very vicious, violent, and unusual. It is beyond what one usually reads in police or detective novels.

>>On the set, Anthony Perkins opened his mouth to scream and...nothing came out. He asked Hitchcock if he could save his vocal chords because he was starting a Broadway musical ("Greenwillow") right after Psycho was finished filming.

Later, one of the "Psycho mother voices"(either Virginia Gregg or Paul Jasmin) overdubbed "I'm mmmmmm...Norma Bates!" but as discussed elsewhere, nobody knows if it was that clear on the soundtrack in 1960. Doesn't matter.

Everybody was screaming. Nobody could hear anyway.<<

>>Oh, we saw two different movies alright. Even if the soundtrack and the prints were exactly the same. Everyone sees movies and characters in different ways. Hitchcock said that...Hitchcock HIMSELF saw his OWN movies and characters differently than other people.

That said, different prints of Psycho have been out on VHS and DVD over the years. One print used to show a truck in the distance while Norman waits on Arbogast's car to sink. The shot has been re-framed. The truck is gone.<<

Interesting. I did wonder why Norman screamed and there was none. I'm not sure about the dubbing now after your explanation. It may be there and I missed it. There is no lip synchronization.

I hope that Universal makes a HD Director's cut and puts it on the large screen. It would be nostalgia for the older audiences and something different for younger audiences seeing it for the first time, the FIRST slasher movie.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

>>I was gifted -- just walking in off the street after reading a poster on a wall -- to see Psycho once -- and only once -- with a full screaming audience.<<

Lucky you.

---

I WAS lucky. Depending on the life one lives, certain things can get disproportionate power. I've lived a "movie life," Hitchcock and Psycho were part of it, but was only with that 1979 screamathon viewing that I really understood how Psycho WORKED. And why it was such a blockbuster on initial release. It was one of the first movies(I've read) to function (as Hitchcock himself said it did), like a RIDE. On the roller coaster(for screams) or at the haunted house attraction.

Sure many of us have only seen Psycho on a small screen with a small group...or alone. And the greatness of the movie as a work of art, as narrative drama, is surely there. But the RIDE isn't.

What was fascinating about the movie is how -- again as Hitchcock said -- the first murder was so shocking and brutal in its time that the audience was simply petrified for the rest of the movie, in terror, waitng for the next bad thing to happen. And when Hitchcock gave us ANOTHER big shock(Arbogast), the terror increased even more (and it proved men were in danger, too -- watch out, Sam!) That's why by the time Sam and Lila are parrying with Norman, EVERYTHING is on terror's edge: Norman in the doorway behind Sam; the mirror behind Lila, etc.

The "electricity" of Psycho runs beneath the surface of the visuals; we're in terror all the time.

In 1960 at least. And in 1979.....not so much in these modern, gory times on screen and in real life.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I first saw it on VHS on the little screen, but still thought it was pretty good. Come to think of it, I must've seen parts of it on tv before that, but didn't really get into it.

---

"My Psycho is not your Psycho." By the time VHS came around, Psycho was pretty much just a "classic title" readily available, interesting in the watching to be sure, but also "slight" enough, I suppose to get people saying: "What's the big deal?"

---

My memory is failing me. Before seeing the WHOLE movie, I didn't know anything about Saul Bass titles, the lack of Christmas decorations, how much $40 K was in today's dollars, the double entendres, first slasher movie, and so on, except for the shower scene.

---

I think for a lot of people, all that Psycho was WAS the shower scene. Its taken a troop of Psycho-files(via books and articles AND now the net) to pick it apart and see how it works. Its been said that Psycho has been "over-analyzed," but it never loses its power.

Case in point: Arbogast falling down the stairs is Martin Balsam sitting in front of a screen. Sophisticates today can see that, right away. But somehow that doesn't really MATTER. Not with that slash to the face, not with the look in Arbogast's eyes. Not with the sensation of falling. Not with that MUSIC. You can be terrified by the sequence even seeing the "fakery." Which to me is really stylization.

I had heard about (the shower scene). It was a painful, vulnerable, and violent way to die.

---

Yep. And the world took notice. I like what one TV commercial announcer said about Psycho: "The movie that gave a nation nightmares." There had never been a scene that went so FAR.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

And this: in my Psycho readings, I only recently found some guy's article where he said, for all the accounts of the Psycho scene "not showing anything, left to your imagination, the knife doesn't enter the body" -- he said: "Yeah, but its STILL a pretty graphic scene." He noted that if the scene were done "Blair Witch" style, we might only HEAR the murder, from out in the bedroom.

---

I thought it was really vicious in that you could hear the knife go in along with the sexy, violent visuals.

---

The Psycho shower scene is perhaps the greatest single example of "sex and violence" in the same scene (in a thematic way, but Frenzy, Hitchcock got literal.)

--

Maybe in my mind I saw a breast. What did you see during the shower scene? Younger guys must've "seen" a breast or ass lol.

---

Probably. In the flutter of images we DO see a nude model from above(not Janet Leigh), a glimpse of side breast , etc. Hitchcock knew what he was doing.

Of course, Hitchcock didn't anticipate VHS/DVD and people being able to freeze frame everything -- and to find those nipples when Marion's hand is reaching for the shower curtain. Out of focus -- got right past the censors.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I didn't really think about how Arbogast died until after watching the trailer again and realizing it was AH's epilogue like he does in AHP.

--

Somewhat. Yes. It is interesting that Hitchcock tells us all these things after they have occurred, after the crimes of Norma/Norman Bates are known to the world.

And there he is, "leading off" not with the shower murder, but with the staircase murder, and giving a lot away: a door opened at the top, in a flash there was the knife(it DOES flash), the victim tumbled and fell, its difficult to express the twisting, he tumbled and fell with a horrible crash the back broke immediately....its too horrible to describe.

---

It was a horror experience. There is the jump scare with the door being slightly opened and suddenly we see Mother pop out with her huge knife ready to strike and the shocking big gash on Arbogast's face along with his violent tumbling down the stairs, and then getting stabbed so hard and violently.

---

All that horror and only one bit of blood: the single slash down Arbogast's forehead and cheek(says I, even THAT draws argument.) And yet the Variety reviewer wrote "the blood-covered victim falls down the stairs." Things seemed a lot WORSE in 1960.

---

Maybe the censors made AH tone down his screams.

---

Its possible. In 1998 , William H. Macy's Arbogast screams all the way down the stairs. In 1960, just one final scream from Balsam -- its like punctuation to the scene. Its possible Hitch was told to eliminate more of Arbogast's screaming. Too sadistic.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

the two killings in Psycho is very vicious, violent, and unusual. It is beyond what one usually reads in police or detective novels.

---

Indeed. The world was filled with the genteel murders in Agatha Christie novels and the quick gunshot deaths(no blood)in film noirs. And along came this movie to show us murder as something much worse than that: slaughter.

The horror in Psycho comes from the fact that the murders ARE slaughters, and the killer seems to be an old woman with inhuman strength -- a monster. (Hitchcock called her that -- she said a monster is waiting for Arbogast at the top of the stairs.)

I recall a TV Guide capsule for the 1966 CBS showing of Psycho that never happened:

"Psycho. Alfred Hitchcock's tale of grisly murders at an isolated motel."

I remember having to look up the word "grisly." Put simply: slaughter.

And TV Guide got it right: that IS what Psycho was really about.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

I just saw Homicidal and that seems to fall apart BEFORE the 3rd act. It did have an interesting uneven pace in the beginning and after the "break." I guessed [spoiler]Warren was a gender bender once he showed up. He had a good masculine voice though. It was all too weird that Emily shows up in Miriam's bedroom after committing murder and ends up in Warren's bedroom. Then, the next morning, she threatens Miriam out of her own house.[/spoiler] That's when it fell apart and I knew. [spoiler]The doctor gives it away, "That's what makes them so dangerous. They can change from being your friend into your murderer in a second's time!"[/spoiler] Did WC have to be so obvious? No point in discussing what was ripped off from Psycho. It also falls apart because of the low budget cars :p.

There was no equal to Psycho in that it started the slasher and stabbing movie genre. If you ever witness a stabbing, then you know that even a small fight turns into a bloody one. There is blood all over. And if someone is killed, then you know there will be a large pool of it. If the Psycho critic talked about how fast and easily Norman cleaned up as a dutiful son, then he'd have something. In college, I saw a fight break out on the dance floor and it continued into the band. That's when we knew it was serious as it disrupted the music. The lights came on and one of the combatants laid face down in a growing pool of blood in front. It was a ghastly sight!

What do you mean by "adult sensibilities" found in Norman's room? It's vintage porn, right? Also, Eroica deliberately hints at erotica, but isn't the same. It is about Beethoven's tribute to Napoleon. The music is about power. We are talking about Norman and his interests now. Seeing it with the book means adolescent sexuality to me, but I also think Hitchcock meant to allude sexual perversion. I guess it could symbolize [v]virility[/i], but that does not fit the movie. Listen to it if you get a chance.

[–] MizhuB (165) 5 years ago

I've said before, I am a fan of some cheesy 60s 'horror films'. Strait-Jacket, Homicidal, Eye of the Cat, Scream of Fear (although I think that's actually pretty good), etc. When I pop them into the DVD player, I mostly just watch the parts I like, and keep it playing for background fluff while I do other stuff.

To me, Homicidal has a pretty intriguing first act. The opening through the first murder. A good 20 minutes. After that, it falls into laughable territory and stays there until the end.

jasonbourne mentioned the low budget cars. It's worse than that. There are two shots which are repeated on the same road. And an obvious jump cut when Miriam tosses the wedding ring onto the road.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

Did WC steal that from another Hitchcock movie? I had to look at Notorious again when you mentioned the road scene w/the cop.

I almost blurted out the doctor scene wasn't necessary, but didn't want to argue for another 50+ years ;).

Then one doesn't sharpen a surgical instrument with a grinder. It's done by sharpening stone. It's no wonder Emily sent him packing with $2. I'll give him credit for making house calls tho. Besides, her cutlery looked plenty sharp just by glancing at the drawer. What about the ending? [spoiler]Did Emily have to die? She could've lived for a sequel, but WC didn't do sequels or did he?[/spoiler]

[–] MizhuB (165) 5 years ago

Did WC steal that from another Hitchcock movie? I had to look at Notorious again when you mentioned the road scene w/the cop.

========

I haven't seen Notorious since I was a teenager (eons ago), so I have no memory of that. Perhaps I need to watch both films again.

========

I almost blurted out the doctor scene wasn't necessary, but didn't want to argue for another 50+ years ;).

========

Well, since Homicidal was WC's attempt at duplicating PSYCHO, of Course he had to tag on an explanation scene. No need to argue about that ;)

========

Then one doesn't sharpen a surgical instrument with a grinder. It's done by sharpening stone. It's no wonder Emily sent him packing with $2. I'll give him credit for making house calls tho.

========

Because I'm curiously nerdy about these things, I looked up what $2 in 1961 money would be in 2019 money. About $17. Not to shabby to sharpen one knife, even if it wasn't done the right way, and worth the trip

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I've said before, I am a fan of some cheesy 60s 'horror films'. Strait-Jacket, Homicidal,

---

With Homicidal(1961) and Strait-Jacket(1964) I think we are seeing pretty direct homages by Castle to Psycho. And in some ways, they devalue Psycho.

For as great and landbreaking as Psycho is, at the end of the day -- and by Hitchcock's own design-- its a pretty cheap little horror story of the TYPE of Homicidal and Strait-Jacket. Its like Psycho gets bunched together with those rather than, say , Lawrence of Arabia.

And yet it is the connection of Psycho TO the cheaper, more poorly written but still verboten other horror movies of the time that makes it(in some ways) BETTER than Lawrence of Arabia. As far as excitement and audience involvement go.

---

Eye of the Cat,

---

I have not seen this, even with its Joe Stefano script. That "wheelchair scene" you posted certainly cried Hitchcock -- but it wasn't pulled off quite well enough.

---

Scream of Fear (although I think that's actually pretty good),

---

Perhaps I can check that out.

---

etc. When I pop them into the DVD player, I mostly just watch the parts I like, and keep it playing for background fluff while I do other stuff.

---

Sure. And there's something about that 50's/60s cusp -- especially in black and white(though maybe McQueen in The Blob in color makes the grade.) As someone around here posted, there's just something innately creepy about the cheap b/w horror movies of that time...even if they lacked the ultra-gore from the 70s on.

---

T

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

To me, Homicidal has a pretty intriguing first act. The opening through the first murder. A good 20 minutes. After that, it falls into laughable territory and stays there until the end.

---

Trivia: I saw Homicidal BEFORE I saw Psycho. On a late night horror movie show, with a host, who said "Homicidal is kind of a mini-Psycho."

So I saw mini-Psycho before I saw Psycho, and I must admit , those first 20 minutes intrigued me. WHY did this woman(pretty, but somehow strange), want that bellhop(a man, not a boy) to marry her for 20 minutes for $1000. The story moved on to the justice of the peace, the shock murder(again, I saw this BEFORE the murders in Psycho) and...and...well, it fell apart.

---

jasonbourne mentioned the low budget cars. It's worse than that. There are two shots which are repeated on the same road. And an obvious jump cut when Miriam tosses the wedding ring onto the road.

---

You know, Hitchcock strived to make Psycho look cheap(no shots of the gas station from which Arbogast made his call.) But not THAT cheap. Everything fits together in Psycho. It was made by pros.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I just saw Homicidal and that seems to fall apart BEFORE the 3rd act.

--

One funny thing about Homicidal is that I guess you could say that it has more of a "true mystery plot" than Psycho. Things about inheritances are plotty.

Psycho remains almost like a "thriller flow chart." Sexy woman is killed while naked. Male detective follows her trail and snoops around and is killed. The killer is caught 'in the nick of time" before killing another victim, and unmasked.

It doesn't GET more basic than that. Not only is it the first slasher film, it has the first slasher "tropes": woman dies for her sexuality. Man dies because he snoops around. A woman dies. A man dies. Elemental.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

In college, I saw a fight break out on the dance floor and it continued into the band. That's when we knew it was serious as it disrupted the music. The lights came on and one of the combatants laid face down in a growing pool of blood in front. It was a ghastly sight!

---

Real violence is always more shattering(if you're not inured to it) than the movie stuff. The most violent thing I witnessed was a very one-sided "fight" where a muscular young military man put an overweight middle aged man in a headlock and preceded to pummel him in the face. (At a baseball game.) Blood everywhere. Teeth found later. I was one of the brave crowd of 20 who broke it up til the cops came. But I still remember it -- particularly the mismatch of age and strength. It was like "Mrs. Bates in reverse."

Hitchcock managed to break through the surreal nature of movie murder with the killings in Torn Curtain and Frenzy, but even there, "its only a movie."

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>One funny thing about Homicidal is that I guess you could say that it has more of a "true mystery plot" than Psycho. Things about inheritances are plotty.<<

Okay, but "true mystery plot?" What about leaving witnesses alive like the bellhop and the minister's wife? That is unusual unless it's a crime of passion or unplanned, but this is planned. The bellhop got paid. I get Emily is going to disappear after killing Helga and Miriam and wants witnesses to her existence, but she's also Warren's wife. The investigation of Emily would have to lead back to Warren since he's the only one left alive in the house. There really isn't any motive for Emily to murder these people or is there? Warren looks like a gender bender, but I guess what bothered me about him was too much makeup. I would think the sketch artist could put 2 + 2 together and come up with Warren as a suspect.

I think the point of "blood everywhere" to Psycho is that it would have taken Norman a long time or it be near impossible to clean up after both killings, but it's a movie so we have to have suspension of disbelief. With Homicidal, even if we can believe Emily could murder three unrelated people to her, the only person left alive would have been Warren, her husband. You can't suspend him.

Your Mrs. Bates in reverse is a good comment. I'm hoping you can see that a psycho older woman can still be quite strong and formidable with a surprise knife attack. Crimes of passion or heat of the moment incidents can be as vicious and violent as that young bully you encountered. It can also be cool and calculating like that of a professional, but the nature of it being "in the moment" should be made clear. Like it was done in broad daylight or in front of witnesses.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I almost blurted out the doctor scene wasn't necessary, but didn't want to argue for another 50+ years ;).

---

Hitchcock's Psychiatrist Scene in Psycho: The Gift That Keeps on Giving. For 50+ years at a time...

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

LOL.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The bellhop got paid. I get Emily is going to disappear after killing Helga and Miriam and wants witnesses to her existence, but she's also Warren's wife. The investigation of Emily would have to lead back to Warren since he's the only one left alive in the house. There really isn't any motive for Emily to murder these people or is there? Warren looks like a gender bender, but I guess what bothered me about him was too much makeup. I would think the sketch artist could put 2 + 2 together and come up with Warren as a suspect.

---

Its funny...that sketch looked like Emily of course, but I guess it would not lead to Warren, necessarily.

---

I think the point of "blood everywhere" to Psycho is that it would have taken Norman a long time or it be near impossible to clean up after both killings, but it's a movie so we have to have suspension of disbelief.

---

A lotta suspension of disbelief. But with Marion's murder, there's an out: the blood almost entirely goes "down the drain." (Norman swabs some off the walls inside the tub and the floor and tub outside.)

Arbogast, well, Bloch's book tells us Norman wrapped him in a rug, but I dunno. These victims were "machine gunned with a knife." A lot of blood loss.

One film later, in The Birds, Hitchcock never really showed us HOW the birds killed people. We saw the farmer with the pecked out eyes. We can figure: "shock." But how long a death is that? Meanwhile, the face of the dead Annie is covered by Mitch's hand, but freeze it and you see bare minimal blood on Suzanne Pleshette's face.

Suspension of disbelief, indeed.

---

With Homicidal, even if we can believe Emily could murder three unrelated people to her, the only person left alive would have been Warren, her husband. You can't suspend him.

---

Ha. Nicely said. Can't expel him, either.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Your Mrs. Bates in reverse is a good comment.

---

Thanks. Its creepy seeing an "old woman" so viciously stab a man to death(Arbogast), let alone a woman.

And it was creepy to see a muscular young man so viciously beat a middle-aged man with none of the same strength. (As I recall, I was told that the older man was a drunk who insulted the young one -- and paid a horrible price.)

---

I'm hoping you can see that a psycho older woman can still be quite strong and formidable with a surprise knife attack.

---

Sure. That's key to HOW AND WHERE Mrs. Bates attacks her victims. Both the shower, and later, the staircase, 'help" Mrs. Bates kill her victims. Marion is trapped and can't maneuver in the slippery shower. The stairs themselves cripple Arbogast("the back broke immediately) before Mrs. B finishes him off. She chose her murder locales well.

Even if she was really a strong young man.

---

Crimes of passion or heat of the moment incidents can be as vicious and violent as that young bully you encountered.

---

That one was "out of nowhere."

---

It can also be cool and calculating like that of a professional, but the nature of it being "in the moment" should be made clear. Like it was done in broad daylight or in front of witnesses.

---

Depends on the killer, the crime, the planning, etc. Doesn't it.

Hitchcock did a few of movies about premeditated murder(Dial M, Strangers on a Train, Rope).

But Psycho -- and later, Frenzy -- delivered something truly horrible: a killer who kills on the spur of the moment because he is DRIVEN to kill, LIKES to kill, MUST kill. It isn't about money, it isn't about politics, it isn't even about divorce. And the victims are just "wrong place wrong time." Yes, there is a sex component, but the attack is still ....mad. (Arbogast, killed not for sex but for cover-up, is probably killed in the greatest panic of all by Norman.)

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>Its funny...that sketch looked like Emily of course, but I guess it would not lead to Warren, necessarily.<<

I agree, not just with Emily's sketch but if Warren is the only person left alive in the house, then the artist is going to notice his eyes, brows, facial features, and the like. He's also her husband. Did Warren have a fake nose on? The artist will sketch Warren and Emily on a clear animation sheet and put 1 + 1 together.

>>Crimes of passion or heat of the moment incidents can be as vicious and violent as that young bully you encountered.

---

That one was "out of nowhere."<<

It was "heat of the moment" and the young man could not help himself. He shows that he could do the same to his spouse when he loses his temper whether it is private inside the house or out in public. They just can't help themselves.

What you described is an unequal combat situation and clearly most people would help the victim even though he may have started it.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

It was "heat of the moment" and the young man could not help himself. He shows that he could do the same to his spouse when he loses his temper whether it is private inside the house or out in public. They just can't help themselves.

---

Yes. Garden-variety violent. The dark side of life that is real, not movies.

---

What you described is an unequal combat situation and clearly most people would help the victim even though he may have started it.

---

All true. The "horror" was in the unequal combat. I recall someone near me said, "that was quite a fight," and I said, "that wasn't a fight, it was a beating."

And yes, we went to help the victim, somebody got the story that he started it. Hopefully, he was too drunk to FEEL the pain.

As I recall we were worried the young guy was going to throw the other guy over the railing -- we were in a high deck of the stadium.

Very disturbing...but it tells you how sheltered my upbringing was. I never went to war, never got involved in real violence. Just watched a lot "at the movies." Seeing that altercation shook me. Its also a reminder that -- forget years of barroom brawls in Westerns -- a real fight is never fun.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>>>It can also be cool and calculating like that of a professional, but the nature of it being "in the moment" should be made clear. Like it was done in broad daylight or in front of witnesses.

---

Depends on the killer, the crime, the planning, etc. Doesn't it.

Hitchcock did a few of movies about premeditated murder(Dial M, Strangers on a Train, Rope).

But Psycho -- and later, Frenzy -- delivered something truly horrible: a killer who kills on the spur of the moment because he is DRIVEN to kill, LIKES to kill, MUST kill. It isn't about money, it isn't about politics, it isn't even about divorce. And the victims are just "wrong place wrong time." Yes, there is a sex component, but the attack is still ....mad. (Arbogast, killed not for sex but for cover-up, is probably killed in the greatest panic of all by Norman.)<<

I'm not sure if Norman "likes to kill" because he didn't like nor want to kill his mother and lover. It was he could not control his jealousy. He planned it because he needed time to get the poison and do it at a later time. Mother couldn't control her jealousy either, but she did it soon after and with Arbogast it was so she would not get in trouble for her crimes. She seemed derive pleasure with her killings, so I think she liked to kill.

You may agree or disagree with this, but it seems we still saw two different movies. You see Norman as the killer and psycho of all.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I'm not sure if Norman "likes to kill" because he didn't like nor want to kill his mother and lover. It was he could not control his jealousy. He planned it because he needed time to get the poison and do it at a later time. Mother couldn't control her jealousy either, but she did it soon after and with Arbogast it was so she would not get in trouble for her crimes. She seemed derive pleasure with her killings, so I think she liked to kill.

---

Tell you the truth, I think I borrowed the term "likes to kill" from the original(and best) Dirty Harry.

In which Harry tells his cop superiors that the crazed killer Scorpio will kill again.

Cop Boss: And how are you so sure of that?
Harry: Because he likes it . (Eastwood reads that line with great passion, I might add.)

And in another psycho movie of sorts, Se7en(1995), cop Morgan Freeman parries the psycho who says that God is directing him to kill sinners by saying, "but isn't it true...that you also LIKE to do what you do?"

I guess I've applied this phrase "he likes to kill" over the years to Psycho and Frenzy because these killers seem motivated to kill "just for the sake of killing," but more than that, they relish demonstrating control over their victims -- Norman "poses" with his knife before both Marion and Lila (but not before Arbogast; that's a quick kill). Rusk makes a great show of plucking his tiepin out of his tie, moving it to his lapel, and removing the tie in front of his victim.

Yes, I'd say these fellows rather like what they are doing.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I was watching the "non-Psycho" old 1966 Paul Newman detective movie "Harper" the other night and I was surprised by this line in a 1966 film:

Villain Robert Webber is burning singer/junkie Julie Harris in various parts of her body with cigarettes, to get information. He says:

Webber: By now you've determined that you do not enjoy receiving this pain, but that I very much enjoy inflicting it upon you, so you'd better talk.

Its called sadism. And one can finger that Webber's "garden variety thug" has a psycho within him.

(Its very satisfying how,within seconds, hero Paul Newman crashes in and shoots Webber, who is grabbing for his gun, dead. Its so 1966 that Webber has to grab for his gun; Dirty Harry would have just shot Webber dead.)

But...I digress.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I'm not sure if Norman "likes to kill" because he didn't like nor want to kill his mother and lover.

---

True. But we do find that this matricide pushed him so far over the edge as to "create" a woman who seems more inclined to like her job. Look, whoever the "real" killer is, it boils down to: Norman meets a woman, is turned on, Mother jealously kills the woman. And I would guess rather likes doing it. "That'll show her" is suggested, not said. Meanwhile, in Frenzy, Rusk DOES say: "Women. You're all the same. I'll show you." Right before strangling Brenda to death. There's rage, but there is also pleasure.

---
It was he could not control his jealousy. He planned it because he needed time to get the poison and do it at a later time.

---

Well, I expect Norman/Norma couldn't really poison any future female victims, though I dunno...Norman does serve Marion milk in the parlor.

I think of the of the "motif ideas" in Psycho is that Mrs. Bates kills with a huge knife that can be found in ...the kitchen. "The woman's room"(though certainly I know a lot of men who cook.) Mrs. B doesn't want to use a gun, she's not a strangler (not until Psycho IV, which rather ruined the knife motif)....she uses her big knife from the kitchen.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Mother couldn't control her jealousy either, but she did it soon after and with Arbogast it was so she would not get in trouble for her crimes.

---

Arbogast really messed with Norma's mindset, I think. He picks on her son(the needling interrogation), he says "sometimes sick old ladies can be sharp" (rather an insult, but she IS sick, she IS sharp) , and while he is a snooper "who has to be killed," Norma goes to the trouble of starting his murder with a raging, rather non-lethal slash to the face. Raging? Yes. But also, maybe: she likes being such a psycho.

--- She seemed derive pleasure with her killings, so I think she liked to kill.

---

Well, she certainly goes on and on and on...and she has a goal: total eradication of her victims. But the "liking" it bit -- which I myself brought up here -- I think once again I got from the Dirty Harry and Se7en discussions. Think of all the real life psychos who go out to hunt their multiple victims.

And Rusk...back to Rusk. He spends most of his early moments toying with Brenda Blaney, at once menacing her and reassuring her that he means her no harm. He even says he'll take her to lunch -- offering Brenda a hope of escape when its not really going to happen.

I sure Rusk likes doing that.

---

You may agree or disagree with this, but it seems we still saw two different movies. You see Norman as the killer and psycho of all.

---

We saw two different movies but...I'm always open to other views. I mean that.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>True. But we do find that this matricide pushed him so far over the edge as to "create" a woman who seems more inclined to like her job. Look, whoever the "real" killer is, it boils down to: Norman meets a woman, is turned on, Mother jealously kills the woman. And I would guess rather likes doing it. "That'll show her" is suggested, not said. Meanwhile, in Frenzy, Rusk DOES say: "Women. You're all the same. I'll show you." Right before strangling Brenda to death. There's rage, but there is also pleasure.<<

I figure Norman was disturbed because he became the focus of his mother's attention when his father died, i.e. sexual attention, at five. I can't remember if that's when they started living like there was "no one else in the world." It wasn't a healthy relationship and pushed Mother over the edge when he was seventeen. I think what would clarify Mother as psycho would be how she killed the two girls. If they were stabbed violently, then that would be the start of her killings. We know her attitude towards Norman the way she talked to him. We do not know how the father died, but there wasn't any motivation for her to kill him.

What makes me think she likes to kill is the way she does it. The way she holds the big, sharp knife high and slashes down. If true, then it may hint at some sadism and being turned on by the power. However, I don't think the psychiatrist mentions anything like it; he doesn't mention Freud. It may be anger fueled by jealousy, so it could be she's out of control just like the guy you saw beating the older man. Whichever way she is, she is still psycho and became that way when she started killing.

Now, in Homicidal, I would think there was only one homicidal killer and that was Warren. He has the motivation to do it. Emily is only a disguise/separate identify so that he can get away with murder.

ETA: I'm going to start watching Bates Motel. I think that series tells more the story of Norman and his mother and possibly it may show their family life before the series of tragic events. Have you seen it?

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

ETA: I'm going to start watching Bates Motel. I think that series tells more the story of Norman and his mother and possibly it may show their family life before the series of tragic events. Have you seen it?

---

Not much. The pilot(with interesting ideas about how Mr. Bates died), a couple of episodes in the first season...then...

...I dropped out...and returned for the final season in which the "Bates Motel" story started to intersect with the Hitchcock version (ie Mrs Bates is dead, Norman is her.)

Many people liked Bates Motel, and its "new storyline" and if you want to get a whole heap of "backstory" on the Family Bates you will get it here.

But there's a problem. This is an "alternative universe" Bates Family. Norman has a brother for one thing. Changes everything. And the motel isn't in backwater Northern California among the brushy hills and the weeds. It is on a beautiful moody coastline(think "The Birds.")

All of which makes "Bates Motel" a Norman Bates story that tells us everything we always wanted to know about Norman Bates.

Except he's not the Bates of the Hitchcock film or the Bloch novel.

But...I think you might enjoy it a lot. It really gets into some surmises you yourself have explored..and it really shows EXACTLY how Mother functioned in Norman's mind. He saw her around him, all the time.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

I just binged the first three episodes of season one. I think the series does explain what I was getting at with the characters having their own lives leading up to what happened, but it gives us things that explain and its own things that do not to explain, i.e. its own story. So far, it doesn't explain Norma as being "psycho," but seems to get into Norman's psyche more which is your view. [spoiler]Norma seems normal in her reaction to killing the previous owner as he broke into her house and raped her. He did attack her and it was a self-defense killing. The only thing was it was violent the way she killed him. It wasn't a vicious self-defense with her being heated, wanting revenge, and being out of control. However, Norman does see her stabbing him violently and the aftermath.[/spoiler] It goes to show the limitations of what we know from watching and investigating AH's Psycho movie. I'm committed to watching the rest of season one. I notice it ran for five seasons, so can't commit to that right now lol.

[–] MizhuB (165) 5 years ago

Where can you watch Bates Motel online?

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

Netflix or http://bfy.tw/O9Pp.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

It's too bad you missed S2. I'm seven shows in and it's mainly about Norman. Exploring Norman and what happens to him. It's what I thought, too, in the beginning.

ETA: I just finished S2. You woulda loved the glorious finale, ecarle. However, I recommend to watch the whole season to take it all in. The writing is very good. I find myself LOL at the references.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

It goes to show the limitations of what we know from watching and investigating AH's Psycho movie.

---

Sure but...Hitchcock had no intimations whatsoever in 1960 that Psycho could be...or should be...a 5-year series with about 60 hours of episodes. Its pretty amazing that he told what he told in 109 minutes(less than two hours.)

I expect Hitchcock would say that the emphasis in Psycho was on shock -- "playing the audience like an organ" as he called it, and the ride. Bates Motel has more murders, and more gory murders than Psycho, but its not built to make anybody scream. Its just more gore after decades of the stuff -- and built for watching on TV at home exclusively.

That Psycho 1960 could just be a "thrill ride" and STILL create mysterious characters who fascinated us(Norman above all, but also Marion and even Arbogast) is one of its achievements.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

It's too bad you missed S2. I'm seven shows in and it's mainly about Norman. Exploring Norman and what happens to him. It's what I thought, too, in the beginning.

--

I'm glad you have found some support for your theories.

---

ETA: I just finished S2. You woulda loved the glorious finale, ecarle.

---

Well, there's no reason I can't jump around. I'll see what I can do.

---

However, I recommend to watch the whole season to take it all in.

---

Maybe.

---

The writing is very good. I find myself LOL at the references.

---

The series got good reviews. If I'm a little less than receptive its that Psycho is really from my generation, its history is different than that of Bates Motel -- which is, after all, at least inspired by the Hitchcock.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

I just finished watching. [spoiler]S1 and S2 were the best. S3 was the worst as it dragged. S4 started to bring the story back on track for the S5 (which you said you watched). What was strange was that in AH's Psycho, I didn't like Mother but liked Norman. It was the opposite before S5 began; I didn't like Norman but liked Mother. Overall, I enjoyed the series more when I realized that it wasn't going to lead into AH's film somewhere in S4. Norma in Bates Motel is nothing like the woman I pictured in AH's movie. I thought she had some issues, but aside from killing Sam, she only tried to protect Norman.[/spoiler] She was smothering to him instead of raising him to be independent.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Wow, jasonbourne...you really powered through that series.

I'm not sure I can make those spoiler black bars, so I'll be circumspect. I think a key thing you mention here is how Bate Motel made Norman into an unlikeable character. He's a pretty cruel guy...you WANT him to get his comeuppance, and since the series dispenses with the "twist" of Mother being within him, one watches him as "the villain." He gets away with things; good people die and he continues on.

And yet, Sam here isn't that great of a guy; he's a cheater and arrogant and all that and meets HIS comeuppance in the shower. Its all just the sort of thing that I think the original Psycho sidestepped all together: we liked the killer, we liked the victims. As original Psycho screenwriter Joseph Stefano said, "audiences had to watch nice people get murdered...by a nice person."

To the extent that Bates Motel finally starts to match up with the Hitchocck original(and the Bloch novel that spawned it), one pretty much has to wait both for the real Mrs. Bates to be dead and for Norman to start dressing up like her and killing people with a knife. (The house and motel are the same as in the original...and yet, not -- too far apart, somehow lacking in atmosphere.)

Things are reversible, now, I suppose. A young person who sees Bates Motel BEFORE seeing Hitchcock's 1960 Psycho will likely find the original film too "mild"(no horror for almost an hour, only two killings, killings discreetly shown today if horrible in '60) and too sparse.

Oh, well. Then was then and now is now.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

Yeah, I'm semi-retired and not working now so whenever the urge struck I binged. I thought it was going to lead into the Psycho movie so that was the main reason I watched. Despite all the differences you mentioned and what I saw, I thought this until somewhere around S4. I think it was the two missing girls killed by Mother. Sure, the references and its respect to the AH film is there, but it's main job was to sell the story to a new audience and I think it did that due to its popularity.

I said Universal should put out a Director's Cut of Psycho 1960 to reach new audiences, but Bates Motel should do the job. I'm not sure if new audiences would appreciate the movie, but hope I'm wrong. They may go see the DC in theaters for a limited engagement.

Just to tweak your view since BM had Norman as the psycho guy, I hope you noticed the psychiatrist disappeared haha. It was never explained in detail what happened to him.