MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Filming Arbogast's Canvass of Hotels and...

Filming Arbogast's Canvass of Hotels and Boarding Houses

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

When you have a movie as cheap and small scale as "Psycho," you have an opportunity to study "the little things" that are necessary to tell a story on the screen.

I've been thinking recently about what was INVOLVED in filming a small "connective section" of Psycho. Its all guesswork on my part, but I had fun with it:

So Arbogast meets Sam and Lila at the hardware store and announces that "Marion is in this town, somewhere. I'll find her."

That's his mission. WE know he has to end up at the Bates Motel to accomplish it. But the movie requires SOME footage of Arbogast's canvass of all the places in or near Fairvale where Marion might have a room.

Joseph Stefano's screenplay posits this sequence as very elaborate indeed. Arbogast is shown checking out four locations -- a "new motel," a hotel, a "rooms to rent" place(says the script: "Arbogast's search is getting down in the scale") and a "cheesy boarding house."

BUT: these four locales are intercut with "long shots" of Arbogast continually driving PAST the Bates Motel. His car is shown on the highway and the Bates Motel can be seen way in the distance(with Norman out front on one occasion, "going up the steps to Mother's house.".) Back and forth Arbogast's car goes -- left to right; right to left, until finally Arbogast stops his car, backs up and drives on the Bates grounds. (DOOM.)

Hitchcock reviewed Stefano's script here, and knew one thing: the Bates Motel and House outdoor sets were not near ANY highway, real or backlot imagined. There was no ROOM for long shots of Arbogast's car speeding back and forth and "missing" the Bates place. So -- all this material went un-filmed.

What was retained was Arbogast going from place to place to place to place. Four places in all, shot from different angles. One hotel. One place with a sign: "Room and Board. Wk and month" Another Hotel(different sign.) And a house with a sign posted out front: "Rooms to let." After that last location of four...we simply have a dissolve to Arbogast pulling up in front of the Bates Motel, Norman already sitting on the porch.

So...how was Arbogast's canvass actually filmed?

I wonder first: was Hitchcock even necessary for these shots, or was Assistant Director Hilton Green put on them instead. A name actor is in this sequence(Martin Balsam), so my guess is that Hitchcock himself put in the day's work of staging the four different "stops." But I don't know.

I wonder second: how much time was devoted to getting the four different "stops." I'll guess: one working day. I'm assuming that the four locales were at different places on the Universal backlot, so each shot probably required driving trucks and equipment to the set, positioning Balsam (and two bit players, more on them in a moment) and getting the brief 30 second or less "scenes."

The breakdown of the four "scenes" is that: at each of the two hotels, Arbogast is shown entering them alone. At each of the two boarding houses, Arbogast speaks to a middle-aged female manager. The set-ups are reversed: in one, we can see the woman's face(Arbogast in profile, screen left.) in the other, we are behind the woman's back (Arbogast in the background, facing us, speaking to her.)

So...two "bit player" actresses needed to be secured. And though the sequence is silent(accompanied by Herrmann music), each of the two actresses can be seen SPEAKING(as is Arbogast, to them.) Were these folks all given "script pages," or did Balsam just lead the ladies in "improv"? ("Hello, my name is Arbogast. I'm a private investigator..." "No, no one has been here of that description.)

Figure that Hitchcock, as the producer of "Psycho" assigned SOMEONE to prepare this sequence. Hilton Green maybe. Scout the Universal backlot for four locations -- two on "New York Street"(the hotels), two in the "suburban neighborhoods"(the boarding houses.) The two women had to be secured via casting. ("You will be working in the new Hitchcock picture. Your scene will last 30 seconds." Yeah!)

Comes the Big Day of filming. Assume trucks, camera, lights, sound equipment, crew...Martin Balsam and two bit part actresses all assemble at the same place, and are taken from "stop" to stop. If Hitchcock IS directing, he probably had in mind the size of the shot and the camera angle for each shot. Arbogast's walks into the two hotels were likely "one to two takes," tops.

Balsam was likely coached a little with each of the two bit part actresses. Nice: Balsam as Arbogast silently shows(while talking) the same alert enthusiasm he will bring to his big scene with Perkins. Balsam IS the star of this sequence, its a chance for him to shine.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Two things I've always noted about this sequence on close examination:

ONE: When Arbogast enters one of the hotels, alone, you can see him put cigarette in his mouth. And yet, nowhere else in the film does he smoke.

TWO: The woman with whom Arbogast speaks at the second "Rooms for Rent" house is seen from behind, talking to him as he talks back to her, animatedly. The woman is noteably taller than Arbogast, looking down at him. And she looks (from behind) a great deal like MRS BATES. Same bunned hair; even(I think) the same flowered dress.

I always wondered if perhaps Hitchcock "put in an order" for this particular actress to wear that hairstyle and that dress -- it would be a way of "foreshadowing" the conversation Arbogast THINKS he is going to have when he goes up the stairs to meet Mrs. Bates. I think this bit actress looks way too much(from behind) like Mrs. Bates for this to have been a coincidence....

It is interesting to know that Joe Stefano TRIED for this sequence to be more elaborate. It would have been great for Hitchcock to get to stage "Arbogast continually passing the Bates Motel" and to see -- from a high angle, the way the highway sits near the Bates Motel and house.

But Hitchcock had things cut down into what was actually a pretty "throwback" montage here. The shots DISSOLVE from one place to another.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Which reminds me: 16 years later in his final film, Family Plot, Hitchcock would stage a duplicate sequence to this one. Madame Blanche Tyler is going from place to place to try to find "Arthur Adamson." Key: the shots do NOT dissolve -- they are straight cuts. Also each of Madame Blanche's encounters is played for comedy(one Adamson is black, which is impossible; another Adamson is twins, etc.)

But the Psycho and Family Plot "canvass" sequences point up that the two movies actually have the same plot: Investigators in Story A(Seeking Marion Crane; Seeking Eddie Shoebridge aka Arthur Adamson) are on a collision course with the dangerous , murderous characters of Story B(Mrs. Bates; kidnapper Arthur Adamson.)

Come to think of it, the prep for the Family Plot sequence was probably more involved than that for Psycho. More bit actors were needed to be hired; Barbara Harris has a snippet of dialogue ("Mr. Adamson?") it was perhaps two days work rather than the one in Psycho.

But the sequence in Psycho is more important in film history.

And one more thing. I had used to contend that the jittery "credit music" that opens Psycho is used EXCLUSIVELY for the scenes of Janet Leigh driving, and that when she dies, that music dies with her(whereas the NXNW credit music continues all the way to the Mount Rushmore climax.) Somebody corrected me that this Arbogast sequence has that credit music. I think its ALMOST there, but not quite. Still if the music IS the same, the idea may be the same: this persistant, jittery theme music is "driving" BOTH Marion Crane AND Arbogast to the Bates Motel...and their doom.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"16 years later in his final film, Family Plot, Hitchcock would stage a duplicate sequence to this one. Madame Blanche Tyler is going from place to place to try to find "Arthur Adamson." Key: the shots do NOT dissolve -- they are straight cuts."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And here's where evolution of those conventions of film language and grammar come in, as dissolves had begun to seem passé by the close of the '60s (fade-outs and fade-ins too). I don't think there's a single dissolve in Chinatown, for instance. For all of its meticulous period detail and elegant simplicity, the shooting style (in which there's much hand-held camerawork as well) is very much of its time. The Two Jakes, equally meticulous about its period, aspired instead to also evoke the film making style of that period, full of languorous dissolves and fluid dolly shots.

I can't remember: did Van Sant use any dissolves or fades in '98? I sometimes wonder if his experiment might have been more successful as a period piece.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

"16 years later in his final film, Family Plot, Hitchcock would stage a duplicate sequence to this one. Madame Blanche Tyler is going from place to place to try to find "Arthur Adamson." Key: the shots do NOT dissolve -- they are straight cuts."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And here's where evolution of those conventions of film language and grammar come in, as dissolves had begun to seem passé by the close of the '60s (fade-outs and fade-ins too).

---

Yes...I doubt we could "pinpoint" when dissolves went out and straight cuts came in, but it is interesting how the movies "physically evolve." Another example of this I have that is not WITHIN the movie is...endless credit crawls at the end as we now have today. Psycho HAS no end credits beyond "The End"(all the better to leave the movie "hanging in dread in your mind" -- Hitchcock even instructed theater owners to leave their curtains open with a "green light" on the dark screen after The End.

Then, the 70's: Take a look sometime at the end credits at the end of Frenzy(the cast and character list; that's all) and then the ones at the end of Family Plot(the ONLY time the cast gets credit, plus crew) and...they are very short. Now...look at the end credits of any Marvel movie, today. THOSE run about 10 minutes!

--

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I don't think there's a single dissolve in Chinatown, for instance. For all of its meticulous period detail and elegant simplicity, the shooting style (in which there's much hand-held camerawork as well) is very much of its time.

---

Yes, Chinatown was a fascinating "mix" of period(the story, the clothes, the look) and modern(the plot, the themes, the filmmaking.) After a few years of "raw documentary style free form plot movies" in the 70's, here came a "classic" looking movie that was still totally 1974.

--

(The Two Jakes, equally meticulous about its period, aspired instead to also evoke the film making style of that period, full of languorous dissolves and fluid dolly shots.

---

I saw The Two Jakes, but I didn't remember that. Of course it had Jack Nicholson as a director, and some of those actor-types want to "show off" as directors.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I can't remember: did Van Sant use any dissolves or fades in '98?

---

I took a look at the William H. Macy sequence, of interest given that I'm taking up the Balsam version in my OP.

Its interesting.

First of all...Van Sant uses dissolves for Macy's "Arbogast canvass" so it does give the 1998 film an old-fashioned feel.

As in the original, Arbo checks out four locations. At one, Van Sant matches up to the original: a woman is in the doorway with her back turned to us, Arbogast is outside talking to her. The differences: Arbogast is holding up his photo of Marion Crane(Anne Heche) and we can "see" Arbo and Marion in the same shot; and -- THIS woman doesn't look like Mrs. Bates.

Another different shot: Arbo talking to one woman on a boarding house porch -- with two more women seated on the porch. Thus, three bit players imported for this one shot.

And Arbogast goes into one hotel, alone. And Arbogast goes into one building with a sign marked "Bed and Breakfast" -- a sop to a kind of place that the 90's had brought us.

Anyway, you might say the Van Sant does the "Arbogast canvass" -- "the same, but different."

----

I sometimes wonder if his experiment might have been more successful as a period piece.

---

Its an issue that reflects on the film being "the experiment that succeeded by failing." Van Sant slapped the year "1998" over the opening Phoenix shot and thus DEMANDED that we view this untouched 1960 script in 1998 terms(which really isn't how "revivals" are staged, is it?) So the movie ended up feeling "out of its time" when things happened like Sheriff Chambers needing an operator to connect him with the Bates Motel.

Seems to me to "do the experiment right," Van Sant needed to see if Psycho transferred to modern day, rather than re-staging 1960(which would have added costs to the film -- cars, costumes, etc.) But its not a comfortable fit. See what happens when you try to experiment?

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"But Hitchcock had things cut down into what was actually a pretty "throwback" montage here. The shots DISSOLVE from one place to another."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It would have seemed so even as far back as 50 years ago. Breaking new stylistic ground, a given film can kick off trends, but its makers and its contemporaneous audiences can be informed by only what came before, rather than after.

There was a discussion on the old board for American Gigolo (a guilty pleasure for me: whatever its shortcomings, as an atmospheric aural and visual experience, it makes me swoon) in which someone described it as reflecting the "cynical materialism and aesthetic tastes" of the '80s. I pointed out that, while it may have been a harbinger of those aspects of the '80s, it wasn't OF the '80s, having been shot entirely in the spring of '79. It's always seemed to me more a culmination of the decade in which it was produced.

Except for being, among other things, a 2-hour ad for Armani, I doubt AG was a significant enough film to have ignited any cultural shifts. But as much as Psycho - in the same way that AG is OF the '70s - is OF the '50s, it could be argued to have been enough of a cultural force to have played its part in the '60s becoming what they did.

I don't know how well I've said any of that.

Maybe an illustration will help. Pillow Talk, in release as Psycho was going into production, features a dissolve montage of Doris Day and Rock Hudson out on the town in Manhattan, against an instrumental of the film's title song while the neon names of night spots fly by and costume changes denote passage of time. In '59 -'60, it wouldn't have been cutting edge, but neither would it have appeared dated.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

"But Hitchcock had things cut down into what was actually a pretty "throwback" montage here. The shots DISSOLVE from one place to another."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It would have seemed so even as far back as 50 years ago. Breaking new stylistic ground, a given film can kick off trends, but its makers and its contemporaneous audiences can be informed by only what came before, rather than after.

---

Yes, there's something about this "Arbogast canvass" that feels almost a bit 1940's to me. (I'm not sure if I'm addressing your point here, other than "before" informing this scene.)

---

Except for being, among other things, a 2-hour ad for Armani, I doubt AG was a significant enough film to have ignited any cultural shifts. But as much as Psycho - in the same way that AG is OF the '70s - is OF the '50s, it could be argued to have been enough of a cultural force to have played its part in the '60s becoming what they did.

I don't know how well I've said any of that.

---

Very well. You know, I suppose ANY movies filmed as one decade ends but as the new one begins carry "more of the past than the future." Take Psycho. It was filmed in December 1959 and January 1960, in the main(with some November and February shooting on either side.) The novel came out in 1959 -- this was a QUICK transfer of novel to screen; the script was completed in 1959. And -- we are told -- the sixties didn't REALLY begin until the 1963/1964 period in which JFK was killed and the Beatles hit America.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

And yet: Psycho FEELS like the sixties, like Hitchcock himself wanted to get graphic about things(sex, murder, possible incest) that he could not touch in the fifties. Anthony Perkins said he saw his decision to do Psycho as "Are you ready for the sixties?" And YET: no, Psycho looks a lot like the fifties -- the clothes, mainly. By the time we get to Wait Until Dark and Rosemary's Baby much later in the decade, THOSE look like "sixties movies."

That's interesting about American Gigolo to you. Yes, it was written and produced in 1979, but I must admit when I saw it(and it opened very EARLY in 1980), I felt like it was announcing the 80's. Something about the "techno-pop" score(and the ubiquitious "Call Me" on the radio) and some of the style. I dunno, maybe I was less sensitive to how the 70's REALLY looked there, at the end. I suppose AG has some ties to disco in there, somewhere. (Personally, I loved how much of it was filmed in Westwood Village, near UCLA, which was an area I haunted in the 70's -- and the new QT film "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" takes Sharon Tate there so...an AG connection?)

I'm losing my grip on this one. I think what I need to think HARD about is...American Gigolo as more of a 70's wrap-up than an 80's start-up. And this: American Gigolo is two decades after the NXNW/Psycho cusp but -- what CHANGES have occurred in American society, American movies , American music.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Maybe an illustration will help. Pillow Talk, in release as Psycho was going into production, features a dissolve montage of Doris Day and Rock Hudson out on the town in Manhattan, against an instrumental of the film's title song while the neon names of night spots fly by and costume changes denote passage of time. In '59 -'60, it wouldn't have been cutting edge, but neither would it have appeared dated

---

That sequence also feels a little "forties' to me....the superimposition of the neon names ,etc, but with the fifties glamour of Day, Hudson, Technicolor, etc.

Interesting to remember that "Pillow Talk" won the Best Original Screenplay Oscar over NXNW! And that it stands in direct relief to the more grotty b/w affair that would be Psycho. I think I toyed once -- briefly -- with casting Doris Day as Marion Crane and found even thinking about the idea....practically obscene.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"BUT: these four locales are intercut with "long shots" of Arbogast continually driving PAST the Bates Motel. His car is shown on the highway and the Bates Motel can be seen way in the distance(with Norman out front on one occasion, "going up the steps to Mother's house.".) Back and forth Arbogast's car goes -- left to right; right to left, until finally Arbogast stops his car, backs up and drives on the Bates grounds. (DOOM.)"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It strikes me as a wise excision. Maybe it's in the way I'm envisioning it, but I'd imagine the effect of such a sequence to be more comical than anything.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"What was retained was Arbogast going from place to place to place to place. Four places in all, shot from different angles. One hotel. One place with a sign: "Room and Board. Wk and month" Another Hotel(different sign.) And a house with a sign posted out front: "Rooms to let." After that last location of four...we simply have a dissolve to Arbogast pulling up in front of the Bates Motel, Norman already sitting on the porch."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It's here that the conventions of film language and grammar come into play. Without that montage, we could logically infer that Arbo had checked at other lodgings before discovering "the Bates," and he even tells Norman so right off. But it's as necessary to cinematic structure as syntactic application of parts of speech are to sentence structure.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

"BUT: these four locales are intercut with "long shots" of Arbogast continually driving PAST the Bates Motel. His car is shown on the highway and the Bates Motel can be seen way in the distance(with Norman out front on one occasion, "going up the steps to Mother's house.".) Back and forth Arbogast's car goes -- left to right; right to left, until finally Arbogast stops his car, backs up and drives on the Bates grounds. (DOOM.)"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It strikes me as a wise excision. Maybe it's in the way I'm envisioning it, but I'd imagine the effect of such a sequence to be more comical than anything.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Yes, I can see where it might play too "light" on the screen....and running the very serious danger of the audience laughing TOO hard(I think it is meant to be suspenseful -- Arbo, you're going RIGHT PAST IT -- but it could play for too big the laugh.)

In reality, the scene simply couldn't be filmed -- the Bates Motel and House were within about 100 yards of other standing sets, mainly Western sets. There was no "highway" anywhere nearby.

I suppose my "fantasy yearning" about this sequence is that it might be "neat" to get a high angle that shows the proximity of the highway to the Bates Motel...and to see "tiny Norman"(as the script reads) in the distance climbing the steps to the house as Arbogast drives by. So often in "Psycho," Hitchocck just refuses to show us "the long view"(example: we never get to see the entire gas station where Arbogast makes his call, or the road leading to it.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

In the script there is also a much more involved 360 degree circular shot starting on Norman on the porch and then circling to Arbogast actually driving onto the property , getting out of his car and walking up to Norman -- this COULD have been a classic Hitchcock moving camera shot...Stefano was TRYING.

But Hitch was on a budget and had a "no frills" view of his film here, so THAT got thrown out, too. We get the dissolve montage of Arbogast canvassing places and then a simple medium shot of his driving into the frame to meet Norman on the motel porch(this drive up was filmed "at the soundstage Bates Motel," not on the backlot.)

THAT said, Hitchcock DOES do a few "flourish" shots in the film (the hanging camera following Norman up the stairs) its just that, he elected not to do ALL the flourish shots that Stefano's script devised(360 degrees of Arbogast....)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

"What was retained was Arbogast going from place to place to place to place. Four places in all, shot from different angles. One hotel. One place with a sign: "Room and Board. Wk and month" Another Hotel(different sign.) And a house with a sign posted out front: "Rooms to let." After that last location of four...we simply have a dissolve to Arbogast pulling up in front of the Bates Motel, Norman already sitting on the porch."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It's here that the conventions of film language and grammar come into play. Without that montage, we could logically infer that Arbo had checked at other lodgings before discovering "the Bates," and he even tells Norman so right off. But it's as necessary to cinematic structure as syntactic application of parts of speech are to sentence structure.

--

Yes. I suppose that's one reason I "zeroed in" on this sequence for my OP. It doesn't really HAVE to be there -- Arbogast tells Norman of his search -- but I would expect in the daily script conferences of Hitchocck and Stefano, they reached this point:

Stefano: So Arbogast needs to canvass some hotels and boarding houses until he finds the Bates Motel. Should we show that, or just dissolve to Arbogast finding the Bates Motel?
Hitchcock: Oh...I think we need to convey some of the time and effort put by Arbogast into searching for the right place. Why don't you write a little "montage bridge" --- like we did in the forties -- and detail a few places for him to talk to people?
Stefano: OK, Hitch.

--

I will note that there is a specifity to the places Stefano names in the script that Hitchcock does NOT match on screen. Mainly: a "new motel." It looks like Hitchcock didn't want any OTHER motel on screen competing with the Bates Motel. And so, on film, Arbo just checks out hotels and boarding houses before finding the Bates Motel.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Circling around to where I began, I suppose my musings on this brief connective sequence just triggered some thoughts:

It had to be prepared, scouted, cast, and shot "in a special way." (So much of the rest of the picture was on soundstages representing the motel and house, etc.)

It required some "detail preparation in the script."

BUT also this:

It comes under the heading, "...and Psycho is a classic..WHY?" this is the kind of scene that likely could be found on a Hitchcock TV episode, its basic story telling , there's nothing terribly cinematic about it(but maybe there IS, with the dissolves and the camera angles and the "Mrs. Bates" stand-in, etc.)

And importantly, to me, it comes under this heading, too:

"What is a director's contractural obligation to DIRECT?"

Honestly. Hitchcock read the script for this scene, CUT half of this scene(Arbogast passing the motel over and over) and was left with a fairly quick little silent sequence. Did he HAVE to be there to supervise it? Or could he trust it to assistants?

I'm guessing that a conscientious director -- like Hitch -- would believe, "yes, its part of my directing job to direct these brief shots." The compare-and-contrast staging of the two shots with different landladies strike me as "directorial decisions" with regard to composition, angle, direction of the actors, etc. I'll bet Hitchcock directed them.

And yet, I've read that 12 years later, a very old and very tired Hitchcock -- on Frenzy -- rested in his trailer while assistants got all the shots of Barry Foster in the back of the potato truck(a soundstage set-up.) Hitch had dictated the shots, they were typed up with specific directions(CLOSE UP, MEDIUM SHOT, etc.), I suppose assistants could decided on the framing. Let's just say in his last few years, Hitchcock was allowed to NOT have to be so conscientious as to supervise all filming on his movies.
(And of course, he DID supervise the editing of the potato truck scene later.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Meanwhile back at Psycho:

Psycho is most clearly being a classic when the shots and sequences on screen are MEANT to be classic:

The shower scene, start to finish.
ANY shot of the house on the hill(and there are a lot of them, its so wonderfully atmospheric.)
The staircase murder
Norman's eye at the peephole
Norman and Marion talk in the parlor
Norman and Arbogast talk in the office and on the porch(the camera angles)
The close-up on the highway patrolman
Marion's night drive of voices , gathering darkness and storms

....and if Psycho needs a few "connective scenes"(Arbogast's canvass) or expository scenes(the Sam and Lila scenes) they are rather carefully timed and fitted to maintain what one critic called "the unrelenting suspense of Psycho."

To wit, here with Arbogast's canvass. To get the suspense up and running again, Hitchcock needs to get Arbogast from Sam's hardware store to the Bates Motel ASAP. The briefness of the "Arbogast canvass" sequence(especially less Stefano's extended highway stuff), gets Arbogast from the safety of Fairvale to the dangers of the Bates Motel with all due speed. Dramatic/funny conversation will now begin -- but there is a sense of terror the moment Arbogast sets foot on the property because: Mother is near, and Mother is a monster.

The "unrelenting suspense" continues....

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

bump

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

I heard a "bump!" It woke me up. Now, where were we?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I'm guessing that a conscientious director -- like Hitch -- would believe, 'yes, its part of my directing job to direct these brief shots.'"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This is only a guess too, but in Hitchcock's case, I'd think it'd be dependent on how energized he was feeling about the project at hand. For Psycho, probably a lot. For something like The Paradine Case, probably not so much (so why not fob this or that little chore onto an AD?).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"....and if Psycho needs a few "connective scenes"(Arbogast's canvass) or expository scenes(the Sam and Lila scenes) they are rather carefully timed and fitted to maintain what one critic called 'the unrelenting suspense of Psycho.'"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It's what I'd call a "taking care of business" connective scene. For reasons already stated, it needs to be there, but it's quick, efficient and provides rhythmic momentum that propels us into that "dramatic/funny" conversation.

Perhaps one of the reasons it calls attention to itself is that it's a stylistic outlier: the film's other "taking care of business" transitions are ones of deletion rather than insertion. For instance, a dissolve gets us from Marion leaving the office directly to her bedroom, undressed and with her suitcase nearly packed and her fateful decision already made; to paraphrase the bandidos in Treasure Of the Sierra Madre, we don't have to show you no stinkin' contemplation.

Another is the cut from Sam and Norman, as their conversation is reaching the point of physical confrontation, to Lila in the house, then quickly back to Sam and Norman, already engaged in struggle.

Cont'd...

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

I think my favorite such transition is Marion nodding off while driving: the urgent music comes to a quick coda, accompanied by an equally quick fade-out, followed by a silent fade-in on the comparatively leisurely shot of her car parked at the side of the road, into which the highway patrolman drives at an equally leisurely pace; even his stopping to check on the vehicle is something he's had time to consider as he approached, has rejected and, at the last minute, reconsidered.

Rhythms.

We were talking about throwbacks upthread, and have before about how much of Psycho is "silent." This transition is almost a throwback to the cinema language of pre-talkie years.

I'm not sure why, but I'm reminded of an innovative and very witty transition that Buster Keaton employed in 1925's Seven Chances. Buster hops into his roadster to go visit his girlfriend, and a dissolve takes us from Buster's house to the girlfriend's, while he and the roadster remain stationary in the frame: he gets into the car; the location changes; he gets out of the car, neither ever having moved.

I don't know what that has to do with anything. Maybe I should go back to sleep.

Further thoughts: it's morning now, and clearer of head, I know exactly why I thought of it. It's an extreme, and clever, example of deleting connective footage (like driving away and arriving).

Boy! It's one thing to be so dense you don't catch a point others are trying to make, but quite another to be too dense to catch your own.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I heard a "bump!" It woke me up.

---

Ha. These "bumps" were just to infuse some Psycho into the Psycho board. I trust they did the trick. The OT posts here are great -- and often related to Psycho even IF OT -- but there ARE a lot of posts about Psycho. We're "kosher." (And honestly -- and sadly -- so many other Hitchcock movie boards are dead as Mrs. Bates.)

---

Now, where were we?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Take over. You're very good.

---

"I'm guessing that a conscientious director -- like Hitch -- would believe, 'yes, its part of my directing job to direct these brief shots.'"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This is only a guess too, but in Hitchcock's case, I'd think it'd be dependent on how energized he was feeling about the project at hand. For Psycho, probably a lot. For something like The Paradine Case, probably not so much (so why not fob this or that little chore onto an AD?).

---

I've often wondered if Hitchcock was as bored with some of his lesser films -- particularly when, as with Paradine, his producer was interfering -- as we were. Probably so, and yeah, probably he would let the AD do most of the work.

He let the AD direct a lot of "Frenzy," but I think the combination of age and Alma's stroke in London during filming took Hitchcock's heart out of it. (Luckily he had a great script and a truly compelling story for his AD to film.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

"....and if Psycho needs a few "connective scenes"(Arbogast's canvass) or expository scenes(the Sam and Lila scenes) they are rather carefully timed and fitted to maintain what one critic called 'the unrelenting suspense of Psycho.'"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It's what I'd call a "taking care of business" connective scene. For reasons already stated, it needs to be there, but it's quick, efficient and provides rhythmic momentum that propels us into that "dramatic/funny" conversation.

---

Yes. We know that Hitchcock worked with Joe Stefano as he worked with other "solo screenwriters" around this time. The two would meet daily and "map out the story so far" so that Stefano could go off and write the script.

So they probably talked about whether or not to include Arbogast's canvass(they should) and what it should entail. Hitchcock evidently allowed Stefano to go ahead and script Arbogast continually passing the Bates Motel...but then thought better of it and didn't film that.

I've read that this same process led Hitchocck and Stefano to decide against trying to film some sort of scene of the Lowery Real Estate staff worrying about Marion's disappearance - and thus their dialogue ended up as the "unseen voices" while Marion drives.

--

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Perhaps one of the reasons it calls attention to itself is that it's a stylistic outlier: the film's other "taking care of business" transitions are ones of deletion rather than insertion. For instance, a dissolve gets us from Marion leaving the office directly to her bedroom, undressed and with her suitcase nearly packed and her fateful decision already made; to paraphrase the bandidos in Treasure Of the Sierra Madre, we don't have to show you no stinkin' contemplation.

--

Ha. Yes. More often than not -- Hitchcock very much a master of this -- deletion IS what happens. Hitch is figuring that the audience can figure it out.

A big example in Psycho is how while we see the disposal of Marion's body in great detail -- all we get for Arbogast is that one shot of Norman by the swamp. Hitchcock knows that WE know what Norman has done, this time.

Also: "Marnie" screenwriter Jay Presson Allen said that Hitchcock "gently" re-wrote some of her script for "Marnie" to take out much of the Marnie/Mark honeymoon and insert one shot of a champagne bottle and "congratulations" to show where they've been.

The "twist" here is: when SHOULD we get a good dramatic scene instead of a deletion? The director and screenwriter will decide...

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Another is the cut from Sam and Norman, as their conversation is reaching the point of physical confrontation, to Lila in the house, then quickly back to Sam and Norman, already engaged in struggle.

---

That's one of the best moments in the film in how "jarring" it is -- and how daring Hitchcock is. Without being "arty abstract," there is a LOT of experimentation in Psycho, and here is a perfect example of Hitchcock "staying young and happening" before that was a thing.

I checked the screenplay -- wondering if Stefano had written more of the "beginning of the fight." Nope -- the opposite. He had a cut to Sam ALREADY on the floor -- "a candlestick hitting the floor next to him." So Hitch at least showed us SOME of the struggle -- and inserted a more believably heavy object(ashtray?) for the blow.

The sudden cut to Sam and Norman struggling is part of an overall "acceleration" at this point in the climax that had audiences yelling and screaming as all the previous shocks and horror of "Psycho" came to a head: Both Lila AND Sam are candidates for bloody murder now; Mother can kill Lila and come down and finish off Sam.

But we're going nuts. I love the quick POV -- from Lila's POV -- of Norman coming up the hill to the house. How FAST Norman is moving, how QUICK the shot. And yes: even if you think Mother is the killer, NORMAN is now scary too -- audiences screamed as he entered the house just as Lila ducked out of view.

Hitchcock was a heavy man who moved rather slow in real life, but on film, he was what Truffaut called "the ultimate athlete of cinema." Here, he lets his actors and his cutter do the fast moves.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I think my favorite such transition is Marion nodding off while driving: the urgent music comes to a quick coda, accompanied by an equally quick fade-out, followed by a silent fade-in on the comparatively leisurely shot of her car parked at the side of the road, into which the highway patrolman drives at an equally leisurely pace; even his stopping to check on the vehicle is something he's had time to consider as he approached, has rejected and, at the last minute, reconsidered.

Rhythms.

---

Yes! The weirdness of Psycho is found, somewhat, in how Hitchcock "times" the movie. He was a master of a lot of things, but rhythm and pace was certainly one of them. Its what makes him inimitable . The sequels couldn't get this and Van Sant's Psycho got it, its because the timing matched what Hitchcock had already set up.

What I like in this shot you mention -- with Herrmann's music matched right to it -- is the suggestion that Marion has been on the road a long time, and is getting sleepy, and now must sleep. The long and intense "night drive" that will happen on Saturday night is here a considerably SHORTER "Friday night drive."

And yet, in "real life" -- it would NOT be a shorter drive on Friday than on Saturday. From Phoenix to where the cop finds Marion by the side of the road(Gorman, California), must be about 600 miles! Hitchcock "telescoped" Marion's 600 mile drive perhaps into her falling asleep around...4:00 am?

Meanwhile, all the silence and lingering slow attention given to the cop pulling up , backing up, getting out the next morning...creates a wonderful sense of the torpor of a Saturday morning ANYWHERE. Let alone by the side of a country highway in the middle of nowhere. One "luxuriates" in Hitchcock's quietude and detail here. Its hypnotic. And I always like to joke how, 38 years later, Van Sant somehow recruited that same tumbleweed to dominate the foreground at the beginning of the scene. What a ham!

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Further thoughts: it's morning now, and clearer of head, I know exactly why I thought of it. It's an extreme, and clever, example of deleting connective footage (like driving away and arriving).

Boy! It's one thing to be so dense you don't catch a point others are trying to make, but quite another to be too dense to catch your own.

---

Ha. I've been there. Well, like Marion you just needed the night to sleep. There are plenty of motels in the area, you should have...I mean, just to be safe.

I am in no way any sort of expert on silent films, but I DID see "Seven Chances" in a class one time, and the final "potential bridegroom chased by 1,000 brides" sequence was surely hilarious. They remade that concept for some youth comedy, maybe in the 90's?

But also, Keaton's creativity in "leaving out the connective tissue" certainly ties him to Hitchocck as someone who began in silent films. And Hitchcock prided himself on using silent film techniques all the way to the 70's and his retirement.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Note in passing:

Having re-read the Stefano screenplay for Psycho to see how he covered Arbogast's canvass, I went ahead and looked at the right pages in Bloch's original novel, and it is sort of interesting:

We get NO coverage of Arbogast's canvass. Rather, the chapter starts with a few pages on Norman Bates starting his Saturday(he's shaving with a dangerous straight razor...which Mother will later use on the detective). And Arbogast just shows up and starts with the questions. (Interestingly, in the Bloch version, there is an old couple staying in the motel during all of this...hence Arbogast's throat has to be slashed to avoid any screams.)

Also interesting: there's no coverage of Arbogast's canvass of motels to find Norman in the Bloch book. But when Arbogast first introduces himself to Sam and Lila in the hardware store, he goes on for PAGES about how he used his car to check used car lots and motels all the way from Texas to...wherever the Bates Motel is in the Bloch book. Arbogast finds out that Mary(Marion) changed cars TWICE en route to Sam.

So, for a novelist as well as a screenwriter, deciding what to tell and what not to tell is..up to the storyteller (well, for the Hitchcock screenwriter, Hitch had to agree, too.)