MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Dwight MacDonald' 1960 Review of Psycho(...

Dwight MacDonald' 1960 Review of Psycho(Hated It) "A Mean, Sly, Sadistic Little Mind"

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

Dwight MacDonald's 1960 Esquire Review of Psycho:

BEGIN:

THEY won’t seat any one after Psycho has begun. But since the only interest is the denouement—except for a rather nice bit in which a pretty girl taking a shower is stabbed to death with lots of nudity and blood — one is confronted with a dilemma which can perhaps best be resolved by staying home.

For this is third-rate Hitchcock, a Grand Guignol drama in which the customers hang around just for the tiny thrill at the end; like a strip tease; and one feels as one comes out, as in both these cases, that one has been had; bad taste in the mouth. I think the film is a reflection of a most unpleasant mind, a mean, sly, sadistic little mind.

But there used to be humor and romance in his films as well — I am thinking of The ThirtyNine Steps and The Lady Vanishes. These larger qualities have been leached out by his years in Hollywood, and there now remains only the ingenuity and the meanness.

Every Sunday evening on television Hitchcock puts on a half-hour drama; some have been silly, some merely disgusting, some admirably ingenious, but almost all have been wellcast and tightly directed. If one wants Grand Guignol with an O. Henry twist—and I confess I look at the show regularly—this is the way to get it. There is an automatic discipline in having only half an hour, as in having only fourteen lines for a sonnet.

But Psycho is merely one of those television shows padded out two hours by adding pointless subplots and realistic detail. Also in this longer length, the people come out more as individuals and so the sadism, which is a mere convention in the half-hour show7, becomes real and disgusting. One has got to know quite a lot about the girl who is knifed in the shower and her fate affects one the more strongly (not to mention the gloating way her butchery is pictured). All in all, a nasty little film.

I’m against censorship on principle, but this killing in the shower makes me wonder. And not because of the nudity. I favor more nudity in films; also more eroticism and sensuality. It is the sadism that bothers me. Our censors have the opposite view. They see nothing wrong in showing with intimate, suggestive detail a helpless woman being stabbed to death, but had Mr. Hitchcock ventured to show7 one of Janet Leigh’s nipples, that would have been a serious offense against morals and decency.

END

Hmm...

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The internet continues to reward me...

...I first read that 1960 review of Psycho by Dwight MacDonald in a 1965 book of his (called "On Movies") that had both a NEW take-down of Psycho, AND a reprint of this 1960 review by the same author. (And to add to the "hall of mirrors," I first read MacDonald's 1965 book in 1970, I think...my school library was stocking it in their "Film" section.)

You sort of need to read BOTH of MacDonald's pans to get his full hatred for Psycho, but this original 1960 review certainly has many of his meanest stabs.

And I FOUND it. At Rotten Tomatoes. This review has only recently been added, I might add.

Anyway, back to the 1960 review. On re-reading, I find that MacDonald certainly makes some valid points. Such as: Janet Leigh's nipples couldn't be shown(sex censorship) but a stylized depiction of her bloody murder (complete with gruesome knife sound effects) COULD be. Fair enough. But them was the rules back then, and Janet Leigh (and other actresses, then and now) aren't always down on getting naked.

We also have here, circa 1960, MacDonald finding the Hitchcock of Psycho to be "leached out" from his years in Hollywood, with The 39 Steps and The Lady Vanishes being his peaks. Well, well, well...its like a modern-day liking for Woody's "early funny films" or noting how Spielberg's "genre blockbuster career" really ended with ET. MacDonald and fellow Hitchcock-hater Stanley Kauffman(The New Republic) both found Vertigo, NXNW, Psycho and The Birds as "comedowns" from Hitchcock's great British period and, well, ...no. We know today. HITCHCOCK felt that his American period was stronger, he told Truffaut so.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

And we have MacDonald's famous insult: "...merely one of those television shows padded out two hours by adding pointless subplots and realistic detail."

I tell ya: MacDonald SOMEWHAT has a point there. I was gifted some 1959 Hitchcock half hours at Xmas and I watched th em and ..they DO look like Psycho a fair amount of the time. The Universal soundstage sets, the close-ups, the camera angles, the Universal backlot locations(Fairvale's main street, the rural area near the swamp). Dwight MacDonald seeing Psycho in 1960 may very well have "felt" the Universal/Revue TV ambiance in Psycho quite powerfully. (And I would note that 1976's Family Plot looked a lot like the color Universal TV shows like Columbo -- somehow the Hitchcock films in between Psycho and Family Plot didn't quite have that look, less Marnie.)

But..so much of Psycho is NOT like a TV episode of the time. The ultra-violence and shock(of image AND music) of the two murder scenes, above all. But also the frankness and underwear of the opening love scene; the famous shot of a toilet flushing, and the "horrific backstory" of Mrs. Bates' body. In some ways, I'm sure, Psycho was that much more shocking because it felt like a TV episode -- and then broke loose so many times from TV censorship that I'm sure audiences couldn't believe their eyes.

And this: the shower murder is infamous for many reasons, but one of them is that it took seven days to film 70 camera set-ups for 45 seconds of film. Hitchcock could have filed TWO ENTIRE EPISODES of his half-hour TV series in 7 days. Psycho has the luxury of time and budget to expend seven days on 45 seconds of screen time.

Plus this: even if Joe Stefano wasn't "one of the great dramatists of our time," his dialogue for Psycho was a lot better than some I heard on the Hitchcock TV shows. I expect that Hitchcock was more demanding of his movie scenarists than his TV writers.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Back to the MacDonald:

"...for this is third-rate Hitchcock."

Now, THERE's an insult. Again, Psycho really seems to have INFURIATED MacDonald in some way. Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as "third rate Hitchcock." Such misfires as Under Capricorn and Stage Fright are at least interesting, and Hitchcock's age and health did not stop Topaz and Family Plot from being interesting and stylish despite themselves.

I suppose the low-budget, black and white Psycho felt "third rate" after the Technicolor VistaVision glories of NXNW, Vertigo, To Catch a Thief and the like...but no, Hitchcock was all too clearly doing something so radical that many 1960 critics couldn't even see it.

---

a Grand Guignol drama in which the customers hang around just for the tiny thrill at the end; like a strip tease; and one feels as one comes out, as in both these cases, that one has been had; bad taste in the mouth.

--

Interesting how MacDonald felt that audiences hang around "just for the tiny thrill at the end"(the twist ending, I suppose) because really...Psycho is a movie that maintains interest pretty much from start to finish , and ANGUISHED , super-suspenseful interest from the shower murder on. Indeed, Psycho -- like NXNW before it -- has some of its strongest sequences in the middle, not at the end.

I find it amusing that MacDonald likened Psycho to a strip tease -- the old time strippers saved their nudity for last, and I guess one could feel "had" at the end. But Psycho the movie is like the strip tease dance as it unfolds -- a titillating journey as much as a destination.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

MacDonald's phrase "a bad taste in the mouth" was used often about Hitchcock, and Hitchcock's fan/critic Robin Wood seized on that phrase as to what was GOOD about Hitchcock. The "bad taste in the mouth" means that Hitchcock had the capacity to truly disturb audiences, and that is as true of a non-violent film like Shadow of a Doubt(where Uncle Charlie skirts incest with both his sister and his niece) or a "funny" film like The Trouble With Harry(in which Harry is a "funny" corpse ...but he is still a CORPSE, and thus disturbing the more he hangs around.)

"Psycho" and "Frenzy" ...and in a different way, "Vertigo" and "The Birds" ALL leave a "bad taste in the mouth," but that is because they are brave enough to be mean, and unfair, and saddening as well as thrillers.

North by Northwest is perhaps one of the few Hitchcock films NOT to leave a bad taste in the mouth because..Hitchcock was willing to play the role of entertainer that time.

---

Two MacDonald phrases:

ONE: "A mean, sly, and sadistic little mind" -- that put-down became pretty famous in Hitchcock literature on Psycho. There's a compliment in there -- "sly" would suggest a certain coolness on Hitchcock's part (as with not-quite-right attempts to call Psycho a "comedy" -- it DOES have a wit to it, but never comedy.)

"mean and sadistic" those ARE rough words, and I guess they fit Hitchcock, but he was hardly the only filmmaker to understand that AUDIENCES were mean and sadistic (The Manchurian Candidate, Bonnie and Clyde, The Wild Bunch, The Godfather, and Taxi Driver were coming) -- and there IS a weird sort of "pleasure" in watching Marion and Arbogast get killed, if only because the murders are "fun" and make us scream.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

TWO: "All in all, a nasty little film." Psycho was often hit for being "little" -- low budget, b/w, not much scenery -- but it isn't really little at all. It monumental in film history, and as one fan critic(LA Times critic Charles Champlin) noted, "spectacular" given all the things that happen in it and how much the audience is excited by it.

---

In his 1965 essay on Psycho in the book "On Movies," Dwight MacDonald returned to his "little" take on Psycho: "The audience didn't care, they got their two little shock thrills, one of them particularly delicious(the shower scene.") Ah, but those murders were anything but "little shock thrills," they dominated the movie they were in and haunted audiences for nights, weeks, YEARS after they were seen.

This is from memory but I do recall MacDonald's 1965 essay on Psycho as the one where he went after the "meaningless and arbitrary" nature of the tale: "Janet Leigh just happened to stop at a motel run by a homicidal maniac, could happen to anybody." And he felt that Norman was a rather worthless villain because he was simply ...crazy with "no human passion or motives." I"d say that this aspect of Psycho was EXACTLY THE POINT. Crazy people are just that. Crazy. And crazy killers just want to...kill you.

But more to the point. What happens to Janet Leigh at the Bates Motel could NOT "happen to anybody." We learn that an old couple stayed there without incident, and we can figure that travelling salesmen drop by all the time. No, Janet Leigh's problem is that she was beautiful, alluring, and alone. Norman's murder WAS born of passion: his passion for Marion, "Mother's" punishment of that -- and a concurrent desire on Norman/Mother's part to destroy a person who was "free" and heading for redemption.

Somehow MacDonald missed that. Just as he missed how Arbogast got killed for very "NON-arbitrary reasons" -- he was getting too close to the biggest secret of them all.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Anyway, once upon a time in the 60's and 70's, Dwight MacDonald's TWO put-downs of Psycho were fodder for debate. Pro and con, agree or disagree...

..and it was fun to find one of those putdowns on the internet.

PS. In his 1965 essay, MacDonald wrote something witty(if wrong) about Hitchcock's one hour show(after years of a half hour show): "The hour long series is only half as good as the old shows because it tells the same story in twice the time."

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

And I would note that 1976's Family Plot looked a lot like the color Universal TV shows like Columbo -- somehow the Hitchcock films in between Psycho and Family Plot didn't quite have that look, less Marnie.)

--

I decided to come in with some clarification here, because I think it is interesting in terms of "Hitchcock studies":

Psycho in 1960 looked to critic Dwight MacDonald like "one of those TV episodes" and there was as a clear reason for that: it was filmed in black and white, and it use the same soundstages, backlot, crew and even sound effects of the Universal/Review TV show.

The two Hitchcock films before Psycho -- Vertigo and NXNW -- were in Technicolor and VistaVision and filmed on the "ritzy" movie soundstages of Paramount and MGM, respectively.

Before those two, "The Wrong Man" was filmed in black and white, but a whole lot of it was filmed on location in NYC and nearby, and the Warner Brothers soundstage sets were, again, movie soundstages, not TV.

While Psycho was famously filmed at Universal, it was a Paramount release. But after Psycho, Hitchcock moved to Universal permanently -- 6 films over 13 years within the final 20 years of his life.

And what did all those Universal films look like?

Well, they were all in color, so they didn't look like Hitchcock B/W TV episodes.

In 1976, Family Plot in color DID look like an episode of Columbo or McCloud -- with perhaps a bit more "flavor"(lighting and depth) to the cinematography and a bit more cost to the sets.

But what of the years "in between" Psycho and Family Plot.

I zero in on Marnie(1964) because it tried to make a movie as plush as Vertigo on a more limited Universal budget -- no location work on the East Coast, a lot of process work , and soundstage sets that looked like the 60's Universal soundstage sets for the new Universal color TV shows that were somewhere between the b/w world of Psycho and the color world of Family Plot/Columbo. "Run for Your Life," maybe?

Also: the interior office and home sets in "Marnie" look rather like the Universal fake rooms in which Hitch filmed Tippi Hedren's screen test for The Birds(with Martin Balsam) and his own trailer for The Birds.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Torn Curtain and Topaz didn't look like Universal TV shows because Hitchcock used largely foreign casts in both movies(somehow they "transformed" the Universal sets into something more exotic), with Torn Curtain, a lot of processs shots taken in Europe, and with Topaz, actually filmed on location in Copenhagen, NYC and Paris, adding an "international" feeling to his work.

As for Frenzy, that one "lucked out." Not a frame was filmed at Universal Studios, North Hollywood, California, USA because Hitch filmed the whole thing in and near London, on location and at Pinewood Studios. Interior sets such as Brenda Blaney's office and Inspector Oxford's home didn't look like American Universal soundstage sets at all.

Which leaves The Birds. It came right after Psycho(by almost three years, however), and was filmed pretty much like Psycho -- on the Universal backlot and soundstages in the main. I suppose that , unlike Psycho, The Birds had benefit of Universal's "feature film" set makers and craftspeople -- and Robert Burks was brought back as cinematographer after TV guy John Russell for Psycho.

The Birds also benefitted from extensive location work in SF(a little bit, shades of Vertigo) and Bodega Bay(a lot) -- which gave the movie more scope than Psycho, less of a "TV episode" look.

And thus, I think, if you look at the 7 Hitchcock films from Psycho to Family Plot, you end up with two that look very much like Universal TV episodes -- Psycho and Family Plot; one that looks SORT OF like a Universal color TV episode(Marnie) -- and the rest , not.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

I wonder what the reviewer would think if he saw the German version? Not that much more to it, but the removing of the bra and nude back, the blood on the hands being highlighted, and the extra stabs. Those little addition did bother me more for some reason.

That said, AH had to work with the bad person getting what they deserved at the end. IOW, Norman had to be exposed and captured. What if both Lila and Sam ended up in the swamp instead? Would Norman have still gotten away with it for Psycho II? The sheriff would still need a missing persons report and probably another detective gets sent out from Phoenix or the real estate office's owner comes out himself.

ETA: I did find out more about the German version. It's available for around $150 US in the legacy set https://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B07JYVQJNW?pf_rd_p=d26a725e-09a7-4882-91d2-6ff1a2e98cf0&pf_rd_r=C19J10HGWMQ37R8N3XP4. You can't just get the uncut version by itself.

Anyway, I found there was a guy on another forum who bought the set and what he had to say was more interesting.

"The big come on for this set’s existence is the uncut version of the Hitchcock masterpiece. There’s probably less than twenty seconds of additional footage that existed in a German 35mm print that has been seamlessly added into the normal release we all have.

The additional footage involves one extra shot where Norman Bates is peeping on Janet Leigh undressing. In the version we all have and that every home video release has contained, we have one shot of her in her bra and slip, then a cut to Norman looking, then back to Janet Leigh having just put on her robe. In the uncut German print there is an additional shot of Leigh as she begins to take her bra off (and gets pretty far for 1960). The second sequence with additional footage is post-murder. Tony Perkins drags the lifeless body from the bathroom onto the shower curtain. He then looks at his hands and we have a shot of them covered in blood. Then it cuts to his face, he turns and goes in the bathroom and washes the blood off in the sink. In the longer German version there are longer shots of his hands covered in blood, mostly holding on the hands as he walks in the bathroom and goes to the sink. The final extended shot is in the Martin Balsam murder. He falls down the stairs, and mother comes after him, and stabs him again, then raising the knife in the air to stab again, at which point the shot fades out. In the extended German print, she stabs him once, the knife rises and she stabs him again, another rise, and stabs a third time, the knife rises for the fourth stab and the shot fades out.

No one really knows what the deal is here, but I actually have a pretty good idea what the deal is and an e-mail from Universal sent to the German company who released this is somewhat telling: It states that what the German release contains is the Psycho that was released in 1960. And I completely believe that, for reasons I’ll get to in a minute. So, what I think happened, and this is just my supposition, is that the film had those brief shots edited out subsequent to the original release, and for its re-release and then TV showings. I was so scared to see the re-release and then TV showings, because the film I’d seen in 1960 on opening day so scared me silly I was too nervous to put myself through that again. But when I saw it, I sensed something was not quite right and I remember saying that to anyone who would listen. Because, as a twelve-year-old, the film was rather seared into my memory, and I have always remembered the bra shot (I was a horny little twelve-year-old), but more importantly, I always remembered vividly the multiple stabs. And when I saw the re-release with one stab I questioned my memory, of course, but something told me I was right, and now I believe I was right. I think the film as released in 1960 is exactly what is reflected in that German print. Complicating matters is the Richard Anobile book that replicates Psycho in stills and dialogue. The extra footage is not reflected in his stills, but his book was done in 1974 and I believe he was given the re-release print to work from. I suppose we’ll never really know without a definitive answer from Universal, but I feel what they said in their e-mail is indicative that I may just be right, that this uncut German print IS the release version everyone saw in 1960, including the United States."

For those who do not know the differences, here is a youtube showing and explaining the differences -- https://youtu.be/aHDdcZ56HSA. Just those differences make the movie much more scary and disturbing for me. So much so that I'm still looking to get an uncut version of it as are a lot of other AH Psycho fans haha.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I wonder what the reviewer would think if he saw the German version? Not that much more to it, but the removing of the bra and nude back, the blood on the hands being highlighted, and the extra stabs. Those little addition did bother me more for some reason.

---

I'm not sure if Dwight MacDonald would have been "sophisticated enough" to catch the additional sex(Marion removing her bra more), violence(more stabs to Arbogast) and general "grue"(that longer take on Norman's bloody hands.)

Indeed, his 1960 Psycho review above reflects something that was a problem for MacDonald when you think about it: he had no sense of Hitchcock's cinematic style or thematic touches. All he really reviewed was "the story," And when he dismissed "needless subplots," he was likely talking the first 30 minutes of the film, which, as we all know, has great cinematic style and captures a sense of paranoia and despair quite well(ALONG with being "padding" and a red herring.)

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

That said, AH had to work with the bad person getting what they deserved at the end. IOW, Norman had to be exposed and captured. What if both Lila and Sam ended up in the swamp instead? Would Norman have still gotten away with it for Psycho II? The sheriff would still need a missing persons report and probably another detective gets sent out from Phoenix or the real estate office's owner comes out himself.

----

That a fun "what if", and it has validity. Sam is a big guy, but Norman manages to knock him out. Had Sam not revived in time, Norman/Mother WOULD have killed Lila, and Mother could have then gone back to the motel to kill an unconscious Sam or laid in wait to kill him up at the house. Sam was "kill-able" if taken by surprise.

The sheriff would likely focus on the Bates Motel if Sam and Lila disappeared, but it might take time for him to determine that. And Norman could just say "they left to follow that detective" or something.

The idea that yet ANOTHER detective from Phoenix might be sent is interesting. Perhaps Arbogast was part of a firm of private eyes -- like the firm James Stewart recommends to Gavin Elster in Vertigo("Its a good firm, they're good boys"). Also, in my modern experience, private eyes mainly work for insurance firms(like Arbogast did) -- often investigating workers comp fraud(people who claim injury but are video taped playing tennis, etc.) An insurance company would want that money found...

All that said, I think once Mother kills Arbogast, Norman is doomed because..Arbogast phones in the information about the Bates Motel to Sam and Lila , and Sam and Lila tell it to Sheriff Chambers. If Sam and Lila disappeared too, the sheriff would HAVE to focus on Norman, bring in outside investigators(FBI over the interstate embezzlement?), and Lowery and Cassidy WOULD likely send another private eye...

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

jasonbourne, what a great "return" to the fascinating study of that German print.

---

Having seen that YouTube footage, I concur 100% that the footage of "more of Janet Leigh's back and side-view breasts" are visible in that one shot, and that it is a longer take on the blood on Norman's hands(any time there is more blood in Psycho, it is rather historic, IMHO.)

However, I remain somewhat skeptical about that shot of the additional stabs to Arbogast. The footage rather "skips" and the effect seems to be of the ONE blow being repeated on film as more blows. But that really doesn't make sense, who would do that to this footage?

I can think of another movie where this trick is used: at the end of the comedy climax of "Its a Mad Mad Mad Mad World"(1963), Spencer Tracy is flung through a Pet Store window and into an area with dogs in it. One dog in particular licks Tracy's face over and over and over. But in reality, the dog only licked Tracy's face once - -and they just repeated the lick "in the lab on film."

THAT said, I stared at the footage a couple more times and MAYBE the knife returns(in mid-air) to a new position for the additional stabs. Its a "tantalizing mystery."

And here's why: my OWN memories of that great Psycho murder over the decades are that the shot of the knife up in the air and going down DID contain one, two, three, four stabs on the fade out. It seemed an "easy" way for Hitchcock to portray horrific violence(especially given that the stabber seemed to be an old lady) without really showing blood or Arbogast's dying face or anything like that. The multiple stabs were "all in my mind" likely -- because I doubt that the German print was what was on TV in the 70s and 80's. Recall that that 70s/80s print had a "mask"(a black bar across the bottom of the screen) both for the shower scene and, inexplicably , for Norman in the cell at the end AND Arbogast's final ascent to the landing always had a "break" ON the film(taped over).

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

No one really knows what the deal is here, but I actually have a pretty good idea what the deal is and an e-mail from Universal sent to the German company who released this is somewhat telling: It states that what the German release contains is the Psycho that was released in 1960.

--

Ah, so someone at Universal has tried to answer the question! It SHOULD be answered. That is clearly additional footage of Leigh's skin and the blood on Perkins' hands -- it had to come from SOMEWHERE. So this is the print that shipped in 1960. Hmmm...

---

I was so scared to see the re-release and then TV showings, because the film I’d seen in 1960 on opening day

--

jasonbourne...is this person YOU? YOU saw Psycho on opening day in 1960? Or is this the statement of that person on the other forum?

Whether you or the other person, what a great memory. Psycho on opening day 1960. I missed that in my own life -- too young. But I did see Jaws on opening day, so I've got that memory.

---

so scared me silly I was too nervous to put myself through that again.

--

Psycho seems to have had an effect on a lot of people who saw it that first time. One book on Psycho had a chapter called "The First Time I Saw Psycho" that collected people's recollections from 1960 and they were all shaken up pretty bad, it seems.

---

But when I saw it, I sensed something was not quite right and I remember saying that to anyone who would listen. Because, as a twelve-year-old, the film was rather seared into my memory, and I have always remembered the bra shot (I was a horny little twelve-year-old), but more importantly, I always remembered vividly the multiple stabs. And when I saw the re-release with one stab I questioned my memory, of course, but something told me I was right, and now I believe I was right.

--

It looks conclusively like you/they are/WERE right!

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I would like to point out that in their killing scenes, Psycho and Jaws share what critic David Thomson called "shock effects calibrated to the millimeter."

In Psycho, those are the multiple shots and angles on Leigh getting killed in the shower; and the shot of Mother leaping upon Arbogast at the bottom of the stairs FOLLOWED by the shot of the knife in the air coming down at him.

In Jaws, it was the "circling flash of fin" when the boy was attacked and the gout of blood that followed; the overhead shot of the shark's mouth "open wide" taking the lifeguard -- and the shot of his severed leg tumbling to the ocean floor; and the shots of Quint being eaten and spewing blood from his mouth...

Hitchcock and Spielberg, working carefully with the censors of their time(for Hitchcock, to get release approval at all, for Spielberg, to get a PG rating), calibrated their shots for "what they could get away with to show" and what would transfer to the imaginations of the audience.

It sounds like Hitchcock's shot selections were tinkered with since 1960.

That said, the Stephen Rebello book on Psycho points out -- evidently memorialized in letters and memos -- that various countries and American cities edited Psycho slightly for their showings -- they did "local censorship." Cuts were mainly reported to the shower scene(in general) and the entire removal of Mother leaping on Arbogast to stab him at the bottom of the stairs -- images considered too "intimate and realistic" in their brutality, even if we don't see Arbogast the man getting stabbed.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

Can't be me. My memory isn't the greatest, but I wasn't even born then -- 1963. I don't think I ever saw it on tv. If I did, then I was too young to be interested in it. The version I saw was on a VHS rental since I do not own the VHS version. This person from the other forum is saying that the 1960 version that audiences saw in the US was the uncut version. His is a great story, but then people and you would've remembered the additional scenes. There wouldn't be as big a cult following for wanting the uncut version. This guy bought the Legacy version from Germany in order to see it. If I saw it as a young adult, then I would've remembered the bra scene and the bloody hands. May not have noticed the extra stabbings. It's an interesting story if there were very early versions people saw in theaters as uncut. I dunno.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

I haven't seen (just Psycho II and Gus Van Sant's version) nor know of the other sequels that have been made, but will have to watch them. I don't think anyone has done the what if version. Since the tv series Bates Motel has revived interest in the movie with new audiences, it could be done as a continuation of Hitchcock's version. Bates Motel didn't do that. If it was done with some of the flair, then I could see it being successful and not another bad sequel. There could be another twist to how Norman is caught. Some of the repetitive killings and the sheriff needing more evidence would be what younger audiences would like. Eventually, Norman and Mother would have to go on the run and they would need the $40,000. I like it for redoing the 60s time period since a lot of stuff was much different then the way it is now (referring to Bullitt).

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>I'm not sure if Dwight MacDonald would have been "sophisticated enough" to catch the additional sex(Marion removing her bra more), violence(more stabs to Arbogast) and general "grue"(that longer take on Norman's bloody hands.)

Indeed, his 1960 Psycho review above reflects something that was a problem for MacDonald when you think about it: he had no sense of Hitchcock's cinematic style or thematic touches. All he really reviewed was "the story," And when he dismissed "needless subplots," he was likely talking the first 30 minutes of the film, which, as we all know, has great cinematic style and captures a sense of paranoia and despair quite well(ALONG with being "padding" and a red herring.)<<

I think the movie was panned by critics as it was the first slasher film and it was low budget. Something worthy of showing at a double billing, but Hitchcock had guessed right on keeping the ending a secret and forcing theater owners to not let in people once the movie started. It just added to word-of-mouth I suppose and made for the long lines.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I think the movie was panned by critics as it was the first slasher film and it was low budget.

--

Well, that's certainly true and a more direct point to make than mine, and that's a good thing!

I might add that, having read most all of the reviews by Dwight MacDonald collected in his book "On Movies" -- he didn't much like American studio films of the 50's or 60s at all. He focused on "foreign films" as his favorites and panned Best Pictures like The Apartment and West Side Story, hated Psycho, etc.

I later read that in American magazines of the 60's, there was almost a "rule" against praising American studio films. They were censored(foreign films were more R-rated and frank), they didn't have "big ideas," they weren't realistic.

Evidently a slow shift(begining with Andrew Sarris and moving on to Pauline Kael) moved to "taking American studio films as they were" and reviewing them better both as entertainments AND (sometimes) as serious works(Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate.)

Simply put, Dwight MacDonald pretty much saw his job as to insult movies like Psycho all the time -- millions of fans be damned.

---

Something worthy of showing at a double billing,

--

In Los Angeles on first release, Psycho went out to drive-ins with a movie called "Chance Meeting," or something like that (Chance something?) whereas NXNW the year before had been given a "prestige" release solely at the Egyption on Hollywood Boulevard for a few weeks before wide release. Simply put: Psycho WAS part of a double bill in certain theaters.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

but Hitchcock had guessed right on keeping the ending a secret and forcing theater owners to not let in people once the movie started. It just added to word-of-mouth I suppose and made for the long lines.

--

Yep. It was a brilliant strategy both in the reality(long lines) and in newspaper ads that gave Psycho that "gimmick feeling" that William Castle had already started with Macabre, House on Haunted HIll, and The Tinglger.

I've read some 1960 reports that Hitchcock's policy "backfired" a little at some theaters. There would be a long line outside while Psycho played for two hours to a half-full theater, a lot of the times.

The Psycho policy was meant to battle the way a lot of people saw movies back then -- walking into the theater at any time, picking up the plot from where they came in(dialogue was inserted to "catch up the new people") and then leaving where they came in.

This is exactly how my family saw "The Birds" in 1963. We came in when Tippi was in the motorboat and the gull pecked her forehead. We watched the rest of the movie, then a second feature, and then watched The Birds again until Tippi got pecked in the boat again. Then we left.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Can't be me. My memory isn't the greatest, but I wasn't even born then -- 1963.

--

Thanks for the clarification. Then it WAS the other person from the other forum. I expect the world still has quite a few people alive who saw Psycho on opening day(or week, or month) in 1960. The film turns 60 this year, so if one was 20 when they saw it, they would be 80 this year. If they were 10(and some were), they would be 70. Teenagers who saw it in 1960 would be 70 something this year.

But the ranks of people who can talk about "the first time I saw Psycho" are younger than that. Some likely saw it on re-release in 1965(the ads said "If you were too young, or the lines were too long, or you were too scared...NOW you can see Psycho")

Some saw it on TV beginning in 1967(some local channels in the US) and then in 1970 (MANY local channels in the US.)

Some saw it in theaters in 1969 when it was re-released as "The version TV Dared Not Show!"(But heck, now we have the German version -- the version the US dared not show after 1960.")

And many have seen it for the first time on VHS or DVD in the decades since.

But oh..to have been in those initial 1960 audiences. Must have been something. All that screaming(in full houses) the total surprise of the shower, the staircase, the fruit cellar(if you had not seen Hitchcock's guided tour trailer or heard anything.) A movie that took over national consciousness for a few months.

---

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

But Psycho is merely one of those television shows padded out two hours by adding pointless subplots and realistic detail.

Holy crap. That review nailed it. What he said is why I don't like the movie. It's an extended Hitchcock Presents episode, with the same low budget sets and TV show blocking.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

But Psycho is merely one of those television shows padded out two hours by adding pointless subplots and realistic detail.

Holy crap. That review nailed it. What he said is why I don't like the movie.

---

Well, I can't/won't make you like the movie but...

---

It's an extended Hitchcock Presents episode, with the same low budget sets and TV show blocking.

--

SOME of it is. And Hitchcock told Truffaut he planned it that way. Hitch seemed to be out to mimic the low budget black and white horror movies of William Castle and Roger Corman, so it was natural to use his TV unit(already in place) and to film certain scenes as quickly as he could, just like Castle and Corman's troops did.

I'd say that the scene in the real estate office is pretty much a scene you would see on Hitchcock's TV show, perhaps with more expense(process work out on the street rather than a painted backdrop; the sliding door into the boss's office.)

But as a matter of CONTENT, CBS in 1960 could in no way broadcast:

--the opening love scene between unmarried lovers in a state of undress..sex being strongly implied as having taken place.
-- the flushing toilet(paper only.)
--either murder scene (perhaps the opening of the shower scene with the curtain being pulled back but that's it.)
--Mrs. Bates' face in the fruit cellar.
--Most of the psychiatrist's speech.

And as a matter of STYLE:

The shower scene required camera sets up and a team of editors that were far beyond any TV production.

Certain shots were of "movie quality": Norman's eye at the peephole, Marion's dead head on the bathroom floor, the camera swinging under Norman's throat as he talks to Arbogast...

TV technology couldn't have handled the dissolve -- Norman's face into Mother's face into the swamp -- at the end.

And it was very expensive -- MOVIE expensive -- to build that mansion, inside and out. The shot of Arbogast climbing the hill to the house could not be done on TV.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

No, I think that Psycho, ultimately, is a weird mix of "TV episode" and "movie," creating its horror by maintaining a certain cheapness to countermand the Goth.

And if it is/was, as Dwight MacDonald said, "merely one of those television shows" -- it was the Greastest Episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents ever filmed -- and it made millions that would be multi-millions today, and it made Hitchcock richer than ever.

PS. Scenes that look like TV show scenes include: the real estate office scene; the bathroom at California Charlie's; Arbogast talking to Norman in the office(less the camera swing); all scenes with Sheriff Chambers; and -- in look only -- the psychiatrist scene(again, what he SAYS could mainly not be done on TV.)