MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Hitchcock, Psycho and the new "Invisible...

Hitchcock, Psycho and the new "Invisible Man" (MINOR SPOILERS)

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

As I post this, February is about to turn into March, and Universal looks to be getting a very well reviewed small hit in its newest version of "The Invisible Man."

The back story is fascinating. A few years back, Universal tried to launch an entire franchise of its old-time Universal Monsters films in a new context -- a universe to match that of Marvel and DC comics. The idea was to have the monsters interact with each other after being "launched" with individual films. To "push the idea," Universal launched the series with a big expensive version of "The Mummy" with Tom Cruise as an Indy Jones-type lead and Russell Crowe as Dr. Jekyll(who turns into Mister Hyde.) On the boards would be a new Invisible Man(with Johnny Depp); a new Bride of Frankenstein(with Angie Jolie) and a new Frankenstein(with Javier Bardem.)

But The Mummy tanked, Mr. Depp became radioactive, and the new franchise was temporarily shelved.

Until now. But the new "Invisible Man" isn't from the Depp script. Its rather low budget(unlike The Mummy) and it features only one kinda/sorta star: Elisabeth Moss, of "Mad Men," "The Handmaid's Tale" and other quality work. One thing about The Invisible Man; it is entirely a tour de force for Moss -- she's on screen all the time and forced to emote to the edge of insanity in her massively emotional performance. This movie could turn her into a very big star.

Or not. Because I would suggest that one major problem WITH "The Invisible Man" is that we get "too much Moss." The other characters rather fade away and we are given too many scenes with the camera focused on Moss, alone in a room, trying to "suss out" just where the Invisible Man might be. We don't get enough interaction of Moss with other people. She's "in our face," all the time.

The Invisible Man is getting a lot of good reviews and one reason is that the film ties deeply into the "MeToo" movement -- abusive husband/lover division. The film takes the Julia Roberts movie "Sleeping with the Enemy" as its inspiration, with Moss escaping her rich and physically abusive lover(not husband?) at the beginning of the film much as Roberts escaped HER husband in that 1991(?) thriller.

With Moss supposedly "safe" with friends(a muscular African-American police detective and his daughter) the crazy rich lover does two things: (1) fakes his suicide(or did he?) and (2) becomes invisible so as to "gaslight" Moss(or IS this all in her mind?)

From this premise -- as many a reviewer has noted -- The Invisible Man takes its cues directly from Hitchocck. We have the "nobody will believe her" mechanism from The Lady Vanishes(Moss goes from thinking the lover is alive and simply spying on her to determining that with his brilliant scientific mind, he HAS developed invisiblity, and is literally standing next to her at times) and eventually other Hitchcock devices from Notorious and NXNW enter in.

Yep, Hitchcock is all over this baby and yet...not.

Its an old problem, I think. One can clearly see very positive Hitchcockian elements at play..but something about HOW they play doesn't remind us of Hitchcock.

Simply put, "The Invisible Man" is what I call "TOO suspenseful." Once the invisible psycho lover starts gaslighting Moss and making people not believe her as she becomes more panicky and hysterical -- there is no let-up. We have to watch Moss's descent into near madness AND to "see" her beaten and brutalized by the invisible psycho. And too many scenes only have Moss in them.

I'll grant you, Hitch focused mainly on Stewart following Novak at the beginning of Vertigo and on Leigh's theft-and-flight in Psycho, but eventually these characters DID have other scenes with other people, and Psycho in particular had some great dialogue scenes(Norman/Marion; Norman/Arbogast) to break up the suspense. Frenzy skirted being "too suspenseful" both with Rusk's sexual ultraviolence and Blaney's being hunted as the wrong man -- but Hitch detoured us over to the Oxford home for comedy dinners. Etc.

No, "The Invisble Man" is focused on Moss all the time, and she is in misery all the time, and nobody believes her all of the time -- so we hang on desperately for the release at the end, and it comes and it is satisfying but..its a long time getting there.

Its always a problem for a new 21st Century thriller to be compared to Hitchcock's thrillers, because what HE did is from a long, long time ago. As we saw with Van Sant's Psycho, what worked then doesn't really translate to now.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

But this: "The Invisble Man" isn't as good as Notorious, Rear Window, Vertigo, NXNW or Psycho...but that's Hitchcock at his highest standard. It IS demonstrably better than Torn Curtain or Topaz or Family Plot except -- to me, personally -- not really. Because those "lesser" Hitchcock movies were still HITCHCOCK movies and always had something going on in them that was "pure Hitchcock(Dern tracking the widow Maloney through the graveyard; Newman killing Gromek) along with that Hitchcockian humor that was so important to his films(the entire Roscoe Lee Browne sequence in Topaz; Newman's chalkboard duel with the East German professor in Torn Curtain.) No, "The Invisible Man" isn't interested in those qualities, or that humor, at all. It is a mainly a grim study of an (invisible) man's abuse of a woman.

And oh -- a great big gleaming butcher knife enters into the story at a key moment. As does a shower in another scene. Psycho lives on there.

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

Thanks for this review of TIM ecarle. I've been pleasantly surprised by its good reviews & excellent box-office, after its *awful* quiet-quiet-loud-repeat trailer which did, however, include a cool bit of Moss in the shower with an invisible man's handprint forming on the shower's fogged up door. Rung a Psycho bell there for sure.

TIM's director, Leigh Whanell(sp?), had a great-looking but cost-nothing, twisty, nasty, AI-implant thriller called 'Upgrade' a few years ago, e.g. (NSFW):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkihjGwHJVs
It had some new technical ideas about how to sync camera moves to bodies and these visual techniques sold the sci-fi tech of the story. Indeed I suspect that the script might have been written from the new-camera-move tech out.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Thanks for this review of TIM ecarle. I've been pleasantly surprised by its good reviews & excellent box-office,

---

Well, the reviews drew me in...and I guess I helped with the box office, a little. I still head out "to the movies."

And let's face it, its a thriller at heart, with a "brand." I've been remiss on the indie thrillers of recent years(my bad), but I must admit this one had a hook.

---

after its *awful* quiet-quiet-loud-repeat trailer which did, however, include a cool bit of Moss in the shower with an invisible man's handprint forming on the shower's fogged up door. Rung a Psycho bell there for sure.

--

I suppose ANY shower in ANY thriller is now a Psycho reference, decades later, and its possible that's for people who haven't even SEEN Psycho(younger ones). They just know a shower is something...vulnerable. And sexy , generally except to those of us who take them with no thought about it.

The handprint on the door is part of the "gaslighting" that this invisible fellow does. Sometimes he only lets US know he's there(the Hitchcock touch); sometimes he lets Miss Moss know.

And still, and yet, it seems to me that Hitchcock in much of his work went for the "big set-pieces" -- he PAID off the quiet build-up. The Invisible Man does...but not in that "big" Hitchcock way that gave us the carousel, the concert, the crop duster, Rushmore, etc. Though Psycho is on the table as an influence and there's a great cinematic jolt in there that not only got me ...but rather delighted me(there's a Hitchcock movie being quoted, but in a very different way, though the payoff is the same. And the Hitchcock movie AINT Psycho.) Maybe I'll put a MAJOR SPOILER post out for interested parties.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

TIM's director, Leigh Whanell(sp?), had a great-looking but cost-nothing, twisty, nasty, AI-implant thriller called 'Upgrade' a few years ago, e.g. (NSFW):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkihjGwHJVs

---

I'll try to sneak a peak at that NSFW trailer...

---

Yes, Leigh...er, Whatever...has gotten the requisite "back story " in reviews and it seems he's on the map now. This new film is "lower budget" than The Mummy(which proved, alas, that Tom Cruise in something other than Mission Impossible isn't a superstar, unless its Top Gun II), but it looks great.

Which reminds me: have you ever noticed that the cheap horror movies of the seventies, and the cheap action movies of the 70s(like Mr. Majestyk and Breakout) simply CANNOT be duplicated today? There's something about technology and digital and HD and cinematography today -- that even the lowest budget film LOOKS like a million dollars. I wonder how that came about.

--

It had some new technical ideas about how to sync camera moves to bodies and these visual techniques sold the sci-fi tech of the story. Indeed I suspect that the script might have been written from the new-camera-move tech out.

==

It would seem to me that the "visual narrative" of the film could very well be based on those technical techniques.

--

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Sometimes I wonder if I will ever see a thriller again that plays like Psycho or Jaws or Alien or even Wait Until Dark -- something big and brimming with star actors(even when they aren't fully stars) and dialogue and big set pieces. This Invisible Man -- like the movie last year about Dennis Quaid as the "house owner from hell" are little movies without much happening IN them.

Also...the other actors in these movies may be known to a younger generation, but they aren't known to me. Psycho had Perkins and Leigh and Gavin and Miles and Balsam(already well known from TV) Jaws had Scheider from The French Connection and Shaw from The Sting and Dreyfuss from American Graffiti. Wait Until Dark had Audrey Hepburn(a superstar) along with Alan Arkin(her evil opposite number, forever different from the rest of his career, forever scary), Richard Crenna, Jack Weston and Efrem Zimbalist Jr. These new movies...not so starry. (Alien was perhaps a little more "mysterious" in its cast. Signourney Weaver was a new star, Tom Skerritt and Yaphet Kotto were about the biggest names, Harry Dean Stanton and Veronica Cartwright(from The Birds) were cult character people. John Hurt(in for ailing Jon "Frenzy" Finch, poor guy) and Ian Holm were British character men. A good cast, but not quite as starry.

Still, starrier than the casts of The Invisible Man and that Quaid movie.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>But The Mummy tanked, Mr. Depp became radioactive, and the new franchise was temporarily shelved.<<

I kind of forgot about Tom Cruise's The Mummy. It was Wonder Woman who took the lead for summer blockbusters. That was worth seeing in theaters. I didn't know what to make of Tom Cruise's version and the reviews weren't interesting. It seemed like he'd done it in War of the Worlds. Cruise is good with connecting with audiences, so the movie should've took advantage. I just saw a strange Johnny Depp commercial tonight. It may have been for a men's cologne, but who knows? He just looks strange like someone you want to avoid and walk away ASAP. Can you have bad casting for a commercial?

Nice to hear The Invisible Man is good. I'll have to go watch it soon to forget about the coronavirus. Too much weird talk and it's all over the news here. Should I go see it even though it is supposed to be scary? My daughter is coming to visit for spring break, so is it something to take her to? She likes horror movies, but we've been seeing more art house movies. I don't know if she would want to go. Why was it released now?

ETA: Speaking of Hitchcock, I saw an HD version of Psycho uncut. Yes, it's worth it. It isn't much that was added, and we have discussed it a few times already, but it made the experience better. I would pay to see it with an audience in a theater. Maybe I wouldn't pay $150 for the box set from Germany, but if the uncut version comes out as part of a US Legacy collection, then I'd get it. The flow throughout the movie seemed to be better for some reason and you wanted Mother to be caught at the end. The blood on the hands made me think of Macbeth. Even the psychiatrist scene was welcome at the end. Janet Leigh's performance was good already, but the segue into the shower scene made it better. Let me know what you think if you get to see the uncut version. The Arbogast killing seems more chilling; I recommend watching Hitch's trailer and explanation of the scene again, too.

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

I just saw a strange Johnny Depp commercial tonight. It may have been for a men's cologne, but who knows? He just looks strange like someone you want to avoid and walk away ASAP. Can you have bad casting for a commercial?

For me, I imagine any new impression of Depp will be strongly negatively colored by what's been discovered about him in his several court cases with his ex-wife Amber Heard. In particular, Depp has been forced to release a series of text messages from him to Paul Bettany in which an obviously drunk&drugged Depp vows that he's going to kill Heard, burn & defile her body, etc.. He comes across as a frighteningly sick and deranged individual, as someone you'd naturally want to avoid even on his best day. I suspect that Depp's career, which was already in significant trouble, is over for the foreseeable future in the light of these releases.

[–] L1 (1316) 5 years ago

I hate this so much

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I suspect that Depp's career, which was already in significant trouble, is over for the foreseeable future in the light of these releases.

---

There is always a struggle in admiring the "on screen" career, films, and persona of a major movie star and then learning of their "behind the scenes life." I've enjoyed movie stars AS movie stars for decades now, but so many of them turn out to be pretty weird people in real life.

The late screenwriter William Goldman wrote of the top ones: "They are mainly crazy, but the true wonder is that they are not CRAZIER." Its the ultra-wealth, the adulation, the being pampered, the sexual opportunities(I read of young, hot Jack Nicholson standing on a docked yacht and looking at a crowd of women on the shore screaming "I'll f you! Let me aboard and I'll f' you!" -- scores of them.). Crazy they go.

And then many of them lose that high paid level of stardom and...it really gets bad. It happened to Burt Reynolds and Mel Gibson, and now its happened to Johnny Depp. The roles they CAN get pay a lot less.

I've got Netflix and a couple of other streaming channels, and I've noticed that Bruce Willis is now appearing in some "straight to streaming" low budget things. I turned on the last 20 minutes of one, just to sample it, and it was a real sad experience: Willis(playing a villain holding a gun to the head of the heroine) reduced to saying really bad cliché lines in a really bad "movie" that in no way FELT like a movie(too cheap in the look), the whole climax was desultory as if Willis were signaling "I'm just doing this for the money, please don't watch and just let me finish this scene." Memories of the now-classic and very big budget "Die Hard" made this "fake movie" harder to watch.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I suppose such low budget features lie ahead for Depp. I hadn't read of those texts to Amber Heard, but I've read a transcript of Heard apologizing to Depp for hitting him and -- its not so much "he said, she said" as they were both pretty terrible people -- BEAUTIFUL terrible people(is there a lesson there?) and...well, Depp has paid the price. And I'm certainly not taking his side but...he could have spared himself some pain if he hadn't married Heard. (Relevant here: Heard went into the marriage with Depp following a same-sex relationship with a woman; that "Hollywood pansexual thing" can get confusing, I would think.

But this: I recall a certain personal "revelation" way back when Depp was "kicking in." BEFORE he got his multi-million dollar franchise(Pirates of the Caribbean), I was seeing him and liking him in his Tim Burton films(Ed Wood best of all, but also Edward Scissorhands and Sleepy Hollow), Donnie Brasco(a Mafia tale with Al Pacino), Blow(where he was a beautiful Cocaine King) , and even Nick of Time (a Hitchcock kind of thing where Depp played a normal father whose child is kidnapped; said Depp, "I never should play normal men.") And I've still not seen his "serious and sensitive" film Gilbert Grape. I thought that Depp had the classic looks, voice, and cool manner of a REAL movie star, and we don't get those much anymore.

And now...he's kind of gone.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

>>But The Mummy tanked, Mr. Depp became radioactive, and the new franchise was temporarily shelved.<<

I kind of forgot about Tom Cruise's The Mummy.

--

So has everybody. Though I get out to the theater pretty often, that's one that I rented. And other than a fairly thrilling opening CGI plane crash sequence(which looked like it could have come right out of a Mission Impossible movie in its physics-defying CGI derring do for Mr. Cruise, and hence seemed wrong for a mummy movie)..I can't remember a thing about it. Oh, this -- this was when I first noticed that Tom Cruise now has an "older man's face that looks very different from his younger face -- something has been DONE to that face(plastic surgery?) but very, very well.

The Tom Cruise career is damn interesting, isn't it? One of our absolute biggest superstars (he had Top Gun and Rain Man in the 80's, owned the 90's with the other Tom, Hanks) and yet oddly small and little-boyish (I always compared him to Mickey Rooney and sure enough, when Rooney was still alive, Cruise took a photo with him). Cruise's career was SUPPOSED to tank when he did that Oprah couch-jumping bit (over "true love" that still looks like a business deal) when promoting War of the Worlds...but that was 15 years ago, and he's STILL a bankable name. However, its almost all on the back of "Mission Impossible." He's in other movies that nobody sees. Like The Mummy. And he will have a hit I expect, in Top Gun II. And he can be a star for 30 more years if he works it right.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

It was Wonder Woman who took the lead for summer blockbusters.

--

Now THAT was a good superhero movie. Not only a hot chick(Wonder Woman was always a hot chick), but a kind and caring hot chick with a capacity for righteous vengeance. The WWI setting was moving, as was WW's run across "No Man's Land" and a battle(presaging last year's 1917.) THIS summer, Wonder Woman's coming back - in 1984. Such nostalgia.

---

. I didn't know what to make of Tom Cruise's version and the reviews weren't interesting.

--

Here was Universal looking to launch a "Dark Universe" franchase based on old Universal monsters, but refusing to really make a MONSTER movie. It was more of an Indy Jones thing, and a Cruise vehicle.

Which reminds me: Universal ALREADY had a good "Mummy movie"(with an Indy Jones flavor) in the 90's with a Brendan Fraser vehicle. And Universal ALREADY did a "new" Wolf Man, with Benecio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins. And a "New" Dracula with "Van Helsing."

I guess the idea was to reboot AGAIN -- and I vaguely DO remember Russell Crowe(a somewhat fading star and Best Actor Oscar winner) turning into Mr. Hyde in "The Mummy" in some sort of crossover, but honestly, I can't remember how or why. My brain rejects remembering "so so movies" these days.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

It seemed like he'd done it in War of the Worlds. Cruise is good with connecting with audiences, so the movie should've took advantage.

---

War of the Worlds was an interesting experience to me. It came with Cruise's "Summer of Love" antics attached, and he got bad press. Paramount chairman Summer Redstone said that Cruise's behavior "cost us about $100 million" in grosses on War of the Worlds, and evidently Spielberg was furious(while SS HAS worked with Tom Hanks again and again, he stopped with Cruise, here.)

Spielberg made War of the Worlds superfast(starting in January for summer release) and the movie looks it -- it has that slackness and overlength and "lumpiness" of a movie that hasn't been properly put together, and it ends rather quickly, as if on a time clock. AND YET -- the movie has two spectacular , superb sequences that capture the true imagined horror of an alien invasion of earth which, as one character says: "this isn't a war, its an extermination." The initial emergence of the giant killer tripods and their immediate "zapping" of the humans below them, and their later sinking of a ferry(mini-Titanic) are classic movie set-pieces. Horror on a grand scale. In those scenes. The rest? Meh.

--

I just saw a strange Johnny Depp commercial tonight. It may have been for a men's cologne, but who knows? He just looks strange like someone you want to avoid and walk away ASAP. Can you have bad casting for a commercial?

--

Hah. Yes, Mr. Depp's beautiful, delicate face has grown puffy and a bit scary with age. They say you eventually get the face you deserve...

..meanwhile, perhaps Mr. Depp's commercials for "men's cologne" will work because some men feel he has been victimized by a woman? (Even as he himself is a victimizer...)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Nice to hear The Invisible Man is good.

--

Its pretty good. "Small," but good.

--

I'll have to go watch it soon to forget about the coronavirus. Too much weird talk and it's all over the news here.

--

A terrible, terrible thing...not so much the virus, as the fearmongering. Personally, I lived through a lot of scares over the decades, so I figure that this too shall pass. But its immediate impact on the stock market, travel, meetings, LIFE...what to do? So much of it feels like hysteria to me.

---

Should I go see it even though it is supposed to be scary? My daughter is coming to visit for spring break, so is it something to take her to? She likes horror movies, but we've been seeing more art house movies. I don't know if she would want to go.

--

The Invisible Man has an "arty" feeling to it, so she might like that. The horror , when it comes, is pretty bloody. You may want to gauge that.

--

Why was it released now?

---

It evidently only cost $7 million to make(though that sounds too low for me.) So it isn't going to compete with the summer blockbusters. Its not "Oscar bait" for the fall (though perhaps the intense acting of Elisabeth Moss will garner a nomination all the way at the end of next year.)

Movie releases these days are geared to the summer(blockbusters) and the late fall/early winter(Oscar bait and SOME blockbusters.) "Little" movies like The Invisible Man are for the winter or spring. (Though two years ago, Black Panther was a February movie that was a billion dollar blockbuster; and about two DECADES ago, Silence of the Lambs was a February hit that won Best Picture, Actor and Actress at the Oscars over a year later.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

ETA: Speaking of Hitchcock, I saw an HD version of Psycho uncut. Yes, it's worth it.

---

Its funny. When "Psycho" was re-released in 1969, after it had been pulled from a nationwide showing on CBS and then played a few local playings on US TV stations(late at night)...Universal(the new owner of the film from Paramount) advertised the movie thus:

"The version TV dared not show! See PSYCHO compete and uncut!"

Uncut. I never got to see one of those local showings(the one near me was in Los Angeles) but I have been told that the shower scene WAS cut down a bit in those local showings.

And so to see a movie "uncut" was a big deal. This became a bigger deal in the 70's when R-rated movies hit broadcast TV and were INVARIABLY cut of their violence, their sex, their profanity. You had to wait for HBO and then VHS tapes to see movies "uncut."

And so that word -- "uncut" -- is pretty cool. But THIS, THIS("The German print") is the most "uncut" Psycho of them all. More of Janet Leigh's naked back and side-breast area as she disrobes; more blood(Marion's) on Norman's hands. And perhaps more stabs unto Arbogast.

---

It isn't much that was added, and we have discussed it a few times already, but it made the experience better. I would pay to see it with an audience in a theater.

---

I'm a bit impressed that these three small moments(skin, blood, stabs) could so change the overall experience, but Psycho is a movie in which MANY "tiny moments" seem to add up...almost subliminally - in terms of the impact of the film, the dread, the power.

---

Maybe I wouldn't pay $150 for the box set from Germany,

--

That seems a bit steep, I don't care how many Hitchcock movies you get..

--
but if the uncut version comes out as part of a US Legacy collection, then I'd get it.

--

It seems to me that, for the collector(count me in), just releasing Psycho alone on DVD with the advertising "Uncut German version -- never before seen footage" could bring in some coin.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The flow throughout the movie seemed to be better for some reason and you wanted Mother to be caught at the end.

---

I think first-time audiences watched Psycho as it went along wondering: just how WAS Mother going to be caught? Would someone kill her? Or arrest her? Would we finally see her face as she came at someone with the knife and was defeated or shot(by, say, the police?) I guess some viewers(unaware of running time) thought that ARBOGAST was going to successfully fight, subdue or kill Mother(like Peter Gunn, a popular TV private eye of the time.) The actual climax turned all of THAT anticipation on its head. "Mother" didn't need to be fought at all -- she was dead. But NORMAN needed to be subdued.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The blood on the hands made me think of Macbeth.

--

Of all of the three "footage restorations"(given that I'm suspicious of the Extra Arbogast Stabs) I find the blood on Norman's hands to be the most powerful additive.

The shot is ALREADY powerful as we have it in the movie: "the blood on Norman's hands" is a visual of a common phrase. Except the blood should be on MOTHER'S hands, not Norman's -- she did the killing(but ah, we eventually learn that the blood is RIGHTFULLY on Norman's hands.)

And then there is the matter of that blood itself. It is Marion Crane's blood, and though the bathroom isn't covered in it(as Hitchcock playfully oversold it in the trailer), the blood IS noticeable. Down the OUTSIDE of the bathtub(from Marion's wrists, perhaps) All over the INSIDE of the bathtub(Norman mops it all down, and it is a stomach churning moment.)

And Norman seems shocked to find Marion's blood on his hands. He was gripping her wrists to move her body, maybe that's where it came from("defensive wounds" during the shower attack.) He's trapped by his own guilt in that moment.

But again and importantly: that's Marion's blood and we are reminded that while blood is an "element of horror", it is also the "lifeforce" of a human being. Marion's blood all over the place is a reminder of what was forcibly taken out of her...to shut down her machinery, to end her existence on earth.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Even the psychiatrist scene was welcome at the end.

--

Its always welcome to me. A heapin' helpin' of explanation...and...all that vital information that I often cite. But not here.

--

Janet Leigh's performance was good already, but the segue into the shower scene made it better.

--

You mean the added sensuality of seeing more of her lovely body as she pulls her bra off? Janet Leigh's performance in Psycho is, among other things, one of the great EROTIC performances in American film, it seems to me. Leigh doesn't do a sex scene or any real nudity, but she's always sending out signals of frank sensuality. Some of it is towards her man (Sam), but the rest of the time it is towards US, the audience as we and only we gaze upon her in her underwear (initially white, then black) when she thinks she's alone. We're voyeurs, along with Norman.

And boy, Leigh's facial acting when she is first taking that shower -- along with "washing her sins away"(Hitchcock's desired effect), Marion is downright erotic in her open mouthed, close eyed relaxation(Anne Heche didn't come close to this.)

And then we get Tippi Hedren one film later in The Birds-- dressed to the nines, hair perfectly coiffed, no skin, a brief kiss..a Granny Nightgown. Sheesh.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Let me know what you think if you get to see the uncut version.

--

I will. I HAVE seen the clips, but seeing them included in "the flow of the movie" will likely be its own experience.

---

The Arbogast killing seems more chilling;

--

Each extra stab at the end adds to the merciless savagery of the attack.

Though I recently watched a movie on TV called "Legend." It starred Tom Hardy in dual roles as the "Kray Brothers" -- notorious and psychotic twin London gangsters. At a key point in the film, one of them tries to shoot a man in the head, but the gun is out of bullets. So the Kray brother reaches for a knife and -- in one take -- starts stabbing his victim very realistically in all parts of the victim's body as "party onlookers" watch in horror or run away. One senses why sometimes victims are stabbed fifteen times or so -- the Kray brother keeps stabbing until he finally cuts something "fatal."

Given the single take realism of this prolonged stabbing , I felt a certain gratitude that Arbogast's death was out of shot...and up to our imaginations.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I recommend watching Hitch's trailer and explanation of the scene again, too.

--

I'm on record about how much of a "spoiler" the Hitchcock trailer is -- Hitchcock tells us all about the staircase murder AND the shower murder so...no one who saw that trailer in 1960 would have been surprised at all when the two murders arrived.

But he talks about the staircase murder first, at the staircase, which looks different, as Hitch says, in daylight, and which has a different "lens composition" here -- the Cupid statue is right next to Hitch.

Hitch's words allow the audience to picture the scene in the movie "She came out of her room and met the victim at the top of the stairs, in an instant there was the flash of the knife(the knife DOES flash in the overhead shot) and...the victim tumbled and fell(Hitchcock mimes the staircase fall with his hands)...with a horrible CRASH. The back was broke immediately(such a grisly, telling detail...Arbogast was truly in pain and doomed). With a distasteful look, Hitchcock says "Its difficult to describe the twisting of the...of the...well, I'm not going to dwell on it. Let's go upstairs."

"I'm not going to dwell on it." Here's Hitchcock, in his "funny" trailer, ALREADY creating in our minds an image of terrible violence and horror.

Its a great trailer for a great movie. But it sure is an astonishing SPOILER packed short.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>Of all of the three "footage restorations"(given that I'm suspicious of the Extra Arbogast Stabs) I find the blood on Norman's hands to be the most powerful additive.<<

IIRC there is no blood on Macbeth's hands. It's his guilt and he can't wash it off. How can I say this, but the shower scene is very bloody as is. You would think the blook gets all over Mother and probably her hands, but we do not see it. But what the additional Marion scene and Bates looking scene makes it a highly charged erotic scene. The censors were stating to Hitchcock they saw a breast in the shower scene, but there wasn't any. Hitch left it as is. So I suppose I'm saying the buildup with the black underwear scene adds to what's happening to Norman as well as the segue into the shower scene. I can't explain it, but you'll get what I mean if you see it in terms of the flow of the movie. Then it goes into the Norman and Mother scene at the house. All of it just flows and hangs together better. I guess that you're more emotionally charged and pulled in and maybe that's what makes it better. It could also be the HD as that probably adds to the realism. Even the Arbogast scene flows better; it's not as abrupt and the horror and drama of the Arbogast scene seems to continue. Everything seemed MAGNIFIED at the end.

That's why I wanted you to see it uncut and get your reaction. Maybe it was just me and I'm giving Hitchcock too much credit. I just saw it on a small screen and it still was powerful.

ETA: I was able to see parts of the movie again. It's the Blu-ray sound that enhances the experience. The extra parts add to drama and flow, but it's the overall better sound with Blu-ray. You can hear every door shut, floor creak, trunk closing, water running, etc. much clearer. I saw it by myself and it's more creepy and scary.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

IIRC there is no blood on Macbeth's hands. It's his guilt and he can't wash it off.

---

I did not recall that it was symbolic blood on his hands. In Psycho, that blood on Norman's hands IS real - and yet symbolic at the same time.

As we have discussed, Psycho is rather TOO "on the nose" about its many symbols(mirrors, eyes, birds, toilets/swamps; the shower, blood on the hands of the REAL killer) but in a very sophisticated way. Psycho is easily taught in film classes to young students because the analysis is rather "easy" (Hey, when Marion packs her bag with the stolen cash in her room -- the bathroom and SHOWER are clearly visible behind her.) And yet this aren't "dumb" symbols, Hitchcock is rather effortlessly assembling them to give Psycho more "depth."

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

How can I say this, but the shower scene is very bloody as is.

---

Audiences thought so. Hitchcock planted the idea in his trailer("All cleaned up now...you should have SEEN the BLOOD!") and Time Magazine wrote "Hitchcock's hand is heavy in this film, and thoroughly dipped in blood."

And yet, what IS the blood in the shower scene? Two separate shots of sudden gouts of blood spilling around Marion's feet at the bottom of the tub. That's it! And yet we all remember blood practically everywhere.

We see MORE blood in the aftermath of the killing...the streak down the tub outer wall, the blood that Norman mops inside the shower -- and the blood on Norman's hands, now more lengthily shown in the German cut.

The only other blood in "Psycho" comes with the slash to Arbogast's face -- a full frontal assault on the most important feature we have...everybody remembered this as much more bloody than it actually was(until Van Sant had Mom slash Arbo's face THREE times in the remake.)

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

You would think the blood gets all over Mother and probably her hands, but we do not see it.

---

I suppose the "other" time blood enters into Psycho is when we don't SEE it, but we hear Norman yell: "Mother, Oh God, Mother...blood, BLOOD!" and we can IMAGINE it all over mother's clothes, while she is still wearing them(and Norman probably SMELLS blood, too). This is important. Our imaginations matter; this too is a "bloody scene in Psycho," when you come to think of it.

In Joe Stefano's published screenplay for Psycho, there is a scene right after the burial-at-swamp where Norman goes up to the upstairs landing outside Mother's door(where Arbogast is first slashed) and finds a pile of her bloody clothes on the floor. He then takes them down to the furnace near the fruit cellar and burns them -- the scene ends on a curl of smoke coming up out of the Bates House chimney. This would have been a great fade-out...but Hitch elected to go with the swamp fade-out...and to "save" the upstairs landing for Arbogast's murder and the "Norman takes Mom downstairs shot."

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

But what the additional Marion scene and Bates looking scene makes it a highly charged erotic scene.

---

Yep. Its pretty erotic "as we have it," but those extra inches of Miss Leigh are titillating . As a matter of photography and cinematography a "side look" at the lovely female breast can be quite alluring, and that's what Leigh ALMOST gives us, here. Again, as with the violence in Psycho things are measured to "the millimeter."

Which reminds me: I'm with those who have always disliked "sex and violence" being lumped together as "bad things in movies." Or at least censurable things. Violence is an act of brutal aggression and pain. Sex -- done right -- is an expression of love, or the source of great fun. My take was always that sex was more censored because young people can and will have sex(leads to the risk of unwanted pregnancy or disease) but they will not be stabbing people. Generally.

And of course, the shower scene in Psycho famously mixed sex AND violence. As did the rape-murder in Frenzy.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The censors were stating to Hitchcock they saw a breast in the shower scene, but there wasn't any. Hitch left it as is.

--

I suppose you've read the anecdote about that. Censors SAW nudityt in the shower scene and demanded Hitch take it out. Hitch sent the film back JUST THE SAME and..the censors didn't see the nduity anymore. But it was there.

Two breasts in fact. Fuzzy and out of focus, but two nipples are visible which means that the breasts are visible, per Hays Code requirements. And Hitchcock got them past the censors. Psycho is just "landmark all the way."

--

So I suppose I'm saying the buildup with the black underwear scene adds to what's happening to Norman as well as the segue into the shower scene. I can't explain it, but you'll get what I mean if you see it in terms of the flow of the movie. Then it goes into the Norman and Mother scene at the house. All of it just flows and hangs together better.

--

Fair enough...the addition of a little goes a long way. Of course, TV broadcasts in the 60's and 70's often went the OTHER way: you had to remember shots and scenes that were too sexual or violent for TV; I saw many movies a second time, on TV, with less than I saw at the theater the first time.

--

I guess that you're more emotionally charged and pulled in and maybe that's what makes it better.

---

A little more titilated, a little more terrified.

--

It could also be the HD as that probably adds to the realism.

--

Yes. I recently watched Psycho in 4K and THAT was realistic. TOO realistic. It looked like a soap opera in terms of "you are there on the set; too much reality." I turned that mechanism off as soon as I learned how.

--

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Even the Arbogast scene flows better; it's not as abrupt and the horror and drama of the Arbogast scene seems to continue. Everything seemed MAGNIFIED at the end.

--

Well, with only one stab the scene is kind of "over and out," more stabs create the image of MOther as being totally, furiously psychotic, annihilating her victim in a flurry of stabs rather than with just one or two carefully planned ones(to the heart, to the throat.)

Indeed, part of the horror of Psycho came from the fact that Mother was NOT a "one stab killer"(examples: the stabber spy in The Man Who Knew Too Much" or Valerian in NXNW.)

In the shower with Marion definitely, and with Arbogast probably, Mother stabs her victims over and over and over...and those of us who spent a childhood terrified by Psycho even UNSEEN had to contemplate: what kind of way to die is THAT?

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

That's why I wanted you to see it uncut and get your reaction.

---

Well, I have seen the three clips on YouTube of censored material. I do hope to see a print with the clips "included in the flow" someday. I will try.

--

Maybe it was just me and I'm giving Hitchcock too much credit. I just saw it on a small screen and it still was powerful.

--

With regard to Psycho, at least, Hitchcock deserves all the credit in the world. Everything is so RIGHT in that movie -- one critic called it "perhaps the most perfectly made film ever." I guess the irony is that the censored material would have made the movie even BETTER(more sexy, more scary, more profound)...but Hitch wasn't allowed to keep it in.

That said, Hitchcock SHARES the credit on Psycho -- with Herrmann(above all), with Perkins(almost as much as Herrmann), with Leigh, with Balsam, with the entire rest of the cast, with editor George Tomasini and DP John Russell, and scenarist Joe Stefano, and with the art direction team who gave us The Greatest House in Movies.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

ETA: I was able to see parts of the movie again. It's the Blu-ray sound that enhances the experience. The extra parts add to drama and flow, but it's the overall better sound with Blu-ray. You can hear every door shut, floor creak, trunk closing, water running, etc. much clearer. I saw it by myself and it's more creepy and scary.

---

I have the most recent Blu-Ray HD American release and boy is that soundtrack PERFECT. One great sound effect I had not heard before(and maybe they "punched it up") is the rumbling motor of Marion's car as the car creeps up the path to the Bates Motel in the rain -- we get the engine idling down when Marion brings the car to a halt, and before she turns the engine off.

The "closing doors", alas, are a standard Universal sound effect that you can also hear with the doors in The Birds...but that's rather a "signature" effect.

I've also always found "nifty" a kind of "clunk-clunk-clunk" sound as Arbogast falls down the stairs -- it is meant to represent how his feet are (as Truffaut told Hitchcock) "brushing each step, like a dancer." My question: how did they GET that sound effect? (Threw something down a staircase, maybe?)

I continue to believe that Psycho as we have it today on DVD or for streaming is a much BETTER sight-and-sound experience than it was in 1960. It has been "restored" not for color(its in b/w) but for stereophonic-plus sound and clarity of image.

On YouTube, it used to be that you could see the Arbogast Murder clip as it was shown on 1972 Dick Cavett show(Hitch was on promoting Frenzy.) This clip -- likely 16mm -- was scratched and dusty and tinny in the sound -- as if from a 1930 movie, not a 1960 movie.

"All cleaned up now...in sight and in sound."

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>I did not recall that it was symbolic blood on his hands. In Psycho, that blood on Norman's hands IS real - and yet symbolic at the same time.

As we have discussed, Psycho is rather TOO "on the nose" about its many symbols(mirrors, eyes, birds, toilets/swamps; the shower, blood on the hands of the REAL killer) but in a very sophisticated way. Psycho is easily taught in film classes to young students because the analysis is rather "easy" (Hey, when Marion packs her bag with the stolen cash in her room -- the bathroom and SHOWER are clearly visible behind her.) And yet this aren't "dumb" symbols, Hitchcock is rather effortlessly assembling them to give Psycho more "depth."<<

It was symbolic of guilt in trying to hide murder. In Norman's case, he wasn't the murderer but a dutiful son. His scenes convinces us of it.

I was hoping you reply. You're spot on about it being sophisticated and made realistic and mundane. What changes it is the rich guy with the $40,000. Hitch makes it suspenseful even in the beginning with $40,000 and Marion which really doesn't have anything to do with most of the movie. Hitchcock even gives away the killings in the epilogue trailer.

We get her boss walking and seeing her in the intersection, the highway patrolman, the used car salesman, the mechanic, and probably Hitchcock's daughter in the background all trying to figure Marion out, but they got nothing. I think that's why I don't mind watching this movie over and over. It doesn't matter you know what's going to happen.

The new thing I picked up from my last watch is the sheriff. Who do you think made the arrest? He's the first one talking in the room at the county court and makes a good comment to segue to the psychiatrist. Another was how strong Norman was. He had a huge knife (it looked bigger in the final scene) and you can see how Sam has to fight him for it. Definitely a phallic symbol and tied to way Lila looks at the end. Even the mother is looking on lol.

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

The WWI setting was moving, as was WW's run across "No Man's Land" and a battle(presaging last year's 1917.) THIS summer, Wonder Woman's coming back - in 1984. Such nostalgia.

I just rewatched WW, and it's pretty glorious, better than I'd remembered. Rather like Iron Man 2008, WW slips a bit in its final act when routine superhero action breaks out. On rewatch, however, that doesn't matter at all since the central casting & performance of Gal Gadot is inspired in just the way that RDJ's Iron Man was, and almost everything in the first 80% of the movie is incredibly fun and well-conceived and -staged. I *did* think about 1917 this time through... and I confess I was thinking that WW's war sequences stood up well & were, of course, lots more fun.

Gadot has been exceptionally charming in all her media appearances since WW hit. She hasn't put a foot wrong, which is not easy to do in our twitter-fied, media-soaked age. WW-1984's trailers have been amazing & it now seems poised to be a genuinely huge hit - maybe Dark Knight or Avengers-level big if director Patty Jenkins really has got all her ducks in a row.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I just rewatched WW, and it's pretty glorious, better than I'd remembered. Rather like Iron Man 2008, WW slips a bit in its final act when routine superhero action breaks out.

---

I haven't seen WW recently, but I felt the same way when I saw it. It was high on my list for favorite of the year. (2017? I think I went with Molly's Game, another Tough Woman Tale.)

Whatever complaints Martin Scorsese and others have about our "comic book nation" right now, I've seen enough of these films to believe that -- I guess like Westerns, but maybe not -- there are GOOD ones being made.

Iron Man(the original) had RDJ AND Jeff Bridges(as a villain) AND Gwenyth Paltrow(an annoying celebrity but a sexy and empathetic star) and it played liked a real movie.

The Dark Knight had Heath Ledger's Joker and his lines, and that's all it really needed to zoom to the top.

Batman had Superstar Jack Nicholson's Joker and HIS lines, plus a great Michael Keaton as a funny/eccentric Batman, and that was great, too.

"Wonder Woman" and its WWI background joined the original Captain America with its WWII background to give us the seriousness of war and international conflict as a base for the SciFi shenanigans.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

On rewatch, however, that doesn't matter at all since the central casting & performance of Gal Gadot is inspired in just the way that RDJ's Iron Man was, and almost everything in the first 80% of the movie is incredibly fun and well-conceived and -staged.

--

And that final 20% -- I dunno -- it seems like ALL comic book movies end with CGI overload and I can only figure that "kids" like that stuff and that if I were still a kid, I would too. Nowadays, I like the drama, comedy and character up front before the climax.

And Ms. Gadot IS a star. Like RDJ, she can have an entire rich-making career as Wonder Woman, but she seems to be trying to branch out. She will be in Death on the Nile playing a rather unlikeable character, for instance. Though I prefer her "likeable."

--

I *did* think about 1917 this time through... and I confess I was thinking that WW's war sequences stood up well & were, of course, lots more fun.

--

We've had a lot of WWII movies, but WWI is its own interesting thing -- those trenches and tunnels are a world all their own, going back to "Paths of Glory."

---

Gadot has been exceptionally charming in all her media appearances since WW hit. She hasn't put a foot wrong, which is not easy to do in our twitter-fied, media-soaked age. WW-1984's trailers have been amazing & it now seems poised to be a genuinely huge hit - maybe Dark Knight or Avengers-level big if director Patty Jenkins really has got all her ducks in a row

--

We shall see. "1984" as the selected setting year is interesting; we are evidently in an "80's nostalgia" period now driven by the kids of that decade and THEIR kids . Let's see -- it was the year of Ghostbusters and Amadeus, of Star Trek III and Gremlins, of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom("The bad one"), of Places in the Heart and The Killing Fields. And Michael Jackson, Madonna, Springsteen and Prince.

And now of Wonder Woman. (While we all wait to see what Kirsten Wiig is gonna look like as Cheetah.)