MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Psycho and the Concept of "The Movie Sta...

Psycho and the Concept of "The Movie Star"

posted 4 years ago by ecarle (14979)
9 replies | jump to latest

In my readings on Hitchcock over the years, I found an interesting letter that he wrote to some colleague as he prepared to make "Torn Curtain" (1966.)

Hitchcock wrote (paraphrased) "I'm using Paul Newman and Julie Andrews in this one. The studio wanted stars, which I have not used in my last three pictures."

His last three pictures. Hmm.

Well, in the previous two, he gave unknown TV commercial actress Tippi Hedren the lead. So that's true.

And Sean Connery when he made Marnie was not a full-blown stand alone star, yet. He was "that new guy who plays James Bond" -- rather at Roger Moore level at the time.

The Birds? Hedren, true. And Rod Taylor never really got much higher than "second tier;" in the early sixties, Taylor supported Richard Burton(The VIPS), Rock Hudson(A Gathering of Eagles), and Glenn Ford("Fate is the Hunter") before finally becoming a star for a few years (Hotel, Dark of the Sun.)

But...Psycho? Hitchcock was saying that he didn't use stars in Psycho?

Well, possibly so.

Here's the billing for The Wrong Man:

Henry Fonda
Vera Miles
in Alfred Hitchcock's The Wrong Man

Here's the billing for Vertigo:

James Stewart
Kim Novak
in Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho

Here's the billing for North by Northwest

Cary Grant
Eva Marie Saint
James Mason
in Alfred Hitchcock's North by Northwest

Here's the billing for Psycho

Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho
starring Anthony Perkins
Vera Miles
John Gavin
and Janet Leigh as Marion Crane.

Hmmm...well it indeed looks like "Psycho" wasn't considered to have had major stars because..none of them...not Anthony Perkins, not Janet Leigh..was deemed worthy of putting above the title.

And..in a matter of "coincidental patterning," the three Hitchcock films before Psycho had each showcased a particularly iconic "old" Golden Era star:

Henry Fonda
James Stewart
Cary Grant

These three men had scores of movies behind them, many classics. Came the late fifties, they were just about done with having star power(less Grant)...but they were, I suppose, the kind of people that Hitchcock considered to be "stars."

Not so, Anthony Perkins...?

Well, just the year before, in Stanley Kramer's "On the Beach," Perkins had been billed FOURTH ...but over the title in an all-star cast : Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner , Fred Astaire, Anthony Perkins. Evidently one reason that Perkins was willing to play the horrific Norman Bates is that Hitchcock promised him "you have top billing."

But evidently he didn't tell Perkins "but its under the title."

Actually, since getting a Best Supporting Actor nomination(but not win) for Friendly Persuasion (1956), Perkins HAD merited above the title status(before Psycho) and usually second to some major star -- like Henry Fonda in The Tin Star, or Audrey Hepburn in Green Mansions.

I expect that these credits(and the one Oscar nomination) made Perkins more than bankable enough to headline Psycho(even as a villain), but as for other stars in the picture, well...

...Vera Miles, like Tippi Hedren, had been given "pre-mature above the title billing" with Henry Fonda in The Wrong Man, but seemed to slowly decline to the point where in Psycho, she had the second female lead but no chance for above the title billing. She would get it sometimes in the 60's, but usually in minor movies. And Miles did NOT get above the title billing with John Wayne and James Stewart in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance." (1962.)

John Gavin? There were hopes that he might be a star in the Rock Hudson mold, but he was too MUCH in the Rock Hudson mold. Gavin ended up in three major films (Imitation of Life, Psycho, Spartacus) but never in the real lead.

Which brings us to Janet Leigh. Conventional wisdom is that Janet Leigh is the "star" of Psycho -- but a star who is shockingly eliminated before the movie is half over. But the "wobbler" is: Janet Leigh WAS a star, and often over the title, but not quite a "superstar." In 1960, those were Liz Taylor and Audrey Hepburn and Doris Day and (waningly) Marilyn Monroe. Indeed, Leigh's famous billing in Psycho: "And Janet Leigh as Marion Crane"...suggests somewhat of a "super supporting role"(and her Oscar nomination WAS for Best Supporting Actress.)

David Thomson wrote that for the first 30 minutes of Psycho, the audience "is convinced that it is in a Janet Leigh vehicle." Except I don't think Janet Leigh was ever a big enough star to drive the vehicle. Quite frankly, she often played second fiddle to men: James Stewart(The Naked Spur), John Wayne(Jet Pilot), her husband Tony Curtis(The Vikings and more.) Indeed, it is perhaps a "marker" of Psycho that the film DOES put Leigh so "front and center" for 47 minutes..she never got a more "central" role in any movie.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

I would think that 1960 billing could have been

Anthony Perkins
Janet Leigh
in Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho

or even

Anthony Perkins
Janet Leigh
Vera Miles
in Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho

co-starring John Gavin

(and everybody else after)

or even "On the Beach" style billing:

Anthony Perkins
Janet Leigh
Vera Miles
John Gavin
in Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho

...but it seems that Hitchcock himself knew this was wrong. These four in 1960 were not at the level of Peck, Gardner, and Astaire.

And , of course, the REAL star of Psycho IS...Alfred Hitchcock. And he kept it that way, two films in a row:

Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho
Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds

...NOBODY above the title.

Interesting: even as Hitchcock didn't think that Tippi Hedren and Sean Connery were truly stars, they got billing above the title...Hedren ahead of Connery! in Marnie.

And sure Paul Newman and Julie Andrews merited the billing.

Interesting: after Torn Curtain, the remaining three Hitchcock films ALL had "Alfred Hitchcock as their star."

Alfred Hitchcock's Topaz
Alfred Hitchcock's Frenzy
Alfred Hitchcock's Family Plot

with the first two, there were NO names in the cast, with the final one, evidently Karen Black, Bruce Dern, Barbara Harris and William Devane simply didn't feel starry ENOUGH to go above the title. Alas none of these four were every REALLY movie stars.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

I have reasons to ponder movie stars, all the time. The older one gets, the more one wants to reject the entire idea of "star worship" -- many of them seem to be rather dull and irritating people in real life, they are spectacularly paid(though NOT overpaid) but...to what outcome?

Well, the best of the best DID mean something to us, over the years. There's a certain perfection to how Cary Grant looks and sounds and moves that doesn't really match real life(even as his "calm and cool" helped form a lot of men for wooing women.) Bogart gave two generations a role model based more on toughness, cynicism, and a heart of gold about causes, lost and otherwise.

I didn't much get James Stewart's ever-aging, gangly emotionalism then; I don't get Matt Damon's "looks like anybody" lack of star appeal now. But SOMEBODY likes them.

When I saw Once Upon a Time In Hollywood last year, I knew that I was looking at "two of today's top superstars," but only one of them really SEEMED like a star -- Brad Pitt. Still, Leo's "got something" and his movies are generally important and/or hits.

Pacino and DeNiro seem to be our two "surviving superstars" now that Connery and Hackman and Nicholson are retired, and Hoffman has had to hide from metoo concerns. I like Pacino -- with his flash and his stage-ready skill -- better than DeNiro(who seems to project a certain dumb quality), but...they both survived. They're about all we've got -- and Pacino has to do streaming movies and series, now.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

We have a good crew of African-American stars today -- Denzel perhaps above all (like previous superstars, he'll take prestige movies and simple action pics with equal authority); Will Smith(a summersuperstar brought low by bad vehicles but still in the game); Samuel L. Jackson(rather our Edward G. Robinson when you come to think about it.) and some comedy guys(Eddie Murphy in absentia, Chris Rock, Kevin Hart, Chris Tucker.) Jamie Foxx(who seems to get roles that others turn down.)

And of course, all I've been talking about are MALE stars, but for a few decades now, men have been our main stars. In the 60's: Newman, McQueen, Connery. In the 70's, Eastwood, Reynolds, Nicholson, Redford, Beatty, DeNiro, Pacino, Travolta...and on and on. In the 80's, the Two Toms(Hanks and Cruise) and Harrison Ford(the Lucas/Spielberg star) and Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson and Arnold and Sly(carrying over from the 70's.)

The women? In the 70's, only Streisand was a true superstar, but Faye Dunaway worked all the time. Faye was the 70's equivalent of Shirley MacLaine -- a woman needed to cast opposite the scores of male stars.

Julia Roberts got a long reign, but not enough good movies. Modernly, J-Law seems to have yieled to Margot Robbie.

And then there's the Grand Olde Dame Meryl Streep. Currently supplanted, it seems, by Cate Blanchett.

Still, the Boys Club still reigns.

--

Meanwhile, back at Hitchcock. Well before the end, when he couldn't GET stars (everybody from Michael Caine to Richard Burton to Jack Nicholson to Robert Redford turned him down) he didn't always WANT stars. Strangers on a Train is a great film anchored by: Robert Walker, Farley Granger, and Ruth Roman? (Though Walker was historic.) The Trouble With Harry stars TV guy John Forsythe and newbie Shirley MacLaine. Saboteur -- Bob Cummings? Priscilla Lane?

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Hitchcock used two major male stars 4 times each -- James Stewart and Cary Grant. But he WANTED to work with Gary Cooper and Clark Gable and William Holden and Audrey Hepburn(who signed for a movie and then backed out) and Barbara Stanwyck and Claudette Colbert...

Then there were all the "rough and tough" male stars who simply didn't fit Hitchcock's universe: John Wayne , Kirk Douglas, Robert Mitchum, Burt Lancaster(whom Hitch at least considered for Under Capricorn)...and the biggest of them all, Bogart.

Which brings us back to Psycho.

In the Hollywood pecking order of 1960, Anthony Perkins was not Cary Grant, and Janet Leigh was not Elizabeth Taylor. But they had the looks and voices and moves of stars; Leigh in particular had a great track record from the late 40's on, and Anthony Perkins coulda/shoulda been, maybe, another James Stewart but...Psycho intervened(or saved him from a "failed James Stewart type" career.)

[–] Dalyngrigge (17) 4 years ago

To be completely honest I am not entirely sure what it is you're trying to say with all of this, so please enlighten me if you want, but to comment about the "star power" of modern film actors I would just say it has a lot to do with what cinema has become/is becoming. Cinema is still a considerably young medium so the stars that were developed back in the day have pretty set the precedent to what a movie star is, but the films that were made back then were obviously quite different than now. Matt Damon and DiCaprio might not immediately exude that kind of classical star quality, but I think that they're serving different purposes now, with regards to the kinds of genres that have prevailed. I'm sure when all of them are dead or retired and the next wave have taken center stage, we'll be talking about how different their star power is to the ones before as well.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

You know, I'm not quite sure what I'm trying to say either (its not the first time.)

I do know that we've had a pretty radical change in what "the movie star" is. One thought I've had is that "back in the day," since movies didn't have that special effects/blockbuster component, people went to see the stars AS THE REASON to see the movie: Bogart movies, Cary Grant movies, William Holden movies. You went to see "the new Bogart movie." Now you go to see "the new Marvel movie."

So many of our contemporary stars are "franchise stars." Harrison Ford perhaps started it -- Star Wars and Indiana Jones made him a star. Mel Gibson finally "clicked" with Lethal Weapon(Mad Max alternated with some failed dramatic films.) Bruce Willis made it with "Die Hard." And even Matt Damon -- after struggling in the wilderness for a few years -- made it with The Bourne series. An "open secret" is that Tom Cruise's career was cooling but "Mission:Impossible" re-invented him as a franchise star. Those movies are his only real recent hits -- and yes, Top Gun 2 will change that.

I grew up really enjoying movie stars. I had McQueen and Newman and Connery and Lee Marvin, and each of them had a certain quality that was fun to fantasize about(as a guy.)

I suppose what triggered this thread was that Hitchcock letter when he claimed that "his last three movies" didn't have stars before Torn Curtain. Hitchcock himself seemed to know that a "major star" was somebody who commanded a very high salary(Cary Grant was getting $750,000 around the time that Tony Perkins asked for $150,000 -- and Perkins did Psycho on an old Paramount contract for $40,000.) Indeed, EVERYBODY on Psycho worked for low pay -- Hitchcock wanted to make a "low budget film" (to avoid losses if it flopped.) Other than Perkins, the next highest paid player was John Gavin at $20,000. (because MCA and Lew Wasserman got about half the payout.) I think Janet Leigh got $10,000. These actors took the pay cuts ...because they would get to work with Hitchcock.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

The new generation of movie stars are, as a matter of my aging, all younger than me -- except the Boomer generation seems to be keeping a few "age peers"(and older) still working: Denzel is bankable in his 60's, and while they aren't top stars, guys like Jeff Bridges and Kurt Russell and Kevin Costner are still names at an older age. (Willis and Gibson are in the 60's, but just can't topline major movies anymore.)

The movie star I really liked in recent years - -who has crashed and burned, alas, on personal matters -- is Johnny Depp. He had a unique, handsome, rather flamboyant quality that was a throwback to an earlier time. HIS franchise was "Pirates" but he had all those Tim Burton movies to keep his Lon Chaney side going.

One last thing on Psycho: there's a "hidden" star in the movie, but he was only paid $6000: Martin Balsam as Arbogast. Because of the ensemble nature of the story, Balsam -- a TV actor with a few movies on his resume , including 12 Angry Men, actually got to be the "star" of Psycho for the second act. He even had the screen all to himself for about his last ten famous minutes in the movie. But, pecking order-wise, Balsam wasn't promoted as a star of Psycho -- only three publicity photos were taken of him, and only one seems to have survived(Arbogast in the motel office showing Norman the photo.)

Well, I guess I've played this one out. But I'll close with a quote written by some critic about 10 years ago:

"Today, movie stars have never been paid more money -- and never been less important to the movies they are in."

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

...but to comment about the "star power" of modern film actors I would just say it has a lot to do with what cinema has become/is becoming.

---

That's right. To repeat myself from above, "back in the day," stars like Bogart and Grant were put in "stories" that were really all about the star. This isn't the case in a lot of movies today.

Take the "Marvel stars." These folks are among the highest paid movie stars in the business, and yet very few of them can "anchor" a non-Marvel movie. Even Robert Downey Jr. had a total flop in "Doolittle."

---

Cinema is still a considerably young medium so the stars that were developed back in the day have pretty set the precedent to what a movie star is,

---

That has always fascinated me. Tom Hanks has been sold for years as "our Jimmy Stewart" even as a new generation doesn't know who Jimmy Stewart is. Both Burt Reynolds and George Clooney were sold as "new Cary Grants." (Though Reynolds with his stache was sometimes the new Clark Gable.) Jack Nicholson in his prime was considered (sometimes) Bogart(Chinatown, Prizzi's Honor) and sometimes Cagney(The Last Detail; Cuckoo's Nest.) Clint Eastwood was considered "the new Gary Cooper" OR "the new John Wayne," but actually identified with James Stewart's raging qualities(said Clint himself.) Kevin Costner, starting out, reminded Hollywood moguls of a cross between Gary Cooper and Steve McQueen.

And in a bit of back-handed comic complimenting, Sly Stallone was identified as "our new Victor Mature"(even as he became a much bigger star than Mature.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

but the films that were made back then were obviously quite different than now. Matt Damon and DiCaprio might not immediately exude that kind of classical star quality, but I think that they're serving different purposes now, with regards to the kinds of genres that have prevailed.

--

Well, Damon and Leo seem to me to be "stars who fit their era" -- and the key is: younger male stars. I think Tom Cruise started that one. All these very young actors -- who in an earlier era would have been called "ingenues" and not allowed to anchor a film -- suddenly were cast even when they looked like boys in men's clothing.

And then, slowly but surely, these boyish young actors created the "norm." If I show a young person a movie today like North by Northwest or Vertigo or Rio Bravo, they uniformly say "that OLD guy is the star of this movie?" (And James Stewart at 50 in Vertigo DOES look 20 years older than Tom Cruise at 50 today. Genetics and lack of war service seems to have entered in.)

---

I'm sure when all of them are dead or retired and the next wave have taken center stage, we'll be talking about how different their star power is to the ones before as well.

--

Yes, and I suppose that's why movie stars ARE important, after all -- they reflect the eras in which they appear. I am also fascinated by which ones rise to the top(Bogart, Grant, Newman, McQueen, Eastwood, Redford, Hanks, Cruise, Leo, Matt) versus the ones who don't.

I keep talking male stars but -- that's who I identify with. But certainly J-Law and Margot Robbie and -- who else? -- are making their own modern day female star mark. Cate Blanchett remains vibrant enough to perhaps be taking the place of Streep and Katherine Hepburn before her. (She PLAYED Hepburn, opposite Leo, for Scorsese.)