MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > The Surprisingly Erudite Mrs. Bates

The Surprisingly Erudite Mrs. Bates

posted 3 years ago by ecarle (14979)
31 replies | jump to latest

Folks are talking "Psycho II" elsewhere here, and one of my problems with that movie(among many -- I simply think it dishonored the original) is how the sequel "dumbed down and sleazed up" Mrs. Bates' off screen voice(and in Psycho II moreso, her WRITTEN words on notes that taunt Norman from...someone?)

Here are some of her lines from the original Psycho:

Mrs. Bates: I won't have you bringing strange young girls in here for supper...by candlelight, I suppose, in the cheap erotic fashion of young men with cheap erotic minds...and then what, after supper? Music? Whispers? ..Go on! Go tell her she'll not be appeasing her ugly appetite with my food...or my SON.

Now, here are some of her lines(written, I think) from Psycho II:

Mrs. Bates: Get rid of that slut or I'll kill her! (And I do believe that in II or III, Mrs. B also refers to women as "whores.")

Granted the words in Psycho II and Psycho III weren't allowed in Hays Code 1960, but in their absence, Mrs. Bates was given a much more erudite and articulate take on women and what they might do to her son.

Truth be told, Mrs. Bates doesn't talk much in Psycho. Only three times...and off screen the first two (for later obvious reasons.)

I've always found it rather interesting that shortly after she so savagely kills Arbogast, and Norman elects to carry her to the fruit cellar to hide her from the coming snoopers, Mrs. B has a certain humorous and detached bent to her dialogue:

Mrs. B: I'm sorry boy, but you do manage to look ludicrous when you give me orders...

Again, there is a certain...intelligence to Mrs. B's analysis of her son there that is, in some ways, directly OPPOSED to her monster-like savagery slashing away at Arbogast and , earlier, Marion. You might say that this is laying the groundwork for Hannibal Lecter -- another erudite, articulate person with a penchant for sudden, inhuman and murderous savagery.

At film's end, with Mother captured and in a cell(WE see Norman), her voice changes to a softer tone..the angry harpy of the earlier part of the film is now calmly trying to pin "her" murders on her son:

Mrs. Bates: Its sad..when a mother has to speak the words that condemn her own son. I can't allow them to think that I would commit murder. Put him away now as I should have years ago. He was always bad...and in the end , he intended to tell them that I killed those girls...and that man...as if I could do anything but just sit and stare like one of his stuffed birds...

...

Yes, in the end, Mrs. Bates words and thoughts in the original are not only much more intelligent than the ...dare I say it? White trash like Mrs. Bates in the sequels...but they create a certain intriguing character IN THE ORIGINAL...again, a woman of intelligence and wit(if madness) whose verbal manner is at odds with the monster with the knife.

Just another reason Psycho is so good...and the sequels are not.

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 3 years ago

By the time the sequels came about, Psycho had this reputation as the granddaddy of all slashers, so it had to reflect the nastiness-- dare I say trashiness-- of the current itieration of that subgenre (even though it's a far superior film to the pure slashers that reared their heads in the decades to come-- it's less enamored with bloodletting, focusing more on suspense and mystery-- but I digress).

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

By the time the sequels came about, Psycho had this reputation as the granddaddy of all slashers, so it had to reflect the nastiness-- dare I say trashiness-- of the current itieration of that subgenre

---

Yes I would tend to agree -- this is one of the reasons that Quentin Tarantino liked Psycho II better than 1 (though he's crazy to suggest it is BETTER.)

Anthony Perkins himself said, in promoting both Psycho II and his own very weird (sexually) Psycho III, something like "I think if Hitchcock were alive today , he'd make Psycho much more WILD."

Elsewhere it has been suggested that Hitchcock MADE a movie that PROVED Perkins' point: the R-rated Frenzy, with all that cussing(the first scene in the pub has one of the most REAL and nasty cuss-arguments between two men and a woman I'd ever heard). And all that more detailed rape and murder.

---
CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

(even though it's a far superior film to the pure slashers that reared their heads in the decades to come-- it's less enamored with bloodletting, focusing more on suspense and mystery-- but I digress).

--

Hardly a digression. Hitchcock once said "Thou shalt not kill...too many people." He wasn't big on slaughtering lots of victims -- he wanted us to get to know one or two of them "up close and personal" and really FEEL the loss of their deaths. Marion and Arbogast -- however "simple" as characters(especially Arbogast) are part of very engrossing stories that both head to horrific endings. The "slasher movie model" (one opening killing following by more every ten minutes) was blessedly not in place when Hitch made Psycho. Hell, some critics didn't like that it had TWO. They felt one was enough. (Jerry Lewis said exactly that --and some other insults -- to Hitchcock's face about Psycho.)

(Meanwhile, Jaws in 1975 OPENED with its first murder -- of another naked lady in water -- and by the time the Psycho remake turned up in 1998, young audiences weren't inclined to wait 47 minutes for the first one.)

The year before Psycho, North by Northwest was deemed "action packed" with only THREE action scenes. Psycho had only THREE horror scenes(two murders and the fruit cellar.) Movies would demand more, more, more in the decades to come, but Hitchcock's two seminal films showed you the excitements of "waiting for the action; waiting for the shocks." There is suspense in between, but also wit, conflict romance(in NXNW in the second half; in Psycho in the first scene.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

A bit more on the erudition of Mrs. Bates in the original:

We hear her "cheap erotic fantasies of young men with cheap erotic minds" speech BEFORE Norman talks to Marion in the parlor. And I've always noted that when Norman gets angry and says to Marion:

Norman: People always mean well...they cluck their thick tongues and suggest oh so very delicately...

We are hearing MOTHER's voice(in spirit, not exactly), MOTHER's syntax, MOTHER's choice of words...

It is as if Norman has "created" Mother to be mean, murderous and weirdly flowery in her talk...and since he invented "HER" personality...it leaks out in the parlor.

And since all of this dialogue was written by Joseph Stefano, I think he deserves the credit for this. Robert Bloch wrote one of the great horror stories of all time in the novel Psycho, but Joe Stefano made his own contribution to the tale --its voice.

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 3 years ago

We hear her "cheap erotic fantasies of young men with cheap erotic minds" speech BEFORE Norman talks to Marion in the parlor. And I've always noted that when Norman gets angry and says to Marion:

Norman: People always mean well...they cluck their thick tongues and suggest oh so very delicately...

We are hearing MOTHER's voice(in spirit, not exactly), MOTHER's syntax, MOTHER's choice of words...

It is as if Norman has "created" Mother to be mean, murderous and weirdly flowery in her talk...and since he invented "HER" personality...it leaks out in the parlor.

And since all of this dialogue was written by Joseph Stefano, I think he deserves the credit for this. Robert Bloch wrote one of the great horror stories of all time in the novel Psycho, but Joe Stefano made his own contribution to the tale --its voice.
--
I never noticed that, but you're right! It's a great clue.

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 3 years ago

It's interesting how audiences have become so impatient over time, demanding more action up front. I think it works in Jaws, but in other movies, the slow-build-up is WHY the suspense and shocks work. Psycho with a kill a minute would be a rather uninteresting thing because we would become numb to the killings. It's the surprise of Marion's murder that jolts the audience and then the dread of another murder to come that helps keep the second half engaging.

Psycho operates on a higher level than the many slashers that followed in its wake, mainly because it actually had intriguing characters. Sure, Friday the 13th apes the "mother" story somewhat but it isn't terribly interesting and none of the teens that die are compelling figures in and of themselves. Arguably (and it's often been observed by critics), Marion and Norman are both doubles, each in their own way fallen innocents trapped by the crimes they commit (or really, just one crime for Marion). Most (though not all) later slashers don't tend to have central female characters as interesting as Marion or as morally compromised, let alone link them in some way to the killer.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

It's interesting how audiences have become so impatient over time, demanding more action up front.

---

Well, in some ways, it was a long journey...the concept of "action beats"(an action scene every seven minutes) are matched by "murder beats" in slasher shockers...but it took from the 60s(Psycho) through the 70s and 80's to lock in.

On the other hand, it occurs to me that a LOT of movies, and even more TV series episodes OPENED with a murder to set the pace of the show. (Burke's Law -- a 1963-1965 whodunit show -- opened every week with a murder or discovery of the body.)

In short, I guess I'm mixing things up here a bit. One concept: starting your movie or series episode with a murder. Done ALL the time. The other concept: having LOTS of murders (and/or lots of action scenes.)

Psycho is perhaps so unique because it breaks BOTH rules. It does NOT open with a murder(indeed, we get almost half way through the movie before one happens), and it does NOT have a lot of murders. (Exactly two, but so shocking in their time, powerful, and unforgettable that more weren't needed.)

Hitchocck told Truffaut, "I made that beginning on the long side to get the audience wrapped up in the woman's story" (which his shower murder trailer belies, but oh well.) Bernard Herrmann told DePalma: "The audience knows this is Hitchcock, and something terrible will happen...and so they will wait." (This was after Herrmann recommended that his "Sisters" have a scary overture to keep people in their chairs.) A lot of weight here on how Hitchcock "got away" with a first 47 minutes without murder (though I'd say that "horror" arrives the moment Marion drives off the main road and we get that historic approach to the Bates Motel -- and the mansion.)

Hitchcock made the beginning of The Birds "on the long side" too -- but that didn't pay off because it didn't lead to the stunner of the shower murder (just one seagull pecking Tippi on the forehead.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

I think it works in Jaws, but in other movies, the slow-build-up is WHY the suspense and shocks work.

---

There are, to be sure, different types of thrillers (or more to the point, there WERE.) To go along with the murder-a-minute slashers, we had "prestige thrillers" like Charade, Wait Until Dark, the grisly Marathon Man and the grislier Silence of the Lambs...in which there were very long stretches without killings. (Indeed, does it not take Silence of the Lambs OVER AN HOUR before Lecter kills those cops?)

---

Psycho with a kill a minute would be a rather uninteresting thing because we would become numb to the killings.

---

For "laughs," I one time constructed how you could do Psycho with "a lot of killings" (and one "final girl."):

First, Marion and Arbogast,as we have it.

We know from the movie that Sheriff Chambers also went out there to investigate...but came back alive.

Well...what if he didn't. So mother slashes HIM. That's three murders.

And let's say that we learn that Arbogast contacted Lowery and Cassidy and told them about the Bates Motel. So those two guys fly to Fairvale(or nearby), go to the motel and house and -- get killed. That's FIVE murders.

And let's say -- in the modern slasher tradition -- Sam proves to be a useless hero and Mrs. Bates kills HIM.
That's SIX murders. (Five men and one women, if you are counting.)

Then write Lila as the "final girl" who somehow kills Norman/Mother.

Awful, isn't it? And yet that might very well be the story of Psycho circa 1987 if it was first made that year(with changes.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

It's the surprise of Marion's murder that jolts the audience and then the dread of another murder to come that helps keep the second half engaging.

---

Absolutely. Hitchcock stated his case: really SHOCK the audience with that first killing and the rest of the movie creates a "zone of danger" (the motel AND the house...but mainly the house) and the audience is in constant suspense and terror about someone else getting killed. Hitchcock really stretches things out to the next murder, but its a lollapalooza of a "jump scare" (Arbogast.)

And THEN, Hitchcock milks every minute of Lila's exploration of the house and descent into the fruit celler.

That said, Psycho only created such maximum suspense BECAUSE the two murders shown were so violent, so gory, so scary for their time. Lila's walk around the house wouldn't be nearly so terrifying if we'd never seen how the other victims died.

Now, all of this is to a "1960 standard" and yet I will always personally testify to a full house college 1979 screening that had screams all the way through, and a lot of "tense murmuring" when Lila explored each room.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Psycho operates on a higher level than the many slashers that followed in its wake, mainly because it actually had intriguing characters.

---

Yes. Hitchcock was still working to his standards as one of the best directors in Golden Age Hollywood, and so ALL the characters had to be written to a high standard(by Joe Stefano) and cast with good actors.

And cast with a HANDSOME actor in Anthony Perkins, who became the sweetest, nicest monster you'd ever want to take care of .

I've mentioned how Hitchcock belittled his Psycho characters while touting his (then new) Birds characters as better. He was wrong. He was ALSO wrong when he told Truffaut "I know what people will say, the story was terrible, there were no characters in it...." Wrong again, Hitch. I daresay the characters of Psycho lived on longer and farther than any of his others, and were perhaps only matched by Roger O. Thornhill, Jeff Jeffries, Lisa Fremont, Scottie Ferguson, Judy Barton and...all his villains.

---

Sure, Friday the 13th apes the "mother" story somewhat but it isn't terribly interesting and none of the teens that die are compelling figures in and of themselves.

---

Roger Ebert coined the phrase "Dead Teenager Movies" for Friday the 13th and its offspring and having teens as victims really made for a "loss of character." I suppose teens were victims because teens were the audience, but....I saw the original Friday the 13th at the theater and a few sequels on TV and I can't remember who got killed when and where and why. (OK, one of Bing Crosby's kids got killed, Ir emember that one.) Of course, some of the teens got killed after or during sex(another template Psycho avoids) and some of the girls went topless but...hey, teen audience. Not the Psycho goal (well, I suppose a naked lady in a shower was predictive but not THAT way.)

CONT

.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

There's a modern day Arizona love story called Murphy's Romance(1985) where Sally Field takes her "family" to a Friday the 13th movie at her small town one-screen. The "family" is: older James Garner(current love interest), studly ex-husband(visiting), teenage son, Sally Field.

As a gory murder starts on screen there is a cut to the camera travelling across the "family" faces:
Field has her hands over her eyes, her son is terrified but looking, the ex-husband is smiling in hungry delight -- and James Garner just looks disgusted and leaves.

The family finishes the movie, comes out and finds Garner sitting outside the theater and he opines:

"I worked in a slaughterhouse for two summers...I don't need to pay five dollars to see it again."

I've often thought of that scene in my later years of "rejecting the slasher movie" as an entertainment that particularly intrigues me. Psycho WAS a big deal, but it has so much more going on that the usual slasher film.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Arguably (and it's often been observed by critics), Marion and Norman are both doubles, each in their own way fallen innocents trapped by the crimes they commit (or really, just one crime for Marion). Most (though not all) later slashers don't tend to have central female characters as interesting as Marion or as morally compromised, let alone link them in some way to the killer.

--

All true. I expect that the makers of most slashers after Psycho (and I'll excuse Robert Aldrich in the 60's and DePalma thereafter; they were intelligent filmmakers) were only focused on one thing: making money with bloody murders and including some sexy women -- sometimes naked -- as the victims.

I've always thought that Hitchcock must have been amazed: in 1959, Hitchcock had to film all over the US, hire major stars, spend a lot of money, and climax his film at an expensive Mount Rushmore mock up to get a hit with North by Northwest. One year later in 1960, all it took was a bottle of Bosco chocolate syrup to mimic blood and he made an even BIGGER hit, on a lower budget, with Psycho.

--

Meanwhile, indeed, Marion and Norman are fashioned as "doubles," and the movie makes a point of comparing HER "madness" (the theft and flight) to HIS (murder, we eventually realize.) There are other doubles in Hitchcock (generally in his films about psychos -- Shadow of a Doubt, Strangers on a Train, Frenzy)...but Psycho has the most interesting. They are lonely people who look like movie stars and we WANT them to connect...but they don't.

Hitchcock often talked to his interviewers a lot about the style of his films and his cinematic tricks, but it seems he left a good record of working with his writers and actors to fashion three-dimensional people for these stories, and to ,indeed, develop themes.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Note in passing: Psycho II and Psycho III certainly TRIED to place Norman Bates in "sensitive" situations with the women played by Meg Tilly in II and Diana Scarwid in III, but the writing wasn't there and something was "off": unlike with Marion Crane, these women KNEW of Norman's past and still tried to connect with him. It didn't feel real.

Also, in Psycho III, Scarwid's wayward ex-nun says this to Norman:

"You took a life, but you SAVED a life...mine."

Poor girl. She heard about Marion. But didn't know about Arbogast. Or Mrs. Bates and her boyfriend. And the two other women...

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 2 years ago

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Psycho II was such a letdown, a weird sequel to Psycho with lots of riffing on Vertigo.

---

I am wondering if you meant Psycho III here, not II? I'm thinking the "Vertigo" connection with the opening "accidental death" in a bell tower with nuns in it.

--

I liked parts of it, but the twists about Mother were just... not my cup of tea. Still need to see III, not because it looks good, but because it looks bonkers.

--
Now, I'm thinking that you DID mean Psycho II up above, because you haven't seen Psycho III.

I dislike both sequels, but I prefer III. It is more directly connected to the original -- Norman is back running the motel, Mother is back killing people. Anthony Perkins' direction is very arty and stylish and the script by Charles Edward Pogue(who co-wrote Cronenberg's The Fly the same year) is sometimes very intelligent and "knowing." Direct odes to the shower murder and the staircase murder from the original feel like homages(though the staircase victim's fall is much worse process work than Balsam got.)

The film also elects to take us "backstage with Norman Bates," up in Mother's room talking to her corpse(she talks back in his head) as they watch new guests arrive at the motel below.

BUT...those "good" elements are buried in a lot of bad ones(one female victim is killed on the toilet), and yet another failed climax.

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 2 years ago

Well, the Vertigo connection in II has to do with Meg Tilly and Vera Miles trying to gaslight Norman into relapsing. It's essentially a big piece of theater, much like with Judy/Madeline Vertigo.

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 2 years ago

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

I've always thought that Hitchcock must have been amazed: in 1959, Hitchcock had to film all over the US, hire major stars, spend a lot of money, and climax his film at an expensive Mount Rushmore mock up to get a hit with North by Northwest. One year later in 1960, all it took was a bottle of Bosco chocolate syrup to mimic blood and he made an even BIGGER hit, on a lower budget, with Psycho.
--
I guess because Psycho was showing something onscreen that wasn't common at all in American film, let alone a mainstream Hollywood product. My grandmother was a teenager when it came out and she said it thoroughly freaked people out.

---

I always love to hear reports from people who were old enough to see Psycho on first release. Even coming along (in my life) five years later with the re-release, I found that the movie STILL freaked people out around me. You weren't supposed to talk about Psycho, you weren't supposed to ask about it -- with the adults. Kids "in the know" talked about all the time in my circles.

Around the time I first saw North by Northwest and Psycho (about four years apart), I "paired" them as the two greatest thrillers of all time -- one in the action category, one in the horror category. All these years later, North by Northwest is still great, but really doesn't come close to the "content impact" of Psycho -- you can see the BIG difference between two films I once "linked as a pair."

And I was being facetious about the "bottle of Bosco" making the difference. The blood did make a difference, but so did the shocking cinematic wizardry of the murders(and their music) and...sometimes I think above all...that great big, creepy "possessed" House -- which screams "A movie" where the rest of the film feels rather like a well-made b.

---

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

It focuses on things that polite cinema wouldn't: a blatantly sexually motivated killing, for one thing.

---

There you go. Whatever the shrink's explanation, I think once we learn that Norman is the killer, his peeping on naked Marion is a pretty clear rationale for her murder. (He couldn't rape her, so he killed her.)

When I saw Frenzy in 1972 at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood, they put a sign up out front with NYT critic Vincent Canby's assessment in big letters:

"FRENZY is the best movie about a sex murderer since PSYCHO."

Hmm. Whatever sells, I guess...

CONT

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 2 years ago

I always love to hear reports from people who were old enough to see Psycho on first release. Even coming along (in my life) five years later with the re-release, I found that the movie STILL freaked people out around me. You weren't supposed to talk about Psycho, you weren't supposed to ask about it -- with the adults. Kids "in the know" talked about all the time in my circles.
--
I love hearing those stories too. People were way less desensitized then-- the movies must have been more fun at times.

But you know, Psycho can still work that old magic. I went to a college screening a few years ago. My friends and I had to walk back to the dorms in the dark at night-- and we were all quite nervous doing so because of the movie! Psycho also happens to be one of the few horror movies my mom will watch and she freaks during the scene with Lila in the house, searching through the rooms, unaware of what's in the basement.

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 2 years ago

There are, to be sure, different types of thrillers (or more to the point, there WERE.) To go along with the murder-a-minute slashers, we had "prestige thrillers" like Charade, Wait Until Dark, the grisly Marathon Man and the grislier Silence of the Lambs...in which there were very long stretches without killings. (Indeed, does it not take Silence of the Lambs OVER AN HOUR before Lecter kills those cops?)
--
This is true, though I still think audience impatience applies. A lot of later thrillers also just try to jump to the shocks and action ASAP-- compare Wait Until Dark to similar home invasion thrillers like Panic Room-- or Penthouse North if you want a straight ripoff. Those movies have the violence start very quickly and don't bother with slow burn situations or the gradual building of tension. And I have to say, I found neither of those two thrillers as exciting or intense as Wait because that movie allows us to get cozy with the main character and her apartment before the villains disrupt everything. The same applies to Silence of the Lambs and Marathon Man-- they all have an ominous tone, but you get involved and frightened by them because of how well they allow us to get to know the characters.

What makes those movies "prestige" anyway? Because they have stars? Or because all of those focus on characters as much as they do thrills? Both? (Does Jaws count as prestige? I don't remember it being schlocky and from what I recall, it focused a lot on the motivations and feelings of the main characters.) For all the shocks these movies deliver, I care deeply about Clarice Starling, Susy Hendrix, and Babe Levy. These movies sketch them out as more than waling targets for some wicked character. They feel like real people, even with the big movie stars playing them and thus bringing a sense of familiarity to the proceedings.

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 2 years ago

For "laughs," I one time constructed how you could do Psycho with "a lot of killings" (and one "final girl."):

First, Marion and Arbogast,as we have it.

We know from the movie that Sheriff Chambers also went out there to investigate...but came back alive.

Well...what if he didn't. So mother slashes HIM. That's three murders.

And let's say that we learn that Arbogast contacted Lowery and Cassidy and told them about the Bates Motel. So those two guys fly to Fairvale(or nearby), go to the motel and house and -- get killed. That's FIVE murders.

And let's say -- in the modern slasher tradition -- Sam proves to be a useless hero and Mrs. Bates kills HIM.
That's SIX murders. (Five men and one women, if you are counting.)

Then write Lila as the "final girl" who somehow kills Norman/Mother.

Awful, isn't it? And yet that might very well be the story of Psycho circa 1987 if it was first made that year(with changes.)
--
Tarantino would probably think that was all an improvement.

Okay, okay, I kid... kind of.

But yeah, that would be awful. Later filmmakers definitely learned the wrong lessons from Psycho. About the only super-Psycho derived film that got it was De Palma's Sisters, I think. The film is bloodier, but it also does the protagonist bait and switch, and the psychology of the killer is as tricky as Norman's was, but in a way that isn't too derivative or obvious.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

There are, to be sure, different types of thrillers (or more to the point, there WERE.) To go along with the murder-a-minute slashers, we had "prestige thrillers" like Charade, Wait Until Dark, the grisly Marathon Man and the grislier Silence of the Lambs...in which there were very long stretches without killings. (Indeed, does it not take Silence of the Lambs OVER AN HOUR before Lecter kills those cops?)
--
This is true, though I still think audience impatience applies.

--

Yes. Jaws is probably the template with its opening killing(the naked woman). Then we get some character set up and the dilemma(the mayor won't close the beaches) and then we get a SECOND killing(the boy at the beach, just a brilliant classic scene with the innocent of the victim -- it makes sure we see the shark as BAD). A long stretch ensues before the next killing(the lifeguard) but in it we meet Quint and Hooper and we get the "bonus scare"of the head in the submerged boat, etc. The pace never flags even if the killings("murders"?) decrease for awhile. And it all leads to "the big one at the end": Quint, a major character played by a major star(the other victims were not) in all its graphic hide-nothing glory.

I linger on Jaws because I realize how -- 15 years after Psycho -- it really DID set a new pace on horror thrills and kills in a movie. Four killings to Psycho's two (plus one bonus head), two killings up front and then long stretches between deaths to the end.

And this: The Exorcist -- the "superthriller" between Psycho and Jaws -- eschewed what those movies were about -- "the monster creeps up, jumps out and kills you" -- and went for a rather continual series of "gross out" scenes with the possessed girl.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

A lot of later thrillers also just try to jump to the shocks and action ASAP-- compare Wait Until Dark to similar home invasion thrillers like Panic Room-- or Penthouse North if you want a straight ripoff.

---

I"m not familiar with Penthouse North - I'll check that out. I do recall feeling that Panic Room just couldn't bring back the magic of Wait Until Dark...THESE home invaders were missing a key "type"(Alan Arkin's type) and as I recall(the movie has faded) they were just more "all business" about their crime, even WITH a psycho on board.

--Those movies have the violence start very quickly and don't bother with slow burn situations or the gradual building of tension.

--

My memory of seeing Wait Until Dark with a full house in 1968(it was a late 67 release) was of a teenage audience that was bored and chattering through the first act -- but that got more and more quiet and engrossed in the story as it went along and soon became a mass of terrified screaming participants in the screen action.

I didn't notice it at ALL at the time(too young) but the three act STAGE structure of Wait Until Dark is clear and Act One is linked to Act One of the same playwrights other mystery play Dial M for Murder. In Act One, our compelling villain(suave Ray Milland in Dial M; funny-creepy Alan Arkin in Wait Until Dark)...weaves a witty, ever-darkening web around a helpless accomplice (two in WUD) to his upcoming crime. As we have discussed, Act One in WUD is far hipper than Dial M -- and frankly it is far hipper than anything I can remember in Panic Room.

---
CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

And I have to say, I found neither of those two thrillers as exciting or intense as Wait because that movie allows us to get cozy with the main character and her apartment before the villains disrupt everything.

---
Yes..and things get a lot of traction given the audience's great regard for Audrey Hepburn...and our concern for this blind version of her.

---
The same applies to Silence of the Lambs and Marathon Man-- they all have an ominous tone, but you get involved and frightened by them because of how well they allow us to get to know the characters.

---

Well, I suppose when you have the budget to hire Hepburn, Hoffman..Olivier..you are pretty well required to give them some good, lengthy scenes to get established as people. The unknowns in the Friday the 13th movies(and their ilk) are set up as victims, with minimal characterization (nice, goofy, mean, sexy) because there is no INTEREST in telling their stories.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

What makes those movies "prestige" anyway? Because they have stars? Or because all of those focus on characters as much as they do thrills? Both?

---

That's a good question! I suppose when I say " a prestige thriller" I'm saying that it is NOT a Friday the 13th(or that film's many even cheaper and worse slasher knock offs.) A prestige thriller is different than a prestige DRAMA like The Last Emperor or There Will Be Blood at an Ivory-Merchant film.

But yeah -- a "prestige thriller" is one with Cary Grant in it, or Audrey Hepburn, or Dustin Hoffman or Robert Redford and frankly -- those aren't made much anymore with the stars we have today (oddly I recall one called The Tourist with Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie which didn't work at all.)

---

(Does Jaws count as prestige? I don't remember it being schlocky and from what I recall, it focused a lot on the motivations and feelings of the main characters.)

---

Jaws is ABSOLUTELY prestige. The proof was in how bad the sequels were -- they showed that the same element ("shark attacks people") could premise a cheesy horror movie. (3 and 4 were beyond consideration, but even 2 - with Roy Scheider, Lorraine Gary, and Murray Hamilton back -- showed how the story could be made weightless and silly (too many permed teenagers who looked like they were about to sing the "I"m a Pepper" theme song -- I date myself.) The absence of Shaw and Dreyfuss in 2 was pretty fatal (though I often feel that the absence of Brando and Caan in Godfather II was just as troubling.)

---

CONT

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 2 years ago

Jaws is ABSOLUTELY prestige. The proof was in how bad the sequels were -- they showed that the same element ("shark attacks people") could premise a cheesy horror movie. (3 and 4 were beyond consideration, but even 2 - with Roy Scheider, Lorraine Gary, and Murray Hamilton back -- showed how the story could be made weightless and silly (too many permed teenagers who looked like they were about to sing the "I"m a Pepper" theme song -- I date myself.) The absence of Shaw and Dreyfuss in 2 was pretty fatal (though I often feel that the absence of Brando and Caan in Godfather II was just as troubling.)
--
That's part of why I have always avoided the sequels. All it can do is waste one's time.

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 2 years ago

That's a good question! I suppose when I say " a prestige thriller" I'm saying that it is NOT a Friday the 13th(or that film's many even cheaper and worse slasher knock offs.) A prestige thriller is different than a prestige DRAMA like The Last Emperor or There Will Be Blood at an Ivory-Merchant film.

But yeah -- a "prestige thriller" is one with Cary Grant in it, or Audrey Hepburn, or Dustin Hoffman or Robert Redford and frankly -- those aren't made much anymore with the stars we have today (oddly I recall one called The Tourist with Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie which didn't work at all.)
--
Oh, ok makes sense!

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 2 years ago

I"m not familiar with Penthouse North - I'll check that out.
--
Easy enough to find on either IMDB TV or Netflix. It is BAD. It's basically a Wait Until Dark remake in all but name: a newly blind woman is targeted by two thieves who break into her NYC apartment in search of stolen diamonds. The only big differences are that this movie eschews the con and the husband is actually in league with the criminals. And while that last part sounds like it could be interesting, trust me, they do nothing much with it at all. The movie is plodding and dull. It even rips off the jump scare.
--
I do recall feeling that Panic Room just couldn't bring back the magic of Wait Until Dark...THESE home invaders were missing a key "type"(Alan Arkin's type) and as I recall(the movie has faded) they were just more "all business" about their crime, even WITH a psycho on board.
--
I admire Panic Room more than I like it. It's got great moments, but it's too overproduced and too long. A more taut runtime (under 2 hours) would have made a big difference. Jodie Foster is good as the heroine and I like Forrest Whittaker as the sympathetic crook (basically the Crenna character in WUD), but the other two weren't fit to wipe Arkin's sunglasses. I think Fincher pulled a better Hitchcock style thriller with The Game back in 1997.

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 2 years ago

My memory of seeing Wait Until Dark with a full house in 1968(it was a late 67 release) was of a teenage audience that was bored and chattering through the first act -- but that got more and more quiet and engrossed in the story as it went along and soon became a mass of terrified screaming participants in the screen action.
--
Yeah, teens aren't the best at handling long exposition scenes I imagine... though I must admit, I love that scene with the criminals in Act I. The tension is already simmering in the power play between the three characters and the dialogue is great.

And this might just be my age talking, but it's weird to think of teens going to see a movie like this. Nowadays, it's rare to see teens watch anything but superhero movies or other big "franchise" films in a theater, if they go to a theater at all.
--
I didn't notice it at ALL at the time(too young) but the three act STAGE structure of Wait Until Dark is clear and Act One is linked to Act One of the same playwrights other mystery play Dial M for Murder.
--
Yes, the movie doesn't try to hide its stage origins, which I think works to its benefit. Hitchcock even said if you're adapting a play, you shouldn't try to open it up too much because that can dilute what makes the original story so powerful.
--
As we have discussed, Act One in WUD is far hipper than Dial M -- and frankly it is far hipper than anything I can remember in Panic Room.
--
Yeah, probably because WUD was adapted by screenwriters in their 30s, as opposed to the 50-something Knott. As for Panic Room, it was written by a guy in his late 30s, but the direction is definitely tricked out with flashy CG effects and fast editing that just scream early 2000s. I guess that would be something of a "hip" factor for the time.

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 2 years ago

And this: The Exorcist -- the "superthriller" between Psycho and Jaws -- eschewed what those movies were about -- "the monster creeps up, jumps out and kills you" -- and went for a rather continual series of "gross out" scenes with the possessed girl.
--
I saw that movie for the first time last year. I found the most disturbing scenes were less the supernatural pea soup vomitting sessions or the levitating objects, and more the mother frightened and unsure of what to do about her daughter. That's another film that feels rather slow for a modern audience (I've seen it labeled as boring before), but I think it's great in developing a slow-burning sense of dread and desperation.

I suppose what's scarier than the gross-outs there is the idea of evil being so powerful-- that a demon could possess someone so innocent and that there's almost nothing the heroes can do about it. Even the priests have a hard time.

I will say as far as "satanic" horror goes, I prefer Rosemary's Baby, perhaps because it gets so psychological with Rosemary being gaslit and controlled by seemingly friendly people, people she should be able to trust. And the ending is truly chilling.

Still haven't gotten through The Omen, that other big demon-centered horror hit. My friend's DVD broke when we had it on.