Lila Crane found out not too long ago that her sister is in fact dead, yet she sits there calmly listening to the doctor guy explain Norman's condition
If some freak murdered my sister I'd be bawling my eyes out or smashing things. I wouldn't give a damn if they had a split personality, I'd have zero interest in that moment listening to a lecture
Wow. What a new opinion.
sharePsycho has one of the best movie endings of all time. The best being Se7en and Usual Suspects. When Psycho came out, no one ever heard of a split personality and in true Hitchcock tradition, the trigger was sexual.
share"When Psycho came out, no one ever heard of a split personality"
"Multiple Personality Disorder" or "Dissociative Identity Disorder" has been known and documented since the 19th century...
When I first saw "Psycho", I was slightly annoyed that the shrink in that scene spent so much time rabbiting on about a subject that was pretty much common knowledge to any reasonably well-read person... (even waaaay back in the ancient 1960s.)
Not in film and not used in court trials. And not paired with a serial killer. DID wasn’t even a term until 1994. There were debates early on that it didn’t exist. Sybil is the movie that unleashed the topic of multiple personality disorder and that was 1976. So even for the well read, most were clueless. After a time, it’s been used often enough and even faked.
Until Psycho, in film, there was Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - dual personalities brought on by a serum. But that really doesn’t count. There was the great movie, Three Faces of Eve - but she wasn’t a criminal just a victim. In the summer of 1960, Psycho was a true gem for the audience - a real novelty on all fronts. The 45-second shower scene was a phenomenon. The girl swimming at night in Jaws was another one. The slew of slasher movies that had a history of trauma in a character’s past followed in the 60s - Strait Jacket, Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte. This became a new genre - all because of this movie. To this day people traveling on an isolated road planning to stay at a motel for the night can’t help but think of the Bates Motel and squirm. Oakland’s long spiel at the end just explains things that were not known to the audience in that day. People who saw this movie at the time likened it to a roller coaster ride and were screaming and running out of the theater. No one was allowed into the theater once it started. Psycho’s effect on film history is enormous - it challenged sexual taboos and violence. I think for a lot of movies that were sensational in their day might not hold up with time. The Birds was absolutely terrifying and yet a person seeing it much later - well, someone on this chat site said it was childish.
I just have to ask what year did you first see Psycho?
"Oakland’s long spiel at the end just explains things that were not known to the audience in that day."
I disagree. As you pointed out, so-called "Split Personality" was a theme that had been quite often explored in media prior to Psycho. The film-going public and indeed the public generally was well-acquainted with the notion. How could they not be? It was a fascinating phenomenon. Even less well-read people were aware of it. I was, and I was certainly no avid reader back then. Oakland's explanation at the end was totally superfluous.
In fact, Simon Oakland's presence in the film seemed a bad fit altogether, imo. He has a rough, tough persona better suited to a Detective or a cop. Hearing him explain, in his coarse voice, the subtleties of mental illness sounded a bit off. Martin Balsam should have played Oakland's part, and Oakland Martin's part.
That is the only flaw I saw in a film that was otherwise perfect.
.
What year did you first see Psycho?
Did you see Three Faces of Eve?
Why do you ask?
No, I haven't seen Three Faces of Eve.
I think you probably saw it much later and thought the psychiatrist’s explanation unnecessary as everyone knows about a split personality, which I don’t think was the case for that audience at the time. The fact that you didn’t see Three Faces of Eve too says something because I don’t think most people have seen this movie even in 1960, so they wouldn’t have a reference either. But, you are in the majority. Most people can’t stand this part of the movie and think if it was shortened, the movie would be perfect. And that goes for Roger Ebert.
But for me, this explanation Oakland gives is crucial. First of all, I hadn’t realized Norman may have killed other women. They mention there are young girls who are missing and to drag the lake. So, Norman is a potential serial killer. Second, I didn’t realize Norman’s mom got a lover and Norman killed both mom and the lover. After being the only one in his mom’s life, it must have been difficult for Norman to allow another male in the house. But it was the guilt of killing mom that was overwhelming to him and drove him to “bring her back,” and he did - her corpse. That way he could pretend she’s still alive and mimic conversations. Kind of like a ventriloquist. This is all relevant to the story and is different than multiple personalities who have been created but not split. In Sybil, there were 16 personalities - but they weren’t friends or family members - and later it turned out she faked them all. (About 2%-14% are faked in a setting that is not properly monitored.) With Norman, he didn’t create any personalities, he just became his mother. But most viewers and critics are of the the same opinion as you.
Well, giving my age away here, which I didn't want to do, but I first saw Psycho when it was first released in this country, in 1960. I recall my Dad being a bit perturbed that I wanted to go see it. And even on that very first viewing, Simon Oakland's talk at the end seemed superfluous to me. I remember thinking, Oh no, they put some Folk Psychology in it! I was only able to quell my disappointment by reminding myself that there just might be some people in the audience who didn't know about such psychiatric conditions in people. Older people, perhaps.
Even though Oakland took pains to explain Norman's condition, I immediately thought, "Split Personality", and I'm sure most of the audience would have, too. Because that subject had been publicised elsewhere widely already. Oakland's mentioning of Norman's other victims, and his earlier murder of his mother's lover, was just "By the way, he did this stuff too". But by that stage in the talk, we were already thinking, "Split Personality"
Granted, we all interpreted Oakland's explanation incorrectly. Norman's problem was far worse than simple Dissociative Identity Disorder. But we did know about "Split Personality", and we did take it that this was Norman's problem. Movie audiences tend not to delve too deeply into esoteric details, as long as the movie is entertaining. By this stage in "Psycho", the audience would have believed anything!
That's my answer to your contention that, "When Psycho came out, no one ever heard of a split personality".
:)
I am so happy I joined this discussion with you. Probably the most fascinating and relevant input I’ve had on this movie chat site - reminds me of when IMDB boards were up. Well, so I change everything I said - if you felt that at the very beginning, then I see it. Also, I am not sure Simon Oakland is the bet casting for a psychiatrist. I keep seeing him as the police commander in Bullitt. But - what I remember most of all from Psycho was Perkins’ eyes - his stare. And, of course, that lingering camera shot of Janet Leigh’s eye after her murder in the shower. Everything else was just creepy in this movie. I was actually more jolted with The Birds, if you can believe it.
What was your general feeling though when you first saw Psycho. We’re you shocked. What were your first feelings. I am blown away.
Well thanks for that. Nice to talk to someone who doesn't get antagonised by an argument. That's rare on forums. :)
And yes, Simon Oakland was the wrong fit. I see one Jere Henshaw was the casting director. He must have been very influential because Hitchcock is generally regarded as an auteur, and would surely have preferred Martin Balsam to do Oakland's role, and vice versa. Maybe it was a case of Hitchcock casting against type this time.
Every time I watch Psycho, I try to see the slightest motion in Janet Leigh's eye in that shot. But there's none. For that bit of acting alone, she deserves praise.
My general feeling when I first saw Psycho was of slight trepidation. Because I had seen trailers and read articles about it, (the trailers at the cinema and the articles in the printed newspaper.) They built it up quite a bit. I remember thinking that I hoped it wasn't too gruesome, otherwise my parents would very likely forbid me going to see similar movies again. I needn't have worried. No movie is similar to Psycho..
Once it started I was riveted, as I always am when watching a Hitchcock film. I don't think I missed a single frame of film in the whole 110 minutes. The only time I blinked was when the skull emerged superimposed over Norman's evil grin. I thought, "Did I really just see a skull or was I imagining it?"
I don't think I was actually shocked by anything in the film, but that was because I expected to be shocked, and so I had braced myself for it. I certainly had moments of "Oh shit!", and a constant feeling of slight dread throughout. Mostly I was enthralled by how true the film felt. Everything proceeded perfectly naturally and logically, and that's what made it believable. It is one of the very few films I know which has absolutely no flat spots, no "boring bits", and no unnecessary scenes.
Your excerpt should be in a book. It is really well written and informative and rare. Had you seen other Hitchcock movies beforehand? Do you have favorites?
I always liked The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1970). It is kind of similar to Psycho - and that long explanation at the end by a psychologist.
I have seen all of Hitchcock’s films and recall some of his TV episodes. He had quite an affect on French directors - Clouzot, Chabrol, Truffaut, Malle. I know he was in awe of Antonioni’s Blow Up. So was I. For some reason, I was always partial to Marnie even though it isn’t great like Vertigo, it had something. His earlier movies, The Lady Vanishes and 39 Steps, I love as well. To Catch a Thief got me to Nice because I fell in love with the locale even though the flower market was filmed elsewhere.
Like another here said, this came out in 1960 when most people would not have understood his condotion. Also it's a book first and that scene was in the book though it was a bit different with Sam going to see the doctor and telling Lila. Lila forgives Norman in the book and feels bad about his past.
shareI didn't mind the exposition dump, but I don't buy that Lila would sit there calmly after just having confirmed her sister is dead
They changed a lot about the book, they could have also changed that
If some freak murdered my sister I'd be bawling my eyes out or smashing things. I wouldn't give a damn if they had a split personality, I'd have zero interest in that moment listening to a lecture
--
In Joseph Stefano's published screenplay -- the one used for the movie but with some scenes cut out -- Lila DOES cry when the psychiatrist tells her her sister is dead. Indeed, Stefano goes the extra mile here, writing something like "Lila cries for Marion, for Arbogast, for all the dead and murdered souls in the world." Hey at least he gave Arbogast some credit.
Psycho scholar Stephen Rebello got some "guess quotes" from Stefano that Hitchcock simply didn't want to mess up his horror shocker with tears. (The film actually has quite a lot of lingering sadness anyway.)
Hitchcock also did away with a scene between Sam and Lila as they drive to the Bates Motel for the climax. We learn that the parents of Marion and Lila are dead; that Marion as the older sister quit school to work to take care of her sister. It really fills in some emotional blanks -- and helps explain why Lila will go ANYWHERE to find Marion.
But Hitchcock cut it all, except some "accelerating thriller talk":
Sam: We better decide what we're gonna say when we get there.
Lila: We're going to register as man and wife, and then we're going to search every inch of the place, inside and out.
Oooh.. Suspense.
So Hitchcock cut the back story. Maybe didn't even film that stuff.
There is this: Gossip is that Hitchcock didn't like John Gavin ,because he was forced on Hitchcock by agent Lew Wasserman after Hitchcock had picked Stuart Whitman for Sam. And Hitchcock didn't much like Vera Miles because she had backed out of the lead in Vertigo. (She did Psycho as a cheap contract job for Hitch to keep costs down.)
CONT
Hitch went so far years later as to tell one interviewer: "You know, people don't really even remember that Miles and Gavin were in the picture. Its rather sad for them."
Ouch. Mean Hitchcock -- getting some revenge on actors he didn't like. Well, I think history has proved him wrong. Vera Miles is VERY much remembered for Psycho -- especially in the fruit cellar -- and she got Psycho 2. And I contend that John Gavin was fine and fitting as Sam. Viggo Mortensen in the remake was too "hick-y."
That's a shame if Hitchcock butchered the emotional core of his own masterpiece just to settle a few scores
But from what little I know of Hitchcock it does sound like something he would do
I still think it's one of the greatest thrillers of all time, but as somebody who has a sister that I love very much the ending went beyond my personal ability to suspend disbelief
It's like finding a dead bug at the bottom of one of the nicest meals you ever had
I appreciate you adding this context though. It's very interesting. I love movie production history
Thought I would toss it in there. Thank you for reading it. I read it in a couple of books.
Having read the script (it is on line), I always notice that those scenes are missing when I watch the movie.
Still...its a great movie even without them. I do feel "the pulse quickening" when Lila in the car indeed ONLY gets that one line to set up the suspense(...and then we're gonna search the whole place, inside and out."): the movie is always moving the characters BACK to the Bates Motel as quickly as possible because when they go there, they aren't safe, and the suspense kicks in.
And it has been said that in 1960, people were still screaming, or mumbling, or laughing, after the big fruit cellar climax..."nobody listened to the shrink."
My pleasure. I like reading online scripts too! I haven't read Psycho, but I have read the ones for many of my other favorites like Taxi Driver and Rosemary's Baby
share[deleted]