MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > "My Psycho is Not Your Psycho": PART FO...

"My Psycho is Not Your Psycho": PART FOUR (The End)

posted 2 years ago by ecarle (14979)
11 replies | jump to latest

I've been pondering how to bring these posts to an end. Its been gracious of the powers that be to allow them, but I do think that maybe someone will read at least some of them and understand what I'm looking to impart with them.

Part of it is to make sure that somewhere, at one time, some "historical facts" were doled out about Psycho -- things from books and newspaper articles and Variety trade pieces and magazines that have, in many cases, been lost and/or out of print. I liked the idea of sharing them here.

Example: an old 1961 newspaper interview with Anthony Perkins where he spoke of the forthcoming Oscar nominations and Psycho: "I think I'll get nominated -- Janet, too." I've NEVER heard an actor predict their own Oscar nomination, and the embarrassing outcome for Perkins tells us why actors should NOT do this. Janet Leigh WAS nominated(Supporting); Anthony Perkins was not.

And I read that somewhere, years ago, and I decided to share it here because...a little bit of Oscar history, no?

But as for my Psycho not being your Psycho, the split personality in me wishes to close out with (1) The "macro" (Psycho in movie history known to all) and (2) The "micro" (Psycho as specifically known and experienced by me.

Which to choose first? Well, I've decided to choose the one element that I think is shared by macro and micro:

This concept: For about 10 years after it was first released in 1960 and had a long summer's run and was withdrawn...none of us knew if Psycho would ever COME BACK. Was it gone forever?

That's how movies used to be back then in 1960. They didn't end up on cable TV in a few months, and on video a few weeks after that , and then permanently available to own or stream.

They were GONE.

Psycho was a big deal in 1960, but it was only a much-remembere MEMORY in 1961 and 1962, 1963, and 1964. As with all great movies of that time, fans couldn't HAVE it. They could only remember it. And tell others about it.

Five years after its first release, Psycho got a re-release in March of 1965. That's when it entered my life, but only as discussion on the playground, on the block, and at home. I couldn't SEE it, and within only a couple of weeks, it was gone again.

And none of us knew if it was EVER coming back.

Well, over a year later, it SEEMED to come back. CBS advertised it and said they would show it. But they didn't. And Psycho went away, and none of us knew if it was EVER coming back.

Over a year LATER, in Los Angeles at least, it came back -- for real. That late night showing in November of 1967. Those billboards. And...only a few months after that, they showed it again. February 1968.

Only last year, I found a FLORIDA newspaper article about Psycho coming to local TV in 1967 as well(Miami.) Wrote the TV critic: "I never thought i was going to see Psycho again." So I wasn't alone.

After that 1968 LA showing, Psycho went away again. And then came back in 1969 at THEATERS ("See the version of Psycho that TV dared not Show".) And then it went away again for a long time. Almost two years. But we didn't know if it would EVER come back.

By late 1970, Psycho was finally a "syndication staple." You didn't know WHEN it was going to come back, but you knew that it would come back..about once a year. There was no home video taping in the 70's(except for rich Hollywood folk), so you just had to hope you'd be home when it was on. Otherwise...wait til next year. Or go see it at a college or revival theater when it showed up there.

It was only in 1982 when home VHS really took off that -- suddenly -- Psycho was ours to keep. We never had to worry about it "going away" again. And while this was a gift of sorts, it also took some of the yearning and the mystery away. You never had to wonder where that movie was, again. You could pull it off the shelf anytime.

And then all those other ways to see or have Psycho came along: VHS, cable TV(in America, on the old American Movie Classics network and now on TCM), DVD(the best), streaming, YouTube.

YouTube. Now, the movie that I had to wait YEARS to see is right here in my hand. Pull out my cell phone, I can watch Psycho -- two inches wide - anytime, anywhere.

And that's where the "macro" comes in.

There was a local movie critic back in 1984 -- a regular guy, not high falutin' -- who wrote "I am so grateful to be alive in the time when Steven Spielberg is making movies." That's a rather raw, almost child-like confession but hey...when you really LOVE movies and the role they have in your "off the clock life," they ARE that important.

I'm not sure if I'm grateful, but I am amazed that I have lived in a time to see a movie like Psycho go from: Movie theater(and drive-in), to network TV(cancelled, and hey,those network broadcasts used to be a BIG DEAL for TV ratings), to local affiliate broadcast TV, to VHS, to cable TV , to DVD, to streaming...and to a cell phone in the palm of my hand.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

About all I missed (or I'd be a lot older) was the 30s and 40's when folks had no TV, only radio programs at home and had to go OUT for their movies at a theater. Other than that, I've lived through it all.

And "Psycho" WAS a pretty big deal through those decades, what with its two re-releases, its network cancellation(the ONLY time that happened to a movie), its role as one of the first movies released on VHS.

What lies ahead for the movies, technically? Well, Hitchcock amused himself with the idea of having people experience movie suspense and thrills just by hooking their brains up to wires and simulating the movie. Maybe THAT's what's coming next.

Still, what an incredible run of the movies -- from 1960 to 2022. What a great life of watching them.

Now to the "micro":

But why...Psycho?

I'm convinced its a matter of my age when it first arrived. I WAS too young to take it for granted. It DID scare me...even in the years I didn't get to see it. Simply by IMAGINING it. By the stimulation of those billboards - with that house and that motel and Anthony Perkins with his hand over his mouth and being told that the murders in the film were the bloodiest scariest things ever allowed in a movie.

And then seeing photos of those murders in Hitchcock/Truffaut.

And it was rather a "life's blessing" to have one movie scare me THAT much.

You grow up and get sophisticated about horror pretty quick. At least I did. The Exorcist didn't scare me. Jaws didn't scare me(excited me , yes -- that's a different matter.) Alien didn't scare me(hey, there were some laughs to that chest buster scene.

And when I finally SAW it (the early 70's) Psycho didn't scare me.

Except maybe that one time I saw it with a screaming full house audience. I walked out into the darkness feeling some of the fear that it must have created in 1960.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

And except maybe that one time I was house sitting an empty house all alone and it came on late at night...suddenly a movie I'd see more than a few times FELT a bit more scary than it had in years.

But no..Psycho was scary to me at just the right time in my life...maybe the only time in my life..that it COULD scare me. When I was too young to see it. When I couldn't see it. When it was told to me and the scenes took on a terrifying size and shape(and blood) beyond what was in the movie itself.

Not to mention...that house...that motel...when you are that young, you think about them being REAL in some way. Just out there off the main highway. With the most dire and horrifying events taking place there.

Writer Raymond Durgnat wrote something hard to understand but somehow true about Psycho: that it gave people a "creeping nostalgia for evil." I think perhaps that is borne out now in that a lot of us have WARM feelings towards Psycho. Warm feelings towards a more innocent America of 1960 (let alone the world) that could be SO terrified by THAT. Towards a movie that never abandons the feelings and humanity of its characters (tragic Marion, unfortunate Arbogast, sad Lila -- deeply inscrutable Norman) and, for all the fantastical nature of those shots of the house, feels like "this could really happen."

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

But none of this really tells the "micro" tale. Now that I'm done with this, the greatest feeling I have about it is that no one can EVER know exactly what Psycho FELT like to me back then, SEEMED like..there is no way to communicate how I SAW that motel and that shower and those murders in my minds eye that formative year of my youth. It will always boil down to the first time I saw that billboard for the 1967 local TV showing: everything in it(the house, the Frankenstein man standing in front of it, Perkins -- the IDEA of the shower scene) scared the hell out of me, particularly framed against a dark night sky in Los Angeles long ago.

That's the Psycho that, unfortunately in some ways, but very fortunately in others, can only be mine.

[–] GolfnGuitars (3098) 2 years ago

I've always enjoyed your analysis of "Psycho" and all of the great discussions you've had here and the old IMDB boards over the years. I really can't bring anything to the table that hasn't been brought here before. I think it's Hitchcock's best movie also and obviously one of the greatest movies ever made. Even today, there's just something about this movie that sucks you in when you watch it.
FYI, I'm a little bit younger than you (I'll be 54 next year), but my brother (who's two years younger than me) and I first became familiar with Hitchcock back in the mid-80s, with the "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" revival that aired on NBC. I didn't get to see every single one of them, but we really loved the stories and we finally rented "Psycho" and watched it (either 1986 or 1987...I can't remember the exact year). I do remember that, when we watched it, we were on Spring Break in high school and we watched it in the middle of the day...and it was a sunny, warm day (not usually the conditions you think about when watching this movie). But the greatness of "Psycho" still was evident to us...we both enjoyed it very much. I've rewatched it several times since then...but you never really forget your first time with this movie, it seems.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Well, thank you for reading, GolfnGuitars. Its there for the taking -- one person's "journey" with one film across what turned out to an entire history of changes to the way that movies are distributed -- broadcast TV, local syndication, VHS, cable, pay cable, DVD, streaming, the internet, the cell phone..what a journey.

But with Psycho, the journey began when I was considered too young to see it and so it got to the forbidden fruit memory of a lifetime and -- best of all -- something that I can not ever REALLY describe in its effect on me "way back then."

If I was born even ten years later than my birthyear, I can't be sure that Psycho would have mattered much at all. But the way I landed in this life...it mattered a lot.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

I think it's Hitchcock's best movie also

---

I'm always a bit amused (with myself, I guess) when there are internet lists of "Hitchcock's movies ranked" and Psycho does NOT reach Number One. Quite frankly, that happens a lot. More often than not, the Number One is Notorious or Rear Window or Vertigo and Psycho sort of gets the bum's rush "its his most famous movie and biggest hit, but he made better movies..."

Nope, I just don't buy that. Psycho was an event when it came out, an event across the entire sixties and remains an event of sorts today -- it is shown a LOT in high schools and colleges, from what I've read and been told.

The "cheapjack" aspect of Psycho -- like the bathroom at the car lot where Marion counts out her cash -- makes it seem less great than Vertigo with its gorgeous Technicolor vistas. The absence of romance(after Leigh and Gavin's opening tryst) makes something like Rear Window or Notorious seem more "regular" in the Hitchcock canon. But no...Psycho is in a whole other place..apart from the rest of Hitchcock's work.
CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Obviously one of the greatest movies ever made.

--

The American Film Institute did a list of the 100 greatest films of the 20th Century and Psycho landed in the top 20.

The American Film Institute did a list of the 1000 greatest thrillers and Psycho came out Number ONE. With these following it:

Psycho
Jaws
The Exorcist
North by Northwest(Hitchcock again.)

..and while we are at it, if I couldn't choose Psycho as Hitchcock's Number One, I would pick North by Northwest over Rear Window or Vertigo or Notorious, and yet these ranking lists NEVER choose NXNW for the spot.

---

Even today, there's just something about this movie that sucks you in when you watch it.

---

Yes, there is. Its not even a matter of being scary or shocking anymore. I think this has to do with what some have written of as the "hypnotic effect" of the movie. Hitchcock had a musical metronome that was used in the shooting of some scenes and the editing of some scenes, I have read, and the scenes are generally blocked out in increments of "3" -- 3 minutes, 6 minutes, 9 minutes. All of this gives Psycho a kind of almost "musical" rhythm and creates a PLEASING sense of pace even among the skills (I would use the example of the sequence from when Norman walks away from the peephole, then through the office, then out on the porch, then looks up at the house, then walks up the hill -- the camera movement, the editing, Herrmann's thrumming, bleak music...it all works.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

FYI, I'm a little bit younger than you

---

Who isn't, around here? Heh. But this board has an older crowd than most.

And I'm young at heart.

---

(I'll be 54 next year),

--

I remember that age!

--

but my brother (who's two years younger than me) and I first became familiar with Hitchcock back in the mid-80s, with the "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" revival that aired on NBC. I didn't get to see every single one of them, but we really loved the stories and we finally rented "Psycho" and watched it (either 1986 or 1987...I can't remember the exact year).

---

It does seem that Hitchcock had a weird "second career" in the 80's. REALLY weird when you think that he died IN 1980. And yet he had a very successful 1980s! 5 of his films -- including two of his greatest films -- were re-released in accord with his death allowing it(Rear Window, Vertigo, Rope, The Man Who Knew Too Much and The Trouble With Harry.)

There was that Hitchcock Presents re-do(with Hitchcock COLORIZED, another 80's gimmick.)

Psycho got a sequel -- Psycho II(1983) - that was a hit. (I sort of think that Universal waited for Hitchcock to die before besmirching his greatest film with subpar sequels. Psycho III was released in 1986, not as big a hit as II, but I think it is more connected to the original.

...and various books came out about Hitchcock.

So the 80's was a "seminal time" for a new generation to discover Hitch.

---
CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

I do remember that, when we watched it, we were on Spring Break in high school and we watched it in the middle of the day...and it was a sunny, warm day (not usually the conditions you think about when watching this movie).

---

Well, that's true. Psycho never really scared me once I saw it except for one time: when I was housesitting -- alone, at night -- an

I do remember that, when we watched it, we were on Spring Break in high school and we watched it in the middle of the day...and it was a sunny, warm day (not usually the conditions you think about when watching this movie).

---

Well, that's true. The daytime is a hard time to watch horror and get in the mood.

Psycho never really scared me once I saw it except for one time: when I was housesitting -- alone, at night -- and I put a VHS in. As the movie went on, in the dark, late, with me alone, I was amazed to feel it starting to WORK like it used to...because I was a little scared of my situation watching it -- alone, at night, in the dark in a big empty house that was creaking.

---But the greatness of "Psycho" still was evident to us...we both enjoyed it very much.

--

Excellent! In the Big 80s!

---I've rewatched it several times since then...but you never really forget your first time with this movie, it seems.

--

No, you don't. I haven't!

[–] GolfnGuitars (3098) 2 years ago

ecarle wrote: "It does seem that Hitchcock had a weird "second career" in the 80's. REALLY weird when you think that he died IN 1980. And yet he had a very successful 1980s! 5 of his films -- including two of his greatest films -- were re-released in accord with his death allowing it(Rear Window, Vertigo, Rope, The Man Who Knew Too Much and The Trouble With Harry.)

There was that Hitchcock Presents re-do(with Hitchcock COLORIZED, another 80's gimmick.)

Psycho got a sequel -- Psycho II(1983) - that was a hit. (I sort of think that Universal waited for Hitchcock to die before besmirching his greatest film with subpar sequels. Psycho III was released in 1986, not as big a hit as II, but I think it is more connected to the original.

...and various books came out about Hitchcock.

So the 80's was a "seminal time" for a new generation to discover Hitch."

Great points as always, ecarle! My parents subscribed to the magazine "Newsweek" back in the day and I remember seeing their "end of year" issue, where they would list the notable obituaries for the year. They had a nice big write-up on Hitchcock. However, like you said, he really became prominent to my generation in the 80s.

My brother and I loved the "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" of the 80s. At the time, neither one of us realized that most of those episodes, if not all of them, were remakes of his previous show. It was funny how NBC marketed it...they tried to sell it as a "package" with "Amazing Stories," which had Steven Spielberg as an executive producer. However, my brother and I never really got into "Amazing Stories" and didn't really watch it...we liked Hitchcock instead.

[–] GolfnGuitars (3098) 2 years ago

ecarle wrote: " always a bit amused (with myself, I guess) when there are internet lists of "Hitchcock's movies ranked" and Psycho does NOT reach Number One. Quite frankly, that happens a lot. More often than not, the Number One is Notorious or Rear Window or Vertigo and Psycho sort of gets the bum's rush "its his most famous movie and biggest hit, but he made better movies."

I don't get it either. There were three Hitchcock movies that I watched after my dad passed away:
1) "North By Northwest"
2) " Strangers On A Train"
3) "Vertigo"

I enjoyed all 3 movies very much...like you, though, if I had to pick a second-favorite Hitchcock movie, it would be "North By Northwest." It really is a fabulous movie. But...I don't think it's as great as "Psycho" either.