MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > April 1, 2023: Netflix Goes Psycho

April 1, 2023: Netflix Goes Psycho


I was perusing some internet movie articles last week and I came upon "Movies on Netflix in April: Highest rated for the month: Psycho."

Which sort of intrigued me. In this world of streaming to which I have partially committed(I have some, but not all, of the streaming services), my understanding is that all the Universal/Paramount Hitchcock films are on Peacock(an NBC/Universal mix channel.)

Now Psycho is also on Amazon prime...but you have to pay to rent it, every time. (I never have.)

Anyway, here was Psycho being announced as debuting on Netflix on April 1, and today's April 1, and I turned on Netflix and , there it is: Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho 1960. (Though Netflix also has the outrage of that Hindu movie called "Psycho" of a few years ago available. Who DOES that?)

Psycho making it to Netflix strikes me as meaningful in several ways. One is that Universal must be willing to move that movie around to make coin off of it. Will Netflix be showing The Birds and Rear Window and Vertigo soon, too?

Also, it is downright weird to see Psycho in the "thumbnails" surrounded by modern Netflix color movies starring Ryan Reynolds and Adam Sandler and the like. Hitchcock and Psycho MADE IT...to Netflix in 2023.

The thumbnail photo for Psycho is, oddly enough, of Vera Miles and John Gavin facing Anthony Perkins across the motel desk. A little time for Sam and Lila!

On the other hand, as is Netflix's wont, the second you click on Psycho to view, you get a clip from the movie: Janet Leigh is front and center, talking to the highway cop (with his classic warning: "There are plenty of motels in the area...you should have...I mean, just to be safe.") When the Janet Leigh clip ends, the TV screen fills with a photo of the Psycho house. And the clip, the shot of the house, and the shot with Sam/Lila/Norman all have "the greatest movie logo of all time" (PSYCHO, slashed fore and aft) to identify this classic event for what it was.

But this: I started the movie, just to see how it looks on Netflix, and it looks WEIRD.

Netflix seems to have obtained an OLD print of Psycho. It does not begin with the "new" Techniclor Universal logo and musical theme. It begins with the "old" Universal spinning logo of the 60's and 70's, in black and white, and then the original(slashed) Paramount mountain appears, and then the movie proper begins and...

...the screen ratio is "a square box"...like a 1940s movie...or a 16mm print. I mentioned recently how Psycho 1960 is actually close in time to The Big Sleep 1946 and it sure LOOKS like it here...The "box" screen ratio for movies is why all old TVs had a "box" screen.

I don't have the expertise with screen ratios to name the numbers, but I did see Psycho on the big screen a few times, and while it was NOT in Panavision, the screen was somewhat more of a rectangle than a square box. Keep in mind that Hitchcock said he would never work in letterbox sizes "because I use close ups too much , and that wastes the big screen." Even North by Northwest with Mount Rushmore wasn't filmed in Panavision or CinemaScope(it WAS filmed in VistaVision, which never struck me as wide screen.)

So anyway, this print of Psycho on Netflix looks a bit old and flimsy and "square box" in screen ratio...as if Universal could only spare a 16mm rental print to Netflix.

No matter. Psycho is on Netflix, and that's an achievement in the streaming world. More people will see it.

PS. Netflix has recently put up both "The Sting"(1973) and "Animal House"(1978) on the channel; with "Psycho" in the mix, perhaps they have purchased a "Universal blockbuster" package. Good for me. "Animal House" is my favorite movie of 1978; "Psycho" is my favorite movie of 1960, and "The Sting" rather rotates(with American Graffiti and Charley Varrick) as my favorite movie of the "plentiful feast" movie year of 1973.

reply


I think the most important thing here is, and I am no expert but, the transfer currently streaming on Netflix seems to be in the original aspect ratio, which was, I believe, 1.37:1. Pretty close to a, "square box," as you put it. So I imagine the print(s) you have seen in the theater have either been altered or perhaps you just remember them as being wider. Anyway, I gather a number of fans are upset at the letterboxed editions that have been distributed.

I am only guessing but it seems that since he used his Alfred Hitchcock Presents crew, Hitchcock must have also used the same equipment so maybe this accounts for the 1.37:1 ratio which is pretty close to the 4:3 used for TV at the time.

Just by coincidence I watched Psycho last night on TCM. I had no idea Netflix was going to start showing it. This one did have the color Universal logo you described. I did not even think about the ratio at the time. Now I wonder. Usually if it's on TCM it shows up almost immediately on Watch TCM but not always. And when I went to check awhile ago it was not available. The Man with the Golden Arm was shown just prior and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was shown just after and they are both listed in that order but Psycho, which should be right between them, is nowhere to be found. So I won't know until TCM shows it again, if they even do. It is also not listed in the TCM collection at HBO Max.

I agree the Netflix print is not the best. This copy certainly hasn't been touched up. It's not too bad, though, from what little I have seen.

But it's the aspect ratio that's the big deal.

reply

I think the most important thing here is, and I am no expert but, the transfer currently streaming on Netflix seems to be in the original aspect ratio, which was, I believe, 1.37:1.
It's my understanding that Psycho was originally projected at between 1.66-1 and 1.85-1 - theaters had to set mattes properly to get this right. In many TV and VHS presentations of Psycho, however, the full-frame/open-matte image was used (which famously led to passing cars being visible in the distance at the top of the frame in swamp shots). If Netflix is showing Psycho in 1.37-1 now they are making a mistake. Here's how IMDb summarizes the situation:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054215/technical/?ref_=tt_ql_dts_4
Note that *some* famous movies from the 1950s, esp. On The Waterfront, seem to have been originally projected both with mattes and without, and the DP in that case, Boris Kaufman, is on record as saying that he shot the film to be watchable both full-frame and in standard wide-screen. I actually tend to think that OTW suffers from this policy: whichever asp. ratio you settle for some shots just look wrong (i.e., you either have way too much head room or way too little - you end up having to choose your poison when you watch at home). Psycho isn't like that: all of its shots feel well-framed at 1.85-1 and many shots feel not well-framed at 1.37-1.

reply


This is all very interesting. First, I should take back what I said about ecarle remembering it wrong. Obviously he was seeing it as it was intended to be shown in the theatre.

Netflix is definitely showing Psycho at 1.37:1. I saw what you mentioned in the scene where Norman has just disposed of Arbogast. There is a large truck driving through the background. That is so unlike Hitchcock.

I ran across an article which opined that Hitchcock shot at 1.37:1 for the original, knowing it would be matted for theatrical exhibition because he did not want it to be subjected to pan and scan for eventual viewing on television although he never stated this. But it makes sense. Still, I wonder why he didn't retake that scene with the truck.

reply

This is all very interesting. First, I should take back what I said about ecarle remembering it wrong. Obviously he was seeing it as it was intended to be shown in the theatre.

----

Unfortunately, the responses I just posted to EdwardHaskell -- I accidentally just deleted them at my end! So I can't really even remember what I just wrote well enough to re-write it exactly.

I will start again by answering this post, because it raises some interesting elements. (I sure am sorry that I just deleted my own material!)

----

Netflix is definitely showing Psycho at 1.37:1. I saw what you mentioned in the scene where Norman has just disposed of Arbogast. There is a large truck driving through the background. That just seems so unlike Hitchcock.

---

The truck driving along in the background behind the swamp as Norman "buries" Arbogast is an image that I have not seen in YEARS. It used to appear in VHS prints of Psycho, which I guess, were cut from the "wider ratio screen, top to bottom."

I've always figured that the truck in the distance as a "gaffe that worked for the story." That was PROBABLY a Universal work truck accidentally driving across the frame in the distance, but for the FICTIONAL STORY, it says this: a Fairvale area truck driver(maybe a farmer) driving a country backroad late at night, is passing a man dumping a murder victim's body and DOESN'T EVEN KNOW IT.

CONT

reply

There were other checkpoints on this "Netflix print" of Psycho which declare it to be an "old print:"

ONE: The thirty "additional seconds of film" that became the "Directors Cut/German Print" shown in 2020 at theaters are NOT THERE in this Netflix print

a. NO additional footage of Janet Leigh's back and partial side breast as she pulls her bra off while Norman peeps.
b. NO additional footage of Marion's blood on Norman's hands during the clean-up.
c. NO additional footage of "two extra stabs" down onto the unseen Arbogast(on the floor below frame.)

Nope, this "old print" doesn't have those additions.

TWO: "The swamp truck." How fun to see it again, after all these years. Recent framings of Psycho always cut off that top part of the screen where the truck appears.

THREE: Two many scratches on the print, plus a few "jumps" -- these mainly appeared in the first scenes of Psycho on Netflix. It is my theory that old prints are often most "damaged" at both ends where reels begin and end.

FOUR: The "old" spinning globe of the Universal logo circa the 60s and 70s(though the 60's logo shot often had "Edward Muhl, Chief of Production" on it - not here. Hitchcock refused to allow the usual Universal logo on ANY of his six Universal films from The Birds through Family Plot. It started when he didn't want Edward Muhl's name on his movies("Mr. Muhl did no work on my films.")

CONT

reply

I think the most important thing here is, and I am no expert but, the transfer currently streaming on Netflix seems to be in the original aspect ratio, which was, I believe, 1.37:1.

(Trying to re-write an earlier post from memory.)

I think you are more of an expert than I, Edward Haskell, because you could "name the number" for the ratio. Swanstep knows the numbers, too.

For my part, I see the ratios in these "types":

ONE: Square box. Movies of the 30's, 40s, and 50s that I saw in revival theaters in the 70s, or on TCM when projected correctly (TCM allows for a lot of "black" on either side of the box. )
TWO: "Widescreen." 20th Century Fox used to lenghten its opening fanfare to show the words "In Cinemascope" and announce a widescreen movie(I remember this credit on 1966's Stagecoach and Fantastic Voyage from Fox), but it seems to me that Panavision became the "go-to" wide screen format eventually. Westerns(The Professionals, The Wild Bunch.) Adventure horror(Jaws.) SciFi (Star Wars, Alien.) Action(Die Hard.) Director Sydney Pollock even did two love stories in Panavision -- The Way We Were and Tootsie -- because he just liked Panavision.
THREE: "Fake widescreen." Or: "slight rectangle." This is evidently how Psycho was re-framed for recent theatrical showings and DVD. The top was sliced off("bye bye swamp truck") and the bottom...? On the other hand, this may be a REAL ratio because its how The Birds and Frenzy looked on the big screen, too: neither square box NOR Panavision.

Meanwhile, back at "widescreen": we had some variants, yes? Cinerama -- with three frames stitched together horizontally so the screen wrapped around you in the theater(I saw "How the West Was Won" this way as a kid -- so did my age peers Kevin Costner and Ron Howard; it inspired them) . "Fake Cinerama" for Its a Mad Mad World(at the Hollywood Cinerama Dome)..but that was really "Super 70 MM," yes?

CONT

reply

And what the hell was VistaVision? Paramount's entry into 50's wide screen as a trademarked process. Rear Window in summer 1954 didn't get VistaVision treatment, but White Christmas AT Christmas 1954 was the first one. To Catch a Thief, The Trouble With Harry, The Man Who Knew Too Much and Vertigo all got VistaVision releases for Paramount, and then Hitchcock took VistaVision with him to MGM for North by Northwest.

But what WAS VistaVision? I've seen To Catch a Thief, Vertigo, and NXNW on the big screen and they aren't widescreen movies. More like a "big screen," kind of wider AND taller at the same time. More clarity?

CONT

reply

Pretty close to a, "square box," as you put it. So I imagine the print(s) you have seen in the theater have either been altered or perhaps you just remember them as being wider.

---

I go with "altered". I'm not sure about remembering the screen wider though. I remember seeing a bunch of 30s and 40s movies in revival and being quite literally SHOCKED at how square the image was. It was a very strange image to me. Psycho on the big screen in the 70's through 2020(the last time I saw it on a big screen at a multiplex) always seemed "sort of rectangular" -- perhaps in the framing. (I I think swanstep speaks to that here.)

----Anyway, I gather a number of fans are upset at the letterboxed editions that have been distributed.

---

Well, the telltale sign of the "fake letterbox" is when the "swamp truck" is not there. Its a "mistake" that didn't need to be erased. Its part of the STORY, that truck. A distant truck driver unaware of the horror he is driving past in the middle of the night.

---

I am only guessing but it seems that since he used his Alfred Hitchcock Presents crew, Hitchcock must have also used the same equipment so maybe this accounts for the 1.37:1 ratio which is pretty close to the 4:3 used for TV at the time.

---

That makes great sense, doesn't it? And another number for me to learn -- 4:3. Also interesting: Psycho wasn't made in VistaVision. I assume it COULD have been, but that would ruin Hitchcock's experiment to make a movie "like a cheap B horror movie from William Castle."

I have read that Hitchcock had Psycho filmed through 50 mm lenses to "approximate human sight." He was good on lenses. Psycho is a film of many close-ups and small groups of people(following NXNW with medium and long shots and groups galore.)

CONT

reply

Just by coincidence I watched Psycho last night on TCM. I had no idea Netflix was going to start showing it. This one did have the color Universal logo you described.

--

Could it be? Perhaps Universal could ONLY rent out the "new" print of Psycho (restored, color Universal logo, additional seconds of footage) to TCM and Peacock. Maybe Netflix had to "settle" for an old boxy print with scratches, no new scenes, and the swamp truck.

Sudden memory: I DID see Psycho in "square box form" whenever the print shown was a 16mm print rented from a Universal catalog. I sort of understood that was the only way TO see a rented 16 mm print. I saw Psycho this way in the cafeteria of a college dorm -- and at a pizza parlor in Washington DC! We were visiting and I saw that it was playing at that pizza place -- it got a small newspaper ad -- and we decided to have a pizza dinner and watch Psycho ...with a bunch of families-- on 16 mm. That's probably the silliest way I ever saw Psycho.

---

I did not even think about the ratio at the time. Now I wonder. Usually if it's on TCM it shows up almost immediately on Watch TCM but not always. And when I went to check awhile ago it was not available. The Man with the Golden Arm was shown just prior and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was shown just after and they are both listed in that order but Psycho, which should be right between them, is nowhere to be found. So I won't know until TCM shows it again, if they even do. It is also not listed in the TCM collection at HBO Max.

---

Hitchcock's power "lives on" as his movies seem to move from streaming service to streaming service. I thought that Peacock(which I don't subscribe to) was supposed to be the "permanent" home of Hitchcock's Universal/Paramount greats, but...no deal.

CONT

reply

The HBO Max TCM Hub now has a very limited Hitchcock collection -- but people who "like the British films best" will not be disappointed. They've got The 39 Steps and The Lady Vanishes and Sabotage. I wrote a post at the North by Northwest page about how THAT movie has disappeared from HBO Max/TCM after being there for YEARS as the "flagship Hitchcock movie" at TCM -- its status as an MGM movie now owned by Time Warner gave it that cachet but...its gone. Where? Why?

---

I agree the Netflix print is not the best. This copy certainly hasn't been touched up. It's not too bad, though, from what little I have seen.

---

I watched the print to check for the swamp truck and the "additional scenes"(missing from this print) and it just seemed to be a lot more scratched up and "old looking" than the restored version in circulation these days. On the one hand, it seemed insulting: Netflix only gets THIS old print? But on the other hand, it was nostalgic: This is how Psycho USED to be shown, with the swamp truck and no new footage...(an even OLDER 80's Psycho print is now gone -- they put a black bar at the bottom of the screen for the shower scene -- less of Janet's chest? -- and the cell at the end(why?)

Psycho has not been as "re-cut" in different versions as say, The Big Sleep or Garland's A Star is Born, but these little "tweaks" to the prints over time show that you can always have a few slightly different versions of the same movie.

--


But it's the aspect ratio that's the big deal.

---

Yes, I suppose so. I DON'T think Psycho SHOULD be shown in a square box form. Makes the movie seem to be from a different era than it was made.

reply

I think the most important thing here is, and I am no expert but, the transfer currently streaming on Netflix seems to be in the original aspect ratio, which was, I believe, 1.37:1.

It's my understanding that Psycho was originally projected at between 1.66-1 and 1.85-1 - theaters had to set mattes properly to get this right. In many TV and VHS presentations of Psycho, however, the full-frame/open-matte image was used (which famously led to passing cars being visible in the distance at the top of the frame in swamp shots).

--

"AKA...the swamp truck."

---

If Netflix is showing Psycho in 1.37-1 now they are making a mistake. Here's how IMDb summarizes the situation:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054215/technical/?ref_=tt_ql_dts_4

---

That's a pretty nifty technical chart. Evidently THREE different ratios to choose from for proper projection...including on European screens?

I once saw North by Northwest at a revival house and the projectionist screwed up, I guess. Boom mikes kept hanging down from the top of the screen...like when Cary Grant is talking to Eva Marie Saint inside the Chicago train station(a medium shot near a crowd, the mikes probably had to dip down). That was a BAD screening -- kept taking me out of the movie.

CONT

reply


I wonder why Netflix even wants to show Psycho. I'm glad they did and I'm glad it's this old format. This is probably the version of Psycho which I first saw. On TV...in the early 70's...with commercials no less! Not the ideal viewing experience.

But more and more it seems like Netflix is all about it's own productions. Why did they choose to offer Psycho in any form? A film that I daresay is disregarded by most of their subscribers. Younger ones anyway.

I also wonder how long it will be available.

reply

I wonder why Netflix even wants to show Psycho. I'm glad they did and I'm glad it's this old format.

---

Yeah, the "old format" was really a treat. I own the NEW versions. I haven't seen this version since the days of VHS tapes.

---

This is probably the version of Psycho which I first saw. On TV...in the early 70's...with commercials no less! Not the ideal viewing experience.

---

Well, we had to take them how we got them back then -- with commercials. Recall that, in the 80s when I got my first VCR and blank VHS tapes, I recorded Psycho(among other movies) from TV by CAREFULLY REMOVING each commercial as the movie played(you hit "pause" before the commercial starts, and "record" after the commercial ends.) I got quite good at "sucking the commercials out" and ended up with a version of Psycho with no commercials. Eventually cheap VHS versions of Psycho were released, and then DVDs. But it was a "pioneering time."

---
But more and more it seems like Netflix is all about it's own productions.

---

Yeah. Sometimes good, sometimes not so good. Not so good is winning.

---

Why did they choose to offer Psycho in any form? A film that I daresay is disregarded by most of their subscribers. Younger ones anyway.

---

That's a great question. Part of the answer may be "Universal made Psycho available" and Netflix is LOSING some of its movie studio contracts. Part of the answer may be "to diversify the movie content at Netflix." Psycho and The Sting and Animal House DO have their fans, probably older fans now but...these are good entertainments with great nostalgia value.

---

I also wonder how long it will be available.

---

Oh, probably not very long. A few months ago, The Professionals(a favorite of mine) was on for about two months. I'd watch PART of it about once a week, all of it one time. And then, one day...it went away. I'm sure it will come back but who know when. Good think I own the movie on DVD! The same will happen to Psycho..

reply


I was also going to mention that Psycho is available on Movieland TV which in turn is, apparently, only available through Roku.

I only know this because I had never seen the Gus Van Sant remake and it was amongst their listings. So I figured what the hell, might as well watch it as long as I'm on this Psycho jag. When I called it up it was not the remake but the original. And it was letterboxed.

It's just as well. My experience with this service is unsatisfactory. I do not recommend it.

reply

I was also going to mention that Psycho is available on Movieland TV which in turn is, apparently, only available through Roku.

---

All these different services...

Moviechat here is always promoting old 50's B horror movies on the "Svengoolie" Saturday night horror show. He shows a lot of the movies I grew up on in the early 60's. It took me forever to access some means of watching the show -- just one time -- and I gave up that service after one try. Hey, "Svengoolie" producers -- find an easier way to access your show. I picked "IT the Terror Beyond Space" -- an "Alien" precursor. It was a pretty good memory but man do they pack in the commercials, it took a LONG time to watch. Still I would watch more "Svengoolie" if they just found a way to make it available better.

Speaking of commercials, we are going "backwards" again: Netflix and other services are contemplating a "cheaper" service WITH commercials. All the more reason to love my DVDs.

---
I only know this because I had never seen the Gus Van Sant remake and it was amongst their listings. So I figured what the hell, might as well watch it as long as I'm on this Psycho jag. When I called it up it was not the remake but the original.

---

That's a pleasant surprise. Still if you are on a "Psycho" jag, I think the Van Sant version IS worth a look. The sequels never connected to the original -- here IS the original -- and it STILL doesn't connect, but it is an interesting experiment.

---And it was letterboxed.

---

Hmm...well I just don't like the "square box" version. I'll take the letterbox when I can get it!

--
It's just as well. My experience with this service is unsatisfactory. I do not recommend it.

--

Advice taken. I can't remember WHAT I subscribed to , to watch Svengoolie. But it just wasn't worth it.

reply

Every country gets its own Netflix so I can report that Psycho (1960) is not on Netflix in New Zealand. More remarkably, Netflix here does offer Psycho (2020), an Indian-produced serial-killer thriller that bites hard on Psycho (1960)'s famous font as well as its title, e.g.,
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9109976/mediaviewer/rm917933825/
and
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9109976/mediaviewer/rm1423347457/

Harrumph!

In general Netflix down under is a disaster when it come to older films. I kid you not, their total offerings right now from pre-1970 English Language film are Guns of Navarone (1962) and Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) (plus a few WW2 shorts and features presented as background for Netflix's Five Came Back doc). Four pre-1970 foreign language features including the excellent Cairo Station (1958) are available.

Netflix here currently offers only *9* English Language films from the 1970s including Godfather, Cuckoo's Nest, Midnight Express, 2 Monty Pythons, Assault on Precinct 13, and Walkabout.

How pathetic is that?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Every country gets its own Netflix

---

I did not KNOW that!

---

so I can report that Psycho (1960) is not on Netflix in New Zealand.

---

A note in passing that I occasionally remember to pass:

The internet has brought a lot of horrible things, I think -- hate talk and political lies and the dark parts of porn and terrible gossip (Satan's machine) but there can be no doubt that it is kind of a miracle, too.

swanstep can report to us in real time from NEW ZEALAND and I'm over here in the United States. I think the only way we could have communicated across oceans and continents, once upon a time, was to use "ham radio" and I have no idea how that even WORKED.

Honestly, imagine us trying to have these discussions via ham radio. "it is to laugh." What a miracle.

Back to business.

---

CONT

reply

More remarkably, Netflix here does offer Psycho (2020), an Indian-produced serial-killer thriller that bites hard on Psycho (1960)'s famous font as well as its title, e.g.,
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9109976/mediaviewer/rm917933825/
and
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9109976/mediaviewer/rm1423347457/

Harrumph!

---
Yeah, what's up with that? What kind of disrespect is that? Its as if they are inviting us to dislike their film.

Now certain lesser titles get recycled all the time. There is a movie called "For Love or Money" with Kirk Douglas. There is a movie called "For Love or Money" with Michael J. Fox. I saw both of them, in different decades. THAT title isn't sacrosanct.

But Psycho? C'mon. Its almost as bad as remaking Psycho.

Shall we have a new "Gone with the Wind" that isn't the same story? A new Casablanca that isn't the same story?

I will add that somebody made a movie called Frenzy just a couple of years ago. Now, Hitchcock's Frenzy doesn't have the same historic weight as Psycho, but it has SOME weight as a well-regarded late breaking Hitchcock comeback. Worse yet, the NEW Frenzy is about...killer sharks. So a double hit: Frenzy/Jaws. Why?

---

CONT

reply

In general Netflix down under is a disaster when it come to older films. I kid you not, their total offerings right now from pre-1970 English Language film are Guns of Navarone (1962) and Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) (plus a few WW2 shorts and features presented as background for Netflix's Five Came Back doc). Four pre-1970 foreign language features including the excellent Cairo Station (1958) are available.

---

I can only ask a rhetorical: why? Legal reasons that don't allow these movies to be shown "abroad"? Lack of budget to rent lots of films?

Worst: a belief that there is no real streaming AUDIENCE for such films? The programmers may end up being the enemies of movie history.

---

Netflix here currently offers only *9* English Language films from the 1970s including Godfather, Cuckoo's Nest, Midnight Express, 2 Monty Pythons, Assault on Precinct 13, and Walkabout.

--

Well that's all pretty good films. The original "Assault" right? (With the little girl and her ice cream cone.) But surely a short list.

I expect you know OTHER ways to find good old movies, swanstep.



---

How pathetic is that?

---

Ha. Well, pretty pathetic. But I don't want to cast aspersions....

reply

Additional report from the "American Netflix" world:

So I turned on the TV again last night, to Netflix.

The Psycho thumbnail now had another thumbnail next to it: The Birds.

Aha. I did a quick search for Rear Window, Vertigo, and Frenzy(the other Universal/Paramounts usually made available with Psycho and The Birds.) None of those were there. Maybe they will come in later months to Netflix.

But by placing Psycho and The Birds side by side on the playlist, Netflix reaffirmed those two as "the two most famous Hitchcock titles."

Its the 60th Anniversary year of The Birds. So I watched it. The print was pristine, the rectangular TV screen was filled...no "square box" of THIS print.

I continue to have utter awe and respect for EVERY scene with birds in the movie (in 1963 this was god-like in its acheivement, both visuals and sound); I continue to have concerns about the dialogue, the acting(which is too bad, I'm a big Rod Taylor fan and I respect Jessica Tandy's art), the sense that I don't really much like any of the characters(except Suzanne Pleshette's, she's really got a good reality thing going here; in her bloody sacrifice, I guess you could say she's the Arbogast of the film. Hah.)

The 1972 critics who thought that Frenzy was better than The Birds had a point -- no amateur Tippi Hedren in the lead, all those skilled British actors saying witty lines from Anthony Shaffer but still. ...The Birds just seems like such a BIGGER EFFORT than Frenzy, such a universally remembered story that has lasted. I personally like Frenzy better than The Birds(psychopaths can be fascinating) but I personally think that The Birds is a MUCH bigger acheivement than Frenzy.

---

CONT

reply

Netflix had "moved" Psycho on its screen and when I clicked on it , a NEW scene came up to sell the movie. Instead of "Marion meets the cop," we got a very LONG slice of "Marion and Norman in the parlor," from when they first sit down in their chairs(note how they sit down GRACEFULLY , at exactly the same moment -- I bet Hitchcock directed that dance-like movement), to their discussion of Norman's lonlieness and taxidermy hobby and then closing out with "Well, a boy's best friend is his mother" and Marion's slightly disturbed reaction. Fade out.

Made one want to watch Psycho all over again.

The algorithms are something at Netflix. Along with The Birds appearing, I ended up with Smokey and the Bandit on the thumbnail screen. Why? I think because Netflix is INDEED running a "Universal blockbusters" package -- Psycho, The Birds, The Sting, Animal House, Smokey and the Bandit. All they need to run next are Jaws and Back to the Future(I believe that "completes the set" of Universal blockbustesrs -- Spielberg doesn't let ET out much.)

Hitchcock in his last infirm years in his Universal screening room became a big fan of some movies you wouldn't think he would: one was Animal House and one was Smokey and the Bandit. One reason: he was a top Universal shareholder and those movies(and Jaws and The Sting) put money in his pocket.

But he also evidently just loved the sophisticated slapstick comedy of Animal House and Smokey. Hitch didn't much care for competing thriller makers(like DePalma). But comedy was different, no competition (he also became fast friends with Mel Brooks when Brooks made his Htichcock spoof, High Anxiety.)

Hitchcock had Animal House director John Landis to lunch a lot. Hitchcock wrote Burt Reynolds a fan letter for his work in Smokey and the Bandit. (Hitchcock also loved the brutal prison football slapstick of The Longest Yard, which starred Reynolds. Hitch cast three of that movie's cast in Family Plot; and tried to cast Burt Reynolds as the VILLAIN in Family Plot.)

CONT


reply

This current spate of "Hitchcock and Universal hits" on Netflix suggests to me that attempts to corral all those movies onto the "Peacock channel" did not really work out. I don't subscribe to Peacock, maybe others don't as well. Better to "spread the movies around" and Netflix is as good a home as any.

Now if Netflix starts running Jaws...my theory will be vindicated...

PS. A note in passing. I'm waiting patiently for the new Scorsese movie "Killers of the Flower Moon," which is set to play on Apple, which I don't subscribe to. But word is that the movie WILL get a theatrical run(just like The Irishman did before its Netflix berth) in October of 2023. So I may not have to subscribe to Apple, after all.

reply

I checked the situation with US Netflix and really its selection of pre-1970 movies is no better than what we get down under. Here is the *full* list of pre-1970 English language films on Netflix in the US:

Marnie, The Birds, Psycho, White Christmas

That's essentially indistinguishable I say from having no coverage of pre-1970 film whatsoever.

The situation with 1970s English Language film on US Netflix is also very grim in my view:

Same two Monty Pythons, Animal House, Rocky, The Sting, Play Misty for Me.

I mean what the hell? You'd reject out-of-hand ever patronizing a video store that only had *10* pre-1980 films. This is quite incredible. Netflix started out as an online dvd-rental place that tried to be the best video store with the deepest catalogue in the world. Now - worldwide - it's worse with respect to the history of film than the shittiest mom and pop or truck-stop video store was back in 1985.

reply

I checked the situation with US Netflix and really its selection of pre-1970 movies is no better than what we get down under. Here is the *full* list of pre-1970 English language films on Netflix in the US:

Marnie, The Birds, Psycho, White Christmas

That's essentially indistinguishable I say from having no coverage of pre-1970 film whatsoever.

--

Hmm...and three out of four are Hitchcocks and...White Christmas in April?

I wonder if Netflix will "dole out more Universal/Paramount Hitchcocks' In the months ahead: Vertigo? Rear Window?

---

The situation with 1970s English Language film on US Netflix is also very grim in my view:

Same two Monty Pythons, Animal House, Rocky, The Sting, Play Misty for Me.

---

That's it? Well, I figure Universal sold Netflix a package ...Animal House, The Sting, Play Misty...

---

I mean what the hell? You'd reject out-of-hand ever patronizing a video store that only had *10* pre-1980 films. This is quite incredible. Netflix started out as an online dvd-rental place that tried to be the best video store with the deepest catalogue in the world. Now - worldwide - it's worse with respect to the history of film than the shittiest mom and pop or truck-stop video store was back in 1985

---

Hey, don't sugarcoat it, swanstep -- tell us what you really think. (That line is from Goldman's Oscar winning Butch Cassidy screenplay.)

I think the studios are using THEIR streaming services to pull content away from Netflix. It looks like Universal has thrown them a few "pity titles" (and some Hitchcocks) but that's it.

Netflix must continue to to depend, I guess, on really expensive to make "Netflix movies" that just rarely rise to the level of "real movies." Roma did. The Irishman did. Buster Scruggs did. But right now they are running "Murder Mystery 2" with Adam Sandler and Jennifer Aniston -- he's a big star, she has a following but...really a movie?

CONT

reply

HBO Max has a pretty damn good library of movies from at least the 1930s on.

Amazon Prime has a big library of movies,including a lot before 1970. Mostly you have to pay to rent the titles, but they rotate a few titles in for free each month before rotating them back to the pay list.

Amazon Prime doesn't ALWAYS have EVERY title I seek, but they sometimes surprise me:

Example: some months ago Amazon Prime ran 1971's Cold Turkey, a so-so comedy that Norman Lear gave us the same year he started a TV empire with All in the Family. Dick Van Dyke has top billing as a pastor serving an entire midwestern town that agrees to give up smoking for (a year?) to win a fortune. Other than Van Dyke, the movie has a lot of Norman Lear regulars and -- Norman Lear in a movie setting was too crass, too broad, too noisy, too political -- which would be PERFECT in 1971 for a breakthrough political sitcom. But movies? Not so successful for Norman. Anyway, I had not seen Cold Turkey since it came out -- and here it was on Amazon Prime.

Its gone now.

reply

Maybe they got the old print cheaper.

reply

Maybe they got the old print cheaper.

--

An interesting possibility.

I've jumped back and forth among Psycho and The Birds and Marnie on Netflix during April...a scene here, a scene there...and Psycho is being very poorly served. Because:

Both the prints of The Birds and Marnie fill the entire rectangular screen of my TV and are pristine(restored? Cleaned up? HD?) prints. The Birds looks especially good because frankly, Marnie has NEVER looked all that great in its color scheme and cheap sets.

Still, jump on Netflix from the super-modern wides-creeen print of The Birds to the tattered box-screen print of Psycho and Netflix is giving the impression that Psycho is this "poor weak cousin" of The Birds. It is a terrible contrast.

And also a reminder: that "old" print of Psycho reflects how far back in time ago it was made. When the Psycho print is all HD and fake wide screen and crystal clear -- the movie looks great, very modern.

Shame on you, Netflix!

reply

Still, jump on Netflix from the super-modern widescreen print of The Birds to the tattered box-screen print of Psycho
It's worthwhile remembering that as recently as late '90s, the best DVD versions of Psycho were matted correctly/the right aspect ratio but were still scanned from very damaged/crudded-up negatives and inter-positives. Recent Blu-rays of Psycho have cleaned and improved the basic image incredibly. It's definitely loopy of Netflix to be screening anything other than the best available version of Psycho.

I've preserved some crudded-up frames from Psycho's shower scene as it appeared on late '90s DVDs:
https://tinyurl.com/ywzfnd8u
https://tinyurl.com/yfknwzbs
https://tinyurl.com/2p99t6kn
https://tinyurl.com/zjc7ywy8

Whatever Netflix is screening is almost certainly *worse* than this on a frame by frame basis. I'm really surprised that Universal *allows* them to present Psycho in anything other than the pristine form the company has shrewdly spent big on to sell to the public on Blu-ray etc..

reply

I've preserved some crudded-up frames from Psycho's shower scene as it appeared on late '90s DVDs:
https://tinyurl.com/ywzfnd8u
https://tinyurl.com/yfknwzbs
https://tinyurl.com/2p99t6kn
https://tinyurl.com/zjc7ywy8

---

Crudded up but still magnificently terrifying and profound...its like that movie is great frame by frame no matter how it gets disrepected.

---
Whatever Netflix is screening is almost certainly *worse* than this on a frame by frame basis. I'm really surprised that Universal *allows* them to present Psycho in anything other than the pristine form the company has shrewdly spent big on to sell to the public on Blu-ray etc..

---

I truly don't get it. "Something fishy is going on here," like perhaps Universal was not willing to give Netflix the "best" version of Psycho. Again: watch a couple of minutes of The Birds on Netflix(fills the TV screen , pristine) and then a couple of minutes of Psycho on Netflix(box in center of black screen, crudded up)...and its an insult to a great movie.

With one -- and only one -- little bitty benefit: watching that "swamp truck" behind Norman in that one shot. Its like a "secret version" of Psycho that had disappeared for a decade or two.

And this: I had thought that the "permanent version" of Psycho going forward -- the one I saw at a movie theater in COVID year 2020(and thus cited as my favorite movie OF 2020, I saw only "Unhinged" in a theater otherwise that year) was going to be the ONLY version of Psycho going forward -- and that's kind of wrong too. For DECADES, we never saw the additional footage of Marion pulling her bra down, or the blood(Marion's) on Norman's hands, or the additional(fishy) stabs down onto the unseen Arbogast. That's kind of a "rigged" version of Psycho.

CONT

reply

Oh well, frame by frame, Psycho shifts back and forth in the memory. A truck at the swamp, more blood on the hands, more of Janet Leigh's body, more stabs in a murder scene(which is actually a GOOD thing --makes Arbogast's murder more savage and monstrous -- as one critic wrote in later years, Mrs. Bates is a "human Cuisanart" -- but that product's gone now, isn't it?

reply

A bit more:

May will soon be here and maybe Netflix will dump Psycho...and that lousy old print with it. I took a look at certain scenes and something ELSE was visible unseen in years:

Back in the prints shown on TV in the 70's and 80's, when the Arbogast murder occurs right at the end of a reel, and right BEFORE a switch to the next reel, thus:

As Arbogast falls down the stairs, in the upper RIGHT corner of the frame appears a BIG BLACK CIRCLE..it means a reel change must be made. And as Mother stabs him on the floor and the shot fades out, the projectionist must CHANGE REELS so that the next reel starts with Sam and Lila in the hardware store ("Sometimes Saturday night has a lonely sound...you ever notice that, Lila?")

That BIG BLACK CIRCLE was somehow removed from later DVD/Blu Ray prints, but its BACK on the Netflix print. Welcome back big black circle...its been decades!

In follow up:

ONE: I always wonder if Hitchcock somehow TIMED the Arbogast murder to take place on the reel change. Because the EFFECT is that as Mother stabs Arbogast (unseen) on the floor -- it is as if Mother is SLASHING THE MOVIE ITSELF. There is a jarring JUMP to the switch between reels, as if Mother's knife cut the film frames in half.

TWO: A book had a chapter called "The first time I saw Psycho" filled with 1960 memories. One was from a projectionist FROM 1960 who said "I never got to SEE that second murder because I was working on the reel change.But I always HEARD all the screams in the theater as the detective got killed and I was busy changing reels."

THREE: One of my many viewings of Psycho was at a local library where they had two projectors side by side and a woman had to switch back and forth. When Mother stabbed Arbogast on the floor -- the entire REEL fell to the floor of the library. It was as if Mother had "killed" the reel!

reply

ONE: I always wonder if Hitchcock somehow TIMED the Arbogast murder to take place on the reel change. Because the EFFECT is that as Mother stabs Arbogast (unseen) on the floor -- it is as if Mother is SLASHING THE MOVIE ITSELF. There is a jarring JUMP to the switch between reels, as if Mother's knife cut the film frames in half.
Interesting. Obvously Hitch grew up entirely in parallel with the 20th Century so his teens and some of his 20s were dominated by the idea of reel. Chaplin's first 10 or so films (in 1914) were one-reelers, so just 7-10 minutes long. later in 1914, Chaplin advanced to two-reelers (15-20 minutes long). Chaplin appears in mainly 2, 3, and 4 reelers throughout the teens then makes one of his biggest hits (it enabled Chaplin to start United Artists), his feature length (68 minute) debut (as both star and writer/director/composer), The Kid (1921), with its main poster screaming '6 Reels of Joy':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kid_(1921_film)
In sum, Hitchcock had the significance of reel breaks imprinted on him early (and Alma did too), and it's a good bet that it never left him (or her). It may well be that even in an era of much longer (2000 ft, 15-20 minute) reels, Psycho's makers kept track of where the breaks would be.

In general, it's funny to think about how *medium-specific* creation tended to be in the pre-digital world compared to how things get consumed now on all sorts of devices in a relatively medium-independent way. It's funny, for example, how we now consume The Sopranos and Mad Men and Breaking Bad, and The Americans in exactly the same ways but the latter three *were* built around ad breaks whereas The Sopranos was not. The differences are subtle but they're there. And until CDs came along albums ruled with their two sides which imposed all sorts of constraints on sequencing but also artistic opportunities. CDs and then streaming etc. lose all that.

reply

ONE: I always wonder if Hitchcock somehow TIMED the Arbogast murder to take place on the reel change. Because the EFFECT is that as Mother stabs Arbogast (unseen) on the floor -- it is as if Mother is SLASHING THE MOVIE ITSELF. There is a jarring JUMP to the switch between reels, as if Mother's knife cut the film frames in half.


Interesting. Obvously Hitch grew up entirely in parallel with the 20th Century so his teens and some of his 20s were dominated by the idea of reel....
In sum, Hitchcock had the significance of reel breaks imprinted on him early (and Alma did too), and it's a good bet that it never left him (or her). It may well be that even in an era of much longer (2000 ft, 15-20 minute) reels, Psycho's makers kept track of where the breaks would be.

---

It occurs to me that Hitchcock was VERY aware of reel length -- famously -- for Rope, where to create the illusion of a "continuous take," he timed the end of reels for where the camera would focus on, say, the back of a man's jacket to "cover" the jump to the next reel.

So given the "script structure" of Arbogast' s murder ending "in progress" with a fade to black , Hitchcock might have TIMED the reel to get the end of the murder at the end of the reel. Cut some footage here, add some footage there(like showing Arbogast's ENTIRE walk up the hill to the house -- Van Sant did not use so much footage)...and voila...the knife comes down and slashes the reels apart...

Note that the aftermath of Marion's murder goes on quite a bit after Mother leaves the bathroom. We leave Mother and Arbogast "alone together" as Mother keeps killing him on the fade out(SLASH/REEL CHANGE) but with Marion, we watch Mother leave and then we watch Marion die (last breaths and collapse to the floor) and then we watch Marion DEAD, and the aftermath connects to Norman coming down the hill to discover the corpse. No NEED for "reel change action" in this sequence.

CONT

reply

THREE: One of my many viewings of Psycho was at a local library where they had two projectors side by side and a woman had to switch back and forth. When Mother stabbed Arbogast on the floor -- the entire REEL fell to the floor of the library. It was as if Mother had "killed" the reel!

---

I thought about this incident and I need to clarify exactly what happened, I think, otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Two projectors were side by side with reels on each. A librarian was trying her best to turn on the second projector and the new reel as the other reel ended(Arbogast on the floor getting stabbed.) But the librarian knocked the SECOND reel to the floor with a crash and the FIRST reel ended on the other projector and the film started spinning as the reel ended.

So both projectors got fouled up and the noise was -- noisy. One reel falling to the floor with a crash. The other projector "spinning film". It made everybody jump -- and then laugh..

CONT

reply

It may well be that even in an era of much longer (2000 ft, 15-20 minute) reels, Psycho's makers kept track of where the breaks would be.

---

Note in passing: the only other significant reel break I recall seeing EVERY TIME I watched this movie on TV in the old days was during the Mount Rushmore climax in NXNW.

And there was nothing "fitting about it."

In was in perhaps the first third of the cliffhanging sequence. The film would jump and Bernard Herrmann's great score would stop for a moment and then start again after a pause. Next shot: low angle under Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint as they climb down between Washington and a dominating view of Jefferson. I always called it "the Jefferson jump cut" -- but in DVDS and on streaming...that jump cut is gone. I suppose ALL reel change jump cuts have been eliminated in the digital age.

---

Back to Psycho: perhaps I had not noticed this before, but in watching "this old print" again in places(I'm watching it in between my other movie watching this month) I found the "Big Black Circle" and reel change also shows up when Lila enters the Bates house and closes the door and the door fills the screen. Its meant to be a terrifying moment: Lila is now in the danger zone where Arbogast died; Mother could pop out at anytime. So perhaps a jump cut/reel change accentuated the terror.

And also: this "boxy print" that shows the "swamp truck" in the upper corner of the frame when Norman is at the swamp ALSO -- and most unfortunately -- shows the empty space ABOVE the set of Sheriff Chambers living room. Hitch needed to do almost a "long shot" to keep Sam, Lila, the Sheriff and Mrs. Chambers in the same shot on a low angle, so the soundstage above the set is exposed and the "suspension of disbelief" goes away. We are not in a rural California house in the dead of night...we are on a stage. I expect proper projection got rid of this in theaters.

CONT


reply


In general, it's funny to think about how *medium-specific* creation tended to be in the pre-digital world compared to how things get consumed now on all sorts of devices in a relatively medium-independent way. It's funny, for example, how we now consume The Sopranos and Mad Men and Breaking Bad, and The Americans in exactly the same ways but the latter three *were* built around ad breaks whereas The Sopranos was not. The differences are subtle but they're there.

---

I have a few books on the Sopranos(interviews more than analysis) and they keep saying that showrunner David Chase started his career in broadcast TV (The Rockford Files, Northern Exposure) and how shows had to be built around "cliffhangers at the commercial breaks" so as to bring the viewer back. Chase and his Sopranos writers slowly learned that they did NOT have to write Sopranos episodes this way. The "three act structure" also went away in these episodes. About the only structure was to have "an A story , a smaller B story, and a VERY small C story" per episode. Plus generally in a 13 episode season, the biggest things happened in episode 12 to allow episode 13 to close out the season on plot.

---
And until CDs came along albums ruled with their two sides which imposed all sorts of constraints on sequencing but also artistic opportunities.

---

And the artists ORGANIZED their albums around the two sides -- opening each side with a strong hit, ending the album with "the perfect final song" (like A Day in the Life on Sgt Pepper.) I always knew that the "middle songs" on any album side would be the weak ones, the less tuneful ones -- except when they WEREN'T.

---
CONT

reply

CDs and then streaming etc. lose all that.

---

Yep, and I know it was for "environmental reasons" but I sure miss the days when an album came in a BIG package that often opened up like a book, and often had a poster or other stuff inside. These albums were PHYSICAL events to hold in your hands and stack in the corner. CD boxes used to have some stuff too, but THEY got downsized to nothing.

I guess generational nostalgia is unavoidable, and so I give in: I miss albums and great big album packages and next generations will simply not have that memory. All in a good cause...

reply

Formerly ecarle.

Its late May and Psycho is still on Netflix, along with The Birds and Marnie. I guess that's all Netflix wants to air from the Universal/Paramount Hitchcocks.

But I rather find the lead off with Psycho in particular to have "cleared the decks" for Netflix to put out a number of other Universal hits (keeping in mind that I thought that Peacock was where Universal movies go.) There also remains the irony that Psycho was released as a Paramount movie, with Paramount's misgivings, and is now officially owned by Universal and hence Universal has the biggest and most famous Hitchcock hit.

The other movies are "pure Universal":

American Graffiti(1973)
The Sting(1973)
Smokey and the Bandit(1977)
Animal House(1978)

..what these all have in common with Psycho is that they were all BIG hits for Universal.

And now they have added one more: Airport(1970)

I connect Airport to Psycho in a rather tenuous way: Psycho was Universal's blockbuster of 1960(OK, Paramounts) -- Airport was Universal's blockbuster of 1970. That's what 10 years distance got you back then.

Actually, for as "ahead of its time" as Psycho seemed in 1960, Airport seemed BEHIND the times in 1970. "New Hollywood" had debuted in 1967 with The Graduate and Bonnie and Clyde, and Midnight Cowboy and The Wild Bunch had further broken ground in 1969. Here was this "all-star" potboiler(from a paperback bestseller) which starred two fading stars: Burt Lancaster and Dean Martin (both of whom got their biggest paydays ever from this movie.) Some wag called the 1970 Airport "the Best Picture of 1945."

There are some "modern touches" in Airport. Here, too was a movie with the "split screen' approach that we have mentioned was also in The Boston Strangler and The Thomas Crown Affair. Honestly -- Hollywood REALLY seems to have thought that split screen was the way of the future. Not much longer except with DePalma!

CONT

reply

Also modern for 1970: Heroes Lancaster and Martin are either having an affair(Martin) or contemplating one(Lancaster.) And Martin’s affair(flight attendant Jaqueline Bisset) is pregnant. Which leads to some 1970 style careful debate on the abortion topic.

With all these affairs going on, the movie makes a point of introducing George Kennedy’s heroic engineer-troubleshooter Joe Patroni at home with a very loving and amorous wife all over him(they’ve sent their five kids to grandma’s for a night of sex.)

I always enjoy seeing that scene for several reasons: longtime screen heavy Kennedy has a nice hairpiece for once and is playing a really good guy; his marriage is shown as solid and child-bearing; and – my favorite bit – some never-well-known actress is assigned this one scene to sensually kiss and maul Kennedy, start to finish. That’s what I love about the movie business: “Miss Smith, this is Mr. Kennedy. OK, on action, I want you to crawl all over him and kiss him passionately.” Nice work if you can get it.

CONT

reply

“Airport” has been called “the first disaster movie,” which it is not. For one thing, there is no disaster. Though the flight is crippled by a mad bomber’s bomb, only the bomber dies(though a key character is injured), and the plane doesn’t crash. In subsequent “Airport” sequels – ALL of which star “George Kennedy as Joe Patroni” -- the planes NEVER crash no matter how menaced.

No, “Airport” was a continuation of the “Grand Hotel” style multi-story drama – done better by “Hotel”(1967), from a book by the same guy who wrote “Airport”(Arthur Hailey, a footnote in paperback history.) The first disaster movie came two years later – “The Poseidon Adventure.”

But this: watching “Airport” in proximity to “Psycho,” one is AGAIN reminded that blockbusters come in different types, and that compared to the square and clunky "Airport," “Psycho” was incredibly artful in its direction, composition, camera moves and montage and MUCH better written than “Airport.” Still, “Airport” was exciting family entertainment in a year where there wasn’t much of that: its Best Picture competition included Five Easy Pieces and MASH.

reply

Arthur Hailey, a footnote in paperback history.
I remember him. He had a big paperback hit, "Wheels" (about Detroit and the Car Industry) that seemed to be on all my parents' friends' coffeetables when I was a kid. Anyhow I read it v. young. It occurs to me that that sort of blockbuster paperback culture doesn't really exist anymore (people evidently used to *read* for pleasure a lot more than they do now - even if it was pretty junky stuff). Everything from Love Story to Jaws, to Godfather to Airport to The Deep were huge paperback hits long before they were movies, and those novels seemed to be everywhere when I was a kid. While Wheels never became a movie, instead it became a big TV mini-series w/ Rock Hudson and Lee Remick as the married couple at the story's center. I never saw this but it scores a surprisingly high 7.0 on IMDb.

reply

I remember him. He had a big paperback hit, "Wheels" (about Detroit and the Car Industry) that seemed to be on all my parents' friends' coffeetables when I was a kid.

---

Yes, its funny. I think his first book was about a hospital, but it wasn't called "Hospital." It was called "The Final Diagosis." No takers for the movies.

Then came "Hotel," about a New Orleans hotel. It made for a serviceable , sophisticated movie but not much of a hit(a "disaster" was rather hidden in the book -- an elevator crash, which in the book killed and/or maimed several people, but in the movie took only one victim -- the one who HAD to die.

I love "Hotel" for its music, its setting, the sophistication of its script, and its cast -- led by the favorite sleeper star of the 60's, Rod Taylor.

"Hotel" was a small hit movie; "Airport" was BIG (second only to the equally old-fashioned hit "Love Story" at the 1970 box office, I think.)

Probably it was the "mad bomber in the sky" plot that drove the crowds to Airport. I read the book young and I remember watching Burt Lancaster come on Johnny Carson in the summer of 1969. The dialogue:

Johnny: How have you been, Burt?
Burt: Oh, fine, Johnny. I'm in Minnesota right now filming "Airport."
Johnny: So you aren't here to promote Airport.
Burt: No, I am here to promote my newest film, Castle Keep.

I remember being so DISAPPOINTED that Lancaster wasn't there to promote Airport yet. Because I was excited about the movie -- I was(remember) a young Hitchcock buff, and I found the suspense building up to the bomb blast quite...exciting.

But yes, swanstep, I remember paperbacks everywhere. Around our house, around our neighbor's houses. On book racks in supermarkets. In book stores. And of course "at the beach."

CONT

reply

Anyhow I read it v. young. It occurs to me that that sort of blockbuster paperback culture doesn't really exist anymore (people evidently used to *read* for pleasure a lot more than they do now - even if it was pretty junky stuff). Everything from Love Story to Jaws, to Godfather to Airport to The Deep were huge paperback hits long before they were movies, and those novels seemed to be everywhere when I was a kid.


People need to remember that “paperback culture” DROVE the movie business in the 50s, and – to my memory – the 60s and 70s.

A movie generally wasn’t really a BIG movie unless it was a paperback first – with the words “Soon to be a major motion picture” on the cover. And some great movies came from those paperbacks:

Rosemary’s Baby. True Grit. The Godfather. The Exorcist. Jaws.

Some not so great movies, too: Airport and all the “Harold Robbins paperback sex movies.”(The Carpetbaggers, The Adventurers, The Betsy.)

Pauline Kael made the great point that Puzo’s oversexed novel “The Godfather” could have easily ended up a “Harold Robbins paperback movie.” Bring in all the sex; make the characters one dimensional. Cast Ernest Borgnine as The Godfather. That we got the classic we got instead was , as Kael called it: “alchemy.”

CONT

reply

While Wheels never became a movie, instead it became a big TV mini-series w/ Rock Hudson and Lee Remick as the married couple at the story's center.
--

I guess no studio saw “Wheels” as a movie. (The title wasn't as direct as "Airport," for one thing.) The mini-series had come into its own with Rich Man, Poor Man. I think they made one other Arthur Hailey mini-series with Kirk Douglas – about banks?

Eventually Arthur Hailey evidently was rich enough and old enough to just quit writing books for movies/TV.

It was just as well. Indeed the whole paperback reading culture rather disappeared – at least “at the movies.” I suspect Spielberg and Lucas started THAT, too. So many of their movies were original scripts – Close Encounters, Star Wars, ET, Indiana Jones. “The big novel” movies started to fade. “Ragtime” in 1981 wasn’t a hit(even with James Cagney returned in it.)
The 80’s also brought us “movies as text”: sequels(Psycho II), remakes(The Thing, The Fly). And TV series as text(The Untouchables.)Certain obscure and important novels were still adapted as Oscar bait(like Terms of Endearment), but the whole reading culture indeed just sort of slipped away and with it the phrase “soon to be a major motion picture’ was retired as well.

CONT

reply

Note in passing: One guy who generally AVOIDED the “soon to be a major motion picture” thing was: Alfred Hitchcock. He started in America with one: Rebecca. Other than that, from the 60’s I only remember “Topaz” getting that on the book cover. (If only he cast that one like Stanley Kramer or Otto Preminger, with a bunch of old stars in it..it would have “fit” the paperback genre.)

Unlike The Exorcist or Jaws, Psycho was evidently considered too horrific and too “small” a novel to promote with “soon to be a major motion picture.” (The book went out as part of an “Inner Sanctum” mystery series, that was an old radio show, right?)

The story(told in the movie about it) was that Hitchcock did NOT want that book Psycho widely read(to protect the twist) and bought up copies all over Los Angeles, at least.

One more thing: the original novels that become Frenzy(Goodbye Picadilly, Farewell Leicester Square) and Family Plot(The Rainbird Pattern) got paperback releases with a specific tag: “Soon to be a motion picture from Alfred Hitchcock.” But these were NOT wide releases book releases , as with Jaws.

reply

But this: watching “Airport” in proximity to “Psycho,” one is AGAIN reminded that blockbusters come in different types, and that compared to the square and clunky "Airport," “Psycho” was incredibly artful in its direction, composition, camera moves and montage and MUCH better written than “Airport.” Still, “Airport” was exciting family entertainment in a year where there wasn’t much of that: its Best Picture competition included Five Easy Pieces and MASH.

--

I return to note: Airport and Psycho have one pretty strong connection which is worth bringing up.

In each case, the first movie was blockbuster hit enough to generate SEQUELS. But in each case, the sequels just couldn't match the original. These sequels were all made by Universal Pictures--- Psycho was a Paramount release filmed at Universal , bought by Universal and sequelled by Universal. So we ended up with "Universal sequels' and they were all pretty poor in construction, writing, presentation, etc.

Now Airport 2 came only four years after the original. It was called "Airport 1975" and inexplicably released in October of 1974. Then came "Airport '77" -- "19" was dropped. Then came the awkwardly titled "The Concorde: Airport 1979."

Meanwhile, Psycho 2 came TWENTY-THREE years after the original, a record at the time( I believe) and with that kind of decades-long distance, Psycho 2 felt very disconnected from the original. There had been time for ALL the movies of the 60s, ALL the movies of the 70's, and a few years of the 80's before Psycho 2 saw theater screens(Hitchcock died in 1980 which I think "cleared the way" to make Psycho 2 for 1983 release; I'm not sure they would have tried it while he was still alive.)

CONT

reply


To me, the connection between the "Airport" sequels and the "Psycho" sequels was this: all were pretty cheapjack productions, with poor scripts. Irony: "Airport"(the original) had a pretty poor script too -- it FITS the sequels in that regard. Meanwhile Psycho stands alone and apart as a classic work of popular art, with a "top of the line" professional screenplay based on a very good novel of its type.

---

The Psycho sequels landed only two stars from the original film -- Anthony Perkins(no longer a star but still a thin and handsome man) and Vera Miles(for Psycho 2 only, looking much OLDER than Perkins and dying in this one.) Thereafter the sequel casts for the Psycho films were pretty much "star free"; Perkins had to carry the load alone.

Two of the three Airport sequels managed to grab one "name" star(somewhate faded) but couldn't pull off two as Airport had with Lancaster and Martin:

Airport 1975 gave us Charlton Heston as the star, and boy did two things happen to Chuck in the 70's: (1) he WORKED all the time(the period epics were over, now he found a new trade: disaster movies) and (2) the movies were all pretty bad and devalued his stardom quite a bit. He became "the highest paid B actor in Hollywood."

Heston WANTED to play Chief Brody in "Jaws" during this period, and as a Universal contractee, had a shot. But had he gotten the role, Jaws would have suddenly seemed like nothing much, the usual Universal potboiler(with George Kennedy as Quint, no doubt.)

Airport 1975 has a couple of Hitchcock connections:

Karen Black has the female lead -- and got some good reviews for her performance. She's "the stewardess flying the plane!" when a light plane hits the jet and kills two out of three of the cockpit crew and critically injures the pilot. And yet -- she seemed a bit "below grade" as a star. Roy Thinnes has a short part as the co-pilot sucked out of the plane on crash impact.

CONT

reply

That was in 1974. A few months later in 1975 it was announced that Alfred Hitchcock had cast -- Karen Black and Roy Thinnes -- in two of the leads in his new movie, "Deceit."

I remember I found that disappointing. "So Hitchcock is casting with Universal's current contract players -- and Thinnes isn't very big at all." As it turned out, Hitchcock fired Thinnes a few weeks into shooting and replaced him with the equally low wattage but more interesting William Devane.

Airport 1975 also contributed another Universal contract player to Deceit...renamed Family Plot. It was the dullish Alan Fudge, an air traffic controller in Airport 1975, the helicopter pilot on the ransom pick up in Family Plot. Indded, Family Plot's support casting in 1976 was rather like that of Psycho's in 1960 : the players available at the time. Far fewer "known" support names in 1976, I'd say.

---

Airport '77 chose an interesting "fading star" lead as its heroic pilot: Jack Lemmon. Lemmon was asked why he had not been in a disaster movie yet and he said "nobody asked me." He later said he regretted making Airport '77, but I say it was a heroic, macho role that rather saved him from permanent Felix Unger status in the 70's...he was playing entirely too many neurotic wimps.

Hitchcock connections: a very elderly James Stewart in a cameo as the very rich man whose private jet sinks underwater in the Bermuda Triangle and causes the crisis.
And "Uncle Charlie" is on board: a very aged but elegant Joseph Cotten. I liked a shot of Stewart standing next to Lemmon...its the two of them 19 years after Lemmon supported Stewart in Bell, Book and Candle(1958) and the 70's were sure different than the 50s.

CONT

reply

Note in passing: Netflix isn't showing Airport 79, which has a reputation as the worst in the bunch by far.

Of the three they are showing, I must admit all three films exploit the terror of air travel gone wrong in three terrifying ways:

1. Bomber on the plane; bomb explodes.
2. Light plane hits jet and removes the entire cockpit crew! (Chuck Heston has to be lowered in mid-flight, after ANOTHER guy tries and dies.)
3. Art thieves out to hijack rich James Stewart's art collection knock out the crew and passengers with gas but crash underwater . Crew and passengers awakenwith the plane underwater at the edge of a cliff. Talk about claustrophobia. My hands sweat watching this one.

I gotta admit something about watching these movies this time around "Got to me." Those were HORRIBLE scenarios. (In real life in 1978, a light plane DID hit a jet landing in San Diego, killing everybody . Chuck Heston wasn't there.) "Airplane" made fun of them (especially the singing nun and kidney transplant girl in 1975) and 9/11 gave us a nightmare version of them. They're just no fun anymore.

I think with both the Airport sequels and the Psycho sequels, you just have to drop the sequels as mattering at all. Yes, Airport 1975 has more realistic shots of real jets in the sky "in trouble," but it is a threadbare cheapo production. At least "Airport" gave us TWO major stars(Lancaster and Martin...not Paul Newman and Steve McQueen though -- see how fleeting stardom is?)

As for the Psycho sequels, the original was famously filmed real cheap(partly due to the stars and HItchcock cutting their pay) so the sequels got to be cheap too -- and to depend on slasher murders for box office. But they weren't GOOD slasher murders.

reply

PS. One thing I forgot to mention about Airport '77.
Alfred Hitchcock was actually brought into pre-production talks on the film, not to direct it, but to advise on the filming of the "rescue finale" in which balloons were placed under the underwater plane to bring it to the surface(not very long before sinking again, so everybody has to get out fast.)

I picture Hitchcock on the Universal lot in the 70's as kind of a "guiding old mentor" on things. He took a lot of lunches with the young generation and indeed advised here and there on projects.

reply

Formerly ecarle.

July 1, 2023: Netflix "Un-Goes Psycho."

I did a little "check" on the Netflix home screen and Psycho has disappeared. And The Birds has disappeared. And Marnie has disappeared.

So whatever deal Netflix cut for those three Hitchcock films seems to have expired after 3 months(April, May, June.)

Other movies "go away and come back" on Netflix, so I suppose Psycho may come back aain someday.

But that PRINT...ay ay ay.. the oldest one in the box. With scratches and "the swamp truck" gaffe and a boxy ratio.

Plus, now that I've seen the "German Director's Cut version" (with the additional few seconds of Leigh's side-boob; blood on Perkins hands and Balsam getting stabbed more times)...THAT's Psycho. I can't accept the old version with edits anymore.

PS. Netflix has that infernal "Psycho"(not the original, not the Van Sant remake, but some sort of Indian version) still on its menu. A small outrage.

reply