Do you think Norman ever had people working for him at the motel? - Psycho (1960) Discussion

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

I mean he does say something like "WE keep going on lighting the lights", but maybe that's just the way he talks.

---

Well, "we" is Norman and Mother, yes? Its interesting (and very dangerous for her) that Norman tells Marion about his mother early on -- of course, Mother announces herself by yelling at Norman offscreen(which I always felt was NORMAN introducing Mother to Marion.)

--

You'd think at one point he would have had at least a maintenance guy or maybe a maid or two in his employment.

---

A writer named David Thomson researched the motel business for a book he wrote on Psycho and noted that in real life, various deliveries(sheets, soap, towels) are made by service company drivers who simply drove these items to the motel and then leave.

In a great bit of detail, Norman tells Arbogast "I always change the sheets once a week whether they've been used or not." So, a weekly chore for NORMAN. No maid. And then Norman adds more: "I hate the smell of dampness." And then Norman adds MORE: "Its such a, I dunno...CREEPY smell." And thus the dialogue in Psycho carries some horror atmosphere.

Repairs, I assume that Norman did himself -- or called into Fairvale for someone to come out. That shower could use a plumber, maybe!

---

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

If he did, I wonder what they'd have thought of him, would they have realized he was crazy? Would they have had any suspicions that he was really a serial killer?

--

I don't think so -- look how relaxed and chatty he is with Marion, Arbogast, Sam and Lila on first business aquaintence.

I sometimes mused about how Norman Bates -- as played so intelligently by the good looking Perkins -- might have been a great guy just to sit and chat with on the motel porch if you met him as a customer who was NOT a beautiful woman all alone.

Later in Hitchcock's 1972 Frenzy, the psycho killer Bob Rusk is actually everybody's friend. Unlike Norman, he does not live in isolation, he has a London flat right in the middle of the marketplace area in which he works(Covent Garden) and likes to hang out at the pubs and buy drinks for friends. I can see where EITHER Norman Bates OR Bob Rusk would be fine to sit and talk with.

So I don't think workers would notice Norman's madness -- unless they heard Mother nearby...

---

Incidentally, Psycho III does explore this this a bit, in that case however, the guy Norman hires was arguably crazier than he was.

---

I'm no fan of any of the Psycho sequels, but Psycho III(directed by Anthony Perkins) is the best IMHO. Still, I did NOT buy the idea of Norman hiring someone to work "the day shift." ("I prefer to work at night," says Norman, ominously.) First of all, there's no real money to be made at the Bates Motel in 1960 or 1986 (though Psycho III tries to get around that by having a group of partygoers stay at the motel, which also makes no sense.) But I just don't believe that Norman would expose himself to another person for that length of time. An "assistant" was a badly plotted contrivance. In the original, Marion Crane arrived as a CUSTOMER , thoroughly logical.

reply

[–] telegonus (736) 2 years ago

Maybe temps, paid in cash, not regular, salaried people. The motel was basically a one man job. If business had picked up; unlikely, given its location and its drabness.--the market for places so out of it they're hip, thus funky, was still a few years down the road, and the motel had a forbidding quality thanks to its owner, and this would have continued, and likely worsened, as time passed and Norman hadn't been caught.

reply

[–] roger1 (3626) 2 years ago

Maybe temps, paid in cash, not regular, salaried people. The motel was basically a one man job. If business had picked up; unlikely, given its location and its drabness.--the market for places so out of it they're hip, thus funky, was still a few years down the road, and the motel had a forbidding quality thanks to its owner, and this would have continued, and likely worsened, as time passed and Norman hadn't been caught.

---

Telegonus...this is the formerly named "ecarle," now using Roger1 for ...the time being?

I changed computers and for some reason I cannot access my old "ecarle" account.

Perhaps someday the moviechat techs can let me back in to ecarle. I'll keep trying.

In the meantime: I'm Roger1

Which reminds me: in Stanley Donen's "Charade," Audrey Hepburn tells Cary Grant that he has changed the name he gives her no less than four times in the course of the movie. Grant replies: "The name may change, but the man is the same."

So it is with me.

---

You raise two interesting topics in one:

ONE: Did Norman have help? Short answer is probably no. The business wasn't there to support HIM very much, let alone another worker.

A writer named James Cavenaugh wrote a first draft of Psycho for Hitchcock. He was let go -- evidently he couldn't face the horror of the material and turned "Mother in the fruit cellar's " face into that of a huge DOLL with button eyes! Goodbye.

Bits and pieces of the Cavenaugh draft are in Stephen Rebello's book on the making of Psycho, but relevant here: in THAT draft, Norman shows Marion a recent foreclosure notice on the motel and cries about it.

That would have really screwed up the storyline, yes? We aren't meant to worry about Norman's business survival...just to wonder about it. These things keep things OK for him:

He probably owns the house outright. And the land (valuable, a blackmailer in Psycho III urges him to "sell off an acre."

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3626) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] roger1 (3626) 2 years ago

TWO: Could Norman have run the motel for more years if his crimes were not discovered?

Possibly. The sequels had him running the motel in the 80s, so perhaps the 60s through the 70's were possible.

But it seems his crimes were due to catch up to him SOMETIME. Marion did. Marion disappeared from the Bates Motel and then Arbogast did. Had Sam and Lila disappeared, the cops would have come out again and again.

But if Norman kept the murders rare perhaps he could have run the motel, eventually closed the motel , and then retired as a recluse up in the house with mother.

reply

[–] telegonus (736) 2 years ago

I agree, EC (and good to see you return, whatever name you use) regarding the Bates family. They likely, I suspect, had some "old money", much as many east coast folk did, true, surely when and where I grew up, in which big old homes, complete with barns (not yet wholly "converted" into garages), front porches, cobwebs in many of the windows, and often an elderly lady or two living alone inside. They looked grander than they truly were.

My mother hated that style. She called all those big old suburban homes barns, and had grown up in one herself, albeit in a city, north of Boston. To her, those houses were a royal pain to maintain, cost a fortune to heat, had bad plumbing and were always drafty. Nothing cozy about them. I was the one who thought they were the cat's whiskers, as I and a good friend loved to take walking tours of those old streets, looking wide-eyed at those houses, and dreaming of becoming architects.

To me, they were romantic, and just walking around those quaint old streets was as cool and fun as walking around a museum. The houses were the paintings; and the fences and yards were rather their frames, as it were (it was the houses that dazzled me, not the oaks and maples, nor the hollyhocks,--gardens didn't do it for me,--go figure). Anyway, to wind this post up, I have, visually, spatially and, obviously, emotionally, a connection to Psycho that has nothing to do with crime or murder. I do have to admit that I and many other neighborhood kids liked to view those homes as having "dark" histories, complete with arsenic poisoning and the occasional axe murder. None of us had seen Psycho, or not yet anyway. We got our imaginations fired up by books, hardcover, paperback and the (so-called) comic kind, and, of course, TV and the movies.

It was a great time to grow up, and I feel somewhat bad for people too young to have been around then, too late to have had their imaginations shaped by older cultures, and older things generally, in a far more controlled environment.

reply

[–] roger1 (3626) 2 years ago

I agree, EC (and good to see you return, whatever name you use)

---

We shall see -- the new problem is I get cut off from posting more than once per hour it seems, and then only a paragraph or two. But I'm going to try. The longer "conversational" mode that makes posting here so rewarding -- to READ, when I read you and others here, is the key to coming here. If I'm cut down to a paragraph an hour well, I'm can't be around all day to do that. Anyway, it seems to be a new computer screwup. I can still get in on my cell phone via ecarle, but I can't write much from a cell phone. (This message is for you AND for moviechat honchos.)

--

regarding the Bates family. They likely, I suspect, had some "old money", much as many east coast folk did, true, surely when and where I grew up, in which big old homes, complete with barns (not yet wholly "converted" into garages), front porches, cobwebs in many of the windows, and often an elderly lady or two living alone inside. They looked grander than they truly were.

--

The "funny thing" about the infamous Bates "mansion"(or maybe it was just a big house), is that one could picture it on a street among other such houses(say in the neighborhood where Meet Me In St. Louis takes place) and it would be "fine," quaint, historic, "non-sinister." But put it out in the middle of nowhere, up on a hill looking down on a not-too-modern motel...and it became: creepy and atmospheric -- "don't go in there!"

One film earlier in North by Northwest, the drunken car drive ends, I believe, among houses on the MGM backlot and whaddya know -- there's a house much like the Bates mansion tucked in there, "waiting for its close-up next year" in Psycho. Which didn't happen -- ANOTHER house was cobbled together from SEVERAL houses on the Universal backlot, with some additional construction.

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3626) 2 years ago

My mother hated that style. She called all those big old suburban homes barns, and had grown up in one herself, albeit in a city, north of Boston.

--

In his book "Suspects," movie critic David Thomson wrote a series of "back stories" for famous movie characters, including Noah Cross and Norma Desmond. A few Hitchcock movie characters got write-ups and one was Norman Bates. Thomson opined that the Bates family moved to California from back east, that "Mr. Henry Bates" was a wealthy builder of homes who built his mansion as "the best of the best" -- an advertisement to his own trade. And then he died. Leaving a wife and only one child to "rattle around" in that big old house.

---

To her, those houses were a royal pain to maintain, cost a fortune to heat, had bad plumbing and were always drafty. Nothing cozy about them

--

I've stayed as a guest in a few such houses, and all of that felt right. Especially the heating and plumbing issues.

--

CONT

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

In would assume that back when the main highway ran through there, the hotel had a few employees - a housekeeper or two, desk clerks to work in shifts, maybe a groundskeeper/handyman person. Unskilled labor would have been cheap back then, and the house design tells us that the Bateses used to have a bit of money, and I would think that Mrs. Bates would consider that doing the housekeeping and working the desk would have been beneath her dignity. And the business ticked along until the new highway opened and the pretty part-time desk clerk disappeared, and there were all those awkward questions...

I presume all of this was covered in the "Bates Hotel" TV show, not that I consider that to be canonical.

reply

[–] roger1 (3626) 2 years ago

And the business ticked along until the new highway opened and the pretty part-time desk clerk disappeared, and there were all those awkward questions...

---

Ha..yikes. All bad things have to start somewhere.

---

I presume all of this was covered in the "Bates Hotel" TV show, not that I consider that to be canonical.

---

It sure is NOT canonical. They moved the location to the trees and coast of the Northwest, for one thing.

But I think we can go from the 1960 movie for ITS "canon."

That big old mansion up the hill bespeaks indeed of wealth. And when the main highway existed, indeed the motel could have financed staff to run it. On the other hand, Mrs. Bates was persuaded to build the motel not by her late husband...but by a boyfriend(married) who showed up after Mr. Bates died. Still...the boyfriend probably persuaded Mrs. B to use some of her inheritance(insurance?) to finance the motel.

And then it all ended, and Norman was there all alone...

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

Yeah, pretty much. I'd just like to add that the money was probably giving out by the time the motel was built, and there was never that much of it in the first place. The Bates House wasn't huge, it was the size of a family home but built on a prominence and in a grandiose style, as if whoever built it wasn't hugely wealthy but had owned a good amount of land. But the exterior was shabby and the interior was decades out of date at the time we see it, implying that the money that had built the house hadn't lasted into Norman's lifetime. So I assume that his mother had used whatever family money was available to fund the motel, rather than get a job herself.

https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.549f1d4b55bae57f502050abadc290d0?rik=DIGOx69MkSOhbQ&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

And again, that's what great production design does - it gives us the backstory without anyone speaking a word!

reply

[–] telegonus (736) 2 years ago

That's spot on, Otter. The Bates house was standard issue middle class, Victorian era. It wasn't big at all, though it had height in its favor; however, its setting and, especially when it was new, isolation, would have made it, IMHO, a hard sell for a doctor or a banker. It wasn't truly "in the community" in any but a formal sense. There was something forbidding in its isolation, and I can't help but think this would have been so around the turn of the century, when it was fairly new, though considered as a style, a fashion, as on its way out as double breasted suits and men's hats were circa 1960, when Psycho came out. Not ancient, but not the sort of place young couples were dreaming of moving into unless their last name was Addams.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

The house really is a wonderful piece of production design, with its age and shabbiness, and air of former prosperity. And while the design may have been standard issue middle class for a place like a New England town, in the semi-rural setting of far northern California, it looks like it might have been the biggest house in town circa 1900. Not the sort of place owned by someone genuinely rich, but the sort of place that might have been owned by the owner of the local lumber mill. Possibly it had been the biggest house in a small, poor town.

Because the setting of the high house on the promontory does suggest isolation, like it was built by the family that employed a lot of the townspeople, and the owners didn't care to mix with their employees and people they considered to be their inferiors.

reply

[–] roger1 (3626) 2 years ago

https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.549f1d4b55bae57f502050abadc290d0?rik=DIGOx69MkSOhbQ&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

And again, that's what great production design does - it gives us the backstory without anyone speaking a word!

---

And none better than with the Bates House! Because indeed, one has to picture how and WHY a house of that ornate nature(OK, not a huge mansion, but still) was out there in the middle of nowhere. It was built before the motel and there is indeed the suggestion that the owner(MR. Bates) wanted that isolation, and LIKED the idea of being on a hill so as to look out over the countryside and ...see folks coming.

That photo, by the way, captures the look of the house and the motel very much...but lacks the more youthful and liveable appearance of the house in the original. The photo seems to be of a truly rotted-out skeleton of the house -- no one could live in THAT. Universal uses such photos of the house often to communicate its "ghostly air" but thats not quite the effect in the original.

Also: the hill and low ground AROUND the house is too sparse in the photo. In the movie, there was a few small trees, some statuary, more chairs than in this photo.

Indeed, watching some of Psycho the other night I took note of this:

I'm on record as loving the "crystal clear" day for night shot of Arbogast climbing the steps to the house. But I looked at the EARLIER shot of Norman climbing the steps to the house(after peeping on Marion; just before the murder) and though the photography is much "messier"(a wobbly "matte shot" of the black house against process shots of clouds), the ANGLE is much different -- Hitchcock sets the camera WAY back so we can take in more of the motel(screen right) and more of the space to the left of the motel than in the "Arbogast shot." Its actually the most "roomy" view of house and motel in the movie, and shows more of the "hill and low ground." Every shot of the house is different in this movie.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

In another post I said that the house didn't scream wealth, but might have been the best house in a small rural town. The sort of house that might be owned by the owner of the local lumber mill that employed most of the townsmen, that sort of thing.

Because yes, the house wasn't just built to be deliberately isolating, it was meant to look a bit intimidating, standing tall out on its hill away from the town. Anyone who went there would presumably be on for a long uphill walk across Bates land (the proximity of the motel does suggest the family still owns land), and would see the tall house looming over him. And the view does suggest that whoever built the house wanted to see people coming... or keep an eye on the town.

reply

[–] roger1 (3626) 2 years ago

In another post I said that the house didn't scream wealth, but might have been the best house in a small rural town. The sort of house that might be owned by the owner of the local lumber mill that employed most of the townsmen, that sort of thing

---

I like that idea -- a local lumber mill would fit the story being set in Shasta County California..which is where a lot of lumber mills used to be in that state. The open spaces of the Bates Motel area actually lead to mountains and timber. (Fairvale in the movie is a fictional small town, but Hitchcock said the story takes place near Redding, California ...which is in Shasta County.)

And yes, in small towns of the time, there were always "the big homes reserved for the biggest locals."

All the "history" suggested by that house circa 1959/1960 is another reason I don't care for the 1980s/90s sequels. The BEST time period for that movie is when it came out -- 1960, in which America was starting to accelerate out of the small towns, old highways, and old economies of the first half of the 20th Century. The Bates House suggests a home from...the 20s(or 10s)? And the motel was built in the post-war 40's? And Norman killed Mother and boyfriend around..1950? Thus giving him the entire 50s to go slowly mad and become a serial killer....time matters in that movie. 1960 is what it is ABOUT in American history.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

I'm familiar with that region, I live a few hours away now, and when I was a kid there were still a lot of lumber mills up there, and not a lot of other industry. Well, not before pot farms became a cottage industry, but that was after Norman's time.

I'd say the house was built before 1920, it looks more California Victorian than Art Deco. Probably built by Norman's grandfather, who was the richest man in town for what that was worth, and Norman's father was probably the heir who wasted his inheritance in every possible way, leaving his widow no choice but to buckle down and work for a living. Hence, the shabby house with it's out of date interior, and the motel. Yeah, that was top-flight production design there...

reply

[–] roger1 (3626) 2 years ago

Probably built by Norman's grandfather, who was the richest man in town for what that was worth, and Norman's father was probably the heir who wasted his inheritance in every possible way, leaving his widow no choice but to buckle down and work for a living.

---

There you go, two generations of history from one house design!

---

Hence, the shabby house with it's out of date interior, and the motel.

--

Yes, it ain't much of a mansion.

I'm reminded that if one takes a look at Vertigo from two years before, and sees the nicely burnished staircase and foyer of the "McKittrick Hotel" -- you can see how a house interior COULD look if properly refurbished and maintained.

Norman lives in a musty house "trapped in time." Mother's bedroom: unchanged. NORMAN'S bedroom; still filled with childhood toys never put away.

---

Yeah, that was top-flight production design there...

--

Yep. The movie WAS nominated for the "Best Art Direction: Black and White" Oscar. It lost to The Apartment; the latter had the famous "office with hundreds" set and the apartment itself but I think the Bates House -- inside and out -- ended up more important and famous.

reply

[–] telegonus (736) 2 years ago

EC: I remember those shots and angles for the shots of the Bates house in the movie. It's a joy to watch for the skill, the detail, that Hitchcock and his crew put into it. What we see of Norman, rushing down the steps in the rain, is sheer perfection; and in some ways the daylight shots of Arbogast climbing the hill to the house are even more impressive, not a second too long or short, and in this they nearly define the gloom of the film as a whole; a movie with Gothic frills, yet also one rooted in day to day life, with living in the real world, of paying bills and meeting deadlines, even as we actually see rather little of all this in the film itself. To pull back further from these scenes, to the earlier ones in Phoenix, with Marion and the various men in her life; then later, more ominously, her long drive west, her meeting with the highway cop. This really frames the movie as a whole, as it ends in a perfectly ordinary police station.

I wish you the best in getting what issues you've had with the admins in using your screen name on these boards. They should welcome you back, not make your return to the boards difficult.

reply

[–] roger1 (3626) a year ago

EC: I remember those shots and angles for the shots of the Bates house in the movie. It's a joy to watch for the skill, the detail, that Hitchcock and his crew put into it.

---

The reputation of Psycho as a truly historic event in movie history(and at the time, what one critic called "the most terrifying movie ever made" and another called "the sickest movie ever made") sometimes overshadows something that ANOTHER critic said about it: "Possibly the most perfectly made movie of all time." THAT assessment seems right every time. The movie is just the right length -- hardly overstays its welcome, and the individual SCENES are perfectly time(even the shrink at the end, he gets just ENOUGH time to hit plot points AND psychoanalyis.) And individual SHOTS are perfectly time -- Van Sant in his remake botches that, some shots are held too short, some too long, per the original.

---

What we see of Norman, rushing down the steps in the rain, is sheer perfection; and in some ways the daylight shots of Arbogast climbing the hill to the house are even more impressive,

---

Hitchcock, I think, had an artist's instinct: he KNEW this movie had a spectacular centerpiece: that HOUSE, on that HILL, with the MOTEL down below. Three elements -- the house over all, but also the hill and the motel -- and he create all sorts of variations on that view, making the movie a "feast of images" locked on those elements.

And so: Norman first running down the steps in the rain(very realistic, great SOUND effects of the rain); the rest of Marion's night with "matte rain clouds"(speeded up by Saul Bass) to create a haunting effect to backdrop the house. Sometimes those matte shots are "sloppy" and sometimes that helps the effect, but sometimes, they are simply flaws in a great film.

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3626) a year ago

Arbogast's sequence, one week later with a clear sky behind the house(day for night) gets the most "crystalline" views of the house on the hill; first his POV when he first sees Mother in the window (probably the best shot of the house in the whole movie, by itself) and then the shot of Arbogast climbing the steps to the hill. Here's "Hitchcock's eye" really reveals itself. To get the elements he needs, he moves the camera much CLOSER to the hill and puts the motel to screen right. "Lost": the top of the house, but we've seen that.

And finally, Sam and Lila come the next morning after Arbogast -- Sunday on a day so bleached and sunny and bright that EVERYTHING is now revealed: the house, Norman(in his bright white shirt; no sweater, no jacket), the secret...

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3626) a year ago

(Shots) not a second too long or short,

--

Yes, Hitchcock and his trusted film editor of many films, George Tomasini, go the timing just right, every time.

I've read that the movie plays out in scenes of "three minutes, six minutes, and nine minutes"(the last being Norman's clean up and burial of Marion) and shots were timed with a metronome on set.

I remember Van Sant "blowing" the simple high angle shot of the door opening at the top of the stairs as Arbogast climbs to his death. Hitchcock -- a "frame cutter" said his assistants -- cut RIGHT when a growing shadow hit is final point; Van Sant cut before then.

And Van Sant chickened out on shot length for Arbogast's climb up the hill to the house. He starts too late on the shot and ends too soon. The composition was fine(William H. Macy's rather Droopy Dog Arbogast approaching a WRONG Bates house) but got none of the eerie day for night effect of the Balsam version...the house is simply set against a dark black/blue night sky.

---

and in this they nearly define the gloom of the film as a whole; a movie with Gothic frills, yet also one rooted in day to day life, with living in the real world, of paying bills and meeting deadlines, even as we actually see rather little of all this in the film itself.

---

Well that's why I like the shot of Arbogast climbing the hill . The house and hill suggest "Dracula's Castle" or a haunted house. But the tough, professional man in a suit, tie and hat climbing the hill suggests the "modern day 1960 ambiance" of the film and its no nonsense characters. Its a statement as to WHY Psycho was so memorable.

By the way, in Joe Stefano's screenplay for Psycho, Arbogast "dashes up the hill" in a furtive manner, he's very much sneaking up there, and in a bit of a panic to investigate without being detected. Hitchcock "slowed this down" to a nice, assured WALK up to the house. Different tone.

---

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3626) a year ago

To pull back further from these scenes, to the earlier ones in Phoenix, with Marion and the various men in her life; then later, more ominously, her long drive west, her meeting with the highway cop. This really frames the movie as a whole, as it ends in a perfectly ordinary police station.

---

Again, you nail it, telegonus: a "Gothic" movie with a very modern and almost banal sense of American society circa 1960...cops and car dealers and deputy sheriffs and local DAs...the horror is set against a certain reality at all times.

And this: I believe I've confessed that in my childhood, I got to watch Psycho only as far as Marion's night drive. I had to turn it off even before she saw the Bates motel(I wasn't ordered to; I just didn't want to be discovered by my parents retunring from a night out -- my OWN guilt.) And I couldn't believe it: was this REALLY Psycho? What was all this excess material at her office, with the cop, with the car salesman?

That was THEN. NOW, I see that opening half hour as "part of the horror movie itself." All these very banal but VERY tense ordeals through which Marion Crane is being dragged are pointing her inevitably towards the Bates Motel and her death. Crucially the cop's line: "There are plenty of motels in the area, you should have, I mean, just to be safe..." And "Marion's sequence" (especially her long drive into night and rain) have a nightmarish quality all their own BEFORE she reaches the Bates Motel and house.

reply

[–] roger1 (3626) a year ago

I wish you the best in getting what issues you've had with the admins in using your screen name on these boards. They should welcome you back, not make your return to the boards difficult.

--

Thank you for your kind words, telegonus.

Oh, I don't think there was anything intentional about this. I'm familar with internet systems "shutting me out" when passwords are rejected, etc. There is nothing personal about it, the machinery simply is rejecting me. Once it happens, its hard to get back in. (Except I was ecarle for a LONG time.)

A week later, it seems to be letting me post more, at least.

reply

[–] telegonus (736) 2 years ago

I agree with everything you said in your post, Otter. The quality of the Bates house, its design and detail, is indeed remarkable for a backlot, any backlot, of Psycho's vintage. Your backstory for the house is intriguing. It would have been a good fit the the "biggest house in a small, poor town". Fancy in its way, with some good things in its design, yet likely already ersatz, or borderline, even when it was new.

It was also, almost surely, a house for an introvert, or a couple that was introverted. Uninviting, because the new owners wouldn't be inclined to host many parties or events, even if they had children; and unlikely a large family if they did. One can see from what's shown of the second floor that there simply wasn't the space for that, nor enough rooms. Yet it was a place that likely never felt cramped, even in relatively small spaces. Older houses of that vintage were like that.

reply

[–] roger1 (3626) a year ago

The quality of the Bates house, its design and detail, is indeed remarkable for a backlot, any backlot, of Psycho's vintage.

---

As I recall, the house was barely described in Robert Bloch's novel ...at least from the outside. Bloch caputred the Gothic rooms and furnishings of the house with a certain creepy flair, but the house, was just "an old two story house."

Hitchcock must have pondered and pondered and PONDERED how that house should look and what its history might be. I've never seen such, but I'll bet he commissioned his art directors to DRAW all sorts of houses or to provide him with paintings like Hopper's "House by the Railroad."

Hitchcock gave one clue in an interview: he based the Bates House on the (real?) McKittrick Hotel in Vertigo. When detective(!) James Stewart enters the McKittrick lobby(foyer) he gets a POV shot of the staircase and it is much like that of Arbogast's in Psycho -- but the McKittrick staircase is bigger, more polished, and in Technicolor.

Then came the day in 1959 when Hitchcock and his art directors and some other drove from his offices at Paramount to the Universal backlot to "go looking for the Bates house" from among various such houses. Whatever was picked evidently ended up with the cupola from the house in Harvey(1950) added to it, and I'll bet Hitchcock asked for other changes to the facade before putting the house on the hill.

That is, only TWO halves of a house. Just the front and the left side. There are photos from 1960 showing that there was NO right side to the house, nor a rear side (these were added for the sequels.)

So ALL the personality of the Bates House came from the FRONT(including Mother's window) and the left side.

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3626) a year ago

(Otters) backstory for the house is intriguing. It would have been a good fit the the "biggest house in a small, poor town". Fancy in its way, with some good things in its design, yet likely already ersatz, or borderline, even when it was new.

---

Recall Hitchcock in Hitchcock/Truffaut saying those houses could be found all over Northern California: They are called 'California Gothic,' or , if really overdone, "Gingerbread Gothic." Hitch assured Truffaut that the film was historically accurate on the house, so he must have seen a LOT of books and other material about the houses of the time.

---

It was also, almost surely, a house for an introvert, or a couple that was introverted.

--

Interesting. Recall Norman bristling at Sam: "This place? I grew up in that house up there. My mother and I were more than happy." But just them. Introverts. The father died when Norman was five, the boyfriend was an annoyance(and evidently married already, said Chambers, maybe he didn't live with the Bateses."

---

Uninviting, because the new owners wouldn't be inclined to host many parties or events, even if they had children; and unlikely a large family if they did. One can see from what's shown of the second floor that there simply wasn't the space for that, nor enough rooms. Yet it was a place that likely never felt cramped, even in relatively small spaces. Older houses of that vintage were like that.

--

But also: Mr. "I"m paying for this movie out of my own pocket" Hitchcock refused to SHOW us some rooms. When Arbogast enters the foyer, we don't see what is to his LEFT(our right)...the sequels posited an entire living room there. When Arbogast looks to his right, the POV on the menacing Cupid statue shows a door BEHIND the statue. What's in there? A den? A dining room(probably the latter, off the kitchen we only PARTIALLY see in the back when Norman sits there.)

reply

[–] roger1 (3626) a year ago

Yet it was a place that likely never felt cramped, even in relatively small spaces. Older houses of that vintage were like that.

--

That ties into "the movie in our mind" that goes on beyond what we seen on screen, I think. We come to realize that at a certain point, Norman Bates was physically ALL ALONE in that barn house with all its empty space. And no neighbors for miles. A total isolation which provided the breeding ground to "create" a companion in his Mother(imaginary) and to sleep every night with the REAL Mrs. Bates(her corpse) in a room only a few feet from his own.

Macabre. Creepy. Sad.

I'll admit that the Psycho sequels showed us more rooms in the house, but I think the "canon is the classic" ONLY in the original Psycho do the rooms that we see MATTER.

reply