MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > December 31 Is the Last Day for Psycho ...

December 31 Is the Last Day for Psycho on Netflix(...and The Birds. And Jaws. And Psycho II.)

posted 2 months ago by roger1 (4046)
11 replies | jump to latest

Well, its December 21, 2024. So Christmas and New Year's are at hand. (And in the Psycho timeline, yesterday on the 20th 65 years ago, -- 1959, not 1960 -- aren't all stories told "in the past?") they captured Norman Bates and the shrink explained all. Til next year.)

And on Netflix, slapped upon the Thumbnail of the Bates Mansion and the famous Psycho logo is this phrase: "LEAVING SOON." Another click tells ya: "Leaving Netflix on December 31, 2024."

Its enough to make a Psycho fan at least a little sad. Who likes to say goodbye to a welcome guest?

Its not like I"ve watched Psycho every day since it came on board(back in October for Halloween month.) But once I looked it up once, the thumbnail remained up on my home screen indefinitely until one day the "LEAVING SOON" sign was plastered on it. And its a llittle sad, is all.

But some OTHER movies i looked at since October on Netflix ALSO have the "LEAVING SOON" banner on them now. And THEY , too, will be gone by December 31:

Jaws(along with Psycho and The Exorcist, one of the "three superthrillers.")
The Birds(along with Psycho, pretty much one of "The Big Two" Hitchcock thrillers known to the world after all these years IMHO, the ONLY two that really track with the horror and special effects films of the 20th Century. But THAT said, Hitchcock's Big THREE are truly Vertigo, NXNW and Psycho, in a row.)

Psycho II(which was up on a screen with Psycho as "The Psycho Collection" to which I say -- "wait no Psycho III? -- THAT was the best sequel? And what about Psycho IV: The Beginning?" And how about NOT calling Psycho II part of a Psycho Collection?

BECAUSE:

I took a last look at the opening 15 minutes of Psycho II to "say goodbye" before December 31 and its even worse than I remembered it.

BECAUSE before the awful first "courthouse sequence"(which consists of TWO back-to-back awful scenes in the courtroom and then in the hall outside), the movie indeed opens with...the shower scene from 1960.

And its not that I never noticed this -- its simply that I FORGOT it until I watched this Psycho II shower scene version again.

After a couple of nice touches -- the Universal logo is in black and white and we get a shot -- also in black and white -- from elsewhere in the movie of "BATES MOTEL-- VACANCY" coming on -- we get the shower scene, pretty much the murder start to finish as in the movie and THEN:

Right after Marion's body spills over the tub, they CUT to : her dead face on the floor(the effect is as if her head hit the floor with a sudden slapping noise to her dead face and its over)..and they CUT OUT the ENTIRE swirling-blood-into-drain-into-eyeball dolly in and dolly out.

They took OUT the ART.

In his 1977 book, "The Art of Alfred Hitchcock," Critic Donald Spoto said of Psycho, "It is one of the few financially successful films which can defensibly be called an art film, and it remains more than fifteen years later the quintessential shocker. And so much more than a shocker.."

Well, 5 decades more than fifteen years later, Psycho still remains the quintessential shocker(or let's just say the first major one) and STILL remains much more than a shocker.

And Psycho II is barely a shocker. (OK -- Vera Miles getting a butcher knife through the mouth right in the same fruit cellar where she once escaped death was pretty shocking. And ironic in the Hitchocck tradition.) But in taking out the blood-into-drain-into eye shot from the original shower scene, Psycho II announces its intentions right off the bat: no art, all bad fan fiction. Anthony Perkins is playing a character CALLED Norman Bates...but he is not playing Norman Bates.

A reminder that Hitchcock was certainly a commercial filmmaker, but that there was certain "art film" aspect to a lot of his work as well. Shirley MacLaine said of "The Trouble With Harry"(her debut film -- a NON-Hitchocck Blonde)..."It was a bomb...a very arty bomb, but a bomb nonetheless.") And Vertigo CERTAINLY feels , often, like an art film(Scottie's nightmare with Herrmann's music, Madeleine emerges from the hotel bathroom, with Herrmann's music.)

The dream-like flow of "To Catch a Thief," with its quietude, its many fade outs and "air pockets of silence" (critic James Agee coined this phrase about Hitchocck's work and boy was he RIGHT)...feels like an art film at almost all times. The flow of POV shots in Rear Window: art film. The camera making its OWN backwards descent down the staircase and away from murder in Frenzy: art film.

Psycho II: not an art film. A little better than a TV movie (and it almost went to TV first).

CONT

[–] roger1 (4046) 2 months ago

Speaking of which, as Psycho II opens with the camera shot in the original -- from Janet's dead head across Cabin One to the newspaper with the money in it, on comes a credit over this classic shot: "A Bernard Schwartz Production." This rather MARS the great shot FURTHER, yes? An "Bernard Schwartz" isn't quite Alfred Hitchcock, producer-wise(recall that Hitchcock was his own producer from about Stage Fright on.) Indeed, wasn't Bernard Schwartz the real name of Tony Curtis...once the husband of ...Janet Leigh?

The camera moves on to the Bates Mansion("Oh, God, Mother...blood! blood!") and instead of a classic Saul Bass credits sequence, we get TV style lettering: "Anthony Perkins in"...." PSYCHO II."

I would say its terrible, but then i always thought the opening credit sequence in Hitchcock's own Frenzy was ''Kind of low rent."I showed that movie to a female friend and she said of the opening shot and credits: "But it looks so CHEAP." So you see...even Hitchcock couldn't match his Psycho credits...

----

Its funny about how Netflix "gives, and then takes away" various movies in its library. Psycho(while made for Paramount) is now a Universal film. The Birds was always a Universal film (Hitchcock's first upon his return and final stay at Universal after filming Saboteur and Shadow of a Doub there -- and it was HITCHCOCK who demanded that "Universal-International" be dropped -- too much like American-International. The Birds was the first movie with "Universal" attached since the 40s.))

So, anyway, Netflix has a nice library of top hits to "put on and take off" at will...and now that Psycho is going away (but not forever), I wonder what they will bring back in January of 2025?

Airport? (A huge hit from 1970.)
The Sting?(A huge hit from 1973)
American Graffiti?(A huge hit from 1973.)
Jaws? (A huge hit from 1975..no wait, they just had that one.)
Smokey and the Bandit?(A huge hit from 1977)
Animal House? (A huge hit from 1978?)

We shall see.

CONT

[–] roger1 (4046) 2 months ago

CONT

I DO recall that, for a number of months -- maybe two years ago? -- Netflix had a "non-Universal' modern classic on constant rotation for a few months. It was from Columbia Pictures. The four-men-on-a-mission Western adventure, The Professionals, which was my favorite movie of 1966.

I would occasionally turn on The Professionals on Netflix during that run JUST to watch the opening credits and Maurice Jarre's Herrmann-goes-West fandango score -- which briefly encapsulates the four men picked for the mission -- Lee Marvin, Robert Ryan, Woody Strode and Burt Lancaster(first observed escaping an angry husband in the wife's boudoir.) I flashed back to that Christmas Day in 1966 when I first saw that movie and how THAT was the kind of "action adventure" that I grew up on back then.

Anyway, Netflix took The Professionals away some months ago and I'm not sure when it comes back. Good thing I have the DVD!

And, at the end of the day -- Netflix really keeps its "library of old movies"(none older than Psycho, I don't think) as a "secondary service" for us older folk. The main menu is modern "sort of movies" with The Rock and Ryan Reynolds and Chris Evans and The Man Who Started It All: Adam Sandler.

So be it.

CONT

[–] roger1 (4046) 2 months ago

Psycho AND Jaws both leaving Netflix on the same day (December 31, 2024) strikes me as rather fitting.

Though Jaws is largely set in a seaside village -- just like The Birds -- Jaws has more in common with Psycho than The Birds does, really. Which is to say: both Psycho and Jaws DEFINED the blockbuster thriller for their respective decades. (Yes, Halloween and Alien popped up at the end of the 70's but neither quite reached ALL audiences like Jaws did.)

Jaws and Psycho are, along with The Exorcist(also from the 70's, but DIFFERENT from Jaws) "the three superthrillers."

The Exorcist is a Warner Brothers picture, so I don't think Netflix ever gets it. The Exorcist was on (HBO) Max (a Time Warner company) a few months ago for Halloween, but I checked, and it is off that channel right now. So in a week or so, Psycho, Jaws, AND The Exorcist will be gone off those streaming platforms. Here's hoping they come back -- or can be rented VOD now.

I've always said that Psycho and Jaws differ from The Exorcist because Psycho and Jaws are about "a monster attacking victims" throughout , whereas The Exorcist is about a supernatural event and battle (and has but one murder victims and we don't see him die.)

Moreover, Psycho and Jaws are "less sick" than The Exorcist(with its hard-R cussing and body horror and , pretty much, sexual child abuse on screen.)

CONT

[–] roger1 (4046) 2 months ago

Moreover still, Psycho and Jaws both work(beautifully ) a great "horror suspense concept": The Zone of Danger.

Its rather old-fashioned now, when murders need to happen every ten minutes (or less) but both Psycho and Jaws told the audience:

Here is a zone of danger. Characters who enter it MIGHT get killed horribly. But you won't know which characters and you won't know WHEN. So you'll be in suspense all the time.

In Psycho, the Zone of Danger is "The Bates Property" -- motel AND house. Victims die at the motel, victims die in the house. And any time ANYONE enters the Bates Property..they are in danger of the most horrific murder imaginable(in 1960 at least) from a truly monstrous and vicious psychopath, in the obscene guise of a superstrong old lady.

In Jaws, the Zone of Danger is: The Ocean. Whether at the shoreline next to the beach...or out on the open sea. In Part One, victims go from the beach into the watger. In Part Two, three men in a boat(and they need a bigger one) go out to the sea. So if you WALK into the water, or you SWIM in the water, or you FLOAT on a RAFT in the water, or you ROW A BOAT in the water...you might die a truly horrific death(eaten)..or if you slip and fall off the boat...or if the boat SINKS.

The Zone of Danger in Jaws is perhaps more direct than the Zone of Danger in Psycho...and fewer deaths occur in late Hays Code Psycho(only two and they were lucky to get to show the second one) but...same concept. Audiences screamed in ANTICIPATION of on screen death. We're more sophisticated about that now.

CONT

[–] roger1 (4046) 2 months ago

A point:

One of my favorite moments in Jaws is at the very end. The shark has swallowed up Quint(Robert Shaw) and ate him. Chief Brody(Roy Scheider) has blown up the shark...to death.

Chief Brody floats all alone on a barrel. Suddenly, something bubbles up from under the sea.

My 1975 audience SCREAMED at that. But the shark was dead, right? Not necessarily.

But...good news...its Matt Hooper(Richard Dreyfuss) and he is ALIVE (he died in the novel.)

Dreyfuss grabs a floating barrel. He and Scheider face each other and smile. One of the greatest "two word exchanges" in movie history:

Scheider: Smiles and chuckles at Dreyfuss.
Dreyfuss: Smiles and chuckles at Scheider.
Pause.
Dreyfuss: Quint.
Scheider: (Sad shake of head.) No.

Great, uh? Dreyfuss gets the picture. Quint got ate.

I just flashed on how this might fit "the Psycho collection":

Dreyfuss: Psycho II.
Scheider: (Disgusted shake of head.) No.

CONT

[–] roger1 (4046) 2 months ago

I wonder if Netflix is even going to bring Jaws back in 2025.

Seeing as 2025 is the 50th anniversary of Jaws. It is gonna be big, I think. Spielberg will get to bask in memories. And didn't QT say that Jaws is not only Spielberg's greatest movie but THE greatest movie? ("Not the greatest film," sayeth QT..."the greatest MOVIE.")

And here's my contribution. The following question:

"Does the Jaws legend contain the second greatest lie in the history of movies after the Psycho legend?"

I've posited the Psycho lie before: EVERY article, EVERY book about Psycho says that "Hitchocck surpised his audiences by kililng off the star in the shower before the movie was half over" BUT..the original 1960 trailer SHOWS the shower murder starting and DESCRIBES it.

So..a lie. "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

Now here's the possible lie about Jaws:

EVERY article, EVERY book about Jaws says "because the mechanical shark didn't work, they had to change a blatant William Castle horror movie into a suggestive Alfred Hitchcock suggestive movie.' In short, don't show the shark in full for a long, long, time and sometimes barely at all.

I think, from time to time, that THAT story might just be a lie, too.

Here's why:

CONT

[–] roger1 (4046) 2 months ago

When I first saw Jaws (opening day, first matinee, June 1975) I came out of it with a strong regard for HOW THE SHARK WAS SLOWLY REVEALED across the entire movie:

The naked female swimmer victim: we never see the shark at all.
The two guys trying to lure the shark with beef on a hook: we only see the dock dragged by the shark move.
The little boy on the raft victim: We see a circling up-and-down flash of fin as the shark attacks the boy.
The guy on the rowboat: Overhead shot of the shark's head and jaws biting down on the screaming victim(and oh how the AUDIENCE screamed at that shot.) But the shark head is underwater, hard to see.
Non-victim: Chief Brody: The shark head rises out of the water.
Various shots of the shark's head popping out at sea.
FINALLY: we watch, graphically, start to finish...the shark emerge onto the sinking boat to bite down on Quint, chew him up and swallow him down. Every detail, the shark in full view.

See...I can't believe ALL of that wasn't SCRIPTED from the beginning: show none of the shark(like when those two guys try to lure him with beef on a hook) then a little bit, then a little bit more, then ALL OF HIM.

I'd love the see the original screenplay FIRST DRAFT. That movie seems to me like "not showing the shark" was PRE-PLANNED, not an accident of a malfunctioning shark.

I wonder if we will ever know. Anybody seen that first script?

[–] christomacin (4730) 2 months ago

Actually, there WAS one other sighting of the shark (well, a shark, not THE shark) you forgot to mention, and it's got an interesting story behind it (per Wikipedia):

Footage of real sharks was shot by Ron and Valerie Taylor in the waters off Dangerous Reef in South Australia, with a short actor in a miniature shark cage to create the illusion that the sharks were enormous. During the Taylors' shoot, a great white attacked the boat and cage. The footage of the cage attack was so stunning that Spielberg was eager to incorporate it in the film. No one had been in the cage at the time and the script, following the novel, originally had the shark killing Hooper in it. The storyline was consequently altered to have Hooper escape from the cage, which allowed the footage to be used. As production executive Bill Gilmore put it, "The shark down in Australia rewrote the script and saved Dreyfuss's character."

[–] roger1 (4046) 2 months ago

Actually, there WAS one other sighting of the shark (well, a shark, not THE shark) you forgot to mention, and it's got any interesting story behind it (per Wikipedia):

---

"Verrry interesting..."as the Nazi used to say at the end of Laugh-In.

---

---- No one had been in the cage at the time and the script, following the novel, originally had the shark killing Hooper in it. The storyline was consequently altered to have Hooper escape from the cage, which allowed the footage to be used.[66][67] As production executive Bill Gilmore put it, "The shark down in Australia rewrote the script and saved Dreyfuss's character."

--
Wow there are a couple of trivia bits in there and ONE of them is a real "myth-buster."

Yes, Hooper DOES die in the cage in the book. But also in the book, Hooper is a muscular young stud who has a graphic sexual affair with Chief Brody's CHEATING wife. So basically, Hooper DESERVES to die in the book.

The "old" myth was that Spielberg and his writers had NO interest in a cheating Mrs. Brody(look how nice and loving she is in the film) and NO interest in a cheating young stud asshole Hooper,.. so all that was cut out, Hooper was made "nice" (and Richard Dreyfuss nerdy - like Spielberg himself) and Hooper was PLANNED to survive all along.

IF they changed Hooper to live because of that cage footage, I wonder what the movie would have been like if Hooper HAD been killed...even the nice nerdy Dreyfuss.

This raises questions! Again, I think it would be good for someone -- perhaps in the 50th Anniversary year of Jaws -- to find that "first draft script." Did Hooper die? Was the shark REALLY seen more in the script version?

CONT

[–] roger1 (4046) 2 months ago

PS. Given my age, I'm among some folks who saw, first run in the summer of 1971, a documentary called "Blue Water, White Death" that was pretty popular and showed Ron and Valerie Taylor(and others) messing around with REAL white sharks down there in Australia. I recall that movie wasn't a hit like Jaws, but my friends and I certainly found those Great Whites to be damn scary to watch.

I think it was reported in the press that Peter Benchley, author of the novel Jaws, saw "Blue Water, White Death" too -- and it partially inspired him to write Jaws.

[–] roger1 (4046) a month ago

So, anyway, Netflix has a nice library of top hits to "put on and take off" at will...and now that Psycho is going away (but not forever), I wonder what they will bring back in January of 2025?

Airport? (A huge hit from 1970.)
The Sting?(A huge hit from 1973)
American Graffiti?(A huge hit from 1973.)
Jaws? (A huge hit from 1975..no wait, they just had that one.)
Smokey and the Bandit?(A huge hit from 1977)
Animal House? (A huge hit from 1978?)

We shall see.

---

Its January of 2025.

And from my list above, the answer is : "The Sting." (1973.)

Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho is gone, but if you search you'll get "Psycho" -- a foreign film from the COVID year of 2020, not at all based on Robert Bloch's novel or Hitchcock's film and to my mind, a bit of a snarky insult to a great classic. By the way somebody released a movie called "Frenzy" a few years back -- about sharks! -- and even though that isn't attacking a giant classic like Psycho...its insulting enough to me. Get your own titles!

In reviewing the January 2025 Netflix list, I see that their "Universal product" goes beyond the 60s of Psycho and the 70's of The Sting and Jaws. They've got Waterworld and Apollo 13 -- both from Universal in 1995.

Oh well, I'm sure Psycho will come back to Netflix someday -- the REAL Psycho.