I think the scene with agent falling down the stairs was weak...
It almost ruined the picture.
How??
shareIt just looks fake.
I know it was 1960 but it just looks stupid.
Well, you're not alone in disliking that shot, but I'm a real fan of Psycho -- the whole movie, start to finish, every character, every scene, every shot -- so I've got to come in and do what I can to defend it. Even though I know I CAN'T really -- the shot is what it is, the evidence is right there.
Still, here goes:
ONE: This one may surprise you. I was a kid in the 60s and I was not allowed to see Psycho for a few years and so the movie was TOLD to me by other kids. All boys, as I recall. And EACH AND EVERY one of those boys, when describing the detective's fall to me, NEVER said "it looks fake, he's clearly standing in front of a screen with moving footage."
Maybe it was because they were kids, maybe its because those were less sophisticated times. But they ALL really believed that they were watching a man fall down REAL stairs.
I do remember some debate among the boys who saw the scene. One said: "After his face gets slashed, he desperately tries to WALK backwards down the stairs to get away. (THAT image really scared me.) Another kid said: "After his face gets slashed, he falls backwards down the stairs." Another kid said: "I can't really TELL what he's doing..its like he's falling but still standing up and balanced."
TWO: Psycho was still forbidden to me when I picked up a copy of a book called "HItchocck/Truffaut" from a table at a book store(I couldn't buy it). It was about all his movies to that time and I flipped to the pages on Psycho and saw(for the first time) still frame photos of the detective's murder scene.
I remember thinking: "Oh, he's standing in front of a process screen." I guess I was a bit more sophisticated about process than my young friends, but then I went to more movies.
CONT
But I ALSO remember thinking: "He's standing in front of a screen, but this STILL SCARES me." And it did. Kept me sleeping with the lights on for a few days. I think it is because I could still "imagine myself into the shot" -- he WAS really fallnig down those stairs, I could imagine it, but more importantly I could see his FACE...slashed, bleeding, his eyes , mouth and NOSTRILS wide open in concentric circles of terror. Looking at these still frames in a book -- where the scene slowed way down from the few seconds it is on screen -- I felt the savagery of the attack, the monstrousnes of the psycho killer(how she pinned him down at the bottom of the stairs to finish him off)...I was SCARED. The "fake shot' simply wasn't part of the equation.
THREE: Hitchocck , as a maker of MOVIES that people PAID to go to the movie theater to see, liked to do things "bigger than television series." And on any number of TV series detective shows like Peter Gunn, Westerns, "staircase falls" were pretty standard. You brought on a stunt man , made sure he didn't show his face and then filmed him rolling down the stairs from a distance.
Hitchcock didn't want to do THAT. He wants this audience to FEEL the sensation of falling -- its a "murder scene as action sequence."
Just the year before in North by Northwest, the best part of the scene where the crop duster is attackign Cary Grant is when Grant STARTS TO MOVE AND RUN, with the plane coming in from behind him. Here the MOVEMENT starts with the detective(agent?) STARTING TO MOVE AND FALL. Its surreal. Its exciting. Its Hitchcock.
FOUR: As process shots go, the detective's fall is a pretty good TECHNICAL process shot. By comparison in Psycho III, a character falls down those same stairs and it looks AWFUL -- the person doesn't move, the face doesn't ACT (MartinBalsam gave us a variety of facial expressions as he fell down the stairs.)
CONT
You'd be surprised at how BAD process work is in some movies COMPARED to the detective's fall in Psycho. Great films like The African Queen and All About Eve have TERRIBLE process screen work.
When the detective starts to fall, the camera GOES UP IN THE AIR a bit to look down on him. In other words, there is a camera move WITHIN the process shot. It creates the sensation of falling.
FOUR: Hitchocck told his interviewer, Francois Truffaut, that he wanted the "high shot" of the attack on the detective by MOther coming out the door to immediate cut to the EXTREME CLOSE-UP of a big head(the detective's.) "It was like music, you see," Hitchocck said "with the high shot crashing like symbols into the close-up ont he big head."
With the big head in THAT shot, Hitchcock held the head all the way down the stairs. A Hitchcock rule" "Always travel the close-up to maintain emotion -- don't cut away."
FIVE: And in conclusion, two of Hitchcock's interviewers -- movie director Francois Truffaut and talk show host Dick Cavett said they had no idea how that staircase fall was done. Maybe they were "faking it" to Hitchocck to talk but...maybe not. Maybe it worked for them.
As Hitchocck told Cavett," "when you fall, you fight it, you try to stay up. Sometimes you do stay up-- but sometimes you don't."
OK that's it. Yeah, its a fake shot, but that's what Htichcock wanted and its a great one.
But I ALSO remember thinking: "He's standing in front of a screen, but this STILL SCARES me."
---
I return to clarify, back in 1968 or whenever I saw Hitchocck/Truffaut and saw that shot..I THOUGHT he was STANDING in front of a screen but since then I learned:
Actor Martin Balsam(Arbogast) is SITTING in front of the screen, in a special chair "on a gimbel" (a pivoting, moving steel device) so he could "lean back" into his "fall" -- and emote unforgettably (he starts with that astonished face, mouth open wide and then "gulps" his way dizzyingly down the stairs.)
On the "Making of" DVD documentary about Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho, we see the actor playing Arbogast(William H. Macy) actually sitting in that chair against a GREEN screen -- no footage of the stairs -- and we see him "fall and gyrate" silently in front of the green screen -- there is no "Psycho screeching music" and one sees the "hard part of film acting": make us believe it!
Moreover, when we hear "cut!" Macy stops flailing and goes for comedy: sitting in the chair and acting like he's swimming under water, blowing air out of his mouth -- an actor's precision of facial control.
Yup. Thanks, EC. The Arbogast death fall works for me, and as, like you, an admirer of Hitchcock and if Psycho, likely his best film (what's better?,--not more fun--better). Psycho's an atypical film for Hitchcock, especially at the point in his career when he made it, about sixty years old, and with a long list of some very big and glamorous films in the 50s. It was "you've come a long way, baby" time for him; and he even had his own weekly TV show to remain a (somewhat) public figure, so he up and goes and makes a black and white horror picture, and did so on a modest TV style budget and with a prominent and talented cast, and not a superstar in the bunch.
I think that Hitch (pardon my familiarity, but it comes naturally to both of us, it seems) had decided to reach down, not up, which is to say he was giving a different "take" on life from his earlier pictures; not radically different, just not glamorous. Most of the major players in Psycho were class acts. Perkins, obviously, but Leigh and Miles, too. The two rustic Johns, Anderson and McIntire, were solid actors, both of them classy in their low key ways. Mort Mills was a solid player who, like so many gifted actors, never became a "name", on the big or little screen, and in this he reminds me of H.M. Winant, Royal Dano and Richard Devon. Martin Balsam did get accolades and name recognition.
Anyway, Psycho did sort of kickstart the modestly budgeted series of black and white horrors and crime films of the 60s, from the Robert Aldrich "hag horrors" with Bette and Joan; then the edgier, more psychological horror of The Strangler, Lady In A Cage and Who Killed Teddy Bear.Then there were the more matinee friendly William Castle horrors. I suppose Roman Polanksi's Repulsion deserves a mention, British made though it was.
It's good to see you back, or maybe for me to be back. I've been lurking on many boards, posting occasionally, and going through changes.
Yup. Thanks, EC.
---
EC. The nostalgia of that, telegonus. I'm over a year into "Roger1" and after 15 or so as "ecarle," he's in my very soul. (How overdramatic, hah.)
---
The Arbogast death fall works for me,
---
It certainly works for me. The entire Arbogast SEQUENCE is my favorite in Psycho, and I've always been a bit bummed given how perfect everything else is in it(the best shots of the house on the hill in the movie, the funny-tense and MODERN verbal duelling, and yes, one of the greatest jump scare audiece screams in movie history(before they became a dime a dozen)...its got that damn process fall to move a generation to reject the whole sequence, it seems. The entire character of Arbogast, it seems.
WITHIN the murder scene the fall is problematic too. Shot of Arbogast climbing the hill to the house: perfect. Shots of Arbogast in the foyer and his POV of various places: perfect. Arbogast climbing the stairs, perfect. The overhead attack show(great twist-hiding, very detailed, a HUGE scream that carries into the next scene) And then the fall(trouble.) BUT: the final shot of Mother jumping onto Arbogast to finish him off brings the nightmare into full focus again. Its just that damn fall.
I thought of the Arbogast fall the other night while watching Gladiator II on streaming for the first time. I haven't finished the movie yet, but the opening scenes posited a fleet of ships going to battle on the opening scene and though the CGI was OK, everything looked FAKE...the very sea itself, the ships, the actors positioned on those fake ships. And I thought: its 65 years since Psycho(2025 it will be in theaters for its anniversary again)...and movie visual effects are STILL "fake" at heart, and we STILL accept that fakery as part of the movie experience: its the best they can do. We let our imaginations do the rest.
CONT
and as, like you, an admirer of Hitchcock and if Psycho, likely his best film (what's better?,--not more fun--better).
---
Its his best film. Some comments made about it over the years stick in my memory each time I watch it:
"Hitchcock's entire life and canon of work brought him to Psycho."
"In some ways, Hitchcock accidentally stumbled into a movie in which he wasn't really in control of its greatness -- the story, the characters, the actors, the music -- THEY were as much of Psycho as he was."
"Possibly the most perfectly made film of all time." (I like that one even if I'm not sure what "perfectly made" means. I'll offer: perfectly structured story, perfect length of movie, perfect length of each individual scene, perfect dialogue, perfect casting, perfect acting(yes, even John Gavin), perfect everything."
This: ANY story with the Bates Motel in the foreground and the Bates mansion in the background would have been "great" just on the basis of that perfect setting, those atmospheric sets. A perfectly mediocre , non-violent mystery melodrama could have been set there and been memorable just because of how the movie LOOKS. BUT...we ALSO got ..plenty of shocks ("Here was a thriller that really DELIVERED thrills, wrote one critic), the historic shower scene, the equally exciting staircase murder, the fruit cellar...and Norman Bates himself(a hero/villain for all time.)
CONT
"Psycho's an atypical film for Hitchcock, especially at the point in his career when he made it, about sixty years old, and with a long list of some very big and glamorous films in the 50s.
---
I've read many of the 1960 reviews and those critics were pretty well stunned by how black and white cheapjack and confined Psycho looked from the man who had made previous Technicolor movies on the French Riviera, in Morocco, in London, in San Francisco...and on Mount Rushmore. They just couldn't believe it(though I would suggest that the black-and-white The Wrong Man rather prepped us for the hardscrabble suspense of the piece.)
But also this: SOME of Psycho is a LITTLE cheapjack looking(like Marion's bedroom and Cabin One) but a LOT of the film is as polished and gleaming as ANY of his "glamour movies." The house, inside and out, is "pure major movie" time. And though his usual DP Robert Burks didn't film it, DP John Russell gives the movie the SAME look as a Burks production(kind of 3-D.) Maybe this means that Hitchcock was the REAL DP of his work.
CONT
It was "you've come a long way, baby" time for him; and he even had his own weekly TV show to remain a (somewhat) public figure,
---
As I've said before, by the time Hitchocck made Psycho, he wasn't just a famous movie producer-director(he hid the producer role in his "Alfred Hitchcock's credit) he was a MAJOR TV star and THAT made him more famous than ANY director at the time.
That's why the Psycho trailer shows ONLY Hitchcock walking around and talking. No Perkins, no Leigh...oh Vera Miles shows up in a "fake shower scene moment" at the end, but its not from the movie.
---
so he up and goes and makes a black and white horror picture, and did so on a modest TV style budget
---
Yes, as he told Truffaut, Psycho was an experiment in that he used his TV production crew(in the main) to make this movie. One critic Dwight McDonald, criticized Psycho accordingly "Its just another one of his TV episodes, with padding." Well.."Yes...and NO" as the shrink says. NO Hitchcock episode could have contained those murders, NO Hitchcock episde could contain that backstory, NO Hitchcock episode could have budgeted the 7 days to shoot the shower scene(entire EPISODES of the half hour series took 3 days.)
CONT
and with a prominent and talented cast, and not a superstar in the bunch.
---
An interesting aspect of Hitchcock -- over his entire American career -- is how while he MOSTLY used one or two major stars per film(Cary Grant, James Stewart..Ingrid Bergman, Grace Kelly) he SOMETIMES made films with very "minor star" casts: Saboteur, Lifeboat, Strangers on a Train, The Trouble With Harry.
I think that Psycho is ALMOST in that "minor cast" column, except Janet Leigh had been in some major movies(Little Women, Scaramouche, The Vikings, Touch of Evil) and Anthony Perkins had been in Friendly Persusasion(and then a bunch of flops even as a star.)
We are always told that Janet Leigh was a "major star" when Hitch killed her in that shower, but the truth of the matter is that she was somewhat second-tier, as famous for her marriage to Tony Curtis as her own work. TRULY major female stars in 1960 were Liz Taylor, Doris Day, Audrey Hepburn, even Marilyn Monroe. Had one of THEM been in that shower, an entirely different history would have been made.
Vera Miles and John Gavin were PITCHED as major stars, but neither achieved liftoff and both ended mainly as TV series stars or guests.
I daresay that ol' Arbogast -- Martin Balsam -- got the most long lasting movie career. All through the 60s and 70s, sometimes with "top billing" in alphabetical casts (Tora Tora Tora, Murder on the Orient Express), in LOTS of classics and hits after Psycho. And he won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for A Thousand Clowns. The lot of the working character actor.
CONT
I think that Hitch (pardon my familiarity, but it comes naturally to both of us, it seems) had decided to reach down, not up, which is to say he was giving a different "take" on life from his earlier pictures; not radically different, just not glamorous.
---
Well, I like to compare Psycho to To Catch a Thief of 5 years earlier. To Catch a Thief is about "rich people with little to do": Grace Kelly and her mother are rich; Cary Grant is rich(from a life as a cat burglar, but he is on parole for WWII heroism. So we follow all these rich people hanging out being rich.
In Psycho, Hitchcock shows us some pretty hardworking people "just getting by": Marion (10 years as a real estate secretary), Norman(a motel that probably never turns a profit -- Lila calls it a worthless business), Sam(has to LIVE in a room at his hardware store.) Hitchcock confronted his viewers with a rather sad and bleak life and -- this was key -- somehow suggested that THESE people were vulnerable to horror. (Cary Grant wouldn't have stopped at the Bates Motel.)
--
Most of the major players in Psycho were class acts. Perkins, obviously, but Leigh and Miles, too. The two rustic Johns, Anderson and McIntire, were solid actors, both of them classy in their low key ways. Mort Mills was a solid player who, like so many gifted actors, never became a "name", on the big or little screen, and in this he reminds me of H.M. Winant, Royal Dano and Richard Devon.
---
"H.M. Wyant, Royal Dano and Richard Devon." That's your specialty, Telegonus! You REMEMBER those players. I'm sure they would be pleased to know that they live on. Seriously.
---
Martin Balsam did get accolades and name recognition.
---
Yes, as I noted above, he got the longest movie career of anyone in Psycho, really, at least AFTER Psycho(Janet Leigh had a long one before Psycho.) And he's the only Oscar winner in the film.
CONT
Anyway, Psycho did sort of kickstart the modestly budgeted series of black and white horrors and crime films of the 60s, from the Robert Aldrich "hag horrors" with Bette and Joan; then the edgier, more psychological horror of The Strangler, Lady In A Cage and Who Killed Teddy Bear.Then there were the more matinee friendly William Castle horrors. I suppose Roman Polanksi's Repulsion deserves a mention, British made though it was.
---
As I've noted, it seems that Psycho was "all alone by itself" as the "big" horror movie of the 60s(FROM 1960)...now Psycho gets mentioned "in a pack" that includes Night of the Living Dead(from '68), The Exorcist, Jaws, Halloween, Alien. But in the 60s, many horror movies(usually low budget) were LIKE Psycho: black and white(or low budget), slashers, psychopaths, old women villains, etc.
CONT
It's good to see you back, or maybe for me to be back.
---
Well, I was certainly pleased and surprised to see you pop up on this thread, telegonus. Always welcome! Always with your particular well-versed view of things(again: HM Wyant, Royal Dano, Richard Devon -- they DESERVE to be remembered.)
My current schedule is such that I disappear for weeks here and when I come back I write a fair amount and then-- I'm gone again. Feast or famine for me.
--
I've been lurking on many boards, posting occasionally, and going through changes.
---
Internet boards are perhaps the only place where "lurking"(as an official term) is a good thing. It means we are being read by somenone! Glad that you post occasionally, and...we are all going through changes.
An irony for me: I'm one of the mass of Hitchcock watchers(some fans, some not) who note "he got tired in his older age and his films declined accordingly." Well, its not hypothetical for ME, anymore. I'm getting tired in my older age. It arrived. But its not THAT bad, and i expect Hitchcock was tired for other reasons. I've got those 80-something/90-something people to emulate: Spielberg, Eastewood, Scorsese. Richer than me, but the energy I can try to capture. You should too!
I'll go back to my original point...it looks fake.
This is an impressive thread for sure though.
I'll go back to my original point...it looks fake.
This is an impressive thread for sure though.
--
Ha. I am sure that with your post, you sought to make that quite valid point and...done.
The thread led -- quite accidentally -- to a brief reunion among "old internet friends," and for that I thank you, even if it wasn't your intent.
But there is something more important going on here, I think.
"Psycho" has a very major reputation in movie history in so many ways: a blockbuster, a censorship-buster, a landmark film and yet...
...that fake staircase fall seems to kill the whole damn movie for new generations. And its a damn shame.
The very brevity of your post ("It looks fake") while true....is near-fatal to the future for this classic, I think.
So I came in to set the record straight as I could and we got a nice "side thread" out of it. Thank you.
One more thing: I wrote this above, and i re-post it here because I think it is meaningful:
BEGIN:
I thought of the Arbogast fall the other night while watching Gladiator II on streaming for the first time. I haven't finished the movie yet, but the opening scenes posited a fleet of ships going to battle on the opening scene and though the CGI was OK, everything looked FAKE...the very sea itself, the ships, the actors positioned on those fake ships. And I thought: its 65 years since Psycho(2025 it will be in theaters for its anniversary again)...and movie visual effects are STILL "fake" at heart, and we STILL accept that fakery as part of the movie experience: its the best they can do. We let our imaginations do the rest.
END