MovieChat Forums > Psycho II (1983) Discussion > Spool or not?

Spool or not?

posted 10 years ago by fluffchop
9 replies | jump to latest

I didn't think Spool killed anyone. Personally I think that Norman did it all.

From what we see of her I don't think there is much motive to actually go on a killing spree?! So I say Spool didn't do it. Meanwhile Norman was insane, had gone on a killing spree before (and didn't remember doing it).

I might be completely wrong. Spool might have been the one. I can't tell conclusively weather she killed anyone or not, because we never actually see the killers face. If she did do it, it raises several questions about weather or not she was from the planet Krypton, because she did a hell of lot of heavy body disposal.

You could say if she did X, then it raises plot hole Y. Similarly though, if it was Norman that also raises plot holes. There is the locked in the attic scenario. If he was in the attic and the chick was moving furniture around down the back stairs, how does Norman go down the back stairs to kill the kid in the cellar?

Perhaps he has a key to the attic, which sits above the door frame out of reach of the chick but within reach of Norman. Now how does the chick have the strength to move furniture down the back stairs without alerting Norman. So something is wrong with something in that area of the film. Like I said, if someone did X, it raises plot hole Y. So you just have to ignore that stuff rather than try to use it as a logical proof of who did what to whom.

The whole thing with this sequel is the question of is he or isn't he the killer, not weather he (or mother?) is insane like the first one. In this one he was clearly insane from about 5 minutes in.

He thought he heard his mothers voice from her bedroom. A sane person would know clearly that Mother is well and truly dead and that there can be no way that is her. If one is hearing her voice, or a voice like hers, it must be someone else. He didn't make that distinction right from the get go. Therefore we are being told he was bonkers right from the start of the movie.

So it becomes, we are told he is still insane and then kept guessing if he did the killings till the end. Then at the end he just goes ahead and kills Spool. That is saying ah ha!! it was Norman doing the killings.

[–] brianctyler-11531 9 years ago

Spool says that she couldn't stand how people were hurting him, so she followed them and "one by one...". She confessed.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

exactly

[–] misscastaway 9 years ago

Spool killed Toomey, the boy, Lila.

Mary accidentally killed Dr. Raymond.

The cops shot Mary.

Norman only killed Spool.

But they wanted to lead us down so many false trails that the whole thing became improbable. Spool doing all that body disposal. Mary carrying furniture up and down a flight of stairs on her own without making any noise. I can't even move a bed and a dresser half an inch across the floor without my neighbor thinking the house is falling down.

Spool was also supposedly creeping all through the house flushing bloody towels down the toilet and peeping at Mary in the bathroom. (god knows why, because all it did was incriminate Norman, who she was supposed to be trying to protect).

Again we were meant to suspect Norman, but Spool definitely confessed to the killings at the end.

[–] renatom1 9 years ago

One way to look at it is that Mrs. Spool was insane, so she was not thinking rationally or worrying whether her behavior would protect or incriminate Norman--she was just doing what she was doing.

Another way to look at it is based on what we learn in Part III, that Mrs. Spool was taking advantage of Norman's psychosis to make him believe she was his mother and then get her hands on his property. If that is the case, then it would have been to her advantage for Norman to have been found insane and put away again. That way he would be gone, and she would have his property.

[–] misscastaway 9 years ago

One way to look at it is that Mrs. Spool was insane, so she was not thinking rationally or worrying whether her behavior would protect or incriminate Norman--she was just doing what she was doing.

Another way to look at it is based on what we learn in Part III, that Mrs. Spool was taking advantage of Norman's psychosis to make him believe she was his mother and then get her hands on his property. If that is the case, then it would have been to her advantage for Norman to have been found insane and put away again. That way he would be gone, and she would have his property.

Just let me do some thinking aloud... 😲

*SPOILERS*

Emma Spool was (allegedly) Norma Bates' unmarried sister. So Norma's maiden name was Spool. Norman didn't recognize the name and didn't even know his mother had a sister because Emma was incarcerated when Norman was less than a year old, and released while he himself was in the hospital.

This chunk of exposition came out at the very end, to show us that ZOINKS! it wasn't Norman killing all those people after all, and nor was it Mary or Lila.

But it is SO VERY improbable that an old lady who 'never missed a day's work' could creep around the house while other people were in it, murder and dispose of a heavy guy like Toomey, kill and dispose of a teenage boy and then clean up the fruit cellar, stab Lila through the neck and then bury her right underneath a humungous coal pile. Without making ANY noise whatsoever.

This was meant to make us think it was Norman because all of these would need a man's strength. So unless Emma's madness gave her the strength of ten men, it was a leap of faith to have this confession at the very end, just so that Norman could go back to the way he was, with Mother at the window and Bates Motel open for business.

I do like the idea that she was just after his property. The most realistic aspect of the film is that people do target the vulnerable and try to grab everything for themselves. As Sheriff Hunt said, "If Norman Bates is crazy, there's a whole lot of people running him a close second."

[–] Puvwall (1366) a year ago

Thats what i took away.
What a terrific follow up to the first film .

[–] wwwocls-72759 9 years ago

This movie doesn't deserve more than a 6.0 rating because it's completely ridiculous that a 65 year old woman could have committed the murders.

[–] renatom1 9 years ago

SPOILER ALERT!!!

Many people find it hard to believe that an old lady could have committed the murders and disposed of the bodies. But let's look at each murder one by one.

Mr. Toomey: He was murdered at night in his office, and it isn't until the next morning that we see Norman outside the office believing Mr. Toomey had left. That means Mrs. Spool had all night to dispose of the body. So even though Mr. Toomey was a big guy, Mrs. Spool had more than enough time to figure out a way to make his body disappear.

The boy: Here Mrs. Spool did not have all night to dispose of the body. But since he was just a lean boy, she didn't need that much strength.

Lila Loomis: Mrs. Spool never really disposed of the body. She simply dragged it to the corner and covered it in coals.

Dr. Raymond: Mrs. Spool didn't kill him; it was Mary.

Mrs. Spool: Obviously, she didn't kill herself; it was Norman.

So as you can see, it was possible for Mrs. Spool to have committed the murders. Furthermore, we often underestimate the strength of some people. Years ago, I hired a personal trainer, and he was surprised to learn that I was a lot stronger than I looked.

[–] millsey72 (10243) 2 years ago

Are you aware that this story is a work of fiction. You are making claims about things that were never filmed or suggested on screen. The only person Norman killed in this movie was Mrs Spool at the end