MovieChat Forums > MizhuB > Replies
MizhuB's Replies
I didn't know that about Russell Metty. That explains why the film is mostly well-shot. And well-polished would be a good way to describe it too.
Interesting that the director was mostly a TV director. I have thought that some scenes have the look of a well-filmed TV movie.
I was also a fan of those 70's horror movies of the week.
Hi swanstep. Although that opening sequence is DePalma-esque, that is the only sequence in the entire movie with that much style. The scene with the wheelchair I guess would be a set-piece though (if I understand the meaning of that phrase correctly). The camera work is good, not spectacular.
Keep in mind, I never considered this movie to be 'good'. It isn't. Like I said, a guilty pleasure. It's just something I pop in occasionally when I want some fluffy entertainment.
Heh. No, not fatal cat allergy. She has severe emphysema. That's not really a spoiler, you find that out right away.
It WAS written by Joseph Stefano, with music by Lalo Schifrin. And, of course, the SF location.
swanstep. Heh, the only one of those I watched was the Psycho one, but I just watched the 2001 one, and I see your point.
The one with Janet Leigh driving is here:
https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/24/18239125/google-assistant-oscars-2019-ads-space-odyssey-psycho-scream
The Professor, David Thorburn, is never less than enthusiastic & interesting. He makes the odd amusing error (e.g., saying that Rusk in Frenzy is played by Caine!)
==========
I'm picky about accuracy ;)
Not that I'm a know-it-all, but when someone makes a mistake like that, their credibility goes downhill.
ecarle, you may not be able to do 'clickable' links (neither can I!), but you can always just copy the URL and past it into your post. Then all one has to do is copy the link and paste it into the URL. Like this:
https://mondotees.com/products/psycho-simpson-poster?variant=1241505890318
I'm hesitant to say this, but when I saw 'Frenzy' in the theater upon its first release, when Rusk took Babs to the apartment and said, 'You know, you're my kind of woman' and then the camera just panned down to the outside, I heard people saying 'Oh man! We didn't even get to SEE it!'
Likewise, with 'Family Plot', Hitch's final film. Even though the audience seemed to enjoy it (especially laughing hysterically at the car without brakes scene), when I left the theater, I heard several people mention, 'I expected at least ONE gory murder!'
With both films, they were disappointed it wasn't violent enough. For some reason, they wanted shocks and gore over suspense from Hitchcock. Which he was never really about, but most likely, they were remembering Psycho and The Birds. When he did 'go there'.
I think it's a shame that such an innocuous 2-3 minute scene could ruin an entire film for someone.
Not sure about that -- he's at the front of the house, right?
=========
Yes, the middle window in what I can only describe as the 'tower'. I THINK the camera pans from him in that window, down to the teenagers sneaking into the basement windows for their 'rendezvous'. But I haven't watched Psycho II in years.
Despite the fact that I once bought a DVD set of Psycho II, III, and IV. And haven't watched any of them in a very long time.
As many times as I've seen Psycho, I never noticed that you can see the steps in front of Arbogast in that overhead shot. There's always something new to notice in this movie.
And just for the heck of it, I've always believed that Arbogast wasn't slashed in the face. When you see 'mother' attack him, the knife hits his upper chest.
I remember perusing a book years ago that had almost frame-by-frame pics in it. I don't remember the author, but you may have mentioned it. I remember that in it, you see 2 or 3 frames of the blood spurting up ONTO his face...from his chest.
And Happy Holidays ;)
Something else for me to check. I'm 99% sure that in Psycho II, characters are seen walking up that staircase to Norman's room. That would indicate a THIRD floor. I know that Norman is seen peering out that middle window which seems to be on a third floor.
In the original, I can't recall anyone walking up that second staircase, but I'm pretty sure it can be seen in some shots. Do they show Lila ascending that staircase before she enters Norman's room? I can't remember.
Point taken.
I never got the impression that Marion was living in a modest apartment. We're only shown her being in one room (her bedroom).
I always thought that she lived with her sister, Lila, in a house.
You were tactful. I've read people's opinions on both sides of the coin.
Those who think Gavin was just the stiff, and those who think his stiffness was appropriate for this role.
Me? As is often the case, I'm somewhere in the middle. I think he was fine in some scenes and absolutely terrible in others.
I've also just thought of it as a semi-big Gothic house. Not large enough to be a mansion.
Forgetting the sequels, Hitch only shows us one room on the right side of the house. Upstairs, Norman's bedroom. Who knows what's in the rest?
The doorway to Arbo's right can't be the staircase to the cellar. That's clearly shown to be a staircase UNDER the main staircase when Lila descends it.
So except for Norman's bedroom, we're only shown the left side of the house. Even from the outside.
Wait a minute. I'm wrong. The kitchen is also shown to be on the right side. So the door next to Arbo might be a dining room? That's about all that would fit.
I agree that Marion could work to support their income.
But Sam says to her, 'Sure. And live with me in the back of a hardware store in Fairvale?'
If she also worked, they wouldn't have to.
I'm thinking that maybe..just maybe...it being the times (late 50's, early 60's), once women got married they were supposed to just become stay-at-home wives.
I dunno. Just throwing that out there.
As for the original question, he was divorced, they weren't married, and they were having SEX. At the time, that would definitely be considered illicit.
I don't know why you say (except for Mr. Hitch), when Hitchcock himself didn't want Gavin to play the part. Many people agree with you.
There's a reason why Hitch referred to Gavin as 'the Stiff.' And you just pointed out a good reason why.
Have you ever seen him in 'Midnight Lace', attempting a British accent? Gavin was a very handsome man, no doubt, but an actor he wasn't.
There's a famous "wrong date" in Psycho: the calendar on the wall of the DAs office at the end of the movie says 17(its December 20)...but its a Sunday...somebody probably hasn't changed the calendar page in three days.
========
You know, as meticulous as Hitch was about everything that showed up on film, I always thought of that as a 'goof' that threw the timeline off, not to be explained by an assumption that nobody bothered to rip the pages off.
========
Us, telegonus. Us...
========
I've reached that age, so... me, too.
I told this story once before, so I'll just give it a quick go now. About ten YEARS ago now, I was speaking to an intelligent, educated young woman about movies. I mentioned Hitchcock. I was astounded when she said, 'Who is Alfred Hitchcock?'
I figured even to young people, EVERYBODY knew who Hitchcock was. Wrong.
There were a few older people in that office and we all starting naming his movies. The Birds? Vertigo? North by Northwest?
She just sat there shaking her head at every title. I said, 'Psycho'?
She said, 'Oh! I saw Psycho! I thought it was crap.'
I asked her if she saw the original or the remake. She didn't know there even were two versions.
I said 'Was it in color or Black and White?'
She said, 'Color. I don't think I've ever seen a Black and White movie. I wouldn't be interested. They're so OLD, and without color, they're all unrealistic.'
Sigh...
It's the definition of a movie that's style over substance.
The ONLY QT film I like is 'Jackie Brown'.
I'm one of the few people in the world (it seems) that absolutely hates 'Pulp Fiction'.
I really like this movie. It's not funny, only depressing unless you take it for what it is. A 'Black Comedy'. None of it is supposed to be taken seriously. If you see it in the light in which it's presented, it's actually pretty amusing. It perfectly satirized the stereotypical aspects of the ugly divorce. Emphasis on 'satirize'.
I just watched it again, and again I thought "I like it." "No, I don't".
I was up and down throughout the whole thing.
I thought it was an early example of what would become DePalma's trademark, to me. Style over substance. "Carrie" and "Obsession" were his best combinations of both.
What you called the dream sequence I think was an attempt to brainwash Grace (the reporter) into believing she was the sister who died. It worked to some extent, since at the end she insisted "There was no body, because there was no murder!
Which made the final joke the very end. The detective on the telephone pole, watching the sofa that no one would show up to collect, since Grace insisted there was never a murder.
The part that I thought was the most funny, and by that point not out of place, was when Grace was in the institution and was confronted by the woman who was paranoid about using the telephone. "That's how I got so sick! Someone called me on the TELEPHONE!"
WTF? By that point, I just took it for what it was and laughed.
I'd still be incapable of categorizing it though. Which maybe was DePalma's intention. Who knows, with him?
One thing I changed my opinion about though, was that it wasn't a thriller/black comedy. I don't think it's like Hitch's Family Plot.
Now I just see it as a flat-out thriller/comedy. Nothing much to take seriously.
Disjointed is an excellent description.
I'd be interested in knowing what others think of it.