Psycho (1960)

want to say I very much like this movie, however......I feel that the film loses some momentum after Marion is killed.

The funny thing is that I think this film would probably not have been as succesful without te explanation as it was in its current form. People wouldn't have known what to make of the whole thing, I'm afraid. This was still only 1960. Clarity was needed to calm the audience. They wanted things to make sense.

Look at what happened to a film like Peeping Tom (also from 1960), which was a little less clear than Psycho was. It destroyed the director's career, because it was too subversive.

Hitchcock went far, but that last explanation part may have saved his career.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

I think you're right about it not being big in its time without the explanation, which was why Hitch included the explanation and the now unbelievable pleas to his audience not to spoil the film.

I disagree with it being relegated to Peeping Tom status (a film that probably should be more celebrated than Psycho or at least as much) though because Hitch was brought to America for a reason and his films usually drew audiences without any sort of gimick. Psycho was his attempt at breaking barriers which was very difficult to do since you had a contract with a studio which was paying your mortgage every week.

I'm still working on my Psycho review for the last three days! I'll be done soon. Back to work on it.

Think we all agree @Psycho was pretty decent at least. Good start to the 60's @Hitchcock

I may have exaggerated a bit, but don't forget that Hitchcock wasn't beyond failure. He already had had (what was then) a significant financial and critical flop, two years before Psycho, with Vertigo. If Psycho hadn't worked, he may not have been able to make a risky film like The Birds, for instance. He may not have had the momentum he enjoyed from the success of Psycho.

I agree with you that Peeping Tom deserves as much, if not more praise as Psycho does in terms of sheer boldness. It's a stunning film from start to finish that definitely went further in tackling psychosexual crimes than Hitchcock's picture.

Sometimes you need to contain yourself a little to make the more iconic film, though. The fact that Hitchcock was a filmmaker (mainly) before the era of explicitness is probably one of the greatest blessings in the history of cinema. It provoked a certain playful inventiveness and suggestiveness in him and his films are much better for it.

@Cobpyth one thing i was going to say to Destiny but just left since the conversation seemed to die out was that we were really fortunate that Hitch was born and made films when he did. Listening to him/reading about him, his films would have been alot different to say the least if he ever had complete control over his films. He had more control than most but only because no one believed Hitch would ever go rogue and include any direct sexual things and he didn't. but all of his films i've seen at least are dripping with sexuality, often nasty/sleazy sexualty. It's insane that the producers allowed Hitch of all people to go outside the usual scope, he's like the last person you'd allow that if you were trying to keep up some puritan standard.

@Camo Agreed. He even described my favorite scene of his filmography (the scene in Vertigo where the transformation is finally completed and Kim Novak steps into the green neon light) as a necrophiliac erection scene.
The societal restrictments helped his creativity. It made sure his sexual fantasies and fetishes became merely subtext in his films, which gave them a certain freudian quality. It's a good thing that "the sexual" rarely reached the surface of his films in visual terms.

Jesus,i i agree with this so much. Vertigo is next starting on the 22nd, i'll rewatch it tomorrow and have a review with my thoughts ready to post when Sean starts the thread. I'd really like to discuss it with you because i know it's one of your favourites.

Don't see what a full review would bring to the table that hasn't been said yet, so I'll just point out a few things I liked/noticed/stood out to me on this, my first re-watch of Psycho.

After Marion hit the road and headed out of Phoenix, I noticed that as she gets afraid, the music seems to reflect her emotions, becomming more agitated and distressed as she does likewise (the score overall has been praised, but this moment stood out the most for me, the shower scene aside). The imagined dialouge between her boss and the rich customer was another great touch. Not only are we spared a look back to the office to get this exchange, something I think would detract from the focus on Marion and ruin the pace of the movie, we also get a peek into her head and a better understanding of how she percieves the situation. The tight zoom on her eyes and the narration as a medium for convaying inner thoughts was a Hitch invention in the first place; He first used it in Blackmail I believe, as a way to relate the main character remembering the previous nights actions. Since then it's been in use frequently as a shortcut into a character's mind. Pay attention next time you watch Fellowship of the Ring and the scene where they try to make it past the pass of Caradhras. Frodo drops the ring and Boromir picks it up. You can see how the ring tries to bend him then and there, and he hears a angelic voice comming from the ring. Again there's that mid-shot where the focus is on his eyes, him debating with himself before being brought back by Aragorn's voice.

Man, does Hitch have a long reach or what? Ok, tangent done, back to matter at hand.

Norman Bates is, as we all can agree I believe, a creepy ****er. And though I loved the scene where he and Marion talks in the sitting room, I still think he comes off as most disturbing when the PI arrives at the hotel. He sits there, on the portch, eating a bag of candy and welcomes the guy. But as we now know him to be at least an accomplice to murder, we're more acutely aware of him being wierd. The shot of him looking at the register, a tight frame on his head shot from below as he cranes his neck, there's something truly disturbing about it that I can't quite put my finger on. It feels unnatural, somehow, the contour of his long neck streched out of proportion by the added length of his jaw. It's a very well made shot to be sure.

As to the last ten minutes and the doctor's explination. In itself it didn't annoy me, it was the doctor himself. He looked like a salesman or something, made me question everything he said. Though I can understand how one could believe it to be patronizing, talking down to the audience, I still think it was needed at the time. How many average americans back then knew the first thing about mental abnormalities? Now we have a pshyc 101 as standard in our education, but how common was it then? For good or bad, it's there.


The Trailer

Is it wierd that I almost like this trailer as much as the movie itself? First, who besides Hitch would even concieve of shooting a trailer like this? Disregard the fact that he more or less walks us through the movie, the way he does it, with a totally nutral tone and expression, as if he's showing the house to a potential client but is indifferent as to if he closes the deal or not. He also acts as if he isn't familiar with the place, walking into a bathroom only to turn and agnolage the fact. Above all, it's the way he discusses the events; he leads on to a point of interest, only to cut himself of at the very last moment, which of course gives us a feeling of exasperation. In fact, I believe he edgeing us, keeping us on the precipice but never letting us tumble over. It's a work of art, and if you haven't seen it (and even if you have) see below.

__________________
Why not just kill them? I'll do it! I'll run up to Paris - bam, bam, bam, bam. I'm back before week's end. We spend the treasure. How is this a bad plan?

I listened to some of the famous Hitchcock/Truffaut interviews last night, triggered by the discussion I had with @Camo, and I ended up falling asleep to them when it was about 9:30AM or something. I guess one could say that it got a little out of hand.

I recommend everyone to listen to them. It genuinely feels like sowly digging up a treasure. One of the many observations that I made, is that Hitchcock felt that the quality of the performance of his actors, and especially his leading ladies, were absolutely vital to the quality of the picture. He talks about it in an almost obsessive manner, especially when they get to Eva Marie Saint's performance in North By Northwest and Tippi Hedren in The Birds.

I certainly agree with him that acting performances have a huge influence on the quality of a film. That's why I think it's appropriate to firmly point out what an incredibly memorable performance both Anthony Perkins, but especially Janet Leigh delivered in Psycho. The latter only had 40 minutes to work with and yet she's arguably the face of the film. The film never would've been as effective if the leading lady (of the first part at least) wasn't as memorable and charismatic as Janet Leigh was.

Only the very best movie stars have it in them to become the iconic faces of iconic films. And boy, wasn't Janet Leigh a star in Psycho!

Anyone who doesn't like this movie must be...."psycho".

__________________
A man's got to know his limitations.

I watched Psycho today. Not a lot to add to the conversation that hasn't already been stated but once again I get blown away by those first 50 minutes. In particular I really think the strength of the film other than that shower scene is how the film is set up in those first twenty minutes. Of course Janet Leigh is a big part in that.

I think it's safe to say that Psycho would place third on my Hitchcock list, but it's still nearly a perfect film and I wouldn't have any objections to it being called a masterpiece.

It is his best scored film and pound for pound has some of the greatest scenes in film history.

I agree with Raul. The first 50-60 minutes are the most genius part of the film. A cinematic focus of the highest level and one of the most effective mysterious atmospheres ever created. The film goes a bit downhill after that for me, but it still has its interesting moments and effective climaxes in the second half too.

But I will also say that I find the part with Arbogast really well done too.

But people who've only seen the film once or twice remember him for that climactic scene where he enters the house and goes up the stairs, which is one of those great moments of the second half that I was talking about.

People remember Janet Leigh in her entirety. They remember her as a character, not as a pawn in a great scene. Apart from Perkins, there's no real glue in the second half that makes it into an interesting whole, in my opinion.

I can dig that. The issue is that the first half is so good that even a decent second half isn't enough to not call it a great film.

Although if anyone is a fan of Hitchcock, I could reason with them not including this in their top 5, even as well as another favorite of mine, North by Northwest. Now I can't reason with anybody not having Rear Window in it

I have Psycho eighth of the 20 Hitch films i've seen. Dunno if it would stay there or go up or down if i rewatched it though. Rear Window is actually one of my least favourites; i couldn't give you a good reason if you asked i just don't like it as much as the others. Think most have one of his most acclaimed they don't completely dig like Sean and North By Northwest, Raul and Vertigo i think too right?

I think Vertigo is around 7 or 8 for me Camo. I still like it a great deal though. I can perhaps round up some Hitchcock rankings soon.

I want to add something about Bates. He is one of the best villains ever for sure. I love the self-assurance and those steely eyes. I also love how Hitch makes him vulnerable as well though. He's not Anton Sugare. He gets rattled when people question him and his motivations. We see it two or three times, and it's a layer of the character I love.

__________________
Letterboxd