Psycho (1960)

Great reviews guys. I can't think of anything to add at this point but hopefully some others will jump in. So far you guys have made this a great thread.

__________________
Letterboxd

So: Psycho.

I don't have a ton to say, except that this is one of the few older horror films/thrillers/whatever that genuinely disturbed me. And I want to talk about just one shot, in particular, that really did it. This one:



So unnerving. Genuinely jarring.

And it's interesting to note why: because it does the opposite of what most horror films do. It shows us more, rather than less. Most horror films give you POV shots, or at least tight shots, of characters walking around corners and into rooms, or opening doors, or otherwise restricting your ability to grasp the layout of the place being shown so that things can more effectively jump out at you (and even if they don't, put you on edge over your inability to see what's coming).

Psycho goes the other way: a clear, clean, overhead shot where you can see the potential victim clearly, know where they're going, and see where the danger might come from. The tension is vicarious: you're nervous for them. This is an absolute revelation: you don't need to be put in their position to feel the tension, you feel it through the dissonance between their vantage point and yours. Empathy as horror. Dramatic irony molded into fear.

It's particularly fun to think of this as an example of Hitchcock's famous "bomb theory," IE: if you show two people sitting at a table and a bomb goes off, they're shocked and tense for a second. If you show them the bomb and then the two people conversing, the entire conversation is tense. Same thing here: he shows you the layout and lets you know what might be coming, and lets you simmer in the setup. It's all anticipation. Those stairs being climbed might as well be the ratcheting of a roller coaster car as it ascends that first big hill.

Might think of more to say later.

The film Hitchcock, with Hopkins, dives into the whole Ed Gein aspect of Psycho. Mediocre movie, but interesting stuff.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Me and Vamp briefly discussed it on Page 3. I listened to a podcast about him that i linked in one of my posts. Yeah interesting and crazy.

OK. I finally got around to my re-watch last night of this one. I think the last time I watched it was about 2-3 years ago. And I think last night's viewing was interesting because I haven't had time go by that fast in a long time. I watched it after I'd watched Bates Motel and I don't know why, but because of that show, perhaps (I got a kick out of quite a bit in last night's episode), I think that for the first time I was having a good time watching this film. I suppose "good time" is an odd way to describe how I felt watching it, but that is the best way to explain it. I have always loved the film, and I have enjoyed it every time (and I guess "enjoyed" is another somewhat of a morbid way to describe my feelings while watching it), but this time I had a good time. And it just cemented it even more as my favorite Hitchcock film (it also was my #2 on the 60's list).

I see a lot of the points that people are making, but rather than single them all out now, I will just go ahead and give my opinion on a few things.

Marion is actually the central character of the film. Sure Norman is the one we generally think of when we think about Psycho, but if Marion hadn't taken that money and run away, we would never have known about Norman. The film, in my opinion, revolves around the character of Marion much more than the story of Norman. I like that because it gives us Norman, but I honestly never had as much interest in her as I suppose I should. I find Norman to be so much more appealing. I have a tendency to really like the villainous characters in films over the victims and heroes. And I think Norman Bates is one of the best. The only thing is that I don't know that he is necessarily a villain as much as he just has some serious mental issues. But I am not going to analyze his character now.

I, personally, don't think the film really picks up until Marion gets followed by the officer. The way he was with her was just weird all by itself. Sure he suspects her of something, but come on! To follow her? Give it a rest, guy!

I don't know why Anthony Perkins was chosen to play Norman, and I don't know whether or not it has anything to do with what I am going to say now, but I think his looks had a lot to do with it. Now, if you've read what I have said about other movies, I have a habit of pointing out the men in films that I find to be attractive. And Anthony Perkins is no different. The thing about him, what I was thinking about while I was watching this, was that he was just so damn cute. He had such a pleasant smile. And he looked like he'd be such a nice person. I was wondering, other than the fact that he was a very good actor (a much better actor than people give him credit for - he did have his career before Psycho), was he cast because of his looks? Here you have this attractive, kind-looking man. Hardly the sort you'd picture to be a person to slash someone to death. Then he does indeed turn out to be a nutcase. And he does it so incredibly well. He can instantly go from looking like a boy-next-door type to a man you wouldn't even want to walk past in broad daylight. That scene where he and Marion are talking and she mentions to him about putting his mother in an institution. He doesn't move. He doesn't say anything at all at first. But you see immediately the look in his eyes that he is no longer this sweet boy. That is fantastic acting right there. But then that look on his face when he hears her boyfriend when the detective's car is sinking in the swamp - brilliant. It still baffles me that he doesn't have an Oscar for this performance. I think he completely deserved it.

I hated the shower scene when I was a kid. It was that silhouette against the shower curtain and it was that "music" - is there even a word better than that for it? It is hardly music, but it is a musical sound of some sort. But those two things scared me when I was a kid. But as for the scene itself, I don't actually have any problem with it at all. If you pay attention, what may look like "fake" stabbing is really the times he missed her. She does block it one time, too. And when she is stabbed, that is when we hear the sound of it. I think that works better than if we were to see the knife going in (whether Hitchcock was able to make it look realistic or not).

I don't have a problem with the scene of the detective's death either. I didn't mind the way that looked. I am mainly mentioning it now because others have brought it up. I will say this, though. I have seen this movie many times and I STILL jump when the "music" starts with the detective's murder. I know it is coming but, for some reason, that first sound is SO LOUD (louder than with Marion) and I jump every time. And, amazingly, I forget that I jump every time. Just ridiculous of me! If it is that loud on the TV screen, I can't imagine how loud it would be in a movie theater.

I get where people are coming from about the psychiatrist. I don't have a problem with an explanation to the people there about why Norman did what he did, or even why he is that way (I can even see a scene done similar to that nowadays). I just didn't think it should've gone on that long. And I don't think any explanation was necessarily needed for the audience. My parents went to see it when it was out and they thought nothing about any of it (even the toilet flushing - after all, that is what people did then, too ). Sometimes I think we exaggerate how the minds of the people were in the past. It is just really how I feel. Maybe I wouldn't feel that way if I'd come from a more conservative-thinking family, but my family - no matter who they were/are - have never been too shocked by anything they saw (see)/heard (hear). Anyway, the psychiatrist was an OK way to go from the scene of "catching" Norman to the scene with him sitting alone in the room. It just should've been a little shorter.

My main problem with the movie (and I do have one) is the VERY end. That shot of Norman smiling, while we hear "Mother's" voice, and there is that flash of the skull in his face is one of the creepiest shots ever for me. THAT is how I think it should've ended. I think it could've gone black then and that would've been it. I didn't care for the shot of them bringing the car up. I don't know why, but that kind of takes away from that moment with Norman. And if there was one really nit-picky thing that I would've liked to have been changed in the film, it is that one shot right there. Just completely cut that out.

If there is one favorite shot in the film, it is in the office. It is probably an odd thing to choose, but there is just something about it that I find so odd and, in its way, a little creepy, though I can't explain why. It is the way that Norman lengthens his neck and turns his head while looking at the register with the detective. Like I said, there is just something about that shot that I like. Can't quite explain it, but it stands out to me.

I like the music. I even nominated it in two song tournaments. When you just sit and listen to the score (eliminate the film completely), I think it is not only one of the most underrated scores of all-time, but it is definitely one of my all-time favorites.

So there you have it. A long-winded post that I would be amazed if anyone even made it through reading it. But I wanted to write something after I saw it again. I didn't intend on writing anything like a review, but what the hell? I'll also give it a rating:





And as long as others did it, in case anyone was curious, this is my list of Hitchcock films in order of preference:
Psycho
Rope
The Lodger
Dial M for Murder
The 39 Steps
Shadow Of a Doubt
Suspicion
Strangers On a Train
Foreign Correspondent
The Lady Vanishes
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
Mr. and Mrs. Smith
Notorious
Vertigo
The Birds
To Catch a Thief
Rear Window
The Trouble with Harry
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
Spellbound
North By Northwest
Rebecca
Lifeboat
Torn Curtain
Topaz

__________________
I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity - Edgar Allan Poe

Just a suggestion, @seanc :

Maybe it's a good idea to add some kind of addition to the title of the thread for the next film discussion to make it more clear that it's a thread inspired by this club. Something like "Vertigo (1958) - Club Discussion".

@Yoda :

Hitchcock talks about that specific shot in his interview with Truffaut. Just like you, he's very fond of it, especially because it's the result of a cool coincidence. His first problem was how to present that murder without showing the identity of the killer. After thinking it over, he decided on doing it the way he did and he immediately felt it was the right decision. While showing "more" in terms of space and therefore the potential of the danger, he was also able to show "less". A brilliant hunch.

P.S. Maybe it's best to move these last few posts to the Psycho thread?

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

Great anecdote, didn't know that!

Really goes to show that, for the great artists, limitations are merely opportunities. It's an idea I'm really fond of; I wrote something roughly along these lines in Boyhood, Bears, and Roger Bannister:

"Art is pervasive. It is not more or less beautiful because of the restrictions it lives under: it weaves itself around them, like ivy. It incorporates all hurdles to become something new..."

Very true. It's one of the main theses we discussed in the Psycho thread, actually, when talking about Hitchcock's approach to sex and how the restrictions of his time may have actually made him a more interesting director than he potentially would've been in this day and age.

You could even say that we were making the case for Hitchcock's films being "more beautiful because of the restrictions they lived under", which is possibly a bit too radical, but interesting to think about nevertheless.