My mother and I are watching 200 movies we've never seen before.
Psycho
1960
Alfred Hitchcock
The famous scene is here, of course. That's really why I'm here, and it's why you're here too. The shower scene. It could be that you've never even heard of Psycho and yet you are familiar with the idea of a woman showering and a killer pulling back the shower curtain and stabbing her over and over while the music screeches with the highest notes on a violin, the stabs of the bow mirroring the stabs of the killer, masked in shadow, bringing the knife down over and over on Janet Leigh, the scene tastefully shot so that you can't see any of her naked parts. It's been referenced and parodied in a thousand horror films and comedy skits and general pop culture conversation for the past seven decades. You know it. I know it.
As has been the case in other films we've covered in this column previously, the fun is placing that famous scene within the context of an otherwise unknown movie. I knew someone was stabbed in the shower at some point, but I didn't know who or why or when. Seeing a clip or a parody of the shower scene does nothing to spoil any other part of Psycho, which is cool too. I'm going to talk about the other 107 minutes of film that happen around that shower scene, so maybe consider yourself SPOILER WARNED at this point. Though, shit, what a fucking joy to be able to watch a movie without knowing what it was about. Everyone should go into every film-watching experience like that. Go blind. Let a film have the chance to surprise you.
But if you have already seen Psycho, or you don't plan on ever watching it, then I guess continue.
As has been the case in other films we've covered in this column previously, the fun is placing that famous scene within the context of an otherwise unknown movie. I knew someone was stabbed in the shower at some point, but I didn't know who or why or when. Seeing a clip or a parody of the shower scene does nothing to spoil any other part of Psycho, which is cool too. I'm going to talk about the other 107 minutes of film that happen around that shower scene, so maybe consider yourself SPOILER WARNED at this point. Though, shit, what a fucking joy to be able to watch a movie without knowing what it was about. Everyone should go into every film-watching experience like that. Go blind. Let a film have the chance to surprise you.
But if you have already seen Psycho, or you don't plan on ever watching it, then I guess continue.
Here's where I was surprised with Psycho: the famous scene happens less than halfway through the film. Like Network's "I'm mad as hell" monologue, the shower scene ends up playing a less-than-major role in the grand scope of the film, and really acts as a way to transition from Act I to Act II. Yes, we were led to believe that Janet Leigh's Marion Crane was the main character of the film, but after she's stabbed to death, it's clear that she's not, that she was a red herring. The true main character is Norman Bates, played the beautifully innocent Anthony Perkins. The ending acts as a grand reveal to one of the classic horror movie villains of our time. It's no wonder that there are a thousand and one remakes and sequels and prequels and all that kind of commercialized junk. I won't participate in that shit, but I get it. Who wouldn't want more of Norman Bates psychotically staring into the camera?
So the general plot of the story works out to be: A) Marion wants to "escape," and she takes $40,000 from her employer and basically runs away; B) she ends up at the Bates Motel by coincidence **insert show stabbing death here**; C) Marion's lover, Marion's sister, and a private detective hired by the guy from whom Marion stole the $40k, all team up to try to solve the mystery of where Marion ended up; D) conclusion; E) classic final shot of Norman staring all evil like at the audience. But let's talk about D, because it was undoubtedly the worst part about this film, and single-handedly dropped Psycho from "GREAT" to "pretty good."
So Lila (the sister) and Sam (the lover) are taking matters into their own hands, and end up at the Bates residence, in an attempt to speak with Mrs. Bates, Norman's mother. It is revealed to Lila, however, that Mrs. Bates is in fact a skeleton, having died a decade prior. Lila turns around, and sees Norman, dressed in his mother's clothing, brandishing a knife, ready to stab again. But Sam shows up, subdues Bates, and then we cut to... I guess a psychologist's office? This random dude, whom he hadn't met prior to this scene, gives an insane monologue to all those present, explaining that Norman Bates had a split personality, that it was actually his mother, acting through him, who committed the murders, and that Norman's psyche had completely broken, and that his personality was not completely of his mother's, and so on and so on. Bad scene. Very bad. An insane decision to tell not show. I hated everything about it. I hated how they had to introduce a new character to explain the movie. I hated how rushed it felt, like Hitchcock realized that there were only five minutes left and he needed a shortcut. I am more forgiving of the insensitive talk about "transvestites," since this was 64 years ago and even 31 years afterward those ideas were still being misused in film, but I hated it anyway. I just really thought the whole scene soured the film irrevocably.
Which is a shame, because the preceding hour and 35 minutes was such a masterful slow-burn thriller. First, with the mystery of what Marion's deal was, and why the existential dread was leading her to run away with stolen money. Then, when that mystery was cut short, the mystery of Norman Bates, and what evil matters are occurring at his hotel, and whether our heroes are going to get to the bottom of it or whether they will perish at the hands of the killer too. Then the mystery is "solved" by some fucking guy, basically explained right to the camera, and then end scene.
This is only my second Hitchcock film (after Rope, which I watched because I'm a sucker for a good tracking shot). There are two more Hitchcock movies on the list (Rear Window soon, Vertigo later), and two that I'd like to see outside of the context of Never Seen It (The Birds, North by Northwest). So here's another task as set forth by this blog project: what makes a Hitchcock movie Hitchcockian? I'm not saying I know after just this film, and I'm not even committing to looking it up (maybe I can do that after Rear Window). I'm just guessing here. But I would think that it has something to do with the camerawork, and how the angles of the shots are used to build tension. How the camera manages to hide things in plain sight (Mrs. Bates is seen and heard prior but the skeleton reveal is still a bonkers shock when it finally arrives, for example). Lots of top-down shots to make it feel like the characters are "being watched." That kind of thing. All I know is that there were very few moments of actual action in this film, and yet the tension was palpable throughout, and that tension has to come from somewhere, right? So let's credit the director.
So Lila (the sister) and Sam (the lover) are taking matters into their own hands, and end up at the Bates residence, in an attempt to speak with Mrs. Bates, Norman's mother. It is revealed to Lila, however, that Mrs. Bates is in fact a skeleton, having died a decade prior. Lila turns around, and sees Norman, dressed in his mother's clothing, brandishing a knife, ready to stab again. But Sam shows up, subdues Bates, and then we cut to... I guess a psychologist's office? This random dude, whom he hadn't met prior to this scene, gives an insane monologue to all those present, explaining that Norman Bates had a split personality, that it was actually his mother, acting through him, who committed the murders, and that Norman's psyche had completely broken, and that his personality was not completely of his mother's, and so on and so on. Bad scene. Very bad. An insane decision to tell not show. I hated everything about it. I hated how they had to introduce a new character to explain the movie. I hated how rushed it felt, like Hitchcock realized that there were only five minutes left and he needed a shortcut. I am more forgiving of the insensitive talk about "transvestites," since this was 64 years ago and even 31 years afterward those ideas were still being misused in film, but I hated it anyway. I just really thought the whole scene soured the film irrevocably.
Which is a shame, because the preceding hour and 35 minutes was such a masterful slow-burn thriller. First, with the mystery of what Marion's deal was, and why the existential dread was leading her to run away with stolen money. Then, when that mystery was cut short, the mystery of Norman Bates, and what evil matters are occurring at his hotel, and whether our heroes are going to get to the bottom of it or whether they will perish at the hands of the killer too. Then the mystery is "solved" by some fucking guy, basically explained right to the camera, and then end scene.
This is only my second Hitchcock film (after Rope, which I watched because I'm a sucker for a good tracking shot). There are two more Hitchcock movies on the list (Rear Window soon, Vertigo later), and two that I'd like to see outside of the context of Never Seen It (The Birds, North by Northwest). So here's another task as set forth by this blog project: what makes a Hitchcock movie Hitchcockian? I'm not saying I know after just this film, and I'm not even committing to looking it up (maybe I can do that after Rear Window). I'm just guessing here. But I would think that it has something to do with the camerawork, and how the angles of the shots are used to build tension. How the camera manages to hide things in plain sight (Mrs. Bates is seen and heard prior but the skeleton reveal is still a bonkers shock when it finally arrives, for example). Lots of top-down shots to make it feel like the characters are "being watched." That kind of thing. All I know is that there were very few moments of actual action in this film, and yet the tension was palpable throughout, and that tension has to come from somewhere, right? So let's credit the director.
And let's not saddle the director with my complaints. Maybe Psycho isn't his best movie but instead his most famous (because of that scene, because of that villain). I mean, Vertigo is the one known as one of the best movies of all time (#1 on the BFI 2012 list, e.g.). It would be insane and irresponsible to say something like "man, that Hitchcock can't seem to stick the landing." I've only seen two of his films! By all accounts, the best is yet to come! I'm really just trying to say here that when I talk about "Hitchcock movies," I'm not passing judgment, because I literally don't have the knowledge or experience to match such broad judgments yet. But I can try to understand what makes this director tick, and what makes him work. It's a work in progress.
In the meantime, this was a fascinating film, both because of how intriguing and revelatory the context surrounding the shower scene ended up being, and because of how thoroughly it ended up dropping the ball at the end. Good, bad, whatever—I can absolutely understand why this is an important film, and that's ultimately why I'm here.
In the meantime, this was a fascinating film, both because of how intriguing and revelatory the context surrounding the shower scene ended up being, and because of how thoroughly it ended up dropping the ball at the end. Good, bad, whatever—I can absolutely understand why this is an important film, and that's ultimately why I'm here.
GRADE: 3.5 pukes out of 5
NEXT TIME: Didn't realize Punch-Drunk Love was a Paul Thomas Anderson film until I looked it up just now. That's interesting. I wonder if Adam Sandler will be as good as they say.
No comments:
Post a Comment