Flawless except for the final explanation scene.
It really ruins it.
shareIt's dated but easy to forgive, I'd say. In a couple years people might even start saying it's charmingly old-fashioned... Which would be stupid, but I can see it happening.
shareI always like to point out that the psychiatrist does a lot more than just try to explain Norman's split personality.
He provides the audience with three key revelations found nowhere else in the movie:
ONE: Norman murdered his mother and her boyfriend(everyone thought it was a murder-suicide by mother; Norman had only told Marion of a boyfriend who died -- "and the WAY he died," Norman said without explanation. Now we have it.)
TWO: Norman dug up his mother's corpse, gutted it, stuffed it "to keep it as well as it would keep" and kept it around the house. (Absolutely horrific information in 1960 movies; almost got this movie banned from release.) Otherwise, we'd think Mom's corpse in the basement had just deteriorated. No, she was stuffed with chemicals and sawdust!
THREE: Marion Crane was not Norman's first victim. He killed -- at least -- two other women before her. This was not an isolated incident. Norman as Mother had evidently gotten two other women alone to kill. (In the cell at film's end, Mother says "He wanted them to think I killed those girls -- and that man." Arbogast was purely a cover-up crime. "Girls" were Norman's victims, and he only saw Marion as just one of them.
The shrink's speech has this vitally important information. It was necessary for this alone.
But the shrink also filled in audiences confused by the story as to "how Norman's mind worked": "He was often only Mother, but he was never only Norman." Plus how Norman's arousal at the peephole triggered the jealous mother.
But ultimately, the shrink doesn't know everything. And that's what the final scene in the cell is about.
Agreed on the third point, but everything here is incidental to the story; background information that does not impact what Hitchcock chose to dramatize onscreen. The problem with the shrink scene is that it lays out too many things that are more potent when left to the imagination (for example, Norman's gravedigging is already suggested in the dialogues with the sheriff and his wife).
The tell-all approach does not contrast, but rather undermine the moods set up in the film. It's the opposite of Vertigo, where Hitchcock's twists are an integral part of the story and enrich it on repeat viewings. For example, it doesn't matter if Marion is Norman's first or fifth victim because it's Marion's story that we follow and are invested in as an audience. Her death is horrifying in itself. Saying Norman killed others doesn't change its impact.
Also, I just had the idea that there's another problem with this scene - it shouldn't have been used as a lead-in to Norman's internal monologue, which is more effective and thematically consistent. I think that scene could have been fleshed out at the doc's expense.
Agreed on the third point, but everything here is incidental to the story; background information that does not impact what Hitchcock chose to dramatize onscreen. The problem with the shrink scene is that it lays out too many things that are more potent when left to the imagination (for example, Norman's gravedigging is already suggested in the dialogues with the sheriff and his wife).
---
The gravedigging, perhaps, but not the gutting and stuffing of the corpse.
That said, I am a Psycho fan who has spent many years reading and understanding the antipathy towards the shrink scene. It is a matter of some ironic humor in film chat circles that the shrink scene usually gets longer threads and more heated debate than the shower scene. A key issue about the shrink scene is this: can a movie be considered to be among the greatest and most influential of all time...and STILL have an awful, horrible, terrible scene in it? Did Hitchcock's "genius" suddenly abandon him for this one crucial scene in the picture?
Maybe, maybe not. Hitchcock simply felt this "tell all" material was necessary. Recall that when Simon Oakland finished the scene, Hitchcock said cut, walked over to Oakland and said," Thank you, Mr. Oakland. You just saved my picture." I'm still wondering exactly what Hitchcock meant. Perhaps the need to neutralize the transvestite issue with the censors?
The tell-all approach does not contrast, but rather undermine the moods set up in the film.
---
Somewhat. Again using 1960 as our compass, the descent into madness and horror that constitutes the story of Psycho UNTIL the shrink scene seems to have demanded the shrink scene to "calm the audience down and restore societal norms." Which would happen in real life, too. The cops and the DA and the public sector shrink move in to "make the horror understandable."
---
It's the opposite of Vertigo, where Hitchcock's twists are an integral part of the story and enrich it on repeat viewings.
---
Well, with that one, the shrink scene is more than one scene, and they come earlier: The San Juan Bautista coroner(Henry Jones) and his brutal indictment of Scottie for Madeleine's death; the shrink explaining Scottie's catatonia to Midge(of course, this is LITERALLY the shrink scene in Vertigo, and it has a matching scene in The Wrong Man before it); and Judy writing her letter to Scottie that she tears up. A whole bunch of explanations and surmises..two of them by "judgmental officials"(the coroner, the shrink.)
---
For example, it doesn't matter if Marion is Norman's first or fifth victim because it's Marion's story that we follow and are invested in as an audience. Her death is horrifying in itself. Saying Norman killed others doesn't change its impact.
---
I hear that, for sure. But it was certainly impactful to ME to learn that Norman had killed others.
First of all for the irony of it: Norman had GOTTEN AWAY with those earlier murders. Probably for years. But THIS time, he(Mother) killed an embezzler who would bring a sharp private eye on her trail, plus a concerned LOCAL loved one(Sam) and a near-crazy sister, too(crazy with grief and determination to find Marion.)
In short, Norman was a serial killer who picked the wrong victim this time.
I find the irony delicious and Hitchcockian and "mirrored": Marion never should have stopped at the Bates Motel, but her stopping there ruined THREE lives: hers(murdered); Arbogast's(murdered for doing his job well); and NORMAN's(not murdered, but found out and put away.)
Also, I just had the idea that there's another problem with this scene - it shouldn't have been used as a lead-in to Norman's internal monologue, which is more effective and thematically consistent. I think that scene could have been fleshed out at the doc's expense.
---
This has been discussed in the "Psycho literature" and offered as a better ending. I don't refute that. We could go from the fruit cellar climax to the establishing shots of press outside and cops inside and head on into Norman's cell. For sure.
But it just seems that a 1960 audience needed MORE. They needed some sort of explanation, and years of mysteries in book, film, and TV series had conditioned them to get one.
I've attended many public screenings of Psycho over the years, and at one, some young woman yelled out during the fruit cellar climax: "I don't get it. What's going on? Why is he dressed like that?" Perhaps Hitchcock shot that ending for HER.
And this: much the same shrink scene IS in Bloch's novel, and Hitchcock and Stefano bettered that one. In the book, Sam relates all this to Lila weeks after Norman is captured. Sam got it from the Sheriff, who got it from .. a shrink. "Hearsay, thrice removed." At least Hitchcock and Stefano boiled it down into one scene.
I think this may be the first "shrink scene" thread I've seen on the moviechat psycho board.
Its great.
It remains a wonderment of Psycho that it could be so honored and praised for "perfection" and yet be found not to be perfect at all. Its almost as if when Hitchcock and Stefano planned, wrote and shot this scene, they KNEW it would be controversial. Its among the longest scenes in the movie and it rather shuts down the suspense of the film before it.
But I'm on the side of those who like the scene. I've spent a lot of time thinking about it, I can defend it(for the information the shrink gives us -- SOMEBODY had to tell us that Norman killed his Mother, 'the most unbearable crime of all.) And I like watching it. I kind of relax into it..."here we go, final stretch." Its almost a little sad to me, "Aw...the movie is almost over. I have to leave its world."
As for those AGAINST the scene.. there sure are more of you. So I'd better respect that. I do.
"First of all for the irony of it: Norman had GOTTEN AWAY with those earlier murders. Probably for years. But THIS time, he(Mother) killed an embezzler who would bring a sharp private eye on her trail, plus a concerned LOCAL loved one(Sam) and a near-crazy sister, too(crazy with grief and determination to find Marion.)"
This is an interesting take. Personally, I thought that it was more of a cop-out, though perhaps due to how it was presented: as if there's more to the story that absolutely must be told, but wasn't because we're with Marion. If it's so important, why choose Marion's POV? It's odd of Hitch to draw attention to something like this because it splits the movie into two dimensions: we have the hands-on-deck view of Norman's downfall that we see, but what we really think about is not the story as presented to us but what's essentially the construction of the movie itself.
Your observations about the use of irony in Psycho are perfectly on point, I think. Hitchcock was a master of dramatic irony, and it's so powerful here in good part because so many of the moving parts simply fall into place without foreshadowing or even so much as an announcement. It just all makes sense effortlessly. This is the side of Psycho that made me love the movie.
"First of all for the irony of it: Norman had GOTTEN AWAY with those earlier murders. Probably for years. But THIS time, he(Mother) killed an embezzler who would bring a sharp private eye on her trail, plus a concerned LOCAL loved one(Sam) and a near-crazy sister, too(crazy with grief and determination to find Marion.)"
This is an interesting take. Personally, I thought that it was more of a cop-out, though perhaps due to how it was presented: as if there's more to the story that absolutely must be told, but wasn't because we're with Marion.
---
Well, it certainly DEVALUES the Marion Crane story that we spent half the film on. Norman/Mother devalues her, too. By films end, Marion is just ONE of "those girls" that Norman killed, and Norman hardly seems concerned about her when he tells Mother earlier, "He came after the girl, and now someone will come after him."
If it's so important, why choose Marion's POV?
---
As a grand bit of trickery to make it more surprising when Marion gets killed (even though Hitchcock told us that in his trailer, not seen by all.)
---
It's odd of Hitch to draw attention to something like this because it splits the movie into two dimensions: we have the hands-on-deck view of Norman's downfall that we see, but what we really think about is not the story as presented to us but what's essentially the construction of the movie itself.
---
You might say that with regard to Psycho, BOTH Norman AND Hitchcock are psychopaths.
Because they don't REALLY care about Marion Crane. Norman seemed to connect with her, but he didn't really, and -- being a psychopath -- he COULDN'T. Hence his devaluation of her as "the girl" and one of the girls, later.
As for Hitchcock, he gets us all involved with Marion Crane(and Leigh's fine and touching performance AS Marion Crane) ...and just kills her off. But then he did that a few times. Vertigo. Frenzy.
Your observations about the use of irony in Psycho are perfectly on point, I think. Hitchcock was a master of dramatic irony,
---
Absolutely. There's a ton of cinema in Psycho, and a ton of shock for its time, but also..a ton of irony.
If only Sam offered marriage in Phoenix instead of by letter. If only the millionaire hadn't shown up with the dough. If only Lila wasn't in Tucson for the weekend. If only Marion hadn't stolen the money. If only Marion had driven the 15 miles to Sam. If only Marion had left the Bates Motel after the bad parlor chat.
If only Mother hadn't killed a woman who would bring a private eye following.
If only Arbogast had come back with the Sheriff and a warrant.
And so forth and so on.
---
and it's so powerful here in good part because so many of the moving parts simply fall into place without foreshadowing or even so much as an announcement. It just all makes sense effortlessly. This is the side of Psycho that made me love the movie.
---
The simplicity and effortlessness of Psycho is part of what makes it a classic. A perfect little tale, perfectly told. So many other thrillers(including some of Hitchcock's) stress and strain trying to tell the tale, and leave gaps. Not this one.
Your observations about the use of irony in Psycho are perfectly on point, I think. Hitchcock was a master of dramatic irony,
---
I would here like to bring up Hitchcock's final film, Family Plot, a good film that's not a great film mainly because of Hitchcock's age and health problems(its too slow and awkward in parts) but that is TOTALLY Hitchcock in its use of...irony.
A number of 1976 critics panned Family Plot as "not even feeling like an Alfred Hitchcock movie at all." These folks were ill-trained on Hitchcock. (As I am ill-trained on Ford.) Because slow and awkward Family Plot may have been, but it was LOADED with Hitchcockian irony, and I'll bet that's what attracted him to the source novel:
Psycho: Investigators looking for a missing thief(story one) run into a dangerous psycho(story two.)
Family Plot: Investigators looking for a missing heir(story one) run into a dangerous kidnapper(story two.)
With irony and "mutual misunderstanding" the order of the day in both films.
"Somewhat. Again using 1960 as our compass, the descent into madness and horror that constitutes the story of Psycho UNTIL the shrink scene seems to have demanded the shrink scene to "calm the audience down and restore societal norms." Which would happen in real life, too. The cops and the DA and the public sector shrink move in to "make the horror understandable.""
The movie purposely set up an environment of disorientation, irrationality, mystery, together with a sense of the abrupt - the audience did not need it to be made understandable, because it could already be felt to an acute degree... Although the people at Paramount might have thought otherwise!
Personally I don't think the audiences in 1960 were any less likely to figure things out than today's, or 1860's for that matter. People are people and shouldn't be underestimated.
"Well, with that one, the shrink scene is more than one scene, and they come earlier: The San Juan Bautista coroner(Henry Jones) and his brutal indictment of Scottie for Madeleine's death; the shrink explaining Scottie's catatonia to Midge(of course, this is LITERALLY the shrink scene in Vertigo, and it has a matching scene in The Wrong Man before it); and Judy writing her letter to Scottie that she tears up. A whole bunch of explanations and surmises..two of them by "judgmental officials"(the coroner, the shrink.)"
I have to disagree here. The scenes in Vertigo serve to to show that Scotty can't depend on the law (and thus must depend on his own skills as a detective), as well as leading to Midge leaving Scotty's story. These scenes serve a narrative purpose by closing Scotty's "escape routes" from the central plot. The scene in Psycho does not have any role other than to explain the plot to the audience.
I have to disagree here.
---
And I'll disagree a bit with your disagreement. But just for fun.
---
The scenes in Vertigo serve to to show that Scotty can't depend on the law (and thus must depend on his own skills as a detective), as well as leading to Midge leaving Scotty's story. These scenes serve a narrative purpose by closing Scotty's "escape routes" from the central plot. The scene in Psycho does not have any role other than to explain the plot to the audience.
---
Though the scenes don't match up entirely, we do have the issue of "explaining the plot" in at least two of them: (1) The coroner rather sums up the confusions of the movie up until Madeleine's death for the audience(as well as informally indicting Scottie for that death); and (2) Judy's letter(read aloud in her mind) explains Elster's murder plot(much as the shrink explains Norman's murdering profile.)
As for the "exact match" -- a shrink explains the patient's condition, well we had that in The Wrong Man and we will have it in Psycho and I guess Hitchcock just dug on that for a few years(its in Marnie, too, and in Frenzy.) I'll grant you, the shrink's speech to Midge drives her out of the movie, so it does more than an expository purpose. But it SHARES with the Psycho speech a sense of "explaining how the human mind can go wrong."
I suppose there is this: we have psychiatrists explain things to us in Spellbound, The Wrong Man, Vertigo, and Psycho. "Laymen" explain things in Marnie(Connery) and Frenzy(the barristers in the bar; Inspector Oxford.) ALL are explaining the dark side of the human mind.
I find it an interesting discussion, every time.
"The gravedigging, perhaps, but not the gutting and stuffing of the corpse."
We're already led to put two and two from the combination of Norman's fascination with taxidermy (which he explained to Marion in a suspiciously uneasy scene) and the increasing highlight that the film places on his abnormality. Like you said, Hitchcock would not leave scenes in without good reason, and I'm sure his audience in 1960 expected that as well. There's a lot of connections that can be fished out from the sum total of Norman's scenes. I don't think it was needed of Hitch to rob his film of room for exploration by putting these connections out front.
"A key issue about the shrink scene is this: can a movie be considered to be among the greatest and most influential of all time...and STILL have an awful, horrible, terrible scene in it? Did Hitchcock's "genius" suddenly abandon him for this one crucial scene in the picture?"
Yes, I think so. In the end, these masterminds are human and thus error-prone. Lang's "Metropolis", for example, has a simplistic ending that hardly anyone liked (including the director), but the movie is widely acclaimed as one of the greats. Tarkovsky's "Solaris" had lengthy, nonsensical scenes shot simply to excuse a trip to Japan - it's acclaimed too, even though the director admitted he made the first hour boring in order to annoy his critics. Still, you'll hardly find anyone saying these movies are not the top-notch work of master directors.
I absolutely think Hitch had an error of judgement. I don't think the scene is "awful, horrible, terrible" though. It's a banal scene in a brilliant movie, which will always make people bring it up, but I don't think it's a dealbreaker or a blemish on Hitch's record.
I absolutely think Hitch had an error of judgement. I don't think the scene is "awful, horrible, terrible" though. It's a banal scene in a brilliant movie, which will always make people bring it up, but I don't think it's a dealbreaker or a blemish on Hitch's record.
---
Fair enough. I mean, I attended a screening of Vertigo where the audience LAUGHED at the psychiatrist telling Midge about Scottie's condition...it starts to sound like a lot of incoherent mumbo jumbo("He's in a fugue state with catatonia" or something). (That the shrink was played by Mr. Drysdale from The Beverly Hillbillies didn't help, nor that Colonel Klink from Hogan's Heroes had a similar shrink role in The Wrong Man.)
These shrink scenes differ in banality or value. I think with Psycho, Hitchcock was compromising to his commercial demands. With The Wrong Man and Vertigo -- Hitchcock and his collaborators DUG that stuff. It was meaningful to them.
why woild they laugh?
shareAGREE. The scene is necessary.
share