MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > The "Sequential Nuances" of the Anthony ...

The "Sequential Nuances" of the Anthony Perkins Performance in Psycho

posted 5 years ago by ecarle (14979)
14 replies | jump to latest

A couple of "set ups" for this post:

ONE: One of the most insightful things Anthony Perkins ever said about his work as Norman Bates in the original Psycho is this: "Have you ever noticed, in the original, how little he is in it?"

True enough. The movie is all about Janet Leigh for about 30 minutes before Anthony Perkins(first-billed) even shows up. And he is in none of the Fairvale scenes. And he doesn't SEEM to be in the lengthy murder scenes(build-up and attack.)

TWO: A particular critic in 1960 who "got" Psycho right upon its release(as opposed to having to wait a few years to understand its greatness) wrote: "in this film, Anthony Perkins proves that he IS an actor, after all." The critic had thought Perkins' career had not been very good up until that part...and then the critic elaborated on how Perkins keeps shifting and changing his performance as Norman Bates all through Psycho, until we reach the final horrific reveal in the cell.

I don't have that critic's assessment handy, but I think I can substitute my own assessment -- with a nod towards him(I'll get his name) but a little nod towards myself.

For your review:

The various versions of Norman Bates in Psycho:

ONE: From Marion's car("I'm sorry I didn't hear you in all this rain") to Cabin One and out. Here is Tony Perkins'first scene as Norman(ever, across the decades!) and: he sure is a nice guy. In some ways, exactly how "nice and polite" Norman is right here is key to our liking him for the duration of the movie, against our better judgment. Checking Marion in, Norman is SO polite. And he's a bit funny ("Twelve cabins...twelve vacancies.") And he's helpful ("There's a diner about ten miles down the road.") And if he seems REAL suspicious in picking the key to Cabin One(because of Hitchcock's close-up), he turns it into something "normal" ("Cabin One...its closer to the office, in case you need anything.")

Ordinarily,"check in" ends here...but Norman rather sneakily makes sure to get more face time with Marion. He offers to carry her bags from the car into Cabin One. He ENTERS Cabin One with her(should a woman, aware that there are "twelve vacancies" LET the motel keeper enter the room with her? Well, Marion likes this guy.)

In Cabin One, Norman (Perkins) maintains his very nice, very polite demeanor. He keeps up with surprising humor("Stationary with Bates Motel on it in case you want your friends back home feel envious") and has two key moments: (1) Turns the light on the bathroom(he can't say the word; Marion completes it, which endears him to her; spooks us; and (2) Opens the window to the back("Its stuffy in here.")

As the camera shifts to alternating "profile close-ups" of Marion and Norman facing each other(a very odd set-up), Marion tries to "close the encounter." Norman has checked her in, carried her bags, set up the room -- its really time for him to go. "Thank you , Mr. Bates." "Thank you, Norman" is Norman's reply.

And then he asks her up for supper at the house.

Consider: shy and nervous Norman Bates may be, but he's pretty much "courted" Marion since she showed up. He doesn't leave her alone, he keeps by her side and he asks her to dinner.

He's trying to get a date! (Really.) And if Marion elects to allow all this to happen, well, its innocent 1960, Norman seems like a nice fellow and the AUDIENCE knows: hey, its sweet Anthony Perkins, he's the STAR, let's see this romance develop. Remember: Janet Leigh said that to uninited 1960 audiences, the plot seems to be: Marion must choose between sweet Norman and strapping Sam."

TWO: After Norman leaves(saying he'll be back "with his trusty umbrella") the open window to the back serves its purpose: Marion hears Mrs. Bates rage at Norman, accusing Marion of sexual motives towards Norman and forbidding her to come up to the house for supper. Everything changes now: Marion knows Norman's pain, his burden...his secret.

So when Norman comes back down again, HE's changed. Still polite, but sad and embarrassed. So Marion takes him up on moving dinner -- the house?(no); her Cabin?(no..and interesting she made the gesture)...the parlor.

Norman in the parlor scene shifts tone yet again. He's still polite, certainly in the beginning, but pathos emerges, and then we reach the first crucial juncture in the conversation:

Marion: Do you go out with friends?
Norman: (Pause, body tightens) Well...a boy's best friend is his mother.

Oh dear. You can see it in Marion's face(subtle here; overdone in the Anne Heche performance): this fellow Norman may be sweet and polite and handsome but...he's not a man, he's not even "fantasy" lover material. Janet Leigh may not have realized how her "romance" version of Psyhco ends right here.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Perkins will take his performance as Norman here to dark places. A "normal" woman would likely finish the conversation, get in her car, and leave, given how Norman starts to allow phrses like "it would be cold and damp like the grave" into the conversation.

But of course, it is when Marion suggests that Mother be "put...someplace..." that Norman quietly goes off the rails:

Norman: You mean an institution..a madhouse?(Hey, Marion may have only meant a retirement home, but Norman knows of what he speaks.)

Marion's attempt to retreat ("I'm sorry, I meant well") only draws more bile from Norman ("People always mean well...they cluck their thick tongues and suggest, oh so very delicately....")

You can't say that Hitchcock(and screenwriter Joe Stefano) don't play fair here. Norman Bates is NOT normal....but Marion can't guess how bad it is. And there's a mother up there who seems worse but....anger isn't murderous intent, is it?

So Marion goes back to Cabin One...but not before Norman manages to "re-constitute" the boyish, polite fellow. How he says "really?" when Marion gives up her REAL home town("I've got to drive back to Phoenix") and how he says, "Are you sure you don't want to stay awhile...just for talk?" In Marion's last moments talking to Norman(which are not her last moments WITH Norman)...he's back to being a nice, harmless guy.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

THREE: Marion leaves, and Hitchcock begins nine minutes of no dialogue less one line("Mother, Oh, God Mother..Blood, Blood") For the first time in the movie, we are alone with someone who ISN'T Marion. Its Norman, and he's interesting. He checks the register: realizes that Marion gave him a false name AND a false home town. Vital information. And now Norman goes to that painting on the parlor wall, removes it and reveals...a Peeping Tom fetish (so THAT's why he gave her the room to Cabin One....) One critic said "this doesn't necessarily put Norman in our bad books" (oh yeah? Must have been a different era?) but it doesn't really put him in our GOOD books, does it? He's a sexual being, but unable to express it in a normal way....I mean(given the Janet Leigh analsyis of what Psycho COULD be) Norman COULD have tried to court Marion, stayed nice but...no.

Tony Perkins acting -- from the moment Marion leaves to the moment Marion's car sinks fully in the swamp ..is ALL silent(less that cried-out line) and it sure is great. Perkins broods a lot..sometimes puts his hands in his pockets. The look on his face when he pulls away from peeping on the nude Marion is ...troubled, angry...will he go up and give Mother a piece of his mind? (Ah, no.)

Before the shower murder, the last we see of Norman is him hunched over a kitchen table in thought. More good acting -- here, I believe that Perkins is beginning the "inscrutable" part of his performance as Bates. It will continue for the entire movie. When he is not talking to people...we wonder what is going on in that mind of his?

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

FOUR: The shower murder has happened. Norman runs down the hill, dashes into Cabin One(such high speed for such close quarters), looks in the bathroom, puts his hand over his mouth, knocks over the bird picture and....calms right down, becomes VERY professional and careful. Gives us a "new" performance as a man with an untenable mission: clean up the bloody murder his mother has committed. Perkins does a lot of work with his jaw in this sequence -- it tightens a lot -- and he seems to mix a certain amount of guilt with a surprising lack of compassion. Spooky: he does everything with such sequential professionalism that we can't help thinking: he has done this BEFORE.

At the swamp, watching Marion's car sink(and then NOT sink), Norman does more "jaw acting" while he chews his famous candy corn. Nothing is overdone here; it is lightly funny and at the moment of crisis(the car stops sinking) all Perkins does is to turn in profile to look for witnesses(a passing car?)...and then he smiles as the car DOES sink and we

...fade out.

FIVE: Arbogast arrives. Norman is on the porch, chewing Kandy Korn and reading something. His first move is "professional politeness": he rises to check Arbogast in. But Arbogast doesn't want a room. (Uh oh.) He just wants to ask a few questions(Uh oh.). Into the office the two men go for their friendly confrontation.

We get here, initially, a "return to the polite Norman" who checked Marion in and showed her her room, but Arbogast is too pushy and pointed for Norman to totally relax. We get a good dose of the stammering that had been less on display with Marion ("I hear the expression eats like a bird is a "fal-fal-falsity.") Here it goes overtime (Uh..the ...the...the nnnnnnn-ext day!")

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I think in akin with that 1960 critics remarks, I'll note that Norman Bates here with Arbogast starts to show an uncaring, criminal side. He buried Mother's victim, and now he will lie to protect that crime...Marion simply doesn't matter to him anymore...if she ever did(that parlor scene wasn't as "connecting" as it seemed.)

Once matters head out to the porch, and Arbogast sees Mother in the window, things accelerate to Norman showing some real backbone and anger(but he DOESN'T play rage or hysteria")

Arbogast: You'd know you were being used, wouldn't you? You wouldn't be made a fool of..
Norman: But I'm NOT a fool! And I'm not capable of BEING fooled! Not even by a woman!
Arbogast: Well, its not a slur on your manhood. I'm sorry(tracks with Marion's earlier "I'm sorry, I meant well.")
Norman: (Kinda mean) Let's put it this way: she may have fooled me...but she didn't fool my mother..

Yes, the performance is changing here (because Joe Stefano's DIALOGUE is changing; Perkins himself noted the perfection of this script to play.) Norman's a bit of a meanie.

Norman verbally orders Arbogast to leave, and goes back on "inscrutability duty" as he broods as Arbogast drives away...and smiles.

Arbogast will return...Norman will be briefly seen disappearing into a corner of the motel...ARbogast will die at the house.

And the remaining acting for Perkins in the Arbogast sequence include that GREAT shot of him by the swamp -- clearly looking like a brooding VILLAIN(albeit only the 'sub-villain" right now), and that GREAT camera move as he swings his hips to go upstairs and get mother ("He came after the girl, and now someone will come after him" -the Psycho plot in one sentence.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

SIX: Sam and Lila come to the Bates Motel. Its bright daylight for the first time in the movie -- the house and motel are clearly visible in all their rotted glory. To match the bright light, Norman now wears only a white shirt with his slacks -- no black sweater, no jacket. "All will be revealed."

But what's fascinating here is how Norman -- so politely flirtatious with Marion, so chatty with Arbogast -- gives Sam and LIla NOTHING of his charm. He keeps his talk to a minimum, tries to focus on just checking them in and avoiding them. But they won't let him do that. Sam in particular keeps pushing, pushing, pushing and the angry Norman who rebuffed Arbogast comes out and snaps back ("I grew up in that house up there...my mother and I were more than happy!)

Some of Perkins most powerful acting in all of Psycho takes place here...without a word. The fruit cellar climax, of course. The blood-thirsty smile he bears as he bears down on Lila with his big knife flashes us back to the two murders and makes them WORSE in the memory: this killer ENJOYED killing. And then Sam tackles him and we watch the monster "break down" -- with Norman silently screaming and struggling in an anguish far beyond the pain of the moment. Its great acting. Unforgettable.

SEVEN: The movie moves on to the infamous psychiatrist scene, but once that scene is over, we get to see Norman one more time, and Anthony Perkins gives us a performance(without a word, Mother does all the talking in his head) that has haunted the world for almost 60 years.

HIs face. The brooding. The "roiling" of a face that can't seem to contain two personalities anymore. The slow dipping of the chin, the eyes starting to stare up from under a furrowed brow.

And then...the smile. Slowly. Its only a smile for a bit...then its a leer. The leer of a monster revealed. The Real Norman. Mother? Maybe...but also: Norman. And that leer is at its worst under those darkened eyes that look right into ours.

[–] MizhuB (165) 5 years ago

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Nothing is overdone here; it is lightly funny and at the moment of crisis(the car stops sinking) all Perkins does is to turn in profile to look for witnesses(a passing car?)

========

We all have our different interpretations,

--

Yes we do! Welcome...

---

but I always felt that when the car momentarily stops sinking, he looks around to see if there's SOMETHING, anything he can use to get it to continue sinking. Perhaps a long, sturdy branch or something?

---

Hmmm..makes eminent sense to me. The scene -- and Perkins' look -- spell nothing out, so I'll take that one as much as mine...maybe moreso. He WOULD maybe be thinking about a branch...

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I think my "SEVEN" stages of the Perkins performance get the ideas out there; I appreciate that a counter-comment has come in before I was quite done.

I think, in the final analysis -- and that 1960 critic saw it all the way back then -- that the idea that Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates is one of the great performances in movies is PROVED by something as simple as watching it, and realizing all the different ways that Norman Bates changed over the course of the movie.

The monster in the cell at the end is, frankly, what Norman ALWAYS was --from the moment he checked Marion in -- but it took the movie to bring him all the way out.

And yes, this is also proof that Anthony Perkins not even getting a NOMINATION for the Oscar for Norman was one of the great Oscar snubs(and yes, he should have won.)

As a side-bar, I will note something that I only perhaps saw on this recent review of the Perkins performance -- and the Stefano screenplay that guided it(Hitchcock too, but Stefano wrote the lines):

How Norman so AGGRESSIVELY "courts" Marion from check-in to her agreement to have supper. Marion tries to "end" the check-in twice -- once at the desk and once in Cabin One - -but Norman just keeps coming. He's ALMOST like a "normal" guy trying to politely but incessantly get a date.

And he GETS that date! She agrees to supper...

...its a sad reminder that in another place, another life, Norman Bates could have led a normal life, and had the chops(the looks, the words, the moves) ...to win a woman.

[–] telegonus (727) 5 years ago

Some great posts here, EC. Yet I beg to differ that Norman really had the chops to live a normal life. Not with his mother inside him,--in a cruel and not funny at all reversal of giving birth--she has to come out; Norman must "birth" her sooner or later. Alas, for Marion, way too soon. I agree that he had the looks (but so did Ted Bundy); and a good vocabulary, an agreeable presence, a good deal of surface charm. That aside, what kinds of moves could Norman make with Marion that didn't involve having a knife in his hand?

Aesthetically, the movie is pure genius. Hitch and Joe made all the right moves. They knew where they wanted to go and they got there. What you nailed on the above paragraph was that Norman "appeared that way"; that he in other words really did have the potential you said he had. I say, on the surface only. Although he comes across naturally enough, appears to have much potential to grow, emotionally, thanks in larger measure to Tony Perkins' brilliant playing of him...

The reality is that Norman was a hopeless case (as lover, or anything normal) from the start. What makes Psycho such a great film is that is that its story unfolds, bit by bit; it hides its secrets, as Norman does, as the house on the hill does, as the swamp does, till the very end. In this, Psycho is as much a mystery as a horror film. Where's the gore? It's more a learning experience for the viewer (in a manner of speaking) about the evolution of a monster. Not a monster of the Old Hollywood, but one that is a human being; one who "deconstructs" before our eyes.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Hello, telegonus!

I know you have your own life to lead...internet and "real," but its always heartening to see a post from you.

Is there some place other than the "Psycho" board that you like to chat?
---

Yet I beg to differ that Norman really had the chops to live a normal life. Not with his mother inside him,--in a cruel and not funny at all reversal of giving birth--she has to come out; Norman must "birth" her sooner or later.

---

Oh, you know me -- typing fast to get a certain idea out there. I think this time that i DID notice that Norman, rather than simply checking Marion in and Marion going off to her room, rather TRAILED her, and eventually made the "pitch" for dinner. He had the looks, he had the manner, Marion trusted him. He got the date.

And almost immediately triggered Mother("birthed her," as you say.) First of all, Mother shut down the idea of a dinner up at HER house (great plot point...by moving the dinner down to the parlor, Mother could be kept "way up in the house on the hill," away from the dinner scene.)

Second of all, Mother's very ugly, sexually-charged tirade against Marion was Norman's Id coming out to cancel his Ego ("Don't have dinner with this young man, I forbid it.")

As it is, both Norman and Marion go through with the dinner, but Mother has "staked her claim" and u undercut, indeed, Norman's chances with Marion.

---

I agree that he had the looks (but so did Ted Bundy);

--

Recall Hitchcock's statement about how psycho killers were often good looking: "Otherwise, their victims wouldn't come near them."

--

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

and a good vocabulary, an agreeable presence, a good deal of surface charm. That aside, what kinds of moves could Norman make with Marion that didn't involve having a knife in his hand?

---

Oh, I agree with you there. "Normal" Norman may attempt normal romantic overtures, but "Norma" Norman is a raging, destructive force, bent to kill anyone who arouses Norman - and/or the only way Norman CAN express himself sexually (Killing. With a phallic knife wielded by a woman.)

I guess I was just saying that Norman had SOME sexual/romantic normalcy, an idea about what to do to "keep a woman interested"(a young man who needs mothering can trigger it.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Aesthetically, the movie is pure genius. Hitch and Joe made all the right moves. They knew where they wanted to go and they got there. What you nailed on the above paragraph was that Norman "appeared that way"; that he in other words really did have the potential you said he had. I say, on the surface only. Although he comes across naturally enough, appears to have much potential to grow, emotionally, thanks in larger measure to Tony Perkins' brilliant playing of him...

---

I think most of us know that Robert Bloch had written Norman as older and more overweight and far less charming than Anthony Perkins. (Unfair though that assessement may be.) Once Hitch decided to switch to Perkins, the movie came to life. Recall what Hitch said to Perkins in closing the deal to get Perkins to play the role: "Tony, you ARE this movie." Without a sympathetic(surface) Norman...Psycho wouldn't have nearly the weird "sentimentality" that it has, even as a horror movie.

Hitchcock biographer Patrick MaGilligan said that Hitchcock almost "pampered" Norman. An odd phrase, but I think I get it: he kept Norman sympathetic as long as he could; and we never really hated Norman as much as we would hate the lesser known Bob Rusk(Frenzy) or the more famous Scorpio of Dirty Harry. Its very weird how much audiences LIKED Norman Bates.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The reality is that Norman was a hopeless case (as lover, or anything normal) from the start.

----

That's right. Upon Marion's arrival at an "empty" motel, Norman was likely far more interested in killing her than in connecting emotionally with her. But indeed the movie misleads us on that fact.

---
What makes Psycho such a great film is that is that its story unfolds, bit by bit; it hides its secrets, as Norman does, as the house on the hill does, as the swamp does, till the very end.
In this, Psycho is as much a mystery as a horror film.

---

And fascinatingly, the mystery is one we don't even know is there. We think we KNOW whodunit(Mother)...but there are things that keep bugging us(like, how come we never see her face?) Not to mention the role of Norman himself. Such a nice guy -- but he covers up Mother's two murders, there will be no turning Mother into the police. Norman is a henchman, an accessory to murder. Or so it seems...

--

Where's the gore?

---

Oh, there's enough of it for 1960. The blood in the two murders, the blood in the clean-up of Marion's body....and the gore of Mother's corpse and its history.

But indeed, a whole lot of the movie has NO gore...it works on other levels.

---

It's more a learning experience for the viewer (in a manner of speaking) about the evolution of a monster. Not a monster of the Old Hollywood, but one that is a human being; one who "deconstructs" before our eyes

---

Yes, watching Norman keep breaking down from the "nice guy" of his first lines to Marion is a deeply moving experience. I'm always noticing how LITTLE Marion seems to have mattered to him as the movie goes on. He calls her "the girl," he is dismissive about her to Arbogast AND to Mother in conversation. And slowly the nice guy becomes a not so nice guy, even with Sam picking on him at the climax.

[–] telegonus (727) 5 years ago

Thanks for your response, EC. I do write about films and other matters elsewhere on-line but I feel funny mentioning them as I believe they may get censored. Many of these sites, while they'll allow the F word and the like, and some nasty comments about films and players, will NOT allow the mention of a rival site. I'll name one (in shorthand) I know you belong to in abbreviated fashion: v2 should be sufficient. Easy to find me there on classics, and indeed we posted there a couple of years back.

To return to Norman Bates and his incipient normal side; well, yes, but mom gets the last word every time. He can't break out of her prison, and as we discussed some years back, he seems, in his strange way, content in isolation in that Victorian Gothic house of his; and I believe him when he says he was happy there as a child; that he had some quality time (so to speak) with mum when things were going well.

After all, in Norman's mind, admittedly deranged, but still: his relationship to the reconstituted Ma Bates is very near to a sexless marriage (of the imagination); and one even hears some of the dialogue between these two. Unfortunately for us we only hear and sense the bad stuff: Mrs Bates the dominatrix, Yet there must be good times, too. He's not always under their thumb. These two likely take tea together in the afternoon; Norman in his white white slacks and dress shirt, a skeletal Mum in her wheelchair! Almost like a Victorian marriage, and in that Victorian house.

Psycho does have those charms that make the attentive viewer think. There's so much food for thought and, especially, the imagination; it's irresistible in so many ways; and, of course, suggestive, suggestive of other things, of things we don't see. This is the core of the Norman-Mother marriage we know mostly the bad stuff about. Yet these two did love one another. There was love and if not affection, loyalty in that house on the hill. I don't view this in a clinical Freudian way. It just is.