Hitchcocktober
Check your independent cinema listings. Chance to see on big screen. Can buy tixs online. Psycho playing at my local theater on 10/31 w/alcohol available. Mwahahaha.
shareCheck your independent cinema listings.
---
Thank you for the heads up, jasonbourne!
---
Chance to see on big screen.
---
Always a great way to see it (Arbogast's fall is more "all around you", and the house is towering in the moonlight...)
--
Psycho playing at my local theater on 10/31 w/alcohol available.
---
Alcohol available! Try this drinking game: take a drink every time somebody says "forty thousand dollars." You'll soon be massively intoxicated!
---
Mwahahaha
--
Indeed...and hey, that's kind of how the leering grin looks on Norman's face when he is revealed in drag in the fruit cellar, yes?
And this:
Psycho has graced a few of my local Cineplex marquees as a Halloween night attraction the past few years. Problem is/was, I always have something else I have to do on Halloween night.
Still, I fill with a bit of pride to drive past a modern Cineplex playing Marvel movies and the like and there it is on the marquee too: PSYCHO. I doubt Hitchcock quite realized the staying power of that particular film. (I mean, I've NEVER seen a marquee with Topaz on it since its release in 1969....)
I think I caught Psycho on the big screen a few years ago in OCTOBER, but not on Halloween. It was fun.
Psycho makes great sense as a movie to show at a multiplex on Halloween. Its still just scary ENOUGH to draw a family-ish crowd(modern blood and guts gore is "adults only.") The Exorcist is too hard-R and abusive. Jaws has too much blue sky and a seafarin' adventure angle. Halloween is...a better choice than Psycho for Halloween...but not as good a movie! (And its not only NOT "the first slasher movie" -- Psycho is -- it has as many stranglings as slashings...maybe its an homage to Frenzy.)
Anyway, I hope you see Psycho on Halloween, and lift a toast to me while you do so...I'll be there in spirit!
An internet search finds Psycho being shown in Los Angeles in October 2019 with accompaniment by the "LA Opera Orchestra" of Bernard Herrmann's score.
Pretty cool, the idea of seeing the famous movie while hearing the score thundering(and screeching) all around one from a live orchestra.
I was able to get over personal issues going on and just scored tixs for Psycho on the big screen. It's my local art house cinema and it has those movies that have been discussed in the forum coming. I'm hyphy to get to see on the big screen for the first time.
I'll have to pass on the drinking game. My mwahahaha drinking days are over even though I was a H*LL of a drinker when young. If you do not keep up with hard liquor, then people will easily drink you under the table. I cannot finish a fifth with a friend anymore as I'll fall asleep. I should modify the hard liquor statement. Last time I did it was drink a shot of beer every minute for an hour and fell asleep little after half and hour.
I was able to get over personal issues going on and just scored tixs for Psycho on the big screen. It's my local art house cinema and it has those movies that have been discussed in the forum coming. I'm hyphy to get to see on the big screen for the first time.
---
For the first time! I think you're going to like that. Remember...movies were originally meant to be seen ONLY on the big screen.
I don't know what print Universal sends out, but you might want to look at the shot of Norman by the swamp after the (unseen) car of Arbogast has gone down. On SOME prints, you can see a truck on a road in the distance drive by -- probably a studio driver who wandered into the day-for-night shot.
---
I'll have to pass on the drinking game.
---
OK. It occurs to me that "forty thousand dollars" is SAID the most right after Arbogast enters the movie and for the second hour. So nobody has to drink hard until then. But...I respect your personal wishes.
---
My mwahahaha drinking days are over even though I was a H*LL of a drinker when young.
----
Hmm...weren't a LOT of us.
---
If you do not keep up with hard liquor, then people will easily drink you under the table. I cannot finish a fifth with a friend anymore as I'll fall asleep. I should modify the hard liquor statement. Last time I did it was drink a shot of beer every minute for an hour and fell asleep little after half and hour
---
Well, those were the days...but changes can be good.
--
Psycho is on the big screen near me tomorrow night, too. But I have have commitments.
YOU will enjoy it, I hope.
I'm dressing up as the Hulk and will let you know how it went. I found out the theater owner was the one who bought my LeMans original movie poster. I looked at their movies posters they had up outside, but they were all repros of 24" x 36" size. Originals were 27" x 41".
shareWow, I'm blown away after watching Psycho on the big screen. I have a 70'" projection screen size using a projector at home, but it doesn't have the same effect or atmosphere as watching in a sold out theater. You notice the details more on the big screen. The parlor scene is especially dramatic. At first, Marion seems to be larger or similar size than Norman, but when he started talking about his mother, his face takes up much more of the screen and becomes larger than Marion's face in the exchange. You can see the emotions on their face more on the big screen. I didn't see the car at the end, but did notice a couple of ribbons or strips of material hanging out from the trunk when Norman drove Marion's car into the swamp. The pause of the car sinking was much more effective in the theater. We all laughed. Also, Marion's car seemed boring driving into the parking lot, so definitely she upgraded her ride just to have California plates. The envelope with the money in it appeared much larger, too, so it's much more tense filled with the Highway Patrolman looking in the window. I don't think they make an envelope that size anymore. With the atmosphere and the audience hanging on to every word, I now agree with you about having the psychiatrist scene. It would be the easiest way for the audience to understand what happened and explain what we saw since the ending comes rather fast as we see Norman as Mother.
I sat next to someone who was born in 1972, so he wasn't as aware of the movie as much a me. I'm sure almost all of us had seen it on tv. I told him about how Hitchcock would not allow patrons to enter once the movie started. Then while the trailers were going on, they freeze framed it and a guy dressed up in a bathrobe and wig came on to introduce the movie. He talked about the same thing I just mentioned. I told him if the freeze frame happened at the theater in the 60s and 70s, then the film would start burning and that it was flammable.
Wow, I'm blown away after watching Psycho on the big screen.
---
Lotta fun, isn't it? Especially with "Psycho," which -- it has been pointed out -- was shot very oddly for a "big screen movie." Not only did Hitchcock use his TV crew, but he evidently stuck a lot to 50 mm lenses...so as to emulate "regular" sight in humans. And indeed, a lot of close-ups, so many that one wonders if a movie can get AWAY with so many close-ups(this was the era of sweeping Technicolor wide screen epics like Ben-Hur and Spartacus; was Hitchcock ALLOWED to make people pay for ...a bunch of close-ups? Yes, handsomely.
---
I have a 70'" projection screen size using a projector at home, but it doesn't have the same effect or atmosphere as watching in a sold out theater.
---
Sold out theater. That's the best. Though I assume there wasn't a lot of screaming. Audiences are so blasé now; and Psycho admittedly doesn't have a "gory shock every five minutes."
---
You notice the details more on the big screen.
---
Yes. Very much so.
A little "game" to play sometimes with big screen movies is to sit as close to the screen as possible, so that the images loom high, high, HIGH above you...and Tom Cruise looks like a slightly distorted giant. This isn't really the way to see a movie, but it reminds us of the SIZE of the big screen and why movie stars are literally bigger than life.
While filming Jaws in 1974 on Martha's Vineyard, young actor Richard Dreyfuss got a lot of dates. He'd been in the big hit American Graffiti, but, he noted, he was getting women because "usually when they see me, my face is forty feet high."
At first, Marion seems to be larger or similar size than Norman, but when he started talking about his mother, his face takes up much more of the screen and becomes larger than Marion's face in the exchange. You can see the emotions on their face more on the big screen.
---
I'd never thought of how the ever-so-slowly creeping up , bigger and bigger close-ups of Norman's face in the parlor scene might create that kind of visual dominance over Leigh, who is filmed more in a straight forward medium shot with some close-ups.
Speaking of those close-ups. I think I last saw Psycho on the big screen about two years ago, and in the long sequence of Marion driving in the gathering darkness and rain to the Bates Motel, the HUGE close-ups of Janet Leigh's face was so overwhelming -- I could see her facial PORES. It seemed so "intimate" to be in her face, one almost wanted to look away. It was pretty daring for Janet Leigh to agree to such continual scrutiny of her HUGE face on the big screen, but Hitchcock's gets real "intensity" here.
I didn't see the car at the end, but did notice a couple of ribbons or strips of material hanging out from the trunk when Norman drove Marion's car into the swamp.
---
Hmmm...I have to look for that.
Well, the car(a truck, actually) driving in the background while Norman stands by Arbogast's unseen sunken car is...I guess lost to new prints of the film, or new framings of the film for projectionists. That truck used to be quite prominent in older prints.
As did two places in the film where an artificial "black band" was placed along the entire bottom of the screen. TV prints USED to have the black band for every screening at these two places: (1) Marion in the shower before the stabbing (evidently just a bit too much of Leigh's actually-covered chest was shown and (2) Norman in the cell at the end, evidently to suggest the viewpoint of the cop looking through the door window.
Those black bands have been removed -- and/or the shots "re-framed" in current DVD prints, they are "gone to the past of Psycho" now.
The pause of the car sinking was much more effective in the theater. We all laughed.
---
Psycho is a classic example of how Hitchcock threaded even the most horrible scenes with humor. Here , a lot is going on: (1) General suspense(uh oh...the car stopped sinking!) (2) Identification with the criminal(Norman may not be a killer, but he's covering up for one); 3) the comic frustration of it all(expressed in Norman's worried face and chewing motions) and 4) the SOUND aspects: slurp, slurp, gulp, POP! and the car is "flushed".
Also, Marion's car seemed boring driving into the parking lot, so definitely she upgraded her ride just to have California plates.
---
I've always liked the rather "old fashioned" directness with which Hitchcock tells us that Marion has left Arizona for California by having her stop at "California Charlie's" car lot. Its like saying "Brand X" about a product; a bit fake. Noteable, though: a few critics think that with Psycho starting in Phoenix, Arizona, that the Bates Motel is IN Arizona! Evidently "California Charlie" went right past them.
There's also Charlie saying to Marion "I take it you have the correct paperwork for the car? Out of state plates and all." Further underlining the shift from AZ to CA.
---
The envelope with the money in it appeared much larger, too, so it's much more tense filled with the Highway Patrolman looking in the window. I don't think they make an envelope that size anymore.
---
Yes, Hitchcock knew how to invest OBJECTS with menace and personality; here's a great example. Though eventually (for plot purposes), the money ends up in a newspaper. Think about it: we get the bit with Marion buying a Los Angeles newspaper(at California Charlie's Bakersfield lot, 110 miles NORTH of LA) for the express purpose of showing her later wrap and hide the money in it -- which means that Norman has no suspicions at all when he throws the paper in the trunk(OH NO! thinks the audience.)
That "Los Angeles" paper letterhead(plus Marion announcing that she is FROM "Los Angeles" to Norman) has made Psycho the one Hitchcock movie(other than Saboteur at the start) that even suggests a Los Angeles location. And the movie never goes there...the Bates Motel is about 500 miles north of LA. But Los Angeles figures in the storyline. As does San Francisco when Sam later tells Norman that's where he and Lila are heading.
---
With the atmosphere and the audience hanging on to every word, I now agree with you about having the psychiatrist scene.
---
Yay! I brought one over. But it is cold and lonely here.
---
It would be the easiest way for the audience to understand what happened and explain what we saw since the ending comes rather fast as we see Norman as Mother.
---
I think so. In 1960, Norman needed some explaining and the audience needed a chance to come back to reality(if only for a little while.) As I understand it -- and as I vicariously lived it in the 60's when I heard about Psycho -- the cumulative events of the last hour of Psycho(the shower, the staircase, the fruit cellar) had really DEVASTATED people. Horrified them. Shook them to their very foundations. Whether he was that great a character or not, whether the scene was too long or not...people NEEDED the normalcy of the psychiatrist to "make things right."
And always remember my "plot" contentions: it is ONLY here that we learn that Norman murdered his mother and her lover(alluded to throughout the film; pays off here); that Norman stuffed his mother(EEK! in 1960) and that Norman/Mother killed two other women before Marion(so Marion wasn't a "once in a lifetime deal.")
I sat next to someone who was born in 1972, so he wasn't as aware of the movie as much a me.
---
Got to guide him a little. Nice...
---
I'm sure almost all of us had seen it on tv.
---
Its funny for me. Most of the "favorite movies" of my life, I saw in the theater first. But key movies in my life -- I saw on TV first. Including my two favorites of all time -- North by Northwest and Psycho. Bottom line: if TV is where those memories are formed, so be it.
The Wild Bunch, my third favorite of all time(and then I have no list beyond three)...I saw THAT the first time in a theater. Weirdly, with my obliging father(who was put off by the violence), on a SUNDAY night, in a near-empty giant Palace theater with a HUGE screen so the violent and sunny images loomed above us. We came out of the theater pretty late -- around 11:30, I think -- to near empty streets. And The Wild Bunch only haunted me more because of that. It was ultimately (like Psycho) a movie about spectacular and horrible death. Walking out onto "dead" streets at night carried foreward the effect.
---
I told him about how Hitchcock would not allow patrons to enter once the movie started. Then while the trailers were going on, they freeze framed it and a guy dressed up in a bathrobe and wig came on to introduce the movie.
---
Ha. A bathrobe and a wig. Well, "close."
---
He talked about the same thing I just mentioned.
---
That "No one will be admitted after Psycho begins" policy sure is its famous thing. I wonder how LONG theater owners obeyed it. It was like the R rating in the beginning when I was underage. In the beginning, I was indeed kept out of R rated movies by the management of theaters. But over time...they let me in. And at DRIVE-INS, they ALWAYS let me in.
I mean, if a 1960 theater owner let some people in after Psycho , did "Paramount movie distribution cops" suddenly appear to cart the owner off in chains?
I expect theater owners went along with the policy because it was "fun."
---
I told him if the freeze frame happened at the theater in the 60s and 70s, then the film would start burning and that it was flammable.
---
Ha. There's a memory. As a "starving student," I saw a lot of movies at second or third run theaters, watching often scratchy, chewed up prints that had been projected a few too many times. And yeah, occasionally film would jam in the projector and the image would melt on the screen. (I think "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" fakes this in their opening credit sequence.) Then the lights went up, the projectionist cut out the burned film, stitched things up and ran the movie some more.
I don't think modern theaters have that problem, and I doubt that they have projectionists who can fix the problem. anyway.
---
I'm glad you got to finally see PSYCHO on the big screen! I envy that you saw it on Halloween. I think Psycho -- which is rather more quaint and safe horror movie these days, and chronologically between "Dracula" and "Friday the 13th" has become rather the "Its a Wonderful Life" of Halloween movies. Its atmospheric, scary enough(I don't think a naked woman being stabbed with a big knife will EVER be "nothing"), and fun enough to keep playing for Halloweens to come, for years.
You're right in that there wasn't any screaming. However, the two killing scenes brought reaction in dramatic fashion regardless. People started whispering to each other after each. I was thinking if they put the deleted scenes from the German print, then it would've added to the drama and maybe would have had the screams or more uggh and audible groans. Also, the big sound in the theater makes for a more immersive effect for the Bernard Hermann music.
The reason I said the psychiatrist works is because of the pacing of the film at the end. We get that big police and jailhouse in a small town scene at the end. It is probably still in the heart of the evening and Hitchcock would've had to provide new information and resolve the emotions of the two protagonists, the sheriff, the two officials, as well as the audience. I noticed the pacing of the movie more then and the psychiatrist prepares us for the climactic ending.
The other funny scene was:
No! I will not hide in the fruit cellar! (A shrill laugh)
Think I'm fruity, huh?
I can see why Anthony Perkins lost his voice if he had to do that big scene as well as the other Norma scenes over and over. This scene comes across as much more convincing and a nice piece of acting on the big screen and big sound. It doesn't even make you think about a frail woman being able to kill a young adult woman and a burly man.
One of the first things I noticed on the big screen was in the opening scene when Sam pulls up the window blind. We get the rear projection of the building across the street. That showed some of the low budget. This wasn't a big budget production, so you can't help but notice. Sam and Lila come across as more important characters on the big screen, too. What Hitchcock was able to do with the relative lack of violence was have prominent move the story along scenes such as with Arbogast on the phone, talking with Norman in the office, the Sheriff and his wife scenes, and Lila, Sam, and Arbogast.
You're right in that there wasn't any screaming.
---
Well, I have read (from eyewitnesses) that there was PLENTY of screaming in 1960 full house release. And I personally experience the screaming at a 1979 college screening. And I have memories of screaming at my first run visits to Wait Until Dark(1967), Jaws(1975) and Friday the 13th(1980.) Interesting -- I don't much remember screaming at The Exorcist or Alien(first run, both times.) Oh, wait in Alien -- when Tom Skeritt got it.
But screaming is out of fashion now -- as film critic David Thomson has noted "we're a different species" when it comes to violence REALLY making us scream anymore.
---
However, the two killing scenes brought reaction in dramatic fashion regardless. People started whispering to each other after each.
---
Yes, I've been to screenings where I think that kind of reaction occurred. Murmuring, whispering, talking to each other. I mean the two murders are nothing if not DRAMATIC. And as I've noted before, these aren't mere "murders" in the whodunit tradition. They are SLAUGHTERS -- human beings reduced to meat.
---
I was thinking if they put the deleted scenes from the German print, then it would've added to the drama and maybe would have had the screams or more uggh and audible groans.
---
Surely so. I mean, Arbogast gets stabbed more times in the German version , no?
---
Also, the big sound in the theater makes for a more immersive effect for the Bernard Hermann music.
---
Absolutely. The more I read of your experience, the sorrier I am that I skipped the big screen this year in my town. Not to mention: an audience. I know audiences can be rude nowadays, but honestly, movies were at one time were meant to be seen WITH A GROUP. A shared experience. Big screams. Big laughs. Or a snuffling theater full of people crying(Terms of Endearment, ET.) Cheers and applause.
You know one time when the Arbogast murder finished on the fade out at public screening I attended -- the audience APPLAUDED. I got the "tone," too: they were applauding how brilliantly Hitchcock had staged the murder and how quickly he had eliminated the detective from the story and thrown it yet again into chaos(remember: there's something about this scene that is FUNNY,and I don't mean the process). It was a "salute to Hitchcock's storytelling ability."
The reason I said the psychiatrist works is because of the pacing of the film at the end. We get that big police and jailhouse in a small town scene at the end. It is probably still in the heart of the evening and Hitchcock would've had to provide new information and resolve the emotions of the two protagonists, the sheriff, the two officials, as well as the audience. I noticed the pacing of the movie more then and the psychiatrist prepares us for the climactic ending.
---
Yes, the pacing is important here. Given that the REAL ending (one of the most powerful in movie history) is Norman in the cell/Marion's car in the swamp -- this psychiatrist scene is a necessary "breather."(Plus the plot points, natch.)
And I like to point this out. Right now, in America, we live with fairly constant psychopathic mass shootings. "Bedrock horror." But what we get in addition is..."a shrink scene" to go with each and every shooting. Just like in Psycho, society tries to render the horrific...banal. Ordinary. "Just another case in the file." And it doesn't work.
---
The other funny scene was:
No! I will not hide in the fruit cellar! (A shrill laugh)
Think I'm fruity, huh?
---
Mom sure does have a sense of humor. (And "fruity" meant something else back then.) Critic Robin Wood got a little too serious about the "fruity" line -- thinking that Hitchcock was referring to the "sexual fruit" of Norman having withered down to the rotted fruit of Mother. Or something like that.
What I note is that after having seen Mother so viciously stab and slash two people -- hey, she's still got a sense of humor. Its jarring.
---
I can see why Anthony Perkins lost his voice if he had to do that big scene as well as the other Norma scenes over and over. This scene comes across as much more convincing and a nice piece of acting on the big screen and big sound.
--
Its one of those "fortunate accidents" that happens in movie making. Perkins didn't want to lose his voice -- he was starting work on a Broadway musical right after Psycho(hell, he rehearsed the musical in NYC while MAKING Psycho in LA, flying back and forth!)
So that wide open "silent scream" suggests that Norman's entire PSYCHE is falling apart when Sam grabs him.
---
It doesn't even make you think about a frail woman being able to kill a young adult woman and a burly man.
---
I think it was NY Times critic Bosley Crowther who opined that Psycho was so scary "because of the demon who haunts it." Though Norman describes Mother as sick and frail, and we SEE her frail in his arms going down the stairs...during the murders she has an inhuman brute strength that is quite simply...monstrous.
But this: Mother is smart. She ambushes her victims where the settings help kill them: Marion can't escape the slippery shower and Arbogast is defeated by his fall down the stairs.
One of the first things I noticed on the big screen was in the opening scene when Sam pulls up the window blind. We get the rear projection of the building across the street. That showed some of the low budget.
---
I'm afraid so. But such backdrops were common in movies in those days. It would have been worse in color. (And it WAS worse in John Wayne Westerns where it was meant to be "the great outdoors" out there.)
I do like how Sam opens those curtains on the words "My ex-wife is living on the other side of the world somewhere." All those windows feel LIKE "the other side of the world." They are also windows behind which other people may be making love. (See: Rear Window.)
Indeed, this opening scene conjours up memories of Rope(the opening shot through a window onto a murder scene in progress) AND Rear Window(the windows here, the voyeurism later in the film; OUR voyeurism throughout.)
---
This wasn't a big budget production, so you can't help but notice.
--
Well, as we know, HItchcock intended it that way. Coming after the expensive cross-country-filmed North by Northwest, Psycho shocked a lot of critics in its cheapness..
--
Sam and Lila come across as more important characters on the big screen, too.
---
What I think happens here is two-fold: (1) Because we aren't watching on TV, our mind doesn't wander and we CONCENTRATE on Sam and Lila and (2) when they are forty feet tall above you, they MATTER.
---
What Hitchcock was able to do with the relative lack of violence was have prominent move the story along scenes such as with Arbogast on the phone, talking with Norman in the office, the Sheriff and his wife scenes, and Lila, Sam, and Arbogast.
---
Well, Psycho was made in a different era. Evidently , audience terror and anxiety "lingered on" from the two murder scenes and overtook all the dialogue scenes in between. And those are great, well-written, well-acted dialogue scenes.
Surfing the internet, I have recently found articles about two Arbogast scenes:
One article about the phone booth scene.
One article about the office interrogation.
I promise, I didn't write either of them...but I feel vindicated that somebody has seen the value of those scenes.
Since we are talking about today's audience screaming I didn't think they did because of seeing it before and if they did, then it was just to go along and have some fun. Maybe the alcohol had relaxed this audience, so they were comfortably numb. I dunno. I do remember the audience screaming in Jaws. Part of it was the fun, but the shark was huge on the theater screens. I would recommend that and Star Wars as the two movies of the 70s to watch in theaters. You may get screams for that. For Alien, it was the chest bursting scene. The crawler skittering around the floor did so, too. I saw the The Exorcist at the Northpoint in San Francisco and it was cold inside. It had a lot of screaming. That was the scariest movie to me. I remember my friends dropped me off and I told them wait until I get in the house before leaving lol. Maybe Alien is worth seeing in the theater again, too, just as contrast to Star Wars.
And yes. Arbogast get stabbed in the German version more, but does not scream more. One can see and feel the power of the knife going as high as possible and imagining it go deep as possible into the heart and flesh. The uncut German version came out in Blu-ray in November 2018. I think one can only get it on the aftermarket.
Since we are talking about today's audience screaming I didn't think they did because of seeing it before and if they did, then it was just to go along and have some fun.
---
I haven't heard an audience scream at Psycho since 1979.
About all that has happened in my public screenings since has been one or two audience members going "oh!" when Mother runs out at Arbogast -- the true "jump shock" in the whole movie.
One full house I attended (at the Museum of Modern Art in NYC, I might add; that was my "Hitchcock vacation" in his Centennial year with an exhibit at MOMA) had just ONE WOMAN scream when Mother came at Arbogast. The rest of the audience laughed hard.
But honestly, except on "jump out at you" moments in modern movies(which get a scream of surprise more than horror)...I think audiences are done being scared like that...ever again(example: the long continual scream when Lila decides to turn around and go down into the cellar.). As David Thomson the critic wrote: "We are a different species, now."
---
Maybe the alcohol had relaxed this audience, so they were comfortably numb.
---
Aw, Comfortably Numb. A big song in Scorsese's "The Departed" and then used some months later to accompany the death of a major character on The Sopranos. I remember it well.
--
I dunno. I do remember the audience screaming in Jaws.
--
Oh, yeah.
---
Part of it was the fun, but the shark was huge on the theater screens.
---
EVERYTHING is huge on theater screens, though I must admit, home screens are pretty big now, and in smaller rooms, they seem BIGGER. Still, yeah, that shark was a big kid on the big screen.
--
I would recommend that and Star Wars as the two movies of the 70s to watch in theaters. You may get screams for that.
---
Screams for Jaws and cheers and applause during Star Wars -- starting with the awe-inspiring first shot.
Which reminds me: just this side of screams. I saw North by Northwest with a big crowd one night, and right before the climax, when Eve grabs the statue and runs for Roger's approaching car with the two henchmen in pursuit --the audience was YELLING(and yes, sort of screaming) at Eve: "Go...go...go!" She manages to get the door open and into Roger's car just in the nick of time(the henchmen have their hands on the door as Eve closes it) and the audience yelled and cheered.
---
For Alien, it was the chest bursting scene. The crawler skittering around the floor did so, too. I saw the The Exorcist at the Northpoint in San Francisco and it was cold inside. It had a lot of screaming.
==
Screaming at The Exorcist? I just don't remember that. I remember one big "jump yell" when Burstyn's candle went out in the dark -- I felt it was a bit of a cheat.
All this said...I am sure that The Exorcist DID generate screams in many venues. It was too gigantic a hit not to. The issue is: if not on "jump cuts" -- when? When the green vomit spewed forth, perhaps? When her head turned all the way around?
Exorcist director William Freidkin himself said he based the shot of the psychiatrist falling to the carpet on the Arbogast fall. Maybe THAT got a scream.
---
Alien was the scariest movie to me. I remember my friends dropped me off and I told them wait until I get in the house before leaving lol. Maybe Alien is worth seeing in the theater again, too, just as contrast to Star Wars.
---
Alien seems to be "right up there" with Psycho, The Exorcist and Jaws among the "Superthrillers." And I must admit: only Psycho was made BEFORE the R rating(though Jaws has a PG).. the other three have shocks that would work well today, whereas Psycho's shocks will now feel a little "quaint."
You know, Fox released both Star Wars and Alien...and released Alien two years ALMOST to the May day(in the US) after Star Wars. It was weird...we were instructed to get that "Star Wars" feeling over an entirely different product: a HORROR movie in space. (And one summer later: The Empire Strikes Back gave us the real deal.)
It was a heady experience, those three summers almost in a row(Fox took 1978 off, I guess, what was their May movie?)
And yes. Arbogast get stabbed in the German version more,
---
So tricky for me to gauge. As I"ve said, the other two clips CLEARLY have additional footage. But the knife seems exactly the same in both stabs in that other clip...like somebody repeated it. The film "wobbles" too, but I guess I should remember: that knife coming down always comes at a reel change(see my thread on teh subject if you wish). So I dunno...MAYBE its additional stabs.
---
but does not scream more.
---
A possible clue that somebody simply duplicated the image.
--
One can see and feel the power of the knife going as high as possible and imagining it go deep as possible into the heart and flesh.
---
Its funny you mention that. As Janet Leigh said about the shower scene "Hitchcock made you think you saw something you didn't see."
I think a lot of people remember SEEING Arbogast get stabbed in the chest and heart; maybe they remember his face as he was stabbed.
But NONE of that was shown. "It was all in our minds."
One time I saw Psycho with a crowd, two teenage girls in front of me screamed at the Arbogast murder, but when he hit the floor and mother jumped on him, both girls ducked and buried their heads into each other. They had no interest in SEEING the detective finished off...so they didn't even look. And it wasn't that bad.
---
The uncut German version came out in Blu-ray in November 2018. I think one can only get it on the aftermarket.
---
Well, let's all try. I like somebody's idea that a "rough cut work print" was accidentally shipped out to Germany without being edited.
Reversibly: I have read that various theaters in various American theaters in 1960 made their OWN CUTS to Psycho. Often in the shower scene, but also: they cut everything after Arbogast hit the floor. Even too violent in IMAGINATION.
As I"ve said, the other two clips CLEARLY have additional footage.
---
I would like to note something here: comparing the shots of the blood on Norman's hands, one can see the "subtle" ways that footage was trimmed so that you didn't even notice the cut. In the "edited" American version, the camera didn't linger on Norman's hands so long as in the German cut, but cut to his head in the bathroom and then back DOWN to the bloody hands going into the sink.
You can see this technique being used "on film" in the "Making of Topaz" DVD documentary. Topaz isn't one of the Hitchcock greats (except to Vincent Canby of the NYT, who named it one of Hitchcock's best)...but this DVD shows how the print that got to American theaters was trimmed rather here, there and everywhere WITHIN scenes.
Example: in the "first cut" of Topaz, there is a too-lengthy shot of Andre and his daughter running down a circular staircase, out onto the street, and up to a parked car where Jarre is dead, on the roof, his head bloodied from the fall from his window.
The DVD doc runs this footage "side by side" with the shorter version in the released movie and puts in "black footage" where cuts were made. Thus, Andre and his daughter aren't shown going down that entire staircase (footage is cut out along the way) and much of their run out onto the street is cut...they get right to the parked car and Dead Jarre.
One realizes that movies -- especially on release deadlines -- often don't get the proper cutting down by their editors. Yet, when its done right, its crisp and fast.
It depends on what you mean by scream. It is a fear reaction. Guys aren't going to scream like a shrieking woman. They may go wtf?, omg, uggh, shit!, and other reactions. Something has triggered their fears.
With Psycho, I don't think the scream in the commercial of the shower scene was in the movie although Marion is screaming. If it was a guy, then he may realize it's an old woman stabbing him and that she is taking him down; that could trigger a fear reaction. With Arbogast, he was surprised and his face was slashed open. Then he hit the bottom of the stair well and broke his back and could not move. He screamed because of the shock and the knife entering him immediately. It probably meant he knew this was it before dying.
It depends on what you mean by scream. It is a fear reaction. Guys aren't going to scream like a shrieking woman.
---
No, probably not. (Trying to avoid sexism, here, but ...I heard what I heard.) My memories of the huge screams of Wait Until Dark in 1967 and Psycho in 1979 is, indeed, of high pitched FEMALE screams. Its quite possible that men(and tough women) simply ljoined in with "fake screams" for the fun of it.
But what's fascinating to me are these two memories:
Wait Until Dark(SPOILER) the supposedly dead villain leaps out at Audrey Hepburn(rather like Mother running out at Arbogast) and there's a big scream, but his hand grips her ankle and for the next THREE MINUTES, (with Henry Mancini's music pounding in accompaniment) everybody just KEPT SCREAMING as Audrey(blind and not sure where to go), dragged the dying killer along with her, broke loose, and had him crawling with a huge knife towards her to kill her ...it was CONTINUAL. I'm not sure how/why the audience never STOPPED screaming.
Psycho: After the heart-stopping, timed-to-the-millisecond moment when Norman comes thorugh the door of the house just as Lila makes it under the stairs(key proof of just how great Hitchcock was), Norman goes up the stairs(audience sighs with relief) but Lila sees "one more door" to the two cellars below , turns and...goes down there. Again: the audiences started screaming and NEVER STOPPED screaming...one continual scream from here to the DA's office(yes, the screams kept going into the next exposition scene!) Plus, two "sudden peaks" in the screams on Mother's face and then Norman in drag. But, continual. Again: how/why does an audience do that?
Or...did that. No more.
With Psycho, I don't think the scream in the commercial of the shower scene was in the movie although Marion is screaming.
---
Well, as you probably know, that was VERA MILES screaming in that final shot of the Pscyho trailer. Janet Leigh was already off the movie, but Vera Miles was on personal contract to Hitchcock and also shooting a TV episode for him at the time. So he put Vera in the shower, and its a different scream, followed by some blaring music and...I tell ya: that's a pretty damn shocking trailer in terms of the screeching, screaming LOUDNESS at the end of it. It signals how the movie Psycho itself was simply MORE(in shock, in violence, in SOUND) than any thriller before it.
Which reminds me: I once showed a woman the Mount Rushmore climax of North by NOrthwest -- which is my favorite set-piece in all OF Hitchcock . When it was all over and Grant and Saint were on the train safely homebound, I asked the woman what she thought: Her answer: "Boy, that whole ending was too loud for me."
Hmmm. I guess Bernard Herrmann didn't have to use just screeching violins to impact the nevous system.
If it was a guy, then he may realize it's an old woman stabbing him and that she is taking him down; that could trigger a fear reaction. With Arbogast, he was surprised and his face was slashed open. Then he hit the bottom of the stair well and broke his back and could not move. He screamed because of the shock and the knife entering him immediately. It probably meant he knew this was it before dying.
---
Hitchcock loved to talk about the Arbogast murder, and took the clip with him to open his 1972 Dick Cavett show episode (promoting Frenzy.)
Hitch was most proud of the juxtaposition of the high shot of Mother running at Arbogast to the "big head" close-up of his face getting slashed("It was like brass instruments clashing," Hitch told Truffaut) but this super-fast shock scene has so many other precision elements of terror: the jump scream of MOther running out; HOW mother runs out(a weird robotic stomp), the face slash(history at the American thriller movie) and the fall.
But perhaps just as important -- and this was part of the shower murder too -- was how the audience was compelled to FEEL Arbogast's death, to experience it...to be haunted by it(at night when they went home, Hitchcock noted) The changing looks on Arbogast's face as he falls down the stairs; how he collapses in a heap at the bottom(with one knee up and one hand flailing in a circle to try to block off Mother.) How she leaps upon him(too fast, too strong for an old woman) and indeed, that final, guttural scream, which seems to connote physical pain AND terror and thus becomes something very profound.
Meanwhile, the horror in the shower murder is many things -- the entrapment, the slippery floor, the shadowy face of the close killer -- but what Hitchcock brought to the scene also was the UNENDING nature of it. What would it FEEL like? Standing upright and receiving stab after stab after stab before death was inevitable? One would hope(in imagination) that eventually pain would be gone, and shock and unconsciousness would take over and then...well, we all wonder what death will be like, don't we?
Hitchcock GOT this....first in time...with the shock killings in Psycho and the movies have followed suit ever since.
Note in passing: I was watching a Walter Hill movie the other night(The Long Riders) and I looked up an interview with Hill about the movie and its violence, and he offered an interesting quote:
"People who don't like violence shouldn't go to the movies."
Hah. THAT's hitting the nail on the head! Its bred deep within us, yes?
I'll have to watch Wait Until Dark. I can see the audience screaming at the final scene of Psycho, but I thought many had seen it already. Maybe a different audience would. How can you not when Vera Miles lets out? You can hear the "I am Norma Bates." Maybe it should have been loud, but it's still good. Just think if Perkins had not lost his voice. That might be remembered as the scariest line in the movie. Anthony Perkins was that good in the role. Both the picture and sound quality were great.
I was able to rearrange the family room so the projection is over 100" now as my daughter came over for early Thanksgiving. We watched Psycho 1960 as she has gotten into Bates Motel, but hadn't seen the movie it was based on. She asked, "Who's that woman, Norma Bates?," when it was Marion. I knew she was gonna have fun. We had some spilled popcorn on the floor. The picture is a bit fuzzy now as I only have the DVD, but the sound is good. It's the Masterpiece Collection, so the picture is wider screen than the version I saw in the theater. The less wider screen version seemed better. Next, I'll have to look for North by Northwest and Vertigo in Hitchoctober.
ETA: Another scene that got a big reaction was the deputy sheriff scene when he said, "Arbogast." There was a big black guy behind us and he repeated, "Arbogast" in the same manner and the people nearby all laughed.
I'll have to watch Wait Until Dark.
--
Its a good one, but , unlike Psycho, almost all the screams are in the third and final act(its based on a play). There is a creepy dead body "up front," but the first two acts are about nifty plotting and great dialogue(Alan Arkin, wrote Stephen King "gives the greatest performance of screen villainy in movie history." He's funny too, in a scary way.). THEN it gets good and scary in the final half hour. Poor blind Audrey Hepburn versus three thugs, one of them Psycho.
---
I can see the audience screaming at the final scene of Psycho, but I thought many had seen it already. Maybe a different audience would.
---
Well, Psycho re-cycled through several decades...there's always a "new" audience for it. The question is: how little can they know? If they don't know the twist, don't know there's a shower scene, and don't know what happens to the detective in advance...1979 can be as scary a year to see it as 1960. 2019? Maybe not so much. I dunno for sure. (Note to self: its now 40 years since I saw Psycho with a screaming audience, the only time in my life to do so. How lucky I was.)
---
How can you not when Vera Miles lets out?
---
Herrmann's music pulls tighter and tighter and then Mother spins around and Vera Miles lets loose and -- then Norman runs in. The sheer multiple payoffs in this shock sequence...wow.. Especially in 1960.
---
You can hear the "I am Norma Bates."
--
I've always wondered if that track got "boosted" in subsequent DVD soundtracks. I don't recall hearing it so clearly back on TV.
---
Maybe it should have been loud, but it's still good. Just think if Perkins had not lost his voice. That might be remembered as the scariest line in the movie.
---
They did "dub" Mother's voice over Perkins talking in the wig and dress...in Psycho III. It didn't really work. Even with the REAL Mother's voice(Virginia Gregg.) Well, one of them.
--
Anthony Perkins was that good in the role.
---
Yes he was. As it is , his "silent scream" and that MASSIVE meltdown and mouth open freakout he undergoes when Sam grabs him -- he's been caught "mid-Mother" and he can't handle it. He's breaking down...back into Norman, or fully into Mother?
------
Both the picture and sound quality were great.
---
Psycho has been well preserved -- it looks and sounds better than ever. And 1960 b/w with Hitchcock's knowledge of lenses and composition..never better(John L. Russell as DP, in for Hitchcock's usual DP of the time, Robert Burks...and looking rather the same in shots -- ergo, Hitch might be the REAL DP here.)
I was able to rearrange the family room so the projection is over 100" now as my daughter came over for early Thanksgiving.
--
A veritable home theater and family to share it. Nice.
---
We watched Psycho 1960 as she has gotten into Bates Motel, but hadn't seen the movie it was based on. She asked, "Who's that woman, Norma Bates?," when it was Marion.
--
Ha...it must have been difficult trying to match up the NEW series with the OLD movie.
--
I knew she was gonna have fun. We had some spilled popcorn on the floor.
--
From jumping? Arbogast? The cellar?
---
The picture is a bit fuzzy now as I only have the DVD, but the sound is good. It's the Masterpiece Collection, so the picture is wider screen than the version I saw in the theater. The less wider screen version seemed better.
---
There are different qualities. I'm no expert , but I rather found the image in later DVDs of Psycho to be "darker" than the more brightly lit prints of the VHS and first DVDs.
--
Next, I'll have to look for North by Northwest and Vertigo in Hitchoctober.
---
You gonna wait that long? With that home theater NOW is the time..especially as you can see how they influenced Psycho...
---
ETA: Another scene that got a big reaction was the deputy sheriff scene when he said, "Arbogast." There was a big black guy behind us and he repeated, "Arbogast" in the same manner and the people nearby all laughed.
---
Ha. Yeah, that line always seems to get a laugh:
Chambers: "Fellah name of...
Lila: Arbogast.
Chambers: AR-BO-GAST.
"Arbogast" has become, I think, one of the great movie character names in movie history. People KNOW that name now, in fact the "staircase murder" is sometimes called the "Arbogast murder."
In fact, I recall getting a bit of a chill the first time I read "Hitchcock/Truffaut" as a pre-teen, and saw, planted in the heading of a particular chapter: "How Arbogast Was Killed." Back then, that was VERY scary stuff to read. The name "Arbogast" was connected to "horror" in my mind.
And as we know, though film book movie credits call him "Milton Arbogast,"(based on the Bloch novel name) he never uses his first name in the whole movie.
He's just a fellah name of....Arbogast.
>>They did "dub" Mother's voice over Perkins talking in the wig and dress...in Psycho III. It didn't really work. Even with the REAL Mother's voice(Virginia Gregg.) Well, one of them.<<
That would be the question I'd want to ask Alfred Hitchcock or Anthony Perkins. Would AP's loud "I am Norma Bates" have made the scene more dramatic? I think Norman has turned into Norma and Norman won't return.
The other thing is Norma only attacks when she has the surprise advantage. It would be more difficult for her to struggle and win with Sam.
>>From jumping? Arbogast? The cellar?<<
It was earlier, so probably the shower and maybe Arbogast. She likes horror films, so it may have been her imagining the stabbings and blood and gore.
>>You gonna wait that long? With that home theater NOW is the time..especially as you can see how they influenced Psycho...<<
It's still not the big screen and sound and there won't be an audience. There is still a difference between home theater and movie theater.
>>They did "dub" Mother's voice over Perkins talking in the wig and dress...in Psycho III. It didn't really work. Even with the REAL Mother's voice(Virginia Gregg.) Well, one of them.<<
That would be the question I'd want to ask Alfred Hitchcock or Anthony Perkins. Would AP's loud "I am Norma Bates" have made the scene more dramatic? I think Norman has turned into Norma and Norman won't return.
---
Its a real "meltdown" (great intense facial acting by Perkins) and yes, Mother seems to be taking over, as the shrink says "for all time"(or at least until Psycho II.)
Robert Bloch's book makes a big deal(it would be a close-up in a movie) of Norman yelling at Lila in the fruit cellar: "I am Norma Bates!"
Hitchcock seems to have actively rejected that approach, so Perkins didn't get a close-up to say those words. It probably wouldn't have worked. Hitchcock already felt that Perkins couldn't do Mother's voice(hence Virginia Gregg and Paul Jasmin share the honors) and he couldn't dub their voices over a Perkins close-up(the attempt in Psycho III just didn't work.)
As we have it "I am Norma Bates" is rather "lost in the sound mix" amidst the screeching violins and said with a weird emphasis...real slow to real fast: "I'mmmmmmmmmm....NORMABATES!" plus I think the woman screams as Sam grabs her. (Yeah, its Perkins but...not really.)
The other thing is Norma only attacks when she has the surprise advantage. It would be more difficult for her to struggle and win with Sam.
---
This has always been a big deal to me about Psycho. After we see Mother's strength in stabbing Marion to death, we wonder when Arbogast arrives: well, he's a man, he's a private eye, he's short and stocky but he LOOKS like he could beat Mrs. Bates in a fair fight.
And then he can't. Because he doesn't expect the attack and he falls down the stairs.
The stairs are a "weapon" used against Arbogast(by Old Mother Bates AND by young spindly Norman), just as the shower is a "weapon" used against Marion(who, if you watch the shower scene, does manage to fight back for awhile before yielding to stabs.)
Norman successfully wins his first fight against Sam(with a "weapon," the ash tray) but with Sam gripping him from behind, he can't win(this is scary though: it takes a LONG time for Sam to get the knife out of Norman's grip and the struggle suggests that if Norman got free with the knife in hand, he COULD kill Sam; its a scary struggle.)
(Popcorn on the floor)
--
>>From jumping? Arbogast? The cellar?<<
It was earlier, so probably the shower and maybe Arbogast. She likes horror films, so it may have been her imagining the stabbings and blood and gore.
---
Psycho leaves a lot to the imagination, but the attacks are also graphic enough, and sudden enough, and SCRECHING enough, to give us what critic Pauline Kael called a "blast in the face" effect of shock. Hence: jumping and screaming.
---
>>You gonna wait that long? With that home theater NOW is the time..especially as you can see how they influenced Psycho...<<
It's still not the big screen and sound and there won't be an audience. There is still a difference between home theater and movie theater.
---
Yes, there is. Though I have a relative with a sound system that amazes me, it sounds like the movie soundtrack is...behind me and down the hall!
"Well, Psycho re-cycled through several decades...there's always a "new" audience for it. The question is: how little can they know? If they don't know the twist, don't know there's a shower scene, and don't know what happens to the detective in advance...1979 can be as scary a year to see it as 1960. 2019? Maybe not so much. I dunno for sure. (Note to self: its now 40 years since I saw Psycho with a screaming audience, the only time in my life to do so. How lucky I was.)"
- It's been about that - give or take - since I last saw Psycho in a theater. I know the first theatrical showing I attended was in '71, and would estimate that I did so again maybe a dozen times over the course of the decade (when I used to haunt the L.A. revival houses and film festivals, and had to grab any chance to re-see favorites in those pre-home-video days). And to be honest, I don't recall ever seeing it with a non-screaming audience.
As to the "how little can they know" question, I saw a clip on YouTube from a show called Pawn Stars, a show I've never seen but the apparent premise of which is appraisals of various items brought to a Las Vegas pawn shop. The clip I saw featured a shower curtain autographed by Anthony Perkins in commemoration of his directing Psycho III. One of the shows stars explained to the other, who'd never seen the original film, the significance of a shower curtain to it.
As one co-star describes the scene - "Very fast editing suggests the violence of it with the knife brought down on the woman and blood running down the drain, but you never see her actually being stabbed" - the other gazes at him slack-jawed and dull-eyed before pronouncing, "Hunh...doesn't sound very scary."
I pass this on without further comment.
EDIT: Oh, look at that: the very clip is linked in the post just below! Small world (and I gather you've already seen it in the ensuing three weeks since the post). Funny. I came upon it quite by accident after looking at another Psycho-related YouTube video.
"Well, Psycho re-cycled through several decades...there's always a "new" audience for it. The question is: how little can they know? If they don't know the twist, don't know there's a shower scene, and don't know what happens to the detective in advance...1979 can be as scary a year to see it as 1960. 2019? Maybe not so much. I dunno for sure. (Note to self: its now 40 years since I saw Psycho with a screaming audience, the only time in my life to do so. How lucky I was.)"
- It's been about that - give or take - since I last saw Psycho in a theater. I know the first theatrical showing I attended was in '71, and would estimate that I did so again maybe a dozen times over the course of the decade (when I used to haunt the L.A. revival houses and film festivals, and had to grab any chance to re-see favorites in those pre-home-video days).
---
I'd say my first revival screening was in 1974 or so, and I, too haunted LA revival houses. I often got Psycho with ANOTHER Hitchcock movie -- Saboteur once, The Birds another time, and in my favorite double bill(of all time?) with North by Northwest.
---
And to be honest, I don't recall ever seeing it with a non-screaming audience.
---
That's great and that's amazing. Honestly I just felt somewhat "blessed" in 1979 to finally experience Psycho as it played in 1960 and..this is where I cemented by animus towards critics who say "Psycho becomes pedestrian after Marion goes into the swamp." Maybe so "character and plotwise"(less, all critics agree, Arbogast)...but almost ALL the big continual screams are in that second half (except of course, for the screams from the shower scene.)
I have seen Psycho in some odd places over my lifetime: the closed cafeteria in a college dorm. A huge student hall -- but with 1/3 full house(no screams.) In a closed public library(that's the screening where the reel fell off the projector when Arbogast got it.) I once drove with a friend to some old theater way out in Orange County to see Psycho with The Birds. Interesting: The Birds got laughed at a LOT by the audience(the unfortunate "You're EVIL! slap comes right BEFORE the bartender runs in overacting his panic.) and Psycho got laughed at only a LITTLE -- that's when I learned that Psycho is a better movie than The Birds, script wise.
Away from my "home towns," I saw Psycho once in New York City in 1999(visiting MOMA for a Hitchcock Centennial Exhibit and Psycho screening), and once in Washington DC -- in a pizza parlor way far away from the monuments downtown. I was staying there temporarily and found Psycho advertised at the pizza parlor -- shown with families all around.
One regret: I never saw Psycho at a drive-in. Though I saw it on a few drive-in marquees in my youth -- for its re-releases. And one night our family drove past a drive-in where Psycho was playing(before I ever saw the film) and I could see just a sliver of the movie on the screen as we drove by.
As to the "how little can they know" question, I saw a clip on YouTube from a show called Pawn Stars, a show I've never seen but the apparent premise of which is appraisals of various items brought to a Las Vegas pawn shop. The clip I saw featured a shower curtain autographed by Anthony Perkins in commemoration of his directing Psycho III.
---
And now we've heard about this clip from TWO sources. "Great minds think alike!"
----
One of the shows stars explained to the other, who'd never seen the original film, the significance of a shower curtain to it.
---
Well, I tell ya. For as much as we've been discussing here how young generations (30 and younger) don't know Psycho, I have over my life mentioned it to adults my own age and gotten "I've never heard of it" or "I've heard of it but I've never seen it." Of course, with as many movie fans as we have in the world, we have a lot of NON movie fans.
As one co-star describes the scene - "Very fast editing suggests the violence of it with the knife brought down on the woman and blood running down the drain, but you never see her actually being stabbed" - the other gazes at him slack-jawed and dull-eyed before pronouncing, "Hunh...doesn't sound very scary."
I pass this on without further comment.
---
Ha. As famous as the Psycho shower scene is for NOT showing the knife going into the body(and hey, its a NAKED body, that would be gross in ANY decade, seeing the blade enter naked flehs), its just hard to imagine the scene being any scarier than it already is. It could be more GROSS, but not scarier.
Van Sant famously didn't show the knife go in, but he DID have Marion slide down the wall leaving behind a streak of blood from a wound to the back that we then see when she falls over the tub. That was, perhaps graphic enough. (Van Sant also had Arbogast stand still long enough to get slashed three times on the face, instead of just once.)
I'm reminded that Hitchcock told Truffaut that he had had a fake rubber torso made into which a knife could stab during the shower scene, with blood spurting out. That sounds to me like "just a story" -- 1960 censors wouldn't have allowed it. Oh, maybe Hitch had the torso made just to see what it would look like, but to use it? His interview answer came off wrong: "I had that rubber torso built, but I didn't use it. I used a live girl, instead." WHAT?
And of course, what's most "graphic" about the shower scene is the SOUND of the knife puncturing flesh. 9 times, I think(I've read 11, but I've only heard 9.) That's under the heading of "the violence that you don't see." We have since learned that the stabs went into a casaba melon. But 1960 audiences didn't know that.
Also: there are only 2 "casaba stabs" during the Arbogast murder. One is a SLASH (to his face), then one stab sound at the bottom of the stairs(we imagine the others after the fade out.)
While we're on this grisly subject:
In the Van Sant, the "casaba stabs" are more state-of-the-art graphic, I feel we could hear the knife "sticking" more, and possibly hitting bone. And when Arbogast(William H. Macy) is stabbed at the bottom of the stairs, instead of one guttural scream(Balsam), we hear Macy grunting again and again and again...as if he is getting hit in the stomach each time rather than stabbed, as the scene fades out. Its more "realistic."
Wheras Balsam only screamed once, unseen, at the bottom of the stairs, Macy screams like a yodel all the way down the stairs, thus shifting to the "grunting" for his final moments."
These details MATTER to a movie.