MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > could norman gotten away with it

could norman gotten away with it


i think so. when detecive came if he pkayd it cool he wouldve been fine

reply

Sure, if Sam didn't come to in time. Norman as Mother would've been able to kill Lila and probably ambush Sam as he came to rescue Lila. He may have trouble disposing Sam's truck and their bodies and the swamp may be getting full.

I envision this as the story that could continue as a modern day slasher flick.

Then there is supposed to be a Psycho II novel by Robert Bloch. For some reason, Universal made their own version.

reply

Yes, its worth thinking about how maybe, just maybe, Norman could have gotten away with it.

He SURELY could have gotten away with it if his victim had not been a woman who stole money...and thus brought a shrewd and smart private eye on her trail to the Bates Motel.

But even with the arrival of the detective, Norman COULD have perhaps added himself to the "non leads" of the the boarding house managers we saw Arbogast talking to earlier in the day..if he just kept his cool.

Its all carefully written, but here are Norman's mistakes:

ONE: He talks too much and won't do as Arbogast asks ("Look at the picture, PLEASE").

TWO: He keeps Arbogast from looking in his guest register("Oh, I hardly bother with registering guests anymore.")

THREE: He tells Arbogast that "nobody has been here for a couple of weeks" but later notes that an old couple came by a week ago.

Those three things are enough to push Arbogast to push HARDER..and Norman says Marion was there and...its really all over for him.

But maybe if , on very first talking with Arbogast, Norman had said this, and done this, it would have worked out:

Arbogast hands Norman the photo. Norman looks right at it, says "I don't recognize her." Arbogast asks if a woman has stayed at the motel recently. Norman says: "No woman, but I did have an old couple here, about a week ago."

And..Norman lets Arbogast look at the register, immediately.

You know, that register is probably bad news anyway you cut it. If guests are "dated" when they check in, that register shows Arbogast that a woman WAS here, about a week ago, named Marie Samuels(her boyfriend's name was Sam.)

In short, Norman would have had to discuss Marion's being there pretty damn right off the bat - he should have known she was in the registry. Then Norman could have had the talk he has with the detective anyway: yes, she was here, but she left. I never saw her again.

reply

And then, of course, Arbogast sees Mother in the window...honestly, the whole thing was probably lost for Norman the moment the detective arrived...Mother's almost ALWAYS in the window.

But if Norman managed to hustle the private eye to his car before he could SEE Mother...well, he would have made it.

Another aspect:

Unlike Francois Truffaut and Psycho screenwriter Joe Stefano -- who really had no respect for Robert Bloch's source novel of Psycho -- I really like that book very much. It creates a different "mood" in telling the same story, it is very much its own thing.

And in Bloch's novel, when Arbogast arrives and enters the Bates Motel office -- we are inside Norman's mind for the whole thing -- and Norman is going CRAZY. His heart is pounding uncontrollably as he tries to talk to the detective, he can barely concentrate, he gets angry, he thinks to himself: "It would be terrible if I were to scream."

The entire Norman-Arbogast interrogation in the novel is viewed through the frenzied, ultra-panicked, about-to-have-a-heart attack panic of Norman Bates as the detective asks his questions. Hitchcock -- as was his style -- cooled the entire exchange down to something of more quiet desperation and concentrated parrying.

But we can figure that if Norman WAS that panicked...no way he could keep his stories straight to the detective.

Norman's story here tracks with Marion's story earlier. A crime has been committed. Authorities appear with questions(the highway cop and California Charlie for Marion; Arbogast for Norman.) The guilt of the "questionee" sounds in that person's panicky inability to answer a straight question.

As Marion and the highway cop say:

Marion: Do I look like I've done something wrong?
Cop: Well, frankly...yes.


reply

And recall Norman's remark to Marion about mental institutions and "the cruel eyes studying you." Those cruel eyes, in Psycho, belong, sequentially to : Cassidy(at Marion's desk); Lowery(in the intersection); California Charlie(at his lot); Norman's stuffed birds(in the parlor); Arbogast(at Norman's office counter.)

And there are more "cruel eyes studying you" to come: Sam, Lila, the psychiatrist...

reply

Sure, if Sam didn't come to in time. Norman as Mother would've been able to kill Lila and probably ambush Sam as he came to rescue Lila. He may have trouble disposing Sam's truck and their bodies and the swamp may be getting full.

I envision this as the story that could continue as a modern day slasher flick.

--

I, too, believe that one version of Psycho could play out with Norman/Mother killing both Lila and Sam as you have described. The big Sam COULD be ambushed; a quick knife to his jugular vein and it would be over.

However, if Sam and Lila were to disappear after the disappearances of Marion and Arbogast...even practical ol' Sheriff Chambers would HAVE to figure something fishy was going on at the Bates Motel. Sam and Lila had given him too much reason to be concerned -- especially Lila. And if Sheriff Chambers, too -- went back to the motel and got killed -- well, the jig was up for Norman. More investigators would keep coming, and keep coming, and find Mother's body and...the bodies in the swamp and..that's it.

While I don't think Norman could get away with it after Arbogast's death(too many other investigators would come after him), I DO think Psycho could have -- and perhaps WOULD have -- been made as a more traditional slasher movie. And if that happened...more murders. Marion first, yes. Arbogast second, yes. But probably Sheriff Chambers third(when he comes out to check things out on Sunday morning.) And perhaps Sam next...leaving Lila Crane as "the final girl" of slasher movie myth. Somehow, Lila bests Norman (lock him in the fruit cellar?) and wins.

I'm glad that movie was never made!

reply

Then there is supposed to be a Psycho II novel by Robert Bloch. For some reason, Universal made their own version.

--

We discussed this on another thread, but here's a good place to revisit that:

In retrospect, it seems key that proposals to make a "Psycho II" did not arrive until AFTER Hitchcock died in 1980. He might well have opposed any such project while he was alive. But once he died, the proposals came out of the woodwork. A failed proposal in 1981. Bloch's novel in 1982. The movie going into production in 1982 for 1083 release.

I wonder why Universal elected to reject Bloch's novel "Psycho II" for its movie? I suppose Bloch's idea was "just another idea" and Universal didn't like it. Bloch's idea was that Norman ESCAPED the asylum(strangling a visiting nun and leaving in her "female outfit," ala Mother), stopped off in Fairvale to kill "Sam and Lila Loomis" in the backroom of the hardware store; and headed off to haunt the Hollywood set of "Crazy Lady" a movie being made about his crimes. I'll offer here the SPOILER...here it comes...that the bloody murders being committed backstage on "Crazy Lady" are NOT committed by Norman. There's a copycat.

Universal decided that Norman didn't ESCAPE the asylum - he is simply released. Which I have NEVER accepted -- a killer who did what Norman did to Marion and Arbogast, and to his mother and her boyfriend, would NOT be found sane and released. Especially to a diner job handling big knives! The premise of Psycho II was bogus.


reply

I'll note that while Universal had the rights to make a sequel MOVIE, Robert Bloch had the rights to write a sequel BOOK.

Robert Bloch's power over book rights allowed him to have Joe Stefano's filmed credit for "Psycho" to be removed from Richard J. Anobile's 1974 "picture book" of Psycho. Stefano returned the favor in 1998(after Bloch's death in 1994) by having Bloch's "from the novel by Robert Bloch" credit removed from the opening credits of Van Sant's Psycho..Bloch's credit was moved to the very end of the final credit crawl. These men did NOT like each other.Bloch felt that Stefano stole his thunder "Joseph Stefano, author of Psycho"; Stefano felt that Bloch's novel was trash that he improved.

"Submitted for our approval": I suppose "Psycho" is all played out "at the movies" and maybe on cable TV, too, but there are at least three "Psycho" books which have still never been filmed:

Robert Bloch's "Psycho." Norman is fat and forty; Marion loses her head in the shower, and Arbogast gets a straight razor to the throat in the Bates Mansion foyer(he never makes it up the stairs.) Anybody want to film THIS?

Robert Bloch's "Psycho II." Hey, it might be fun watching Psycho murders take place on the set of "Psycho." Plus: Sam and Lila get killed at the hardware store -- fitting.

Robert Bloch's "Psycho House." I don't remember a damn thing about it except the premise of the motel and house turned into a tourist attraction. Fun idea, actually.

reply

If guests are "dated" when they check in, that register shows Arbogast that a woman WAS here, about a week ago, named Marie Samuels(her boyfriend's name was Sam.)

--

Note in passing: I wrote the above, but if you "freeze frame" the moment when Marion signs in to the register, you'll find a bit of a gaffe:

She signs in ...in April.

Whereas the movie specifies that she signs in ...on Saturday, December 12.

Hitchcock knew that if you could not freeze that frame(and nobody seeing Psycho in 1960 could)...you'd never see that gaffe.

Also: the signature before Marion's(Marie Samuels)...also from April is "Michael Scott."

So Steve Carell was there recently?

reply

There's two points where Norman could have gotten away with it, had he played it right.

1) When Arbogast first comes to talk to him. Norman's lack of social skills from being so isolated for so long made it impossible for him to outwit a skilled detective like Arbogast. The more Norman talked, the more he contradicted himself, and then not wanting to look at the picture or letting Arbogast look at his log just made it more clear that something was up. Part of me wonders if Norman had been cooperative from the start, and admitted that she had been there, would it have been better for him. Just say, she came in very late and was obviously very tired. She took a room and she declined me making her a sandwich. I was in the office for about an hour after she got here, and when I walked back to house, I saw that the light was already out. I came down early the next morning, hoping to catch her and offer breakfast, but she was already gone. I didn't see which way she went, or came from the night before.

2) If he had killed Lila and Sam, he would have had to quickly dump the bodies into the swamp. Maybe dump the car somewhere in the desert, since as others have the said, the swamp was getting full. Then just deny that they were ever there. Remember they checked in under a different name, so there's no record of them being there. And the small town sheriff, who had known Norman his whole life would probably just believe him, and not do much of an investigation. At that point there's no one left. The only people who knew Marion or Arbogast were there are gone, and as long as there's never a drought that causes the water level of the swamp to drop, then no one would find the bodies for a long time.

reply

Those are very good approaches to how Norman could have gotten away with it, and "in real life," people get away with things all the time because often the authorities have to let cases go cold.

1. Norman telling Arbogast about Marion and cooperating fully would have likely worked, but poor Norman was caught off guard and OPENED with "nobody's been here for a couple of weeks" and that he didn't recognize Marion from the photo on first look. Had Norman been prepared, your scenario would have worked fine. Norman DOES try to "fix things" near the end of the conversation when he reminds Arbogast that "people just come and go here" and "why would she?" (come back to the motel after leaving).

But there are two problems: the big one comes with Arbogast seeing "someone in the window"(and we see her, too.) Now Arbogast is compelled to re-open his investigation and he MUST talk to that woman. Arbogast's dialogue suggests that he not only wants to talk to Mrs. Bates -- he wonders if Marion is up there, too. So Norman loses -- he throws Arbogast off the property, but Arbogast HAS to come back.

The second problem is cued by Arbogast's line "If it doesn't jell, it isn't aspic, and this ain't jelling. Its not coming together. Something's missing." What's missing is: if Marion left the motel , how come she isn't in Fairvale where Sam is? Or how come she isn't back in Phoenix? Logic might dictate: "She's on the run, driving to Canada" or some such, but Arbogast doesn't think that's the case. Something IS missing; Norman's tale about Marion just leaving doesn't lead to where she WENT.




reply

2. The disappearance of Sam and Lila would probably lead to some more investigating on the Sheriff's part. After all, that Sunday morning, they agreed to come to dinner with the Sheriff and his wife that evening. But if Norman says they never came...it becomes a cold case.

Right now, in real life, as I write this, there is a "criminal couple" in the news. They are married, but they've left behind a couple of previous spouses who died("natural causes" in one case; one was shot to death by the woman's brother, who was cleared on self-defense but died of natural causes himself.) Worst of all, the woman's children by a previous marriage disappeared.

The couple in question(who seem to be insane doomsday fanatics) got away with things for years. Even now, the deaths of their previous spouses have not been legally prosecuted against the couple. But the children's bodies have been found. So I'd say its over for this couple.

The thing is this though: tying fiction to fact, "the disappearances of Marion, Sam, and Lila" might very well go cold for years even if there WERE suspicions of Norman Bates. Because if you can't prove anything...you can't prosecute.

reply

Frankly, I don't think so. Even if Sam and Lila hadn't come to the Bates Motel at the end, I think the same sort of incident where a young woman by herself happens to stumble upon the Bates Motel arousing the Norman Bates part of the mind with the mother personality taking over and killing her. Then eventually enough people would be disappearing there and show up in the registry that people would get suspicious. Also don't mention the book cause I do plan to read it. I avoided a post in this topic that talks about it.

reply

Probably, if he hadn't been PSYCHO!

reply