MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Just got done reading the book this is b...

Just got done reading the book this is based on. SPOILERS for the book and movie.

posted 4 years ago by GreenGoblinsOck8 (7402)
28 replies | jump to latest

With the way the book has chapters all to Norman's point of view, it reminds me a bit of the novel The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Just like how Robert Louis Stephenson wrote The Strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde so that it seemed they were 2 different people who had nothing in common, the author Robert Bloch wrote Psycho so that people reading it back in 1959 would think Norman and his mom were both 2 different people.

I got to say Hitchcock made the movie very faithful to the novel and that twist of the novel. He actually made viewers think Norman Bates' mom was a separate person and like the novel you don't find out she's actually just a personality in Norman's head til near the end of the movie when Sheriff Chambers reveals that Norman's mom is dead. I gotta admire him for keeping it mostly like the novel. Give or take a few scenes. And of course it is a great movie.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

I got to say Hitchcock made the movie very faithful to the novel and that twist of the novel.

---

Robert Bloch's novel famously starts with Norman Bates up in the living room of his house, reading a gruesome passage in a book about Inca warriors making a "skin drum" from the stomach of a vanquished foe and playing music from ti.

Then "mother" enters the room and begins berating Norman.

Then a buzzer sounds in the house -- a guest has driven over a trigger cable down at the motel and the buzzer alerts Norman to go down and check the guest in.

Chapter Two is a "flashback chapter" as we are introduced to "Mary Crane," driving and remembering lots of things: losing her parents to death and living with her sister Lila; having a love affair with a man she THOUGHT she was going to marry end with his Army service and "Dear John/Jane" letter; meeting Sam Loomis on a cruise(he won it for selling the most farm equipment in a year); working with Mr. Lowery(no Caroline) at his real estate office and being pitched the cash by Cassidy; embezzling the cash ; hitting the road, switching cars TWICE along the way to Fairvale; stopping at the Bates Motel in the rain as "man emerges from the rain and opens her door." (Norman.)
'
From Chapter Three on(Norman and Mary/Marion talk)...Psycho the book and Psycho the movie match up almost exactly , scene by scene. This could be one of the most faithful adaptations of ANY book into a movie.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

It is interesting that Hitchcock (ostensibly on screenwriter Joe Stefano's urging; but possibly due to the logic required to hid the twist) DROPPED the opening with Norman and Mother up at the house , and STARTED in Phoenix(not the start city in the book), with Marion(named such because a real Mary Crane lived in Phoenix.) Bits and pieces of the "Chapter Two" back story were used(the embezzlement, the car buys), bits were dropped(Marion meeting Sam on a cruise) and two crucial scenes were added (1) Sam and Marion's opening post-coital, half-clad talk in the hotel room and (2) the tense encounter with the highway patrolman.

By eliminating the book's opening "chat" between Norman and Mother, Hitchcock made his first move to " hide the twist ending." We aren't up there at the house in a room watching Norman and Mother talk. Mother is kept "at a distance, way up there in the house" -- away from Marion when she arrives, away from US (we HEAR her yell at Norman about not inviting that woman up to dinner.)

And indeed, by shifting the crucial Marion/Norman dialogue to "down at the parlor"(it is in the house in the book), again, Mother is kept "at a distance" and mysterious and the house is kept mysterious, too.

All through the movie Hitchcock made of Bloch's book, scenes are retained but CHANGED to accomplish certain goals. The talk is moved to the "parlor"(which was created for the film, stuffed birds and all.) Marion's body is NOT stuffed in a hamper(body and severed head together!) before going into the swamp -- the head is NOT severed. The detective doesn't call Sam and Lila from the office(Norman has gone up to the house to "get Mother")....he drives to a phone booth and sneaks his way back to the house. This "buys time" for us to forget where Norman is(getting dressed as Mother, to kill Arbogast.) Arbogast is NOT simply slashed in the throat with a strait razor in the foyer as he enters the house -- he is attacked on the staircase.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Mother is found in a fruit cellar not in the book(its a basement in the book, with mother hidden behind a "blanket curtain" and lying down. Sam tells Lila about Norman's split personality , having been briefed by a psychiatrist who studied Norman.

But both book and movie end with Norman in the cell, and the line "She Wouldn't harm a fly."

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

He actually made viewers think Norman Bates' mom was a separate person

--

Though some critics of 1960 said "they figured out the twist early on" -- I think millions of first viewers did NOT. The movie is so rigorously scripted and shot to "keep the secret." Example: when Marion first sees Mother in the window -- Mother is MOVING, alive (she is Norman.) Thereafter, we are seeing the still, DEAD Mother in that window, but we always remember that first time when she "moved.")

Example: when Marion hears Mother yelling to Norman about not bringing Marion up to the house for supper, Mother yells "Are you going to tell her, or do I have to?" Suggesting yet again a separate being.

Since we HEAR Mother talking to Norman(early on) and SEE Mother WITH Norman (when he carries her down the stairs) we believe her to be SEPARATE when she comes to kill Marion and Arbogast.

Some have complained about a specific "cheat" to the twist: Mother's voice. Clearly the voice of a woman, right Can't be Tony Perkins' voice? Well, it wasn't Perkins but it was the voice of a WOMAN (Virginia Gfegg) MIXED with the voice of a man(Paul Jasmin.) Sometimes more one than the other: "Think I'm fruity, hah" is Jasmin(rough and
mocking.)
The cell monologue at the end ("Its sad, when a mother has to speak the words that condemn her own son") more gentle...Virginia.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

and like the novel you don't find out she's actually just a personality in Norman's head til near the end of the movie when Sheriff Chambers reveals that Norman's mom is dead.

---

Ah, but even then -- after the sheriff has revealed that Mrs. Bates SHOULD be dead, he offers a red herring to suggest otherwise:

"Well if that woman you saw in the window was Mrs. Bates -- who's that woman buried in Greenlawn Cemetary?"

Classic "twist protection" language -- with the suggestion that Mrs. Bates KILLED a woman and switched her in for burial, and is still alive and killing today.

---

I gotta admire him for keeping it mostly like the novel. Give or take a few scenes.

---

Indeed. The films Hitchcock made from the novels Marnie and The Rainbird Pattern(Family Plot) aren't much like the movies at all. Psycho was the greatest story Hitchcock ever bought to tell -- it was rather perfect.

---

And of course it is a great movie.

--

From a great pulp novel!

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 4 years ago

I thought the novel did a great job of keeping the reader in the dark, too. Very good novel by Robert Bloch.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

I thought the novel did a great job of keeping the reader in the dark, too.

---

Though there is a "trick" in our being "inside Norman's head" as he imagines Mother...the book pulls off some more direct tricks, too.

For instance, when Mary Crane sees Mother in the shower -- she sees MOTHER. There is not "train of thought" reveal: "Mary recognized the face -- it was Norman" Similarly, Arbogast in the book is GREETED by Mother at the bottom of the stairs ("I'm coming, now! Just a moment!") and is slashed in the throat with a razor before his thought processes can tell us: "Norman did it."

---

Very good novel by Robert Bloch.

---

I really think so. It is a short novel, but it has more detail that the movie can have (Sam Loomis as an OPERA lover, for instance!), and whenever I read it, I'm amazed how Bloch creates an entirely different "horror atmosphere" than Hitchcock does in his great movie. One pictures an "alternate universe Psycho" with a different motel, a different house; different versions of the same murders(Mary/ion is beheaded; Arbogast, a tall Texan in a cowboy hat, is slashed with a strait razor)...just an entirely different experience. And far gorier than what Hitchcock could show in 1960...though what he COULD show was historic, bad enough.

reply

[–] [email protected] (383) 4 years ago

And Norman was fat and balding in the novel

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

And Norman was fat and balding in the novel

---

And forty. And bespectacled. And an alcoholic -- he confronted Sam in a drunken stupor before hitting Sam over the head with a whiskey bottle.

It is interesting to realize that when Hitchocck purchased the novel Psycho with this "lead," he was so immediately prepared to transform Norman Bates into Anthony Perkins.

But Hitchcock had seen Perkin's performance in "Fear Strikes Out"(1957) as a real-life baseball player who suffered a nervous breakdown, and he filed Perkins away for possible casting. Certainly the young Perkins had suave good looks in the manner of Cary Grant, and some of the nervous manner of young James Stewart. But Hitch seemed to feel that Perkins would make a good VILLAIN -- with counter-casting much like that of Robert Walker(then known for nice boyish characters) as the villain in Strangers on a Train.

In re-creating Norman Bates AS Anthony Perkins, Hitchcock rather killed off all later attempts by other actors to be "different" Norman Bates -- whether dissimilar in look(Vince Vaughn) or similar in look(Freddie Highmore), they never quite had the unique quality of Anthony Perkins, so they were never unique as Norman Bates.

BTW, the feeling seems to be that if Hitchcock had made Psycho in 1960 and "cast Norman from the book" -- Norman would be Rod Steiger. And likely the film would not have been such a hit. Hitchcock told Perkins when offering the role, "Tony, you ARE this movie."

reply

[–] [email protected] (5497) 4 years ago

Wasn't it Hitchcock's decision to cast an actor who was appealing and handsome to lead the audience in another wrong direction?
I read that he wanted the audience to perhaps get the impression that Marion would end up transferring her affection to Norman. The two would be a couple, however briefly.

From the moment I read the novel, I always pictured Norman to look like Ed Gein, although Gein wasn't balding.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Wasn't it Hitchcock's decision to cast an actor who was appealing and handsome to lead the audience in another wrong direction?

---

Yes. Hitchcock cast handsome men as psychopaths four times -- Joseph Cotton in Shadow of a Doubt, Robert Walker in Strangers on a Train, Anthony Perkins in Psycho; and Barry Foster(after Michael Caine turned the role down) in Frenzy.

Hitchcock said: "Psychotic killers have to be handsome. Otherwise their victims would never go near them." In the movies, maybe, Hitch. In real life, we got some plum-uglies like Ed Gein and Richard Speck.

---
I read that he wanted the audience to perhaps get the impression that Marion would end up transferring her affection to Norman. The two would be a couple, however briefly.

--

That theory was advanced on the Psycho Making of DVD by..Janet Leigh(still alive at the time.") Leigh was a veteran of "regular" movies and opined that audiences would figure once Tony Perkins appeared in the story that the story would be: "Which guy will Marion choose -- Norman or Sam?" I'll add that "star billing" in those days would require Marion to go for...NORMAN. And he seems to be a nicer guy than Sam. At first.

All a staggering misdirection.

--

From the moment I read the novel, I always pictured Norman to look like Ed Gein, although Gein wasn't balding.

--

THAT's interesting. What's interesting to me is that -- on the basis only of his photos -- Ed Gein struck me as a very dumb, perhaps mentally disabled man. Hitchcock's Norman is witty("Stationary with Bates Motel on it to make your friends back home envious") and articulate; Bloch's Norman has all sorts of philosophical ideas running amuck in his head. But Gein looked like a human blank to me, and not attractive at all.

reply

[–] [email protected] (5497) 4 years ago

In most of Gein's pictures, he does stare and look emotionless, almost zombie like. Well, if he had normal, real feelings he wouldn't have done what he did! He looks scruffy and unkempt too. But apparently he was able to pull off a semblance of normalcy.. He was a handyman and even did odd jobs for housewives in town.

People trusted him even though he was the town eccentric. He had a raggedy appearance but it could've been attributed to the jobs he did.

I read that Hitchcock said that killers look like everyone else, or else you wouldn't invite them into your home!

The first Addams Family movie seemed to do an homage to Hitchcock's philosophy. Or maybe it was just a coincidence.

Little Wednesday Addams is going trick or treating but she has no costume on, just her regular clothes. She says that she's going as a serial killer.
When asked about her lack of a costume, she replies that serial killers "look like everybody else".

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

I read that Hitchcock said that killers look like everyone else, or else you wouldn't invite them into your home!

The first Addams Family movie seemed to do an homage to Hitchcock's philosophy. Or maybe it was just a coincidence.

Little Wednesday Addams is going trick or treating but she has no costume on, just her regular clothes. She says that she's going as a serial killer.
When asked about her lack of a costume, she replies that serial killers "look like everybody else".

---

Ha. Those points are echoed in the Hitchcock universe by this anecdote about how Hitchcock "prepared" Joseph Cotton to play the serial killer Uncle Charlie in Shadow of a Doubt(1943.) Upon signing Cotton for the role(first choice William Powell couldn't get a release from his studio)...Hitchcock took Cotton to Rodeo Drive on Beverly Hills, parked, and suggested that Hitch and Cotton "walk around for awhile." They did, and then Hitchocck said -- "Tell me: which one of the men walking by us as we walk strikes you as being a serial killer?"

Cotton tried to play for awhile -- pointing at various men, and then gave up. "I can't guess who might be a serial killer, Hitch." Hitch said: "That's right. Nobody can. That's what i want you to play."

Great story except -- I think that Joseph Cotton in Shadow of a Doubt plays Charlie as pretty nutty to others from the get-go.

NOTE: Every time I try to type Joseph Cotten's last name correctly -- my autotype goes to "Cotton." Except, I guess, when I put "'s" after it. Hmm.

reply

[–] [email protected] (5497) 4 years ago

Hitchcock was SO right! Who would have ever suspected handsome and charming Ted Bundy?

Another serial killer whose appearance blew me away was Ed "Big Ed" Kemper. Are you familiar with him? I first read about him in one of John Douglas's books about FBI profilers. Big Ed was 6'8". He murdered a number of California co-eds who were hitchhiking.

There's a youtube video of him giving a prison interview when he was still young. He was nice looking even with his geeky glasses and very soft spoken. He had a genius I.Q.
He said that co-eds were STILL hitchhiking even after campus and local police warnings.

He said they would start talking to him about this killer who was out there and speculating what he looked like. Kemper tells the interviewer that "I didn't look like him".
He smiled and said that "they were getting a free" ride. He would just drop those girls off. I think he was amused at their comments and probably felt pride in the way he was fooling everyone.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Hitchcock was SO right! Who would have ever suspected handsome and charming Ted Bundy?

--

Ted Bundy seems to have ended up "the perfect example of the handsome Hitchcock psycho" and came along AFTER Hitchcock had given us Norman Bates. Bundy is closer to Hitchcock's final psycho -- London greengrocer Bob Rusk in Frenzy -- in that he moved about society openly and with friends. Indeed Bundy managed to have girlfriends when he was NOT killing women.

---

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Another serial killer whose appearance blew me away was Ed "Big Ed" Kemper. Are you familiar with him? I first read about him in one of John Douglas's books about FBI profilers. Big Ed was 6'8". He murdered a number of California co-eds who were hitchhiking.

--

Yes, I am familiar with Ed Kemper. Of some interest: Other than his Beverly Hills home, Alfred Hitchcock had a second home in the Santa Cruz mountains(overlooking the ocean), and was living there off and on when Kemper's killings -- and a few other savage serial killings(such as of a family around their swimming pool) took place. Hitchcock was evidently a little nervous to realize that killings of a "Psycho" and "Frenzy" nature were taking place in his own back yard. I believe he met with local police officials to discuss the cases.

As for Ed Kemper, he has been portrayed recently in a few episodes of a Netflix series called "Mindhunters." The series cast a number of actors as real life killers (Son of Sam, Manson), but the guy who plays Kemper "got him down so well"(soft spoken and intelligent, but dangerous) that the actor got an Emmy nomination.

---

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

There's a youtube video of him giving a prison interview when he was still young.

--

Perhaps the"Mindhunters" actor studied this footage to inform his performance as Kemper!

All of the killers on "Mindhunter" are in custody already and interviewed by the series' FBI leads. Except one: the BTK killer is at large throughout the series, and we meet him too.
--

(Kemper) was nice looking even with his geeky glasses and very soft spoken. He had a genius I.Q.
He said that co-eds were STILL hitchhiking even after campus and local police warnings.

He said they would start talking to him about this killer who was out there and speculating what he looked like. Kemper tells the interviewer that "I didn't look like him".
He smiled and said that "they were getting a free" ride. He would just drop those girls off. I think he was amused at their comments and probably felt pride in the way he was fooling everyone.

--

The Ed Kemper of "Mindhunters" notes that he was a regular at a local "cop bar" and discussed the case with the cops who were looking for HIM; they had no idea. He tells the FBI men that "you didn't catch me, I turned myself in." (Reminscent of the killer in "Se7en.") And he notes that, indeed, the co-ed hitchikers were easy to pick up -- trusting and very much in the "free love" hippie lifestyle. (Not that he got any "free love" from them; they just trusted men.)

On "Mindhunters", Kemper also speaks of his undying hatred of his mother. Hmm.

I am assuming that all this information on Ed Kemper in "Mindhunters" is real and from the record.

--

reply

[–] [email protected] (5497) 4 years ago

Kemper is a very interesting case study if you like reading about psychopaths.

I forgot about Mindhunter. I never saw the show but when I watched the real Ed Kemper interviews, there were those typical "recommendations'" in the right hand column for Mindhunter.
The actor who played him did a fantastic job. But eerily enough, he looks and sounds scarier than the real Ed!

Kemper had a serious pathology going even as a child like killing family pets and playing "execution" games. His mother added to his problems by being cruel and abusive.
He had a crush on a teacher and his sister said he should try and kiss her.
He replied, "But then I would have to kill her."
Not a normal child's response!

Kemper killed his grandparents when he was a teen-ager. After four years in juvenile prison, the "expert" psychiatrists deemed him rehabilitated. Morons!
He did want to be a police officer, but he was over the height limit at 6'8". He talks about going to a local cop hangout and finding out what they knew about the murders. He said that he was "a friendly nuisance". He knew they wouldn't take him seriously and they'd talk freely around him. He'd occasionally buy them a beer.
His mother was an abusive alcoholic and strangely, he stayed with her. He said he realized the night that he was finally going to kill her. He killed her and her best friend. She was actually the real focus of all his rage towards women. Later ,he turned himself in.

He did have a genius I.Q. and he knew they'd never catch him. The police agreed. He has turned down any offers for parole. He has said that he knows he cannot be in society.
I sometimes wonder how Hitchcock would have made a movie about him.

.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

In most of Gein's pictures, he does stare and look emotionless, almost zombie like. Well, if he had normal, real feelings he wouldn't have done what he did! He looks scruffy and unkempt too. But apparently he was able to pull off a semblance of normalcy.. He was a handyman and even did odd jobs for housewives in town.

---

I always found a profound "disconnect" between the true story of Ed Gein and the story of HITCHCOCK's Psycho. With the "intermediary" of the Bloch novel(that gave us a story mostly NOT like the true story of Ed Gein), Hitchcock provided us with a handsome and sympathetic version of Gein(Perkins) and victims with a certain sophistication and style.

The constant references to Ed Gein in the backstories on Psycho seem all wrong to me now --that's why I REALLY didn't like the movie "Hitchcock" suggesting that Hitchcock had an interest in Ed Gein, and had fantasy sequences of Gein meeting with Hitchcock. They didn't belong in the same frame!

I think that Ed Gein lived in a very mundane backwoods community. His victims were women, but they didn't look like Janet Leigh. I think he shot them. The butchery was what he did with their bodies ...and their skin. (It is The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Buffalo Bill in Silence in the Lambs -- that have much greater connection to Ed Gein than Psycho.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Here's what is in Psycho that ISN'T in the Ed Gein story:

Ed Gein didn't run a motel and there was no Gothic two-story mansion up the hill behind it(he lived with his Mother's corpse in a much more run-down house.) Ed Gein did not wear his mother's dresses and a cheap wig to kill people (he did, however, wear her SKIN around the house.) Ed Gein did not stab a beautiful naked woman in a shower.
Ed Bein didn't verbally spar with -- and then stab to death -- a shrewd private detective. Ed Gein was not visited by the sister and boyfriend of his shower victim.

Ed Gein DID end up captured and in a cell, and then in an asylum. But his story and the Psycho story are the different between gritty, soiled reality and "the movies." As "sick" and low budget as Psycho was deemed to be, it is still a stylish, Gothic Hollywood experience.

---

People trusted him even though he was the town eccentric. He had a raggedy appearance but it could've been attributed to the jobs he did.

--

I think somebody somewhere did make a film ONLY about Ed Gein and his story. There probably WAS something to his being the quiet and helpful town eccentric in a town that could not conceive of his depravity(it is still "world class depravity" -- how can humans DO these things?) Still, the real life story of Ed Gein was never going to be a movie that millions would pay to see.

reply

[–] [email protected] (5497) 4 years ago

It seems to me that the lone connection between Psycho's Norman and Ed Gein is their abusive mothers and their unhealthy relationships with them.

Gein's mother was cruel and convinced him that women were the devil. But like fictional Norman Bates and real Ed Kemper too, he never cut ties with her. The mothers' rage towards their sons seemed to fuel the sons' rages towards other women.

Even though Gein killed, he did a lot more grave robbing and his house was a stomach churning "tribute" to his sickness. But strangely enough, even though he lived in total squalor, he kept his mother's room in pristine condition.

But like you, I doubt if Gein was Hitchcock's primary interest. It was the novel Psycho. Hitchcock was the master of "suspense', not nausea inducing horror and body parts.
I liked the film Hitchcock to some extent. But for me, the part that falters was the fact that Sir Anthony Hopkins could not do a proper imitation of Hitchcock's voice.
And is there any other director whose voice is so iconic?

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

It seems to me that the lone connection between Psycho's Norman and Ed Gein is their abusive mothers and their unhealthy relationships with them.

---

Yes, probably so. And I can't recall: was not the corpse of Ed Gein's mother found right there with him, in their house?

--

Gein's mother was cruel and convinced him that women were the devil.

---

We get that in Psycho, surely, and its interesting to think about WHY a mother would be that way. Generally mothers encourage their sons to fall in love and take a wife(and give them grandchildren). But the Mothers here don't want their sons to go NEAR women. Quite a pathology(in Marnie, that's how Marnie's mother feesl about men but...men are often considered brutes in some quarters.)

--

But like fictional Norman Bates and real Ed Kemper too, he never cut ties with her. The mothers' rage towards their sons seemed to fuel the sons' rages towards other women.

--

Very much so. Norman poisoned his mother and her boyfriend(electing not to just kill the boyfriend.) Ed killed his mother. But the rage remained towards women in general.

Bob Rusk, in Frenzy, snarls at a woman before strangling her(and after failing to have real sex with her; he's impotent): "Women...you're all the same. I'll show you...."

The most pure expression of "woman hating" in Hitchocck, though Uncle Charlie had a "special type" of woman-hatred: rich widows. "You see them...eating the money, drinking the money...all that money their husbands worked so hard to earn."

---

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Even though Gein killed, he did a lot more grave robbing

--

Another major difference from Norman Bates who has no such interest whatsoever...except for ONE rob of a grave -- his Mother.

---

and his house was a stomach churning "tribute" to his sickness.

--

I've read an article about what cops found in there(and boy, there's a horrible part of a cop's job.) Amusing, horrifying and understandable: cops found "a box full of noses" in the house. It sounds funny but you realize: Ed Gein wore faces as masks. Take the nose out...you can breathe.

--- But strangely enough, even though he lived in total squalor, he kept his mother's room in pristine condition.

--

Yes...this was prominently talked about in the Bloch novel: how perfectly preserved the Mother's room was...back to 1910 or whatever. Hitchcock got SOME of that with Mother's Victorian room in the movie but again..in real life, the Mother's room was compared to utter squalor.

---s

But like you, I doubt if Gein was Hitchcock's primary interest.

--

Hitchcock has a ridiculous scene -- it didn't happen -- where Hitchcock invites the press to a house(his?) for the annoumcent of "Psycho" and distributes photos of ED GEIN'S crime scenes. Hitch simply would not have done that.

--

It was the novel Psycho. Hitchcock was the master of "suspense', not nausea inducing horror and body parts.

---

That's right. Though censorship was part of the reason, Hitchcock not only eliminated the Ed Gein details from Psycho, he "cleaned up" the two murders. Marion does NOT get her head chopped off. Arbogast is NOT slashed in the throat with a straight razor. The movie scenes were bloody and shocking for their time(Herrmann's music made them screamable) but not that gory.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

I liked the film Hitchcock to some extent.

---

Me too. I'm in agreement with one critic who said it was simple: "Hitchcock" was pretty good when it dealt with the making of the movie itself -- fighting the studio (with Lew Wasserman's help) to make the movie; meeting with Leigh and Perkins and Miles and Joe Stefano. But the film didn't work so well in trying to suggest that Alfred and Alma risked going broke, and the whole "possible affair" angle broke down. (In real life, that affair maybe really happened - but in 1950, not 1960. No relevance to Psycho.)

---

But for me, the part that falters was the fact that Sir Anthony Hopkins could not do a proper imitation of Hitchcock's voice.
And is there any other director whose voice is so iconic?

---

Nope. And it is funny. Big star Anthony Hopkins tried in "Hitchocck" and lesser star(but good actor) Toby Jones tried the same year with "The Girl" (about The Birds and Tippi Hedren)..but neither man could really pull it off. Especially Jones with that strange and misshapen face of his.

I think the odd thing is that both actors came off as far more ugly than Hitchcock was - he actually had a pleasant face, especially when he smiled. And no -- that voice was as distinctive as Cary Grant's or Jimmy Stewart's.

--

Two specific problems with "Hitchocck":

ONE: It was not made at Universal, and the Hitchcock estate refused to cooperate with any clips from Psycho -- or even allowing the restaging of SCENES from Psycho (we HEAR the scene at the sheriff's house and the dialogue is re-written.) We barely see any of the famous sets inside or out -- the famous house is barely shown from the outside.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

TWO: Evidently to land Helen Mirren to play Alma, the movie suggests that "Alma did everything." Chose Perkins and Leigh for their roles. Re-wrote the ending. Directed the Arbogast murder when Hitchcock got ill. YES, it is true that Alma and Alfred were a "team" on his movies, but NO, there is no record that Alma did any of those things on "Psycho."

Put it all together and there are more negatives than positives to "Hitchcock." But on those few occasions where it "worked," you did great a get feeling of being in Hollywood circa 1959 when Hitchcock sprang a little something that would change everything.

reply

[–] [email protected] (5497) 4 years ago

I know the Arbogast murder was done with another director because Hitchcock was ill. But after he saw the way the murder was staged, he redid it anyway!
From what I recall, he said that the way it was done made the detective look like the killer or something like that. He reshot the whole scene to look more suspenseful so you knew something was going to happen TO Arbogast.

The best Hitchcock imitation I ever heard was Martin Landau. i saw a documentary hosted by Eva Marie Saint on the filming of North by Northwest. Martin Landau provided a lot of comments about the making of the film.
The two actors were the only remaining cast members.

When Landau related something Hitchcock said, he did it in the director's voice and he sounded just like him. I always thought he should have dubbed the dialogue in 'Hitchcock' the movie.

As far as looking like Hitchcock, it always seems that the studios do a parody of Hitchcock. He did have a pleasant face with that forever impish grin. No actor seemed to capture Hitchcock's humor or his slightly sardonic take on the killers in his movies. I don't think he was all that grimly serious as he's portrayed.

reply

[–] [email protected] (5497) 4 years ago

Gein was totally devastated by his mother's death. She was his whole world. But unlike Norman, I don't think he kept her body.

Another bizarre fact about Gein, probably gave chills to the people who used his services, he actually babysat for local families! He apparently related well to children.

Well, children are more trusting and were probably easier for him to fool.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Gein was totally devastated by his mother's death. She was his whole world. But unlike Norman, I don't think he kept her body.

---

I'm not sure about that. Hitchcock told Truffaut that he thought Gein DID keep the woman's body. But I honestly don't know. Research, soon.

---

Another bizarre fact about Gein, probably gave chills to the people who used his services, he actually babysat for local families! He apparently related well to children.

Well, children are more trusting and were probably easier for him to fool.

--

It seems that a large number of serial killers mercifully did not go after children. (Some did, but I won't be looking them up!) Serial killers could probably relate to children in positive ways. Let's face it, the male killers were often sexually motivated -- either heterosexually(killing women) or homosexually(killing men.) I'll picture "adults only."

Anthony Perkins gave one of his "sequel interviews" and told two relevant stories to the children aspect:

ONE: He said when his little boys were scared at night, he'd tuck them in saying: "You're the safest children anywhere. You've got Norman Bates sleeping in this house to protect you." Hmm.

TWO: He said "I think that Norman would be very good with children. He understands them and they don't endanger him."

reply