MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Psycho and "Psycho Goreman"

Psycho and "Psycho Goreman"

posted 3 years ago by ecarle (14979)
20 replies | jump to latest

Just taking note that here in 2021, a movie with a 2020 copyright called "Psycho Goreman" is in release on streaming.

So when one clicks to look up Psycho here....one sees Psycho Goreman too.

Just as one sees American Psycho and sometimes the Gus Van Sant Psycho...in the same vicinity on the screen.

A filmmaker in 2020 went the whole nine yards -- a foreign filmmaker -- and called his movie just plain "Psycho" (the NERVE) but that has come and gone and nobody saw it and it didn't matter.

For that matter, another movie called "Frenzy"(this one about sharks in the Jaws tradition) was released a few years ago. I don't suppose Hitchcock's Frenzy is all that much famous to matter here, and I think a movie called "Hets" translated as "Frenzy" years before Hitchcock made his(the author of the book from which Frenzy was made warned Hitchcock of the earlier title, but to no avail. Hitchcock had wanted to call a movie Frenzy since 1967 and finally did it in 1972.)

The psycho goreman in "Psycho Goreman" is evidently a monster that some young kids can summon up to do their bidding...

And I'm also remainded that in Hitchcock's Psycho, Marion is hassled by the cop off of State Highway 99 and pulls onto the freeway at "Gorman"(California.) Some overly interested critic said : "Hey, Gorman -- Goreman -- Norman -- and Norman is the Goreman."

Yeah, right.

Oh, well...what's in a name?

PS. Psycho novel author Robert Bloch said that Paramount execs didn't even like the NAME "Psycho" for an Alfred Hitchcock picture. Too coarse..

[–] swanstep (2616) 3 years ago

I think a movie called "Hets" translated as "Frenzy" years before Hitchcock made his

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Yep, Hets (1944) is an Ingmar Bergman script, whose success and distinctiveness (it reads as pure Bergman these days) allowed Bergman to start directing a year or two after that. "Hets" was translated as "Torment" in most parts of the world but as "Frenzy" in the UK.

---

That's interesting. I've heard of Bergman(ha) and I do believe I've heard of Torment as his written film. The Frenzy/Hets discussion has emerged in writings on Frenzy. Given that British author Arthur Labern wrote "Goodbye Picadilly, Farewell Leiceister Square"( the book that became Hitchcock's Frenzy) and that in a letter he warned Hitchcock of Hets/ Frenzy -- its being Frenzy in the UK only would be relevant.

As us Hitchcock Scholars(Junior Grade) know, Hitchcock wanted to call ANOTHER movie Frenzy, back in 1967 -- an entirely different story set in New York City, not London. Universal vetoed that film but cleared the later British Frenzy.

I think it is interesting that Hitchcock clung to the name "Frenzy" for so long and finally got to use it. Clearly, he saw it as a "Psycho" derivative that might bring him a "hit by association." My usual joke here: Psycho could have been called Frenzy, and Frenzy could have been called Psycho...and a Frenzy with the shower scene would have become the historic title in Hitchcock history.

And I can still recall a RADIO...yes, radio...commercial in 1972 in Los Angeles , where Universal put Psycho(by now a local TV staple) on a double bill with the new Frenzy in THEATERS. Hearing the two names in such proximity: "see Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho and Alfred Hitchcock's Frenzy on the same shock program!" was...fun? It was like a merger of Hitchocck past and present.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Meanwhile, while Frenzy was easy to title for Hitchcock -- Family Plot was very hard. The novel was The Rainbird Pattern -- a decent enough movie title -- but Hitchcock went into production with it as Deceit, then Deception, then Missing Heir, and at one time "One Plus One Equals One"(which Psycho could be titled, too, yes?) I recall when Family Plot was finally named, I couldn't quite believe that as a true Hitchcock title. But I am used to it now.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Note that, according to IMDb, there was a Torment (1994), a Torment (2013), and there's still another Torment currently in development.

There's quite a name shortage when you think about it!

---

Yes...when you come to think of it, there are only so many words to choose from. Moreover, modern filmmakers bank on a lack of "movie history" from generation to generation, I guess.

Still, when you think about it, the titles of the great movies in movie history have "stuck" with enough people that I don't think we will see somebody else's unrelated "The Godfather" or "The Exorcist" or "The Sting." And yet: some cheeky monkey already tried "Psycho." Again...the NERVE.

The film that Hitchcock was trying to get started in the year before his retirement and death was from a book called "The Short Night." But I think they were looking to call it "Pursuit."

And North by Northwest almost got called "Breathless," which would have fit well between the one-worders Vertigo and Psycho but perhaps somebody thought "Alfred Hitchcock's Breathless" would be a bit of a joke(any moreso than Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho?)

Of course Breathless was the American title affixed to a French film around the same time. Maybe Godard read of the Hitchcock title....

And, oh...despite Hitchcock so loving the title Frenzy.. THAT movie almost got called "Necktie."

"Alfred Hitchcock's Necktie."

PS. Samuel Fuller wanted to call a movie of his "Psycho" and registered the name with the MPAA just as the Hitchcock movie was going into production. Hitchcock went to court with the Robert Bloch novel as his proof of ownership, and won. Fuller renamed his movie "Shock Corridor."

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

A recent one I came across: I saw a 'Peyton List' referred to in connection with some social media. I thought to myself, "A-ha, I recognize that name, she was Jane Stirling, Roger's ill-fated,v. pretty, young, second wife on Mad Men'"

---

Nice recent historical memory there, swanstep.

---

but, no, it's some new 15-20 year old teen-comedy queen/social-influencer. Mad Men's Peyton List is still working but has to deal with someone younger than her sharing her presumably very distinctive name. Must be galling.

---

No respect anymore. That's so RECENT.

Of course, we now have a director named Steve McQueen even as a younger generation doesn't remember the other one.

"On topic"(sorta)...Van Sant's Arbogast -- William H. Macy -- took that name because though his friends knew him as Bill Macy , there was already a Bill Macy on Maude and in movies for a time.

And: Michael Keaton changed his screen name from his real name...Michael Douglas.

[–] swanstep (2616) 3 years ago

So when one clicks to look up Psycho here....one sees Psycho Goreman too.

I looked up some details about Psycho Goreman and it turns out to be directed etc. by one Steven Kostanski. I've *tried* to watch two of Kostanski's earlier efforts: Manborg & The Void. Manborg was, for me, unwatchably low-budget and just flat out unacceptably ugly (worse visuals than most '90s video games). Check out its not-at-all-deceptive trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBHau4HeTZY
I think there are audiences for this sort of half-video-game/half Troma-films garbage stuff but I just can't...
The Void had a more polished look to it and better influences; it kind of spliced together several different early Spielberg & John Carpenter films (somewhat like Netflix's hit show Stranger Things). But I still didn't last long. Better technicals just revealed that Kostanski & co. were terrible writers of both plots and dialogue, and no particularly great shakes with visual composition, editing, etc.. I therefore strongly suspect that it's safe to pass on Psycho Goreman.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I looked up some details about Psycho Goreman and it turns out to be directed etc. by one Steven Kostanski. I've *tried* to watch two of Kostanski's earlier efforts: Manborg & The Void. Manborg was, for me, unwatchably low-budget and just flat out unacceptably ugly (worse visuals than most '90s video games).

---

Your voracious and comprehensive knowledge of all things film, swanstep -- not to mention your willingness to actually WATCH, or try to watch, practically everything out there, is truly awe-inspiring.

---

I think there are audiences for this sort of half-video-gam/half Troma-films garbags stuff but I just can't.

---

And yet, clearly, there are limits.

I will say this of my own knowledge. I became aware of "Troma films" somewhere, somehow over the years (recall that I've always READ more about movies than SEEN movies) and reading "Psycho Goreman" described as such summons up a pretty instant vision of what it is like. I think The Toxic Avenger is their claim to fame and...I've read a lot about it, but viewed nary a frame.

One must cleanse the palate to break free from "Psycho Goreman" to my beloved "Psycho" and to re-connect with the essence of THAT seminal classic and its private world. For me, the easiest way to do that is to take a lingering look at "the greatest logo in movie history" -- THAT's "Psycho.' PSYCHO. Thick, tall, yellow slashed letters.

[–] swanstep (2616) 3 years ago

Your voracious and comprehensive knowledge of all things film, swanstep -- not to mention your willingness to actually WATCH, or try to watch

I have lots and lots of gaps I assure you! But I *do* have a soft spot for emerging film-makers whose talents shine through any budget issues. So if I notice some buzz about a name or scene I normally check it out. Cronenberg, Peter Jackson, Chris Nolan, Aronofsky, Nicholas Winding Refn, Sean Baker (of iPhone-shot Tangerine (2015) and Florida Project (2017) semi-fame) etc. all made fascinating, brimming with talent first and early films for well under a $1 million and often well under $100K. Stokanski & his pals could have been like these guys... but they're not (at least based on the two films I tried to watch), rather they're truly niche 'straight-to-video' (as we used to say) only.

Of course, part of the romance of Psycho as a movie phenomenon is that *it* was made so cheaply. Thus, even a very established director can benefit from taking on a more minimal, cheapie project and ace-ing the test it represents. Spielberg probably should in my view try to blow the cobwebs off and make something like a Duel 2 fast and cheap (say using only novice actors).

[–] swanstep (2616) 3 years ago

OK.... I finally got around to seeing Psycho Goreman and it's *very* silly indeed, but quite fun I suppose if you are in the mood for extreme silliness (or have the right, probably half-drunk/-stoned company to see it with). On the one hand it has lots of Evil Dead-style, gushing, over the top gore, and on the other hand it has a solid kid-centric slant with ET and Terminator 2 being particular inspirations I'd say, and maybe a bit of Bill and Ted 1 too. PG isn't nearly as polished as any of its obvious influences, but it is basically watchable and amusing throughout in a way that the two Kostanski films I tried before absolutely were not. I didn't make it past the 30 minute marks for Manborg and The Void, whereas I watched PG all the way through its post-credit sequence.

I'm not sure I could ever explicitly recommend PG to anyone (quasi-objectively it has to be something like a 5/10 film), but the trailer probably self-selects the audience for this film. If the trailer for PG works for you then know that the film delivers the promised goods and is competent within that frame.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Your voracious and comprehensive knowledge of all things film, swanstep -- not to mention your willingness to actually WATCH, or try to watch
---
I have lots and lots of gaps I assure you!

--

A lot fewer than I have...by a power of ten.

But recall that I READ more about films than SEE films. Consequently, these days, you are among those I read. And enjoy.

---

But I *do* have a soft spot for emerging film-makers whose talents shine through any budget issues. So if I notice some buzz about a name or scene I normally check it out. Cronenberg, Peter Jackson, Chris Nolan, Aronofsky, Nicholas Winding Refn, Sean Baker (of iPhone-shot Tangerine (2015) and Florida Project (2017) semi-fame) etc.

---

I've sampled most of the above...I even saw Florida Project recently(the reality into fantasy finale truly moved me, with Disney World finally entering the grim story.)

Sometimes,my samplings are in the wrong direction: I've not seen a lot of Cronenberg's weird early work (though The Fly is my Number Two of 1986), but I have high regard for his two realistic crime thrillers with Viggo Mortensen(Sam in Van Sant's Psycho) -- A History of Violence and Eastern Promises. A History of Violence has a great "arrgh" early scene where "mild mannered diner owner" Viggo kills two very evil intruders in a most satisfying way. Eastern Promises has its own VERY realistic "shower scene" as a nude Viggo takes down two Russian assassins who have knives in the steam room ..the impact of a knife on a naked body, here male, is MOST harrowing and realistic. And the knife deaths of the two assassins -- one through the eye slowly -- return Janet Leigh's death to the category of "quaint and suggestive."

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I've seen pretty much all the Chris Nolan films...can't say I'm a giant fan, but he is clearly a force. Batman did it for him, and yet -- I find Batman Begins quite boring; The Dark Knight great only when Ledger is on screen(and Maggie Gyllenhall massively miscast), The Dark Knight Rises, well, good ENOUGH. (Anne Hathaway perfectly cast; Bane's voice a truly memorable effect.)

Of the "non Batman Nolans," Inception was a great brain-twister. I can't remember a thing about Interstallar. (A problem with films "recently" viewed.) I haven't seen Tenet yet. But...way back in the beginning, I loved Memento(yet ANOTHER brain-twister) and I have seen and liked Nolan's "Following" with its great Hitchcockian premise: a fellow chooses on his lunch hour to FOLLOW total strangers just to see where they go -- home, work, a store, an appointment , and ONE time..somewhere bad.

Jackson gets my vote for the second two acts of his King Kong -- exciting and grandly moving(with grandly moving performances by Naomi Watts and Kong.) Lord of the Rings(with Viggo "Psycho" Mortensen?) A franchise far beyond my abilities to respond -- though I recall that the second one seemed to be a movie long "storming the castle" battle movie with "tree people." That's all I remember of it.

I do recall seeing the early Jackson film with Michael J. Fox (?!)... The Frighteners.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Of course, part of the romance of Psycho as a movie phenomenon is that *it* was made so cheaply. Thus, even a very established director can benefit from taking on a more minimal, cheapie project and ace-ing the test it represents.

--

Psycho quite famously did that and I can't really think of a director of Hitchcock's time who could claim the same.

Hitchcock had a great mechanism to help, though: the production facilities of his TV series at Universal. As one critic wrote, "no movie really looks like Psycho, with its TV-production images blown up on the big screen." True enough, but there are times when Psycho -- even on that low budget -- DOES look like a movie. Arbogast climbing the hill to the house(my favorite shot in Hitchocck) is real and surreal at the same time.

Psycho does not look like later indies would -- Easy Rider, Two-Lane Blacktop, Joe come to mind -- low budget, flat, semi-documentary film stock, poor lighting. It looks like a really good TV episode with a fillilp of Hitchcock movie flourish (all shots of the house, inside and out.)

Interesting: 12 years after Psycho, Frenzy rather DOES look like a low budget indie film in cinematography -- quite realistic for Hitchcock, but has some matte work of London (opening the potato truck scene) and other flourishes that make it more of an "A" film.

Interesting: 16 years after Psycho, Family Plot does NOT look like a low budget indie -- it looks like an episode of Columbo. MORE "TV production on the big screen." But this: Family Plot looks just a bit more plush and expensive than a Columbo episode...if not as big budget as Marathon Man of the same year.

Everything's relative!

--

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Spielberg probably should in my view try to blow the cobwebs off and make something like a Duel 2 fast and cheap (say using only novice actors).

---

That would be rather interesting -- Steven both returning to his roots and making HIS Psycho at the same time.

Though I will offer this:

Hitchcock: North by Northwest and then Psycho the next year.

Spielberg: Raiders of the Lost Ark and then ET the next year.

In each case, the first film was big, sweeping, epic -- action packed a guaranteed hit. But the second film was made more cheaply, more quietly and bested the bigger first one.

And this: I suppose without commercials and on a theater screen, Duel would have looked like an indie in the Easy Rider tradition. But WITH commericals on TV...it was clearly a "Movie of the Week" made for TV movie -- and those things NEVER looked or felt like movies. They looked like episodic cheap TV. Spielberg rather "beat that curse" by turning Duel into a "TV movie long action sequence" and rarely wasting time on actual "dialogue scenes."

I remember this well: "Duel" excited me as "a TV movie that ALMOST feels like a movie." It was very exciting and we had a teen group viewing party for its re -run. And it came out about 7 months before Hitchcock had his comeback with Frenzy. You could almost FEEL that this new young fellah Spielberg had arrived to take over just as Hitchcock was making a near-final bow.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

OK.... I finally got around to seeing Psycho Goreman and it's *very* silly indeed,

---

My hopes weren't high, but any movie using "Psycho" in the title demands some comparison. Like American Psycho.

---

but quite fun I suppose if you are in the mood for extreme silliness (or have the right, probably half-drunk/-stoned company to see it with).

--

Stephen King once wrote of watching a really bad 50's SciFi cheapie called "Robot Monster" on late night TV, while high on grass, and almost laughing himself to death.

---

I didn't make it past the 30 minute marks for Manborg and The Void, whereas I watched PG all the way through its post-credit sequence.

---

Well its got THAT going for it. I'm serious.

---
I'm not sure I could ever explicitly recommend PG to anyone (quasi-objectively it has to be something like a 5/10 film), but the trailer probably self-selects the audience for this film. If the trailer for PG works for you then know that the film delivers the promised goods and is competent within that frame.

--

OK. And this is "Troma inspired"? As is The Suicide Squad, which, I believed, failed -- to the extent any movie can fail in this age of multiple markets and screening systems. In other words -- you make the movie, you make money, even with "flops."

[–] swanstep (2616) 3 years ago

I have lots and lots of gaps I assure you!
--
A lot fewer than I have...by a power of ten.

Maybe so... I guess that I do supplement my official subscription packages - the equivalent of HBO-Max, Netflix, and Amazon Prime - with the full spectrum of internet resources for films worldwide. This has made it easy for at least the last 15 years or so to regularly set myself little projects and complete them. E.g., recently I've been watching a lot of reputedly second/third-tier Woody Allen films for the sake of completeness. I can report:

Scoop (2006). Disastrous. Embarrassing for all involved.
September (1987). Better than Scoop, but not by much. Schematic, superficial drama w/ a couple of nice performances.
A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (1982). Some of the characterization and dialogue is a bit lazy and definitely anachronistic. But, wow, what a difference Gordon Willis's eye makes! The gorgeous shots and camera-always-in-the-right-place somehow puts one in the right mood to allow Allen's jokes and whimsy and broad characters (that will all sink movies later on) to land in a big way here. And after a lumpy beginning Midsummer gets more and more charming as it goes along, becoming a solid second-tier film with a touch of magic by the end.

Willis shot all of Allen's films from Annie Hall (1977) to Purple Rose of Cairo (1985). Looking back, he was Allen's key collaborator, one who forced Allen to think visually and seriously. Allen never got as good again, and Willis puts a kind of floor of goodness and beauty under everything, lifiting up even a relatively dashed off confection such as Midsummer.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I have lots and lots of gaps I assure you!
--
A lot fewer than I have...by a power of ten.
Maybe so... I guess that I do supplement my official subscription packages - the equivalent of HBO-Max, Netflix, and Amazon Prime - with the full spectrum of internet resources for films worldwide.

---

I don't think my internet sources are as good as yours. I haven't gotten rid of HBO Max yet -- despite its infuriating tendency to disconnect in the middle of a movie -- because when it works, it works and it has a lot of classic foreign films. I've been working through those very, very, slowly.

I watched Yhe Wages of Fear(its a thriller that became Sorcerer in the US; Hitchocck tried to buy the book before Clouzot did.) I watched The Battle of Algiers(interesting and evidently very influential on filmmakers, AND military men AND politicians.) . I watched Belle de Jour(ooh la la! a the beautiful Hitchcock blonde who wasn't, Catherine Deneuve, plus Michel "Topaz" Piccoli). I'll get to the others as I can. I wish to try Ikiru.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

This has made it easy for at least the last 15 years or so to regularly set myself little projects and complete them. E.g., recently I've been watching a lot of reputedly second/third-tier Woody Allen films for the sake of completeness. I can report:

Scoop (2006). Disastrous. Embarrassing for all involved.
September (1987). Better than Scoop, but not by much. Schematic, superficial drama w/ a couple of nice performances.
A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (1982). Some of the characterization and dialogue is a bit lazy and definitely anachronistic. But, wow, what a difference Gordon Willis's eye makes! The gorgeous shots and camera-always-in-the-right-place somehow puts one in the right mood to allow Allen's jokes and whimsy and broad characters (that will all sink movies later on) to land in a big way here. And after a lumpy beginning Midsummer gets more and more charming as it goes along, becoming a solid second-tier film with a touch of magic by the end.

---

Woody Allen. What a fascinating career -- even if one leaves the personal life out of it.

He was sort of a "treat" in movies like What's New Pussycat and Casino Royale in the 60's -- these were rather lowbrow sex comedies with handsome men(Peter O'Toole, David Niven) and gorgeous women -- and Woody hanging around the edges with a great comic persona and his hand-crafted one liners (about working in a strip club: "Its a hard job -- soon I won't be able to pay them to work there anymore.")

By 1969, with "Take the Money and Run," Woody became the Comedy Guy for the 70's and did it with a sort of indiefilm/art film sensibility -- only "Play It Again Sam" for Paramount felt like a true studio movie to me.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Thus were his famous "early funny ones" born(Bananas, Everything You Wan and it all comes to a halt of sorts with Annie Hall. Woody may have rejected the Best Picture, Director and Screenplay Oscars , but he ACCEPTED the newfound respect for his work. And his movies were never really the same after that. He moved quickly to make the "serious" Bergman homage "Interiors" and critics took Manhattan very seriously.

I find that Woody's career has -- oddly enough -- mimicked that of Clint Eastwood. Both started in the 60s and were dominating movie stars of the 70's(Woody's stature as a MOVIE STAR in the 70's was as big as his writer-director rep.) Both "hung on" through the 80's(Woody more than Clint, with Hannah and her Sisters and Crimes and Misdemeanors as biggies) and rather lost their stardom by the end. Both "came back" in the 90s and now they make movies at the rate of one a year that(in Woody's case especially) aren't always seen by anybody. (Oh, there are exceptions -- American Sniper for Clint, that time travel thing for Woody). But they keep working.

I envy your "keeping up" with Woody movies, swanstep, because somewhere in the 2000s, I just sort of dropped him.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

But, wow, what a difference Gordon Willis's eye makes! The gorgeous shots and camera-always-in-the-right-place somehow puts one in the right mood to allow Allen's jokes and whimsy and broad characters (that will all sink movies later on) to land in a big way here. And after a lumpy beginning Midsummer gets more and more charming as it goes along, becoming a solid second-tier film with a touch of magic by the end.

Willis shot all of Allen's films from Annie Hall (1977) to Purple Rose of Cairo (1985). Looking back, he was Allen's key collaborator, one who forced Allen to think visually and seriously. Allen never got as good again, and Willis puts a kind of floor of goodness and beauty under everything, lifiting up even a relatively dashed off confection such as Midsummer..

--

A "guilty secret" of Hollywood is how many cinematographers were the "real" auteurs behind many directors. Oliver Stone, for instance, got a lot of mileage out of Robert Richardson's distinctive camera work. RR now works more with QT.

I remember "A Midsummer's Night Sex Comedy" as creating a lush and verdant "dream world of the forest" that was nice for Woody after all those years making flat-looking indiefilms(see: Bananas.) By keeping Gordon Willis on board, Woody got the "polish" for his movies that he alone could not have chosen.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I read an old interview with John Frankenheimer recently where he said of his DP "the cinematographer doesn't choose the lenses; I do -- he mainly does lighting." But I think SOME directors let the DP do EVERYTHING technically. Billy Wilder and Joseph Manekewicz for two, of whom I've read.

Interesting to me: Hitchocck's fifties movies all seemed to have great lens use -- they were "3-D without 3-D"(Dial M excepted.) I put that all to the talent of DP Robert Burks, who did everything from Strangers through Marnie EXCEPT for Psycho.

BUT: Psycho has that 3-D effect, too, with DP John Russell, a mainly TV guy hired by Hitchcock on the cheap. So if John Russell's Hitchcock movie looks a lot like a Robert Burks Hitchcock movies -- the difference must be: Hitchcock. HITCHCOCK's selection of lenses and camera angles and composition gives Hitch movies their Hitchcock look.

And this: Hitchcock had a top DP on Frenzy in Gil Taylor(A Hard Day's Night, Strangelove, Star Wars.) Word is that Taylor was rather the "shadow director" of Frenzy -- even moreso than the assistant director whom Hitchcock allowed(forced?) to direct some scenes. Taylor knew from lenses and lighting and composition. Frenzy DOES look like a Hitchcock movie much of the time, but has a contrast of "gleam and grit" that reflects both 1972 and Taylor's talent.