MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Norman being attracted to Marion wasn’t ...

Norman being attracted to Marion wasn’t the only reason for her death

posted 3 years ago by Orleans87 (12)
26 replies | jump to latest

I’ve been rewatching Psycho again and noticed that the only reason for Marion dying that was ever discussed, is that “mother’s” jealousy was triggered by Norman being attracted to Marion.

The psychologist mentioned he got to know everything from “mother” and then goes into his explanation that focuses exclusively on the attraction/ jealousy of Norman/mother.

But after rewatching the scene of Norman and Marion conversing, I don’t think it’s that simple.

Marion asks him personal questions, and Norman gives her these helpless answers. He seems to feel uncomfortable having to acknowledge how pathetic his life is, which might make “mother” fear he could leave her. Marion makes a comment about not tolerating someone talking to her like his mother talks to him and his expression falters for a moment before continuing benignly defending his choices. He even tells Marion how sometimes he would like to leave.
And from knowing that Norman and “mother” engage in conversations, we know “she” is present throughout all of it.
I can feel the tension building subtly.
So as soon as Marion suggests to send Norman’s mother to a lunatic asylum, the switch we see being flipped in Norman, doesn’t come out of nowhere. It build up over the course of this conversation.
And I personally think it’s not just Norman talking anymore as soon as he leans forward and starts to dominate the conversation.
It’s a version of Norman we never see again after this scene (except while telling Arbogast to leave). He’s confident and imposing, like a third personality next to “mother” and “submissive/nervous Norman”. It seems like he’s in complete symbiosis of being Norman and mother at the same time.

“Mother/Norman” must feel like this girl is trying to separate them from each other. He’s angry at Marion, and after snapping back into his shy persona, he seems less reverent of Marion but not less sexually effected by her.
After she leaves, and telling him her real name, he checks the name she checked in as. So he knows she’s lying about her identity. In his (mother’s) eyes that probably “tarnishes” his opinion of Marion.

So I think it’s not just the sexual attraction and Norman spying on Marion that triggered “mother” to act, but it was more a last straw situation for “her” to take over.

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2624) 3 years ago

@Orleans. I think you're basically right about this: the Psychologist got one story from "Mother" (or Norman-as-Mother) - that she was enraged by Norman's attraction to Marion - but *we*, at least in retrospect, have additional relevant information that the Psychologist doesn't have. We see "Mother" rise close to the surface of Norman in the parlor and it's pretty clear that she's pissed that Marion's kind of bad-mouthing her and even setting her son against her. In principle, from what *we* see, "mother" might have had to kill Marion even if Norman *hadn't* been physically attracted to her, say if Marion had been more of a mousey/Pat Hitchcock type. (Indeed we learn from the Psychologist that Norman's killed before. Almost certainly those other victims weren't as attractive as Marion. Almost nobody is!)

That we shouldn't accept the Psychologist's explanation as the whole truth is also in any case implied by the film's giving "Mother" the last (long) word in the film as well as by the final image of Marion's car being pulled out of the swamp. The final position of the film is: whatever the rational-daylight mind grasps, the irrational forces that lurk beneath the surface of all individual psychologies, and that make us "all go a little mad sometimes", are vast and more powerful than our abilities to rationally survey them.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I’ve been rewatching Psycho again and noticed that the only reason for Marion dying that was ever discussed, is that “mother’s” jealousy was triggered by Norman being attracted to Marion.

The psychologist mentioned he got to know everything from “mother” and then goes into his explanation that focuses exclusively on the attraction/ jealousy of Norman/mother.

But after rewatching the scene of Norman and Marion conversing, I don’t think it’s that simple.

--
One irony about the psychiatrist scene is that while many critics have found it "overlong," the psychiatrist really only is able to "scratch the surface "about the hows and whys of Norman's psychosis.

I think it is true enough that "Norman was aroused...by Marion...and that set off the Mother, and Mother killed the girl..." but there were likely other rages coursing through Norman and the Mother within him.

For instance, the sense that Norman knows he is a trapped being, and maybe he heard Marion's near-final words to him:

"I'm going to try to get out of my private trap, before its too late for me, too."

..."before its too late for ME, TOO." Marion is telling Norman that he's a lost cause, a loser -- and she has a chance to make sure it doesn't happen to her.

It has also been opined that the shrink missed a key sexual element here: "The shower killing is a substitute for the rape that Norman dares not commit." Whether its Mother doing the killing or Norman...that knife is a phallic substitute. In the novel, something is spelled out: Norman is impotent(with others or himself, not clear.) 12 years later with sex killer Bob Rusk, the motive is the same: he can't have sex , so he kills.

But there are less disturbing things afoot, too, and you nailed them....

CONT

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Marion asks him personal questions, and Norman gives her these helpless answers.

---

"Do you go out with friends?"
"Well...a boy's best friend is his mother."

"Well, I do chores around the motel...the chores that my mother thinks I might be capable of doing."

---

He seems to feel uncomfortable having to acknowledge how pathetic his life is, which might make “mother” fear he could leave her.

---

Yes, she digs a little too deep...and starts to try to convince Norman that Mother is a problem, and "leaveable."

---

Marion makes a comment about not tolerating someone talking to her like his mother talks to him and his expression falters for a moment before continuing benignly defending his choices. He even tells Marion how sometimes he would like to leave.
And from knowing that Norman and “mother” engage in conversations, we know “she” is present throughout all of it.
I can feel the tension building subtly.

---

The shrink has a nice tidy explanation for this, and I think it works: "He was never only Norman, but he was often only Mother." In this conversation and the later one with Arbogast, Norman is doing the talking but Mother is there doing the THINKING. And she gets mad if insulted. And when she is "only Mother" -- among other things...she kills people.

--




reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

So as soon as Marion suggests to send Norman’s mother to a lunatic asylum, the switch we see being flipped in Norman, doesn’t come out of nowhere. It build up over the course of this conversation.

---

True. But it IS a switch being flipped: "You mean an institution...a madhouse?"

What's funny is I'm not sure that's exactly what Marion meant. She said, delicately "Wouldn't it be better if you put her...somewhere?" Marion might have meant a retirement home.

But Norman's BEEN in a madhouse(the book tells us, not the movie) and Mother within him is enraged, anyway.

It is perhaps just a little TOO programmatic that first Marion, and later Arbogast, eventually say "that one thing that triggers Norman and Mother":

Marion: "Wouldn't it be better if you put her...someplace?"

Arbogast: "You'd know you were being used, wouldn't you? You wouldn't be made a fool of?"

Both times, Norman reacts angrily and Arbogast pushes it further about Mother:

Arbogast: You know, sometimes sick old women are pretty sharp.

In both cases, "nice, sweet Norman" rather disappears, replaced by a more assertive, angry man. And he TALKS like Mother to Marion: "People cluck their thick tongues and suggest, oh so very delicately." This sounds like Mother's tirade to Mother about "the cheap erotic fantasies of young men with cheap erotic minds." (Such ELEGANT bile from Mother in the original Psycho. In the lousy sequels, she goes all white trash talking of women as "sluts and whores.")

---




reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

And I personally think it’s not just Norman talking anymore as soon as he leans forward and starts to dominate the conversation.

---
Exactly. Mother's been sitting right there, inside him. One friend of mine has noted that in the parlor scene, when Norman leans forward...he's Mother. When he sits back(especially near the end)...he's Norman. Maybe. It is that precise a movie, in script and in acting.

--

It’s a version of Norman we never see again after this scene (except while telling Arbogast to leave).

--

Right...after Arbogast insults Norman, and Mother and demands to MEET Mother. (He will.)

---

He’s confident and imposing, like a third personality next to “mother” and “submissive/nervous Norman”. It seems like he’s in complete symbiosis of being Norman and mother at the same time.

--

There is great complexity going on in Norman Bates. He seems pretty angry AS NORMAN with Arbogast ("But I'm not capable of being fooled...not even by a woman.") But Mother asserts herself, too ("She may have fooled me...but she didn't fool my mother.")

So maybe its just Mother sitting next to Norman in the parlor with Marion...but maybe he IS a symbiosis...with Norman himself as much the killer as the Mother he has invented to be such.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

“Mother/Norman” must feel like this girl is trying to separate them from each other. He’s angry at Marion, and after snapping back into his shy persona, he seems less reverent of Marion but not less sexually effected by her.
After she leaves, and telling him her real name, he checks the name she checked in as. So he knows she’s lying about her identity. In his (mother’s) eyes that probably “tarnishes” his opinion of Marion.

--

I think Norman/Mother's realization that Marion is lying convinces him that she is "a bad one" -- and that she may not be missed. She also told him she was going back to Phoenix, but the register says Los Angeles(as she did.) Such a precise script! (And not even Oscar nominated for its structure and its great dialogue.)

----

So I think it’s not just the sexual attraction and Norman spying on Marion that triggered “mother” to act, but it was more a last straw situation for “her” to take over.

--

A bit of one, a bit of the other. Marion tried to "poison" Norman against Mother - though she was trying to be helpful. She pays a price for that AND for being so attractive.

reply
formatting help
[–] Orleans87 (12) 3 years ago

I personally always enjoyed the psychologist scene. It’s a scene that lets you breath after what was just witnessed. I’m probably in the minority about this. But you are right, it only scratches the surface of what’s going on. But I wonder if the 60’s audience thought the same. Maybe in that moment but in the next scene we finally meet “mother” face to face and the atmosphere thickens once again. It leaves the viewer with suspense and uncertainty about the previous scene.

Yes, Marion insults not just “mother” but also Norman. And with you mentioning how the knife represents a phallus and is used to penetrate Marion in this frenzied rage, makes me wonder if it was truly “mother” who killed Marion and not Norman after all.
As I mentioned to swanstep, Norman might only dress up as “mother” to use her as a buffer to not face his own responsibility here. Like he framed his mother for the murder of her lover, he might make his mother the culprit of the other killings as well. That’s a rather sinister thought.

Norman is presented as this helpless and submissive boy who’s completely devoted to his mother. We as the Viewer buy it, we feel sorry for him. Even the movie carries this theme throughout with the psychologists explanation of how dominating his mother was and how it’s always “mother” who kills. And Norman the devoted pitiable son, who has to cover her tracks. Or his reiterations to Marion about his dominant mother. I wonder if Hitchcock did this on purpose. I think he did. Because right after the psychologist scene, which settles our fears with this simple explanation, we meet “mother” who thinks something completely different from what the psychologist said. She blames Norman for framing her for the murders. Why would the alter ego do this in her own mind? With this the viewer is thrown of balance once again and starts questioning how correct the psychologist was after his short examination of Norman.

reply
formatting help
[–] Orleans87 (12) 3 years ago

I don’t think “mother” told the psychologist verbatim what he later explained. Probably quite the opposite. But he must have read between the lines of what she said and came to a certain conclusion. But how much is this conclusion influenced by subjective opinion?

It was really telling how Norman instantly jumped from Marions comment about putting “mother” ,somewhere’, to him immediately thinking she was talking about a madhouse. She could have been talking about a geriatric facility for all he knew. I’ve never read Robert Bloch’s novel but even in this scene I always assumed he must have been in one when he was younger, even though the movie never explores it. And that’s Hitchcock’s genius. He keeps teasing us with little tidbits that are over so swiftly or done so subtly, that one will not catch them after one viewing. He refuses to really explain Normans madness, past, or true relationship with his mother and leaves us hungry and intrigued for more. Even the things that are “explained” to us seem superficial and don’t quite match what we have been witness to. And with Hitchcock being such a perfectionist, I don’t think it was accidental. But I think we also have to thank Stefano for that script.

It’s true that the underlying reason for the murders carry the theme of humiliation of Norman and by extension “mother”. On a surface level it looks like Marion is killed because of “mother’s” jealousy, and Arbogast is simply killed for entering the house and exposing Norman/mother.
But I don’t think it was an accident that both Marion and Arbogast unintentionally insult Norman’s masculinity. I think it’s something that is a very sore spot for him caused probably by his domineering mother. But I also wonder how much of what the psychologist was able to gather about their dynamic was actually the truth.

reply
formatting help
[–] Orleans87 (12) 3 years ago

He might have spoken to “mother” and was able to glean how dominant and possessive Mrs Bates was of him until she shacked up with her lover, but “mother” is not the real Mrs Bates. It’s Normans concocted alter ego. And with the hint that he went to an asylum before, it could be possible that certain memories are exaggerated in his sick mind, or simply made up.

Doesn’t the psychologist bring up how Norman was extremely jealous of anyone who could take his mother’s attention away from him, so he concluded that his alter ego of “mother” would just be as jealous? Personally I think we might have to take the explanation at the end with a huge grain of salt. And even if Hitchcock didn’t mean to make it come off that way, I wouldn’t be surprised if he purposely was spreading doubt about everything we just heard from the psychologist. To keep the suspense and horror intact. Even after the closing credits.

I loved the subtle and elegant bile that “mother” spouts as well. I’ve never watched the sequels because I’ve never seen the need as I can’t imagine such a deep layered horror of the human psyche to be explored in all its facets without falling victim to exploitative direction, which also wouldn’t understand all the subtleties of the original.

reply
formatting help
[–] Orleans87 (12) 3 years ago

What I’m personally intrigued about is the focus on jealousy over attractive but supposedly “immoral” girls in the mind of “mother”. Norman presents his “mother” like she’s Virgin Mary who hates floozies . Everything is a sin. But honestly, I think those are Norman’s own thoughts. After all he killed his mother, not just because he was jealous but maybe also because she was living, probably fully aware, in “sin” with a married man.

Also, when I look at Mrs Bates bedroom I come to realize that this room would have been fit for Scarlet O’Hara. It’s luxurious with expensive looking decorations. There is a vanity with all kinds of cosmetic articles, creams, perfume, delicate brushes etc. There are two huge mirrors.
When Lila enters the room we can see, what I suppose is meant to be Orpheus, who is almost stretched out seductively, with a lyre and a lion at his feet. Orpheus in Greek myth was known to have played his music so beautifully that he could charm animals. To me this looks like a metaphor to who Norma Bates really was. A beautiful woman who was able to charm men. Someone who was aware of her allure and used it to her advantage. A vain woman. It’s something that doesn’t fit too well into the picture of her isolating her son to become the only person in his life.

The only detail that doesn’t fit in this room are those dowdy dresses in her huge wardrobe. And I think that has something to do with Norman. He dresses “mother” up in garbs just like that, with this cheap old grandmother wig. I really assume that the real Mrs Bates was much closer to what “mother” thinks Marion is like. A beautiful, “sinful” woman, who is only out to seduce men and by extension Norman himself.

reply
formatting help
[–] Orleans87 (12) 3 years ago

So he kills his mother over and over again which Marion and the other girls are stand ins for. And “mother” is an alter ego who bares no resemblance to the real Mrs Bates at all. Like it’s a manifestation of internalized and sexualized hatred. And it only has the form of “mother” because Norman never takes accountability for anything he does out of his own free will. His mother was made responsible for her lover’s murder. And she yet again has to take the blame for the murders of others.

You brought up how the murder of Marion is in a way a sexual act. That wouldn’t really come from “mother” but from Norman himself I think. So I’m questioning the identity of the persona that committed those murders. Despite the dress, it might have been Norman who was conscious after all.

I might read too much into it but it could be that “mother” is not the murderous persona after all. Maybe she’s just the mouthpiece to make Norman justify why they deserve to die and of course to lay the blame at her feet whenever he can’t help himself anymore. And it might not be this shy Norman we see mostly in this movie, someone who is intimidated by other people easily. Maybe there is some other persona lurking behind the scenes, a persona we only glimpse for short moments. The same persona that killed his mother out of jealousy and because of her “immoral” behavior. Marions murder is very sexual, maybe he wished he could have done the same to his mother?

reply
formatting help
[–] Orleans87 (12) 3 years ago

What I found unsettling was Normans almost animal like instincts of immediately being able to spot lies and “suspicious” behavior. Like when Sam and Lila pretend to be married. He seems to notice minute change of expression. That’s not really something I would have thought this shy and stuttering man was capable of. So maybe what we see is not the real Norman, but only a façade to hide behind? And the real Norman is actually the one we can glimpse in the parlor. And “shy Norman” is a creation like “mother”. Maybe it’s the child alter ego which plays off of “mother” and vice versa.

The script is unbelievable. One of the best and tightest ever brought on to screen. Nothing is an accident. Every camera angle, every requisite and every expression has meaning. I’m not surprised it didn’t get an Oscar nomination though. Society wasn’t simply ready to acknowledge and honor it because of the subject matter. It’s a shame.

reply
formatting help
[–] Orleans87 (12) 3 years ago

Swanstep You are right. The psychologist might think he got all the important information but we as the viewer know that it’s more complex than simple attraction and jealousy.
I think I remember the scene with the psychologist was written to explain to an 60’s audience what was actually going on with Norman as simple as possible. And in general people might have been less informed, but they must have known that it wasn’t that simple either. The unknown makes it even more suspenseful. We think the story concludes with this neat wrapped package in form of this simple explanation. Then it cuts to “mother”, who is convinced it wasn’t her who killed those girls but Norman.
And I’m wondering if that isn’t closer to the truth than what the psychologist laid out.

We learn that Norman couldn’t live with the truth of having killed his mother, so creates this alter ego of “mother” to lessen his guilt. Wouldn’t it be possible that Norman goes through a similar process when killing those women and Arbogast? He could be using the disguise of “ mother” to make it her fault. To once again lessen his guilt. Maybe it’s not “mother” killing those people but Norman.
From the police chief we learn that everyone is convinced that Mrs Bates killed her lover and herself. A story Norman fabricated. He made it appear like his mother killed this man. And I suspect he again, in his twisted mind, makes his mother the culprit once again for the other murders.

What I mean is that in the shower, it’s not “mother” but Norman, despite the clothes. He might have only donned on the dress and wig, because he needs the buffer to not confront his own accountability.
It’s easier to say “I’m a devoted son who cleans up after my murderous mother” than “I wanted to kill those girls because it gives me a sexual thrill, and blame my “mother”, even in my own mind”. And he succeeds as witnessed by the psychologists explanation of “mother” having been the murderer all along.

reply
formatting help
[–] Orleans87 (12) 3 years ago

Otherwise, why would “mother”, Normans own created alter ego make this accusation in her mind, for no one to hear, that it was Norman and not her. There would be no reason to. So I’m thinking that the murderous persona we meet throughout the movie, is in fact Norman himself, with “mother” sitting on the sidelines and watching his spiel of dressing himself up, killing people, taking the dress off and then immediately being shocked and acting like he’s cleaning up after her and not himself.
And the persona of “shy Norman” might be unaware in a way, but the persona of “confident/domineering” Norman knows the truth.

He mentally vanished into his subconscious and leaves “mother” behind to deal with the consequences. Yet again not taking accountability for his own actions. So maybe it’s not even “mother” taking over by choice but with Norman “hiding”, she’s all that’s left?

And yes, I think if Marion was dowdy and all, she would have still been murdered because she dared question “mother” and Norman. I would have been interested in how the conversations went with the two vanished girls. What was it that triggered the murderous rage? Maybe it wasn’t just attraction or them “attacking” mother but also Normans envy over their freedom of choice in lifestyle?

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

he final position of the film is: whatever the rational-daylight mind grasps, the irrational forces that lurk beneath the surface of all individual psychologies, and that make us "all go a little mad sometimes", are vast and more powerful than our abilities to rationally survey them.

---

Bingo.

Here at moviechat, I know that Marvel movies and Star Wars reboots get more talk time(from a younger generation), but from time to time I'm reminded that "Psycho" remains a very important film. Hitchcock enemy Stanley Kauffman said the movie "at its most profound, is only meant to send ma and pa home to beer and bed with two nasty shocks." Maybe...a little bit. But those shocks were BIG.

Still, equally important was the power with which this movie examined madness in several forms -- Marion's non-lethal madness(her theft, her flight); Mother's murderous madness; Norman's complex madness.

We all go a little mad sometimes. But our world has proved the matters of DEGREE are profound indeed. From the Nazis to the mass shooters to the sex killers...to politics and screaming female Beatles fans in the 60's and movie star worshipers....

Mad.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

He mentally vanished into his subconscious and leaves “mother” behind to deal with the consequences. Yet again not taking accountability for his own actions. So maybe it’s not even “mother” taking over by choice but with Norman “hiding”, she’s all that’s left?

--

Yep. Its pretty funny, really. Norman kept blaming Mother for the murders before he was captured and put in a cell. Now, Mother blames NORMAN for the murders. "The good half shifts, the bad half shifts." Norman controls the narrative.

---And yes, I think if Marion was dowdy and all, she would have still been murdered because she dared question “mother” and Norman. I would have been interested in how the conversations went with the two vanished girls. What was it that triggered the murderous rage? Maybe it wasn’t just attraction or them “attacking” mother but also Normans envy over their freedom of choice in lifestyle?

---

I certainly think that Norman killed Marion at least partially because of her freedom of choice, but she was a pretty one, and he did see her naked.

I've always said that the great things in the psychiatrist's speech are three:

ONE: The revelation that Norman killed Mother and her lover. (It was NOT a murder suicide.)
TWO: The revelation that Norman stole his mother's corpse, stuffed it, and brought it home(EEK..especially for 1960.)
THREE: The revelation that Norman killed two women BEFORE Marion . She was not the first victim, or the only victim. I would guess (at a minimum) that each of the two women, like Marion, arrived alone and thus vulnerable. Maybe not pretty...but likely so. (Figure on all the single MEN...travelling salesmen...who probably dropped by with no danger to them.) We will never know about those two women, but Psycho makes sure that we wonder.

Psycho IV posited the two women as Fairvale locals -- one a slutty teen, the other a floozie adult, both of whom came on to Norman sexually -- and I don't buy those as Normah's two early murders at all.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I personally always enjoyed the psychologist scene.

--

Me too!

---

It’s a scene that lets you breath after what was just witnessed. I’m probably in the minority about this.

--

Versus some big name writers (Roger Ebert, screenwriter William Goldman)...you are in the minority. But I'm right there with you.

"Re-habilitating the psychiatrist scene" is a pet movie cause of mine. Mainly because I think certain folks look right over what it is ABOUT. One complaint is: "The psychiatrist spends all this time explaining how Norman is crazy -- we KNEW that."

But that's NOT the only thing the shrink tells us. He resolves key unspoken plot points and resolves them:

ONE: Mother didn't poison her boyfriend and then herself. Norman poisoned his mother and her lover -- he was a killer early on.

This is CRUCIAL information, set up by some "mystery talk" earlier in the film.

Norman talks about Mother's boyfriend to Marion:

Norman: And then he died. ...and the WAY he died. I suppose its nothing to talk about over supper.
Marion: I suppose not.

OK...that's creepy...how did the boyfriend die? WHY? This is setting us up for the shower scene -- a death has happened here. After the shower scene, we surmise: Mother killed him. Nope.

The sheriff adds a new dimension:

Sheriff: Mrs. Bates poisoned this guy she was ...involved with...and then took a helpin' of the stuff herself. Strychnine. Ugly way to die.

So the Sheriff is telling us that Norman lied to Marion about the boyfriend's death. "The mystery deepens." Is Mrs. Bates dead -- or alive and killing people ("If the woman you saw in that window was Mrs. Bates...who's that woman buried out in Greenlawn cemetary?")

And now...the psychiatrist SOLVES this big mystery and reveals that Norman was a killer from a young age.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

TWO: Norman stole his mother's corpse, stuffed it with sawdust and chemicals "to keep it as long as it would keep" and lived with the corpse.

Without this information , we might just think that Mrs. Bates, as seen in the fruit cellar, was a corpse rotting away naturally. No - its far worse than that. Norman stole her corpse ("a weighted coffin was buried" says the shrink --- he stole the corpse at the mortuary), gutted it, re-stuffed it. That's almost worse than the murders.

THREE: Norman killed two other "young girls" before Marion (Its 1960...they were likely young women.) Now, this revelation wasn't "necessary"(as who killed the boyfriend and what happened to Mother's corpse WERE) but it adds meaning to the story. Marion was NOT the first woman killed by Norman(other than Mother)...there were other victims. Two women in ten years which suggests to me that's how long it took for single women to stay at the motel alone.

And our minds race: were they beautiful women too? Did Norman kill each of THEM in the shower after having seen them nude? (I'd say, yes; Cabin One and the peephole were set up for this to happen every time.) Or: maybe they didn't take showers at night and mother killed them in their beds. A new thought on this very thread: they were NOT beautiful women, but rather women who exposed Norman's shame and rage in some way...in any event...Marion was not a "one time thing," Norman was primed to kill.

Those are the three key plot points that Ebert and Goldman and God knows how many others overlooked. I get it with Ebert -- he was a failed screenwriter, as many critics are. But Goldman won the Oscar for screenwriting twice (Butch Cassidy and All the President's Men). Still, those scripts aren't as classic in plotting as the script for Psycho.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

CONT

Meanwhile, something ELSE very important happens in the shrink scene.

Hitchcock was known as "The Master of Suspense," and JUST ONE PART of the suspense in Psycho is: we want Sam and Lila(ESPECIALLY Lila) to FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED TO MARION.

A great definition by Hitchcock of suspense is: "Giving the audience information that the characters on screen do not have."

ie: A monster mother is waiting for Arbogast at the top of the stairs.

ie: Judy IS Madeleine (Vertigo.)

ie: Blaney's best friend Bob Rusk IS the real killer (Frenzy.)

Well, here, the information the audience has that Sam and Lila do not is: Marion is dead, and killed horribly.

So in the shrink scene, the suspense finally ENDS. We watch as Sam and Lila receive the information. We can feel ourselves relax even as we feel their pain(again, mainly Lila's.) Side-bar: the authortiies learn that Arbogast died too,and didn't "chase a lead."

CONT

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

CONT

So as you can see, the shrink scene imparts a LOT of important information:

Lila and Sam learn of Marion's fate (and Arbogast's.)
We learn that Norman killed mother and her boyfriend.
We learn that Norman stole his mother's corpse and stuffed it.
We learn that Norman killed two women before Marion(other than his mother.)

And that's BEFORE the shrink goes on to explain Norman's madness (for some confused people, and they did exist.)

The childhood ("Norman was always dangerously disturbed, had been since he was a child.")
The jealousy ("Norman assumed MOther was a jealous of him as he was of her" -- remember he killed her boyfriend.)
The arousal("He was touched by (Marion), aroused by her, he wanted her")

Other tidbits;

"He was never always Norman, but he was often only Mother."

"(After the murders) he would awaken as if from a deep sleep, convinced that his mother had committed the crime."

And a big one:

"With a split personality, there is always a conflict, a battle. And in Norman's case, the battle is over and the stronger personality has won." Norman, says the shrink, will BE Mother..."probably for all time."

Poor guy didn't know about the sequels!

CONT

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

CONT

In the book , there is no shrink scene. Rather Sam tells Lila...days after the fruit cellar...about HIS visit to the psychiatrist and Sam tells Lila what the psychiatrist told him.

Hitchcock and screenwriter Joe Stefano decided to turn this into one scene...a "briefing." Much more simple and direct.

In the "Making of Psycho" DVD, Joe Stefano looks at the camera and says "Hitchocck was worried that the scene would be a hat grabber -- people grab their hats and leave the theater...PAUSE...I was there. NOBODY left the theater."

They found the scene very interesting.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I’ve never read Robert Bloch’s novel but even in this scene I always assumed he must have been in one when he was younger, even though the movie never explores it. And that’s Hitchcock’s genius. He keeps teasing us with little tidbits that are over so swiftly or done so subtly, that one will not catch them after one viewing.

--

Exactly. People who THOUGHT they "got" Psycho on first viewing(including me) were sadly mistaken. There are clues and mysteries all through it.

In the novel, the sheriff tells us that when he found the bodies of Mrs. Bates and her boyfriend at the house, Young Norman was there...in a catatonic state. Norman then spent some time in a mental institution until he "got well"(he probably turned into Mother/Norman there) and was released to run the motel again. (Hey...Psycho is Psycho II!)

Hitchcock didn't get into that , but somehow we GUESS it. Or we guess that Mother herself -- or some other relative -- was in an institution before, and Norman visited them.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

What I mean is that in the shower, it’s not “mother” but Norman, despite the clothes. He might have only donned on the dress and wig, because he needs the buffer to not confront his own accountability.
It’s easier to say “I’m a devoted son who cleans up after my murderous mother” than “I wanted to kill those girls because it gives me a sexual thrill, and blame my “mother”, even in my own mind”. And he succeeds as witnessed by the psychologists explanation of “mother” having been the murderer all along.

---
All very possible...even if we are TOLD that Mother was this separate being...she WAS Norman, and possibly all the time.

Jealousy/arousal/shame may have driven Norman to kill Marion.

With Arbogast, it was pretty simple: the detective was on the verge of exposing secrets that even NORMAN didn't want to confront (ie Mother is dead, and he's the killer.) Mother would want to kill the detective, sure(she doesn't want the shower murder discovered)...but Norman had his motives, too.

"More later..."

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

On a surface level it looks like Marion is killed because of “mother’s” jealousy, and Arbogast is simply killed for entering the house and exposing Norman/mother.

---

That's what it looks like but...indeed...

---
But I don’t think it was an accident that both Marion and Arbogast unintentionally insult Norman’s masculinity. I think it’s something that is a very sore spot for him caused probably by his domineering mother.

---

Arbogast, especially pokes at Norman perhaps "being used, being made a fool of" by Marion. Its a real insult...outta nowhere from Arbogast and based perhaps, on his divorce case/adultery experience as a private eye. Its funny , though -- in some ways, Arbogast here likely sees a handsome man in Norman and figures on a consensual sexual thing BETWEEN Norman and Marion ("Did you spend the night with her?") He actually gives Norman more credit as a ladies man than his personality merits.

And as I note elsewhere, sure Arbogast "has to be killed" because he is snooping around -- this is the seminal "snooping around murder" in movie history. But its the nature of WHAT Arbogast could expose that's interesting. The disappearance of Marion Crane(Mother and Norman would end up at police HQ "explaining." Ha. Or just Norman, of course.) But more importantly, Arbogast would expose to NORMAN the lie of his existence. Mother is dead, she doesn't exist any more. Norman doesn't want to acknowledge THAT.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Norman presents his “mother” like she’s Virgin Mary who hates floozies . Everything is a sin. But honestly, I think those are Norman’s own thoughts. After all he killed his mother, not just because he was jealous but maybe also because she was living, probably fully aware, in “sin” with a married man.

--

Yep. Mother is presented as a separate being with her own thoughts, but c'mon...she's Norman. And Mother evidently had what it takes for relationships with men -- Norman's father(what a mystery character HE is; dead when Norman was five), and the boyfriend.

No, Norman is the one with some very twisted thoughts...maybe Mother fed them, maybe not.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

And our minds race: were they beautiful women too? Did Norman kill each of THEM in the shower after having seen them nude? (I'd say, yes; Cabin One and the peephole were set up for this to happen every time.)

---

I've always seen Psycho as a "tip of the iceberg" movie. The movie itself is the "tip" (we see Marion's theft, two horrific murders, the capture of Norman and the psychiatrist's wrap-up.)

But the "iceberg" is the infinite number of things to THINK about...things from Norman's past, things that are going on "beneath the surface," Norman's future in an asylum.

And here's one about Cabin One and the peephole:

As we see in the film, Norman uses that peephole to gaze upon the naked Marion Crane, and it leads to trouble.

But over the years, Norman may well have used that peephole not only to view the two other women he killed before Marion -- but to view COUPLES having sex, and couples often do at motels.

Norman/Mother would fear trying to murder a couple -- especially the man -- but perhaps Norman ALONE would enjoy the occasional viewing of sex rather than just nudity...or hearing it.

Thus, Norman...twisted as he was...would also have been "sexualized" over the years any time he placed a trysting couple into Cabin One. And this: the 50's were a closeted time, he may have seen some same-sex couples getting it on, too.

But another question was begged, too: WHEN was that peephole carved out, and by WHOM? It might have been Mother's boyfriend who did it. But it might have been Norman himself...horny, grown to young manhood, with no "normal" outlet.

Just a few more of the unanswered questions of Psycho.

PS. I'll bet a lot of people who saw Psycho never accepted the cabin next to the office!


reply
formatting help
About | Contact | Privacy | Terms | Standards | Contribute
Top Movie Discussions
Challengers Discussion | The Fall Guy Discussion | Civil War Discussion | Dune: Part Two Discussion | Monkey Man Discussion | The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare Discussion | Abigail Discussion | Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire Discussion | Boy Kills World Discussion | Unsung Hero Discussion | Tarot Discussion | Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire Discussion | Kung Fu Panda 4 Discussion | The First Omen Discussion | The Mummy Discussion
Copyright © 2017 - 2024 MovieChat LLC

MovieChat is not affiliated with IMDb, IMDb Message Boards, or Reddit