MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Transcript: Dr. Richman's Interview wit...

Transcript: Dr. Richman's Interview with Norman Bates

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

The psychiatrist who shows up at the end of Psycho to "explain" Norman Bates has stood the test of time as one of the most controversial characters in all of Hitchcock, and in one of the most controversial scenes.

Does he talk too long? Is what he says too "obvious"? Is the scene dull?

I say NO to all three questions, and I have always noted that the psychiatrist offers up three plot points which the movie is pretty much REQUIRED to offer.

But there is something else lurking about.

Dr. Richman says he got the story "from Norman's mother. Norman Bates no longer exists; he only half existed to begin , and now the other half has taken over, perhaps for all time."

Well, Dr. Richman sure seems to have gotten a lot of information out of "Mother" in a fairly short time.

But maybe it wasn't all that short a time. Sam and Lila capture Norman in the early afternoon on a Sunday. The psychiatrist reports to Sam and Lila and the authorities "that night." Does a clock show the time? It could be 11:00 or midnight for all we know. Dr. Richman may have had HOURS to talk to Norman/Mother.

But how would Mother give Dr. Richman this insight: "He was never only Norman, but he was often always Mother."

Or this one: "He assumed that if he was pathologically jealous of HER, she would be as jealous of HIM."

Or this one: "Now Norman was already dangerously disturbed. Had been since his father died."

Well.

I suppose we can figure that, before and after interviewing Norman, Dr. Richman was given police and psychiatric files attendant to the "murder-suicide" of Mrs. Bates and her lover, and perhaps within those files was some family history on Norman based on interviews with him at the time(the dead father for instance.) Perhaps some interview answers from Norman himself.

Moreover, as a trained psychiatrist, Dr. Richman had a storehouse of knowledge about split personalities (maybe he knew that ALL split personalities are "never always one person and often only the other person.")

But would Mrs. Bates(in Norman's body) have told him: "Norman killed my lover and me and then stole my corpse and stuffed the body?"

Doubtful.

So here is a fanciful transcript of the discussion between Dr. Richman and Norman/Mother.

Richman: Good afternoon. I am Dr. Richman. I am a psychiatrist, and I work for Shasta County on a contract. And you are?
Norman: That's a rather ludicrous question. You know who I am.
Richman: Well, for the record, please.
Norman: I am Norma Bates.
Richman: I'm here to ask you a few questions if you don't mind.
Norman: No, I don't mind.
Richman: You understand that you are here today because we need to seek answers to the disappearances of a woman named Marion Crane and a man named Milton Arbogast?
Norman: Hmm.
Richman: Both of these individuals have been traced to your establishment -- the Bates Motel -- and both were never seen again after going there.
Norman: That's understandble.
Richman: Why?
Norman: Because my big, bold son killed both of them.
Richman: Really? That's shocking news. How do you know this?
Norman: I saw him do it, both times. Though I am sure that he wants you to believe that I am the one who did it.
Richman: And you are not the one who did it?
Norman: No. Are you deaf? I just told you Norman did it.
Richman: Do you have any idea why he was discovered wearing your dress, and a wig meant to look like your hair?
Norman: You really are dense, aren't you? He dressed up like me because he wanted you to think that I committed these murders.
Richman: And for what reason do you think that Norman committed these murders?
Norman: Well, the girl aroused him..and he couldn't do anything about it. All he had were the cheap erotic fantasies of a cheap erotic mind. I told him that..I warned him to stay away from her. Look where it got me.
Richman: So he killed her.
Norman: Yes. What's HE telling you? That I did it? That I as jealous of that girl? Oh, no...it was his doing. He wanted her, he couldn't have her, he killed her. I'm not taking any blame for this.
Richman: How did he kill her?
Norman: In the shower of the room where she was staying. Cabin One.
Richman: So that's where he killed her. How did he kill her?
Norman: With a great big knife he took from my kitchen drawer. You should have seen the blood.
Richman: And what happened to this private detective...Milton Arbogast?
Norman: What do YOU think? He was a detective. He was asking Norman questions, too many questions. And my idiot son kept giving himself away.
Richman: Where did Norman kill Arbogast?
Norman: On the staircase at our house. That detective must have thought he was hot stuff. He was trespassing. He didn't even knock. He was probably coming up the stairs to talk to me, but Norman got to him first.
Richman: With the knife again?
Norman: With the knife.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Richman: Are these victims buried on the property somewhere?
Norman: Better than that. There's a watering hole near our house....plenty deep...its more of a swamp now.
Richman: The bodies of Marion Crane and Milton Arbogast are in that swamp?
Norman: Yep. In the trunks of their cars. Plenty of room down there. There are two others down there you know.
Richman: Two?
Norman: Yes...Norman was a very busy boy over ten years.
Richman: What can you tell me about those victims?
Norman: They were young girls. I suppose he wanted them, too. We're just lucky that women came to our motel alone infrequently over the years.
Richman: (A long pause.) You are aware, Mrs. Bates , that Shasta County records list you as a having murdered your boyfriend, Joe Considine, in 1950?
Norman: Yes...and again...Norman did it. Jealous. Couldn't stand the thought of me with a man. ANOTHER man.
Richman: And you are aware that you, too, are listed as having died in the same incident. That you drank the same poison that your boyfriend did?
Norman: Sure. I'm not sure in this case if my son was being an idiot or if he just couldn't go all the way with me. He gave me less poison to drink than Joe got. I survived.
Richman: But what about the burial and your death certificate?
Norman: Well, I suppose Norman was the clever one, there. He slipped another body into the coffin at the mortuary. I suppose he dug one up. And so I went into the ground, dead and buried and accounted for.
Richman: This was ten years ago. You simply chose to hide from the world and for people to assume you were dead.
Norman: That's it. Its very liberating to be dead, you know. Nobody bothers you. You do whatever you want. And we had everything we needed at the house and motel. Norman brought in the provisions and took care of everything -- everything that I allowed he was capable of.
CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Richman: Where do you think Norman is now?
Norman: I don't know and I don't care. Its sad when a mother has to condemn her own son, but he WAS always bad. He killed those girls..and that man...and my boyfriend...and yet I never had the strength to report him to the authorities. You see, its not like he was killing people every day of the week. These crimes were years apart...until these last two. That girl, Marion Crane...she did something bad herself, right? I mean why else would a private detective come following her?
Richman: Evidently she embezzled money from her employer and came to Fairvale to join her boyfriend there.
Norman: Yes, Norman told me that she gave him a false name and a false home town. We knew something was up. But do you know that Norman told me that girl told him she was going back to...where was it? Her hometown.
Richman: Phoenix, Arizona.
Norman: Yes. Phoenix, Arizona. She was going to go back. She was going to renounce her crime evidently.
Richman: But she took a shower first. And Norman killed her.
Norman: (Long pause) Yes. I told you, he was always bad. And I feel very guilty that I never turned him in. But I'm an old woman. I just sit and stare. There's nothing I can do.
Richman: I see. Well, there will likely be more questions for you in the future, but I think we should let you rest now. You've had a long day.
Norman: Yes, I would like to rest.
Richman: So I just have one more question for you today.
Norman: And what is that?
Richman: Mrs. Bates... Norma...what would you say if I told you right here and right now that ..you are really Norman Bates himself?
Norman: What do you mean?
Richman: You are Norman Bates.
Norman: (Long pause) I would tell you that you are mad. But that's alright. We all go a little mad sometimes.

Richman leaves the cell.

END

[–] jonathan_k80 (6436) 3 years ago

Great transcript. A very believable addition to the story. I like how it ends with a reprise of Norman's observation, "We all go a little mad sometimes."

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Thank you for reading...

I was just trying to have a little fun there, and to demonstrate that much of what the psychiatrist relates at the end likely came from a very strange "interview" with a man who thinks he is his mother.

The interview in real life would probably last a lot longer than I wrote. And I wonder how the psychiatrist KNEW that "Norman would sit in her chair, speak in her voice"...not to mention how he figured out that Norman stuffed Mother.

Hitchcock likely felt some details were best left alone..

PS. Evidently now in real life, lots of criminals and killers who saw "Psycho" FAKE having another personality in jailhouse interviews, but I don't think Psycho is meant to be that way. Its a powerful, deep film in expressing its themes. I think Norman IS possessed by his Mother, but...maybe not all the way, all the time.

[–] TM1617-2 (596) 3 years ago

Your script is very intuitive, ecarle. It's quite intriguing to think that Mother is treating the murders as a matter of being framed instead of simply berating her son's crimes. That adds a lot of passion to the imaginary jealousy. Since you end with the movie's famous line, are you implying that Norman is trying to use his ego again, and for a moment might be aware of what is happening?

[–] Stratego (29239) 3 years ago

"Does he talk too long? Is what he says too "obvious"? Is the scene dull?

I say NO to all three questions"

Sorry, but I have to say yes. It seems the novel is partly to blame for this, but I think that scene is the biggest flaw of the movie.

"Well, Dr. Richman sure seems to have gotten a lot of information out of "Mother" in a fairly short time."

That's another problem, especially the psychiatrist not wanting more time to make a diagnosis.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Your script is very intuitive, ecarle. It's quite intriguing to think that Mother is treating the murders as a matter of being framed instead of simply berating her son's crimes.

---

Thanks. I suppose this was a bit of "fan fiction" but Psycho has several "gaps in the story" that Hitchcock invites us to fill in, in our imagination.

Two other important ones:

ONE: How did Sam and Lila get Norman from the fruit cellar to the sheriff's team? In the book, Sheriff Chambers arrives in the nick of time to HELP Sam overpower Norman in the fruit cellar and we can assume that that the two men, the sheriff's handcuffs and a waiting police car were used easily to transport Norman.

In the movie, we have to guess: Sam had to hold Norman while Lila went upstairs to find a phone in the house(we never saw one) or down at the motel(we DID see one in the parlor.) I'd also guess that rather than struggling hard Norman "collapsed" into Mother and became docile ("I'll just sit here like one of his stuffed birds.") Then Sam and Lila waited with Norman -- and Mother's corpse -- until the cops could arrive. How creepy that would be for Lila in particular. Haunting her the rest of her life.

TWO: The Burial of Arbogast. In the book, we get all the details: Norman wrapped Arbogast's body in a thick foyer carpet("These old rugs were absorbent." Blood) and carried him down to the car, drove it to a different part of the swamp than where Marion was buried.

In the MOVIE, having shown the disposal of Marion's body in excruciating detail (and the bathroom clean-up attendant), Hitchcock elected to use ONE SHOT(a haunting one) of Norman at the swamp to tell us: "it's done, Arbogast's car and body are down there. A haunting shot but one that gets a small laugh from the audience every time I've seen it with a crowd. This is both an example of Hitchcock's story telling fluency AND of his wit.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

It's quite intriguing to think that Mother is treating the murders as a matter of being framed instead of simply berating her son's crimes. That adds a lot of passion to the imaginary jealousy.

---
I was sort of having Dr. Richman ask Norman questions designed to "corner him into sanity" and then seeing how "Mother" would turn the tables. "Why was he wearing your clothes and a wig?" ...to frame ME.

Which reminds me: in 2010 on the 50th anniversary of Psycho's release, an author named David Thomson wrote "The Moment of Psycho," a book that praised the film through Marion's burial in the swamp and found everything after(save Arbogast) to be quite pedestrian.

But Thomson tried to pick a bigger fight with the film (no takers after 50 years): he "did not believe for a second" that Norman really had a split personality and he felt that Hitchcock didn't believe it either, but felt that he had to tell the book and get it over with.

Thomson's diss felt a little bit right(if one thinks little of the mystery and the twist) and a LOT wrong. Why WOULD Norman dress like Mother (a) to commit his killings and (b) just sitting up in the window, if he didn't have a split personality. It makes no sense: "I want to kill that woman in the shower. I'd better get on Mother's dress."

As to Hitchcock himself not believing in the twist, its just incoherent on Thomson's part. Hitchcock knew he was telling a fictional tale, like he had in the past and would in the future. He believed in his story...and it was a GREAT twist. And audiences across the world in 1960 and across time in the decades since have loved the twist...and how it makes Norman Bates such an inscrutable and fascinating character.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Since you end with the movie's famous line, are you implying that Norman is trying to use his ego again, and for a moment might be aware of what is happening?

--

I think I ended the piece with that famous line to "top it off nicely," a bit glib I suppose but again, I was just trying to "fill in the blanks" on how Dr Richman got the story from Mother.

That said...sure, I think it was on my mind as well: Who is Norman? Who is Mother? They are physically the same person now, in the same body -- but the words of one may be the words of another.

When Norman spits out at Marion "People cluck their thick tongues and suggest oh so very delicately" -- I feel that is MOTHER'S style and cadence (rather like "Cheap erotic fantasies of young men with cheap erotic minds") So here is Mother using NORMAN's phrase("We all go a little mad sometimes.") Two merge into one. Norman himself probably doesn't know who's who.

Nornan's inscrutability and mystery made Psycho one for the ages and thus I was sad to see the series "Bates Motel" of the 2010s electing to SHOW how Norman would see Mother in his mind and talk to her as a separate person. "All was explained" and the mystery rather deflated and became banal.

I much prefer Hitchcock's movie, which is like an iceberg. The "surface" is the house and the motel and the murders and the twist ending. Beneath the surface are all sorts of questions about how Norman Bates functions and what his personal history was really like.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7401) 3 years ago

I thought it was said by the doctor that Mother had taken over the whole brain and he only talked to mother. Also I could not get into the show Bates Motel as I found his mom annoying. A relative of mine was talking to me recently about that show and told me they ended up making his mom a murderer which goes against the movie and book.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I thought it was said by the doctor that Mother had taken over the whole brain and he only talked to mother.

---

This is true, and for purposes of the movie in history....the best explanation. But even as some folks hate the psychiatrist scene(not me), some folks find that the doctor may not totally understand his own patient. Norman may be Mother "probably for all time" (poor Dr. Richman couldn't forsee Psycho II), but who is to say that "shards" of Norman do not STILL remain in that brain?--

Also I could not get into the show Bates Motel as I found his mom annoying.

---

Me, too. She was much younger than the "witch/old crone" of Hitchcock's film, who only spoke(unseen) three times and generally only appeared in person(mainly) to kill people. A very mysterious character -- an obscenely strong and vicious "old woman."

She's just Vera Farmiga in the series. Good actress...no mystery. (And Farmiga is about to play Tony Soprano's mother, Livia, as a young woman in "The Many Saints of Newark." Typecasting?)

---

A relative of mine was talking to me recently about that show and told me they ended up making his mom a murderer which goes against the movie and book.

---
The series took the basic material and went in tons of multi-season directions with it -- none of them as unforgettable as the Hitchcock film from the Bloch novel -- all 109 minutes of it.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7401) 3 years ago

I admit not every adaptation has to be faithful but them making her a murderer just feels like a betrayal of character.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Yes.

As to faithfulness or not, that's always an interesting decision for the filmmaker.

Interesting to me: when a decision is made to make a movie of a book -- a bestseller like The Godfather for instance -- the audience expects to see the same story they read. Coppola as writer-director of The Godfather took a lot of (quasi-porn) stuff out, but still gave the audience the story it had read and loved.

When a decision is made to "sequel" or "prequel" a movie, the faithfulness is to the ORIGNAL MOVIE...and it seems to me that Bates Motel betrayed Psycho all over the place.