MovieChat Forums > Orleans87
Orleans87 (12)
Posts
Replies
He really looked clueless, but he also didn’t fit the scene in that moment. Throughout his searching looks his eyes fall on the deputy once, but his gaze doesn’t linger.
It could be PTSD, but this could have been done better imo. Like after he first looks in her direction, instead of continuing to nonchalantly search all over the sand, it might have been better for him to just turn away abruptly in horror and leave the shot. Or just continue to look at the deputy in speechless shock, refusing to look towards Chrissy. As it is, it’s unfortunately unintentionally goofy, especially in a scene that is quite shocking. I personally think the actor wasn’t prepared properly, like no one told him what the scene was about or what to focus on and how to react. And I wouldn’t be too surprised after watching the making of and how taxing the shoot was, that such a small detail of a minor actor (who appears for maybe 2 minutes in the movie) not giving a fitting reaction might have been overlooked.
Yes, he was looking in the same direction as Brody while they are jogging over and in that moment it looks like he’s seeing her. But as Brody continues looking in Chrissy’s direction, the blond guy looks to the right, behind him, to the left and down with a searching look on his face. To me it looks just like the actor wasn’t guided properly.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
View all replies >