Movie Club: Psycho

WELCOME EVERYBODY TO THE LATEST DISCUSSION THREAD OF THE NEW MOVIE CLUB, DESIGNED TO RUN PARALLEL WITH R.O.C.K.S.
A big thanks to everyone that are joining us through all of this.

For October, we've picked a few scary movies in the runup to Halloween. And we're starting with Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 film "Psycho".

Yes, that's the original black & white film from 1960, not any remake. This is, to my knowledge, the first time we've done a black & white film for this, but don't be put off by that. There are plenty of wonderful black & white films out there. Including this.

Remember any ideas for films to discuss are most welcome, and should be made on the Movie Club Introduction thread (the sticky one), and anyone is welcome to add their thoughts about movies already discussed on their respective threads.

Just a friendly reminder to everyone that, whilst fans are obviously welcome to passionately discuss and give their views on these movies, please remember to keep things on a friendly footing and respect your fellow posters.
Also, please do not post where or how to find the full movie online. And do not post asking others to PM it to you. You are however allowed to watch the movie in whatever manner you want.

Well, if nobody else is going to say anything, I'll put in my two penn'oth.

I just saw it last night for the first time in about 3 years. There's a few Hitchcock classics I've been meaning to watch again, and this was one of them. Now at last I had an excuse.

It's very atmospheric, and filming it in black & white was actually a really good idea, I don't think it would have worked as well in colour. It was quite a departure from his previous film, North By Northwest, which we covered on here last year.

This movie really is like they say about football, "a game of two halves". It starts off in typical Hitchcock fashion, building up the suspense, when Marion takes the money and goes on the run. It sets up certain expectations . . . and then, 45 minutes in, the shower scene happens. It is so completely unexpected, and it completely changes what the film is about. It's still up there as one of the biggest jaw-dropping WTF moments in any film - in a good way I hasten to add!

So then the second half of the movie happens with the search. It's like a fresh start, with a whole new set of characters introduced. The narrative shift is a tricky device to pull off, but if done well it can really work. Obviously in this instance it was impossible not to shift the perspective at this point! Hitchcock had done something like this a couple of years earlier when he made Vertigo - but not so effectively, I can't quite decide whether he spends too long on the first half or the second half. I think too long on the first half. But I digress, we're not talking about Vertigo here, we're talking about Psycho!

Anyway, people start investigating. A fresh atmosphere of suspense is established, with an element of mystery to it. It actually stays quite low-key for longer, perhaps because of the long "beginning" segment, it still feels like the middle of the film for quite a long time. It's not until Sam and Lila split up to investigate that it feels like the start of the climax. No bad thing, it works beautifully. The reveal at the end is still shocking.

After this, the purely verbal explanation with everyone in the room ought not to have worked, but the doctor's monologue however holds the viewer's attention very well. We have questions, the doctor is answering them, we know he's doing so, we're willing to let him take his time.

Still one of Hitchcock's finest.

Agree that Psycho is one of Hithcock's best films. I first saw it in the early 200X's (on DVD) and was extremely impressed. Creepy & atmospheric, and the b&w aspect helped the film tremendously - I don't think it would have been as effective if it had been in color. The ending scene(s) which "explained" Norman's "psychosis" were quite disturbing & horrific.

Though the film came out well before my time, when I watch older movies like this I try to put myself in the mind(s) of the audience who watched them at that time - and try not to watch them from the perspective of a modern day film-goer. I.e., when this film came out it was long before any of the more recent "slasher" films, so audiences were genuinely surprised, shocked, and horrified by the film & the "reveal" at the end.

It's also worth noting that the original Psycho novel, by Robert Bloch (1959) depicted Norman as middle-aged & balding. However, in the film version he was portrayed by Anthony Perkins, who was only 28 when the film was released.

It's also worth noting that Norman Bates (in the novel) was based on the real-life maniac Ed Gein, who had made headlines in the 1950's when his horrible crimes were uncovered in Wisconsin.

This film is a horror masterpiece and one of Hitchcock's best and most iconic movie.
The shower scene is one of the most iconic moments in horror movie history...if not all of movie history. Helped with the tremendous music.
The black and white format worked extremely well for this movie.
Anthony Perkins played the part perfectly. The ending is great as it's not the standard formulaic predictable ending. Making the villain of the movie all the more menacing.

The influence has been widely tribute and parodied in numerous TV shows like ''The Simpsons'', ''Monk'', ''Murder, She Wrote''...the house even featured in one episode.

No spoilers but Psycho 2 is really worth a watch. Hitchcock may not be involved but it is a pretty great horror movie for it's time. In fact I think it was maybe the first horror movie I got allowed to watch when I was quite young.

I saw the making of about Psycho a few years ago, and how the original Norman Bates in the book was not a sympathetic character at all. They knew they had to make him more likable, and they genuinely succeeded. He has such an innocent exterior, he just gets fiercely protective of his mother, as it were.

I read about the Ed Gein influence. And wasn't Gein also an inspiration for Hannibal Lecter or something?

Also, the original book was written by Robert Bloch, who wrote three episodes of the original Star Trek in the 1960s, including the Halloween-themed "Catspaw" and the grizzly "Wolf In The Fold". I think the other one was "What Are Little Girls Made Of", definitely a first season episode.

[USER=25438]@LiamABC[/USER] [USER=26435]@The Drifter[/USER] Have either of you wated the ongoing TV show Bates motel? I haven't watched it but it's supposed to be about Norman Bates' teenage years.

I've heard about it, but not seen it. I've seen publicity for it though, and the guy playing the young Norman Bates looks so like Anthony Perkins it's spooky!

I've seen the first four seasons of Bates Motel, but have yet to catch the fifth & final season (which aired earlier this year). Great show, that explores the "beginnings" of Norman Bates - with an interesting cast of supporting characters. However, note that it takes place in modern times, not the 1950's (when it would have taken place had it been a true "prequel" to the original 1960 film). One of the many interesting elements I like about the show is that it takes place in the Pacific Northwestern part of the U.S., which is my favorite part of the country. Note that the original film took place in CA (I think).

Not to de-rail this thread too much, but I also wanted to recommend the Psycho II & III films. Interesting follow-ups to the original, and they both starred Anthony Perkins (the second came out in '83, 23 years after the first). I guess it's tough to discuss the first film without talking about the sequels, since they're all connected. Psycho II is especially well-done, and very underrated:

http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3393490/33-years-later-psycho-ii-still-misunderstood-classic-demands-attention/

There was an interesting re-make of Psycho in 1998, starring Ellen DeGeneres & Vince Vaughn (as Norman Bates). This film is almost completely ignored by most fans when talking about the franchise, but I don't think it's that bad. Vaughn plays an interesting Bates, and IIRC the director tried to reproduce a lot of the shots/camera angles from the original 1960 film.

It's also worth noting that the author Robert Bloch wrote Psycho II & Psycho House (i.e., Psycho 3) novels, but they had no connection to the films. Yes, he was a great author & had done some work on the Star Trek series in the 1960's, as well as writing a plethora of other novels & doing a lot of other TV work.

Yes, I think Ed Gein was also somewhat of an inspiration for Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs/Red Dragon/Hannibal.

"The Drifter, post: 122472, member: 26435" said:

I've seen the first four seasons of Bates Motel, but have yet to catch the fifth & final season (which aired earlier this year). Great show, that explores the "beginnings" of Norman Bates - with an interesting cast of supporting characters. However, note that it takes place in modern times, not the 1950's (when it would have taken place had it been a true "prequel" to the original 1960 film). One of the many interesting elements I like about the show is that it takes place in the Pacific Northwestern part of the U.S., which is my favorite part of the country. Note that the original film took place in CA (I think).

Not to de-rail this thread too much, but I also wanted to recommend the Psycho II & III films. Interesting follow-ups to the original, and they both starred Anthony Perkins (the second came out in '83, 23 years after the first). I guess it's tough to discuss the first film without talking about the sequels, since they're all connected. Psycho II is especially well-done, and very underrated:

http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3393490/33-years-later-psycho-ii-still-misunderstood-classic-demands-attention/

There was an interesting re-make of Psycho in 1998, starring Ellen DeGeneres & Vince Vaughn (as Norman Bates). This film is almost completely ignored by most fans when talking about the franchise, but I don't think it's that bad. Vaughn plays an interesting Bates, and IIRC the director tried to reproduce a lot of the shots/camera angles from the original 1960 film.

It's also worth noting that the author Robert Bloch wrote Psycho II & Psycho House (i.e., Psycho 3) novels, but they had no connection to the films. Yes, he was a great author & had done some work on the Star Trek series in the 1960's, as well as writing a plethora of other novels & doing a lot of other TV work.

Yes, I think Ed Gein was also somewhat of an inspiration for Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs/Red Dragon/Hannibal.

I will have to watch Bates Motel sometime. It would have been pretty cool if it had been set in the 50's. Although some things getting shifted can work quite well. Like the recent IT film being set in the late 80's.

I really like Psycho 2 but I didn't like 3 or 4. I haven't seen the remake of Psycho but I heard it was a rather pointless remake, but I might give it a chance and watch it sometime.

I didn't want to create any new threads, but I did want to give my reviews on the three films Psycho II - IV (actually, primarily II & IV). I re-watched all of them recently on Blu-ray, and do think all three sequels are worthy successors to the Psycho franchise. I also want to say that after re-watching these in a row, I can honestly say that all three of these sequels are, overall, solid & entertaining films. Having Anthony Perkins reprise the title role of Norman Bates in all these sequels was definitely essential here. Obviously, none of these are as iconic as the original 1960 film, but they are worthy successors.

And, I do think they are somewhat appropriate to discuss on this thread. Note there are SPOILERS below; I don't know how to insert SPOILER tags on this board (not sure there's an option on this board):

Psycho II (1983): The idea of Norman Bates being released back into society after 22 years was extremely believable (in some cases, people in real life that are believed to be "rehabilitated" are released in much less time than that). I found the "fish out of water" element to Norman very realistic as well; The scene when he walked into the diner for work & you could see/hear the video games in the background truly illustrated how much time had passed since the last film.

I also liked the continuity of having AP & VM (both from the original) great, and linked this film to the first one.

It was interesting to see Crane & her daughter (Meg Tilly) try to drive Norman crazy by making him think his mother was alive, even though he was obviously already halfway there

Psycho III (1986): Great film as well, and I liked the continuity between this & II; i.e., it took place only a month after the events in II, and featured some of the same actors. Having Norman really go off in this film brought things back full circle.

Psycho IV (1990): Solid film. I was surprised when I heard it was a made-for-TV film, since it seemed to have a decent budget. The flash-backs throughout the movie were extremely effective. Henry Thomas did a great job as a young Norman, and Olivia Hussey as his mother was gorgeous; I honestly think she gives VF (in the Bates Motel TV series) a run for her money. This film did give us a lot of insight into why Norman ended up being the way he was re: the way his mother treated him. I liked the attention to detail as well; in the flashbacks, the iconic house on the hill was painted & looked new. Whereas in the scenes set during present day, the house was decrepit & run down (as it looked in II & III) - good continuity here.

However, there were two things about the film I found extremely far-fetched: The fact that Norman was released so soon after he committed the crimes in III (only about 4?! years), and the fact that Norman was married. I'll buy into this since the plot was dependent on having both elements.

Logically, it would have worked better to have Norman speaking from a cell in the institution & reflecting back on his past; in the film when Norman was talking to the radio host from his nice, furnished kitchen, I half-expected that it would at some point be revealed that he was imagining his marriage & the fact that he was free, and that it would morph into showing him actually speaking from a padded cell.

That being said, there have been some real-life cases where people have committed horrible crimes & been imprisoned, then released through some kind of loophole, mistake, etc. I can't give you specific examples, but do remember reading about this in the news. In other words, it's not unheard of that this could happen. Plus, Norman's wife worked at the hospital where he was committed. So, though they never came out and said this, it's fairly clear to me that she had something to do with his being released so quickly.

Also, if Norman had been in a cell you wouldn't have had the ending scene where he went back to his old house & destroyed it, thereby supposedly destroying all of the bad memories...Of course, as with all good horror films, it ended on a creepy note - we heard Norman's mothers' voice coming from the basement, strongly implying that there was still the possibility that Norman would snap at some point down the road...

[USER=26435]@The Drifter[/USER] I seen Psycho II on TV again the other week. It really is a great movie and a very worthy sequel to Hitchcock's original.
Is the film much different from the sequel novel?

There's a novel of the sequel as well?

That makes me think of Alistair MacLean's two "Navarone" books, the nature of which can be very confusing to the reader, so I'll explain carefully:

The Guns Of Navarone was written and published about 1957, and made into a movie in 1961. Both the book and the film (which we've covered here) were awesome.
Then in 1968, MacLean wrote a sequel, Force Ten From Navarone - but he wrote it as a sequel to the movie rather than to his original novel. The book was very good.
The sequel got made into a movie in its own right in 1978, and was truly awful.
Then in the 1990s, about a decade after MacLean died, Sam Llewellyn wrote two additional books featuring the Navarone heroes, Storm Force From Navarone and Thunderbolt From Navarone. They're both OK. Neither have been filmed at present.

"Mark M, post: 123914, member: 5058" said:

[USER=26435]@The Drifter[/USER] I seen Psycho II on TV again the other week. It really is a great movie and a very worthy sequel to Hitchcock's original. Is the film much different from the sequel novel?

Actually, Robert Bloch wrote two sequels to Psycho: Psycho II (1982) and Psycho House (1990). Neither of these two novels are connected to any of the film sequels in any way, shape, or form. They are definitely worth reading, especially Bloch's Psycho II - which is especially interesting, given that it involves the movie industry in Hollywood. However, note that both sequel novels exist in their own universe and were not written with any of the film sequels in mind. Here's more info. on them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho_II_(novel)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho_House

"LiamABC, post: 123920, member: 25438" said:

That makes me think of Alistair MacLean's two "Navarone" books, the nature of which can be very confusing to the reader, so I'll explain carefully:

The Guns Of Navarone was written and published about 1957, and made into a movie in 1961. Both the book and the film (which we've covered here) were awesome. Then in 1968, MacLean wrote a sequel, Force Ten From Navarone - but he wrote it as a sequel to the movie rather than to his original novel. The book was very good. The sequel got made into a movie in its own right in 1978, and was truly awful.

Then in the 1990s, about a decade after MacLean died, Sam Llewellyn wrote two additional books featuring the Navarone heroes, Storm Force From Navarone and Thunderbolt From Navarone. They're both OK. Neither have been filmed at present.

I've seen Force 10 from Navarone years ago (Harrison Ford had a role in this film, IIRC) but remember very little about the movie. However, I haven't read any of the books. I completely agree that in many cases the movie adaptations are pale, cheap imitations of the novels.

Getting back to Psycho, however - in some ways, the 1960 Hitchcock film is far superior to the 1959 novel. It's definitely more iconic & disturbing than the novel in many ways. However, the movie being better than the book is typically not the case...

I really ought to read some of the books that Hitchcock's movies are based on. (We're planning on doing some more Hitchcock movies this year.)

"LiamABC, post: 123970, member: 25438" said:

I really ought to read some of the books that Hitchcock's movies are based on. (We're planning on doing some more Hitchcock movies this year.)

The original Psycho novel by Robert Bloch (1959) is great & worth reading. Though there are some distinct differences between the novel & the film (notably that Norman Bates is middle aged) it's interesting to see the source for the film.

Even cats can appreciate this wonderful movie.
[MEDIA=youtube]_kgRFHaNo-Y[/MEDIA]