This is a pointless movie, only trying to titivate through gratuitious violence and implied perverse sexuality. There is nothing remotely real or a point or a moral or a message in this terrible movie ... it is just a waste of time. If this was done by someone other than Hitchcock it never would have been released.
shareNice story, Bro. Have a cookie.....
I agree with you, like, 160%. Anyone who thinks Hitchcock wasn't deranged himself, something that only a rock could not see in the 60's part of his canon, would deny that "Psycho" was depravity-for-depravity sake.
shareYou say that like it's a bad thing.
shareAnyone who thinks Hitchcock wasn't deranged himself, something that only a rock could not see in the 60's part of his canon, would deny that "Psycho" was depravity-for-depravity sake.
---
If so, Hitchcock soon had a lot of company:
Arthur Penn(Bonnie and Clyde)
George Romero(Night of the Living Dead, Day of the Dead)
Sam Peckinpah(The Wild Bunch, Straw Dogs)
William Friedkin(The Exorcist, Crusing)
Brian DePalma(Sisters, Carrie, Dressed to Kill)
Martin Scorsese(Taxi Driver, GoodFellas)
Stanley Kubrick(A Clockwork Orange, The Shining)
Quentin Tarantino(Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill 1)
David Lynch(Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart)
Steven Spielberg (Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report)
Robert Rodriguez(Planet Terror, Sin City)
In short, Hitch was a bit of a trailblazer "on the dark side."
---
I rather welcome a few posters come over here to flat-out assault Psycho for its sickness and "depravity for depravity's sake." To the extent I've been saluting this little blockbuster for years now,part of my reason has been to express what it was like to experience this film when it was DIFFERENT from all other movies: too scary to show on CBS (cancelled); too scary to show before 11:30 pm at night. Too scary to open the book Hitchcock/Truffaut and look at photographs from the murder scenes. And SO scary that it seemed that every childhood friend and every parent had an opinion about that horrific movie and a story as to whether or not they had been allowed to see it.
That's powerful stuff, and its lasted a lifetime in my memory. But so has this: I pretty much got off at the train at the next station after "Psycho." I had no interest in seeing things like "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "I Spit on Your Grave" or "Last House on the Left," or, in recent years, "Saw" or "Hostel."
Because the "horrible" Psycho ultimately proved to be "only a movie" after all. Well made, well acted, well written, certainly low on gore and, ultimately, yes...FUN. Just like Hitchcock said it was. Sad and depressing too, but only after the fun (boo!) subsided.
Still, I honor anybody showing up to say that Psycho was "depravity for depravity's sake" not because I agree(it had a "sake" beyond that) but because doggone it, its my favorite movie for the NEGATIVE (scared) emotions it evoked. Even when I could NOT see it! It affected me. (Note in passing: it has been said that Psycho was the first movie before Star Wars -- even excepting the megahits The Exorcist and Jaws -- to generate continuous word of mouth and knowledge of it, in American society. How this could be proved, I have no idea.)
I've never been a fan of horror, but suspense is a different thing. I wasn't thrilled with G Peck and The Omen, but Psycho is an intriguing film. I certainly don't love it, but there are a lot of other elements other than the Norman Bates character.
I suppose it's more notorious (haha) than vaunted.
Nah
shareThe world would have ended already if it wasn't for this movie.
shareThere's actually very little violence in it. Especially compared to today's movies. Even the shower scene doesn't show much -- the knife next to Marion Crane's skin and the implication that she is stabbed, but you never actually see her stabbed. You see blood go down the drain. You see her shocked face. For Arbogast, you only see his shocked face and the rear-projection fall. The joy of the movie is the FEAR that something else bad is going to happen. That's what keeps the audience on the edge of their seats. That and killing off the protagonist, completely unexpected.
There are many moral messages. She made a big mistake stealing the money. And there are hints as to her moral shortcomings from the very opening shot. Out from the world into a hotel room, where she is partaking in pre-marital sex with a divorced man. A no-no to a 1960 audience. Note the next time we see her she is wearing black undergarments, no longer white. The film implies she is punished for both misdeeds in a very unexpected way.