Psycho 1960 Extended Version
Just saw the extended scenes. I did not see this being discussed, so include it here. Sorry, if repeat.
https://youtu.be/aHDdcZ56HSA
I'll bite.
Its interesting to me. Of the three brief "uncut" German versions:
ONE: The extra amount of Janet Leigh's back and front flesh is..clearly footage that is "for real" and was cut.(It is also part of the freeze frame of the shower sequence on the pages in the original Hitchcock/Truffaut. Some folks found it there first.)
TWO: The extra coverage of the blood on Norman's hands(as he moves towards the door and then when he enters the bathroom) is..clearly footage that was "for real" and was cut.
THREE: The extra stabs coming down on Arbogast at the end of his murder scene are...suspect. ARE they real? There is a weird "sudden view" of the knife -- AFTER the initial STAB and BEFORE the second (new) stab is shown -- as if something went wrong with the film. The "new" stab looks a lot like the single stab we see today(granted the knife goes down for a second stab as the scene fades out.)
So my feeling here is that we get....two "real" uncut sequences and one "fake" uncut sequence(the Arbogast stabbing).
As Arbogast himself said, "Go ahead...take a look for yourself."
Also interesting: Arbogast's fall is the only sequence with some sound on it here other than music -- a German actor deciding to "vocalize" Arbogast as he falls(Hitchcock chose to leave the man silent as the music overcame him.) Its rather odd to listen to a voice clearly not Martin Balsam's as the man falls. But it seems that Balsam's OWN scream is cut back into the final stabbing on the floor -- and the soundtrack doesn't "jump" with two new stabs added.
Also interesting: in the "comments" section, one poster says that Psycho went out in 1960 in the US with this uncut footage -- but that it was edited out for later showings. Interesting if true -- somebody found Psycho "too much" in '60 and cut it back for LATER audiences?
Though I find the Arbogast footage suspect, I find the other footage rather mesmerizing -- the Marion footage for its additional erotic content(even though no "nipple nudity" is shown -- how funny THAT's what it takes to mean "nude"); the Norman with blood on his hands footage because, in lingering on the blood on the hands, the scene indeed becomes more stomach turning(it looks like the "edited" version simply retained footage on Norman's face as he walks while keeping the hands below the frame. A re-framing of the shot? Or did Hitchcock film it both ways?)
I always wondered WHERE that blood on Norman's hands came from. He was carrying the corpse by her wrists; I suppose her hands, and maybe her wrists, had defensive cuts that bled on him.
The "blood on Norman's hands" is yet another example of the wonderfully "effortless symbolism" that courses through Psycho most of the time.
The way I interpreted the first one was Norman saw breast and nipple. More to get him off.
The extended version of the blood on the hands is creepier. We see Norman's revulsion, too. Agree it's more stomach turning and more horrific. The scene doesn't show how Norman got blood on his hands, but it's important he does. Maybe he got them while stabbing as the blood sprayed him.
Hmm... To me, the two extra stabbings of Arbogast follows the shower killing. It makes it more horrific, more blood and we realize Arbogast was stabbed to death. The cut version doesn't make it clear that Mother stabbed Arbogast to death in the scene nor show Mother's horrific follow up to slashing his face open. It also shows strength and agility for an old woman which is probably a big clue, but one that we miss because of the surprise and horror. The question I had was how did Norman clean up the carpeting of all the blood?
All of the above would be complaints raised by the censors. Thus, I think they all are extended scenes.
The way I interpreted the first one was Norman saw breast and nipple. More to get him off.
---
Well, I think the movie suggests that Norman saw Marion totally nude, because it cuts away as she takes off her bra, but cuts back after she's put on her robe.
The difference, I think, is that the censored clip showing more of Leigh's back and chest area...FORESHADOWS the nudity.
I would like to note here that in her book on Psycho, Janet Leigh said she believed "the back is one of the sexiest parts of a woman's body." She had a scene in The Vikings where somebody tears her dress down the back and reveals the full back to the edge of the butt, and Leigh said that was a very sexy scene. She probably approved of showing off so much of her back in this censored shot.
----
The extended version of the blood on the hands is creepier. We see Norman's revulsion, too. Agree it's more stomach turning and more horrific. The scene doesn't show how Norman got blood on his hands, but it's important he does. Maybe he got them while stabbing as the blood sprayed him.
---
An interesting point about the blood being on his hands from his killing efforts. But downthread we also learn that there is some blood in the palm of Marion's body's hand. It could be from anywhere, its rather abstract.
But given how long we see the blood in Norman's palms in the extended version I think...somebody decided it was just too lingering , just too much...everything else had been shown QUICKLY.
To me there is also this gruesome thought: all the blood we see during and after the shower murder, is the blood of MARION CRANE. Her lifeblood. In its being taken out of her body, that helped kill her. In its remaining around the bathroom and on Norman's hands -- it is a haunting reminder OF Marion. Almost as much as her body . Another gruesome "moment of blood" (to me) is when Norman mops up all the splattered blood in the tub itself. Again: Marion's blood. A reminder of the woman who spilled it.
Playing footsie with the censors, Hitchcock had to be careful about how much blood he showed. Famously, we see no wounds on Marion herself -- none on the front, none on the back. Rather, Hitchcock waits until the murder is well underway to cut to a gout of blood spilling around Marion's feet during the murder. Then he cuts to it one more time during the murder , on the floor. Then we get the famous trail of blood from near Marion's feet, down the drain.
AFTER the murder, we get the one small finger of blood down the outside of the white tub(in the Van Sant, it is much more of a splatter), a few puddles on the floor, the splatter in the tub for Norman to mop up...and the blood on his hands.
.
There will be only one more "appearance by blood" in Psycho after the shower murder, but it is significant:
The slash down Arbogast's face which leaves a gash of blood down his forehead and cheek. This is "worse" than anything we saw in the shower scene, because this time we DO see the effect of the knife ON the victim. And its the face. The worst place to get slashed in terms of future life(if you live): disfigurement.
I figured Hitchcock could get away with this blatant and brutal slash because the victim is a man, but in later giallos and in Dressed to Kill, no such gallantry is honored: women get slashed in the face, too.
What's also interesting to me about that face slash is that it isn't a "killing" wound. Rather , it seems to signify both Mother's AND NORMAN's rage at this snooping detective who bugged Norman so much. The slash to the face is an act of rage and madness. The killing blows will come later.
As historically violent as that single slash to Arbogast's face was in 1960, Van Sant "bettered it" in 1998, having mother slash Arbogast's face three times instead of just once. That's what an R rating(a REAL R rating) bought you.
Hmm... To me, the two extra stabbings of Arbogast follows the shower killing. It makes it more horrific, more blood and we realize Arbogast was stabbed to death.
---
I think the movie "as we have it" in this scene is very much a scene of "power of suggestion." Even with only one downward stab shown (and HEARD) in the edited sequence, we IMAGINE that Mother is stabbing the detective again and again and again. Hitchcock fades out on the knife going down and coming up...and we do the rest...in our minds.
This was how that moment was described to me by a pre-teen kid who described Psycho to me when I couldn't see it: "And then, she jumps on him and stabs him over and over and over!"
All in the mind.
----
The cut version doesn't make it clear that Mother stabbed Arbogast to death in the scene
---
Oh, I think he's had it. His scream, for one thing.
I will say that some writers have assumed that Mother stabs Arbogast in the chest, through the heart. But we don't know that. That's a hard kill. Maybe she cut his throat open...its all to the imagination.
---
nor show Mother's horrific follow up to slashing his face open.
---
I think, with the censors, Hitchcock "bought" the ability to show the face slash by NOT showing any more direct knife violence down at the bottom of the stairs.
---
It also shows strength and agility for an old woman which is probably a big clue, but one that we miss because of the surprise and horror.
---
This is KEY. Her strength will make sense when we learn she is Norman, but at this point, she is an old woman with OBSCENE strength, more a monster than a human being, and I think that's what makes her scary, and makes the movie Psycho scary. She's inhuman, a monster, a CREATURE. And here's Arbogast stuck all alone with her, dying under her knife. These mere seconds of film haunt our dreams after seeing Psycho.
---
The question I had was how did Norman clean up the carpeting of all the blood?
---
This is explained in Robert Bloch's novel...but not supported by Hitchcock's film.
In the novel, Norman wraps Arbogast's body IN the carpet, and then puts Arbogast in the carpet in his car trunk. I even remember a line in the book: "These old shag rugs were absorbent." (The blood.)
I think in Psycho the movie, sometime later we see that carpet still on the floor(when Lila or Norman enter later?) so Hitchcock ignored the issue. I suppose the blood might have stayed on Arbogast's chest, but we don't know, and Hitchcock , again, simply ignores the issue . Crucially , he shows us NOTHING of the clean-up and burial of Arbogast's body, less one darkly witty shot of Norman standing by the swamp. So he never gives us a shot of Norman wrapping Arbogast's body in the carpet.
---
All of the above would be complaints raised by the censors. Thus, I think they all are extended scenes.
---
Yes. The big mystery is: did those scenes ever get shown in America during release?
But I want to re-iterate, because i don't think I was clear above: I think the extra shot of the knife coming down on Arbogast is a "fake," just a added edit of the same knife blow we see in the film. And the weird "jump cut" of a knife in between blows is kind of a clue that somebody messed with the footage. Maybe somebody thought the scene would be better if the knife blows were "artificially multiplied" via edit repeats.
IMHO.
How many times did you watch it lol? I watched it twice and now a third time. Actually, more as I had to FF to watch the Arbogast scene you mention. Maybe I was focusing on what I would see in my mind just like your back interest. Sure, it's sexy in an evening gown, bathing suit or lingerie. The shot going back to Norman is great. It gives you just enough time to imagine.
And we know he saw everything when he was stabbing and she was gravely injured, but he was the mother. After he becomes Norman again, it was like her nudity didn't matter anymore. He's genuinely shocked, just like we are, about what his mother did. We see him focusing on his hands which reminds me of Shakespeare Macbeth. I like that because this is the anti-climax of the murder. The blood on his hands is what revolts him and us. He riveted on it and can't wait to wash it off. In the US version, it's not like an anti-climax scene, but to clean up. I do agree that he got it from Marion's hands even we don't see her right hand, but that's getting nitty. Maybe it was her right wrist, but it's not germane to the story. We do not need a coroner's report on Marion.
I think the Arbogast scene is extended with two added stabbings as the first and second ones. One of commenters said they saw blood, but I don't think so as it's shadowy. It adds to the horror and I would want the extra stabbings in any future releases.
I always wondered WHERE that blood on Norman's hands came from. He was carrying the corpse by her wrists; I suppose her hands, and maybe her wrists, had defensive cuts that bled on him.
=======
I noticed as he started to drag her out by the wrists, her palm was full of blood and it was splattered onto her lower arms. Look at her left palm. It's quick. Don't think I ever noticed that before.
That's what's great about Psycho...there is ALWAYS something we never noticed before. I'll take a look.
I can't say Hitchcock was a sticker for accuracy all the time...but I can see him ordering his crew: "We will be having this shot of the blood on Tony's hands....put some blood in her palm."
Which would also match up with the "defensive hand wounds" that stabbing victims are often said to have.
That said, the idea up thread that the blood might still be on Norman's hands from his DOING the stabbing...interesting, too.