Rob Ager's analysis of the Shower Scene - Psycho (1960) Discussion

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Its a good piece..and a companion to that whole film out there "78/52."

They call the shower scene the most over-analyzed in history. But people keep doing it anyway. And they keep finding something new in it.

Watching it again, I realize how different what Hitchcock filmed is from what Saul Bass storyboarded.

And what of that now famous shot of the big silvery knife pressed briefly against Marion's naked belly? Hitchcock had to DECIDE to stage that one. And to "reverse the film" in editing to get the effect of the knife going in a bit.

I personally love the first shot that begins the murder AFTER Mother pulls the curtain and poses:

Hitchcock cuts to a low angle position, slightly below and at an angle to Mother as the knife comes down the first time. Its a great "angled shot" that says: enough with the posing by the killer, enough with the terrified first screams of Marion as she sees the Mother who will kill her(and maybe recognizes the man) -- the murder now BEGINS.

And Hitchcock never returns to this first low angle camera position again. All the shots of Mother stabbing (other than the overheads of her struggling with Marion), have Mother in front of us, level with us, stabbing directly AT us..particularly in a deadly "lethal flurry" intercut with Marion's head turning back and forth(says Ager: Marion is trying to keep her eyes from getting stabbed. Interesting.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

------
There's a pretty good analysis of the Arbogast murder on YouTube, too. How wonderfully contrasted with the shower scene -- once Mother comes out, its only FOUR shots to kill Arbo. Alas, there always seems to be a problem for some commenters with the "process fall" , but I ask you, how different is it, really , from what we would REALLY see if we followed a man tripping backwards down the stairs? I think it FEELS quite real.

But honestly, I feel all the movie magic -- most powerfully -- in the moments before the murder. In that great shot of Arbogast climbing the hill to the house; in the shot of him hovering on the porch to take one last look at the terrain of the motel and countryside behind him(he's checking things out, but he's really taking a last look at the world.)

And...perhaps most of all, the perfectly timed and extremely profound shots of Arbogast entering the foyer, closing the door, looking around, POV shots abounding. Its a feeling, I think, of Hitchcock in total mastery of his image, his story, his timing. Its one of the greatest moments in film, in that foyer.

And then comes the staircase climb...neither too long nor too short in duration. And the light spilling on the opening door....

reply

[–] swanstep (2745) 5 years ago

Rob Ager now comes to praise Psycho II!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kydlEbyV3vE
I haven't had a chance to watch this yet (it's 23 mins), but thought I'd give the heads-up prospectively. Ager can be wacky overall but he almost always has some interesting, new, close reading/observation details.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Rob Ager now comes to praise Psycho II!

---

I'm always a little sad that I cannot join fans of "the entire Psycho franchise" in finding the sequels of equal value to the original. I just can't. That said, I like III better than I like II -- bringing in Charles Edward Pogue(The Fly) as a screenwriter and Anthony Perkins("The most intelligent actor I ever worked with" -- Mike Nichols) as the director, gave us something tantalizingly close to the original at times. But not close enough.

Psycho II was a bigger hit than III, there did seem to be a lot of us Psycho fans out there curious to see Tony, Vera, and the House after all these years. We WANTED it to succeed. And it was a hit. I just don't think it was a very good movie, it never felt like a "real" movie. It felt like a TV movie. Tom Holland's script wasn't very good.

That said, I want to see what Rob Ager says.

And remember: Quentin Tarantino says he prefers Psycho II to the original. So there's a big fan.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

OK, I watched the Rob Ager film on Psycho II. I note that he notes, at the end, that this 22 minute film is rather a "first draft" of a much longer film he will post in the future. I'll look forward to seeing that, as well.

Ager swarms the film with comments from people who like Psycho II better than Psycho, and the comments on the YouTube page have more still. Plus, there is QT.

i will note that when Psycho II came out in 1983, it was deemed worthy of review by both Time and Newsweek. Time (Richard Schickel) liked it enough, but noted "its not very scary"(even with a knife through the mouth, asks I?) Newsweek(Jack Kroll) raged at it as an idiotic insult (I was a bit closer to that position at the time, though I've mellowed.)

Mostly what Psycho II got were reviews saying that it was certainly better than most Friday the 13th teenager slasher movies because Anthony Perkins was such an iconic star and because the original was such a great story that the sequel could only benefit from it.

Brian DePalma was asked his opinion of Psycho II, and said: "Its not worth talking about."

So hither and yon, pro and con.

And yet, one leaves this Ager piece -- and having read all the comments around it -- thinking that Psycho II IS better than the original(Ager likes it better) and IS a great film on its own.

I feel brainwashed: OK, yeah, I guess so. NO WAIT.

If there is a key reason why Hitchcock's Psycho "fails" against the sequels, it is likely that the film famously spends 30 detailed minutes at the beginning on things having nothing to do with the Bates Motel and horrible murder. Hitchcock was rolling the dice on his knowledge that he had "the first slasher movie" (even if he didn't know what that was), and that an audience would put up with those first 30 minutes as long as they were interesting(they were), artful(they were) and led up to Something Big(they did: the shower murder.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I would contend that those first 30 minutes show off more Hitchcockian genius than the entirety of Psycho II; because Hitchcock's very unique sense of timing and image is on display(the first look at the cop's face; the move of the camera down the row at California Charlie's.) There is also a heavy precision to Marion's night drive through the rain that is, I would say, beyond the capability of Psycho II director Richard Franklin to pull off.

The murders. Well, Psycho has only two and the second has its detractors: Arbogast's process fall. I think even with the process fall, the Arbogast murder is more perfectly staged, exciting and scary than any killing in Psycho II, and once the Psycho II killings have to go up against the shower murder -- with its 70 set-ups filmed over 7 days and cut into 45 seconds of film -- Psycho II gonna lose.

MAJOR SPOILERS: THE MURDERS IN PSYCHO II, AND THE KILLER:

Motel manager Toomey(Dennis Franz) one slash to the face(ala Arbogast, but deeper), fade out.
'Some teenage boy in the fruit cellar." We don't know much about this kid, he's a medocre actor. The back stabs seem to be into a pillow.
Lila Loomis: killed in the fruit cellar -- a knife through her mouth and into the back of her head.
Psychiatrist Robert Loggia...Meg Tilly stabs him, in the heart, BY ACCIDENT. Then he falls down the stairwell and the knife plunges deeper (total coincidence.)
Meg Tilly ...the cops shoot her in the fruit cellar before she can stab Norman.
Mrs. Spool....the real killer of Toomey, the Teenage Boy, and Lila. Norman hits her over the head with a shovel.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

None of these murders really match up to Hitchcock's skill. The murder of the teenage boy, in the vicinity of his girlfriend, is a steal from "Jaws 2," and a sop to the "teen slasher" crowd. The Loggia murder is downright silly.

The Vera Miles murder is the big shockeroo and this one outraged Jack Kroll of Newsweek, with its "orthodontic gurgling" -- one doubts that Hitchcock would have filmed it, and it seems an insult to a star of the original.

Most of the murders are revealed to be the work of "Mrs. Spool," an elderly diner waitress who lurks around the edges of the movie doing nothing until the time comes to reveal her as Norman's REAL mother(thereby wrecking the original story.) By Psycho III, the makers "take that back," so the whole ruse is lightweight. I will say that to fans of Psycho II as a murder mystery whodunit, Mrs. Spool is quite the surprise, but we couldn't really figure it out and Hitchcock was adamant -- he doesn't make murder mysteries.

---

Without naming ME(hah, he don't know me), Ager takes on the "big plothole" of Psycho II that I have always claimed: the state would NOT let Norman Bates out to live by himself among regular folk.

Ager quotes many cases of pedophiles being released into the community (he worked in mental health) and notes that "officials often release dangerous criminals." I agree with that. In the recent news, a man deemed "too old to hurt anybody anymore" was released by a judge, and promptly stabbed to death two women, at age 70-something.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

But Norman Bates would be, in real life, a very famous killer who killed one person in a very sickening way: the shower murder. And at least five other people.

Put it this way: Charles Manson was never released into the populace. The Boston Strangler was never released into the populace. Ed Gein was never released into the populace.

Norman Bates would never be released into the populace.

Ager has that covered: "Even if you think this is a plot hole...so what? It sets up a great movie."

Well...so what? No, its not believable.

---

I must admit, the tour of various shots and camera angles in the film remind me of how well director Richard Franklin DID get his Hitchcock on for Psycho II -- a camera dive from Norman trapped in the attic to the kids sneaking into the fruit cellar is good; a later way-high overhead shot(reminiscent of Cary Grant running out of the UN in NXNW) of the surviving teenage girl running away from the Bates house, feels like Hitchcock, too.

And some of Perkins' work as Norman has a certainly subtlety to it -- he's happy to be released, but he knows he shouldn't be.

Which reminds me of another "beef" I have with Psycho II: Norman is made much too "familiar" to us, he's not held at the mysterious distance that Hitchcock held him. We spend a LOT of time with Norman, and he doesn't feel as mysterious as Hitchcock's Norman. And what's with the state giving Norman a job at a diner with a job of chopping things up with a big KNIFE?

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Hitchcock's Psycho might just be a bit boring now -- certainly the characters look "banal and old-fashioned" in their 1959 clothes , and a horror movie that waits 47 minutes to get to the first horror could ONLY have been filmed IN 1959/60, when audience expectations were lower for shock, and more focused on story.

But on a shot by shot, line by line, performance by performance basis, I'm afraid Hitchcock's Psycho remains well above the quality of its first sequel . To wit: the rather wacked-out, slobbering acting job Perkins does as he advances on Meg Tilly and grabs a knife blade with his hands -- this is exactly the kind of "drooling psycho" characterization Hitchcock avoided. Its embarrassing.

Oh, well...I tried.

But boy Ager sure does a good job ALMOST convincing us that II is better than I.

Which reminds me: its Psycho. NOT Psycho I. There is no Exorcist I, Jaws I, or Godfather I, either.

reply

[–] swanstep (2745) 5 years ago

But boy Ager sure does a good job ALMOST convincing us that II is better than I.

I think he does a good job of showing that 2 has plenty of strong points, but I don't think he comes *close* to a fair summary of 1's strengths & 2's weak points (some of which you rightly mention).

To be honest I often heartily disagree with Ager's *overall* views but find a lot of his interesting close-reading/-viewing stuff is quite detachable from those big pictures & overall verdicts.

Update: Not to mention that (i) Ager occasionally lets slip that he has some alt-right/anti-feminist sympathies, and (ii) the Kubrick vids that originally made his name online effectively *did* flirt with esoteric, conspiracy theories of history and banking. I *need* to keep myself detached from all this wider material, and I'd urge anyone else to follow the same policy. There are some internet rabbitholes you do not want to go down!

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I think he does a good job of showing that 2 has plenty of strong points,

---

It does, I guess. One of the things the movie demonstrates is that Hollywood is filled with good, experienced actors who can "elevate the material." Perkins is the main show, but Dennis Franz makes a character who was an idiot on the page(I read the script a year before the movie came out; less the surprise ending) become...REAL. Robert Loggia is suave and middle-aged handsome as the new psychiatrist(the script was written for Simon Oakland to return, but he was too old, evidently.) Vera Miles gets a chance to demonstrate her scary intensity; Meg Tilly is sweet and committed to her role.

I might note (as is noted in Ager's film) that Robert Loggia appeared both in Psycho II(summer) and Scarface(Xmas) in 1983. It was a mini-comeback for him, evidently fueled by his brief performance at the beginning of "An Officer and a Gentleman"(1982) where he played Richard Gere's career Navy sailor father -- a "father" who clearly had no interest in the spawn of a one-night stand. Somehow, Loggia ended up with a Universal contract, Psycho II and Scarface. Mo' good trivia:

Loggia's role in Scarface(the old gangster who first hires as a protege, then is killed by, Scarface) was played in the Howard Hawks original by...Osgood Perkins, Tony's dad. I've only found Osgood Perkins IN the original Scarface. Interesting: Osgood had Tony's boyish looks....but a big beaky nose. Ruined the effect.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

but I don't think he comes *close* to a fair summary of 1's strengths & 2's weak points (some of which you rightly mention).

---

2's weak points are BIG weak points, if you ask me, issues of plotting and dialogue that simply remove Psycho II from the list of "great films" upon which Psycho is rightfully found.

One of my beefs with Psycho II was the critical stance of "hey, this isn't that bad, I guess it IS pretty close to the quality of Psycho," when that is just not the case at all. The dark poetry of Norman's lines in the parlor with Marion; the rigorous and painstaking organization of shots in the shower scene; the complexity and cinematic dash of the final scene in the cell; even the paranoid concentration of the California Charlie car lot scene -- they have no equivalents in II.

Hitchcock certainly was worshiped and made rich, but I think it always bugged him a bit that so many people missed his cinematic skills(in favor of the TV host stardom.) So much of Psycho is so perfect that you can almost miss it sometimes -- like how Marion and Sam are moved to the left side of the hotel room and "linked in space" for their final talk there. Etc.

And to "equate" lesser films like Homicidal and Psycho II to Psycho is to rather miss the point of what Hitchcock's acheivements truly were.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

While we are on the subject of Psycho II, we should mention this:

It should never have been made.

But even as I make that declarative statement I know....yeah, so...it WAS made.

But it shouldn't have been.

So many of the great stories in literature, movies, the stage -- were "once in a lifetime stories" that , as a matter of classical drama...ended perfectly. There was no more story to tell.

Robin Wood wrote that the final scene of Norman in the cell in Psycho is a representation of "eternal damnation" as Norman "faces eternity." The ending IS that powerful.

And to have dredged Norman Bates up as a "character" to appear in a sub-par movie from a not-terribly major director with a so-so plot....you're not supposed to DO that to classics.

At least you weren't supposed to. But as we know, one great "Godfather II" spawned countless inferior IIs and IIIs and IVs . Think about how terrible Jaws 2, 3, and 4 were.
And The Sting II(Jackie Gleason and Mac Davis in for Newman and Redford). OK, "Aliens" was pretty great, but usually the track record is not good for sequels. Recall that Willliam Goldman called them "whore movies" -- out to make a buck.

Well, that's what Hollywood's about ....

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

And from the objective to the subjective...

Its as good a place as any to pull out my now established "my Psycho is not your Psycho" reference to how the original haunted my 60's childhood for YEARS -- and as a matter of "community." Everybody ELSE talking about it, who got to see it. It existed in my mind as a terrifying daydream of the movie in my head.

The original Psycho could DO this to a community and to a young person. By the time Psycho II came out, it could have no similar grip on my psyche.

But hey, maybe Psycho II had a grip on YOUNGER psyches.

Somewhere some 1983 pre-teen was talking Psycho II in a treehouse with his buddies, no doubt.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

but Ager's microscopic attention to detail still generates the odd startling new insight.

---

He impressed me when he drew attention to how, in one scene, the light around Vera Miles "crazy intense eyes" is slightly brighter than on the rest of her face.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

To be honest I often heartily disagree with Ager's *overall* views but find a lot of his interesting close-reading/-viewing stuff is quite detachable from those big pictures & overall verdicts.

---

Well, I disagree with him on Psycho II, but he proves that you can create a persuasive atmosphere about ANYTHING. Start by declaring Psycho II "better" than Psycho -- and then dig in on what you like about Psycho II.

---

Update: Not to mention that (i) Ager occasionally lets slip that he has some alt-right/anti-feminist sympathies, and (ii) the Kubrick vids that originally made his name online effectively *did* flirt with esoteric, conspiracy theories of history and banking. I *need* to keep myself detached from all this wider material, and I'd urge anyone else to follow the same policy. There are some internet rabbitholes you do not want to go down

---

The internet is a wondrous thing, in which the best of ourselves and the worst of ourselves co-exist...its up to us to make the right choices about how to read.

reply

[–] MizhuB (165) 5 years ago

When I saw Psycho II upon release, it lost all credence early on and never really regained it.

I'm talking about the scene where the teenagers were making out in the basement, and the boy gets stabbed to death.

I thought, 'WTF is this? Friday the 13th? Where did THAT scene come from? It doesn't belong in a PSYCHO movie.'

I don't care how impressive the overhead shot of the girl running away is. The whole scene is just random.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

When I saw Psycho II upon release, it lost all credence early on and never really regained it.

I'm talking about the scene where the teenagers were making out in the basement, and the boy gets stabbed to death.

I thought, 'WTF is this? Friday the 13th? Where did THAT scene come from? It doesn't belong in a PSYCHO movie.'

---

Ha. My sentiments exactly.

I think the question to ask about this scene is: would Alfred Hitchcock have filmed it? Would he have accepted it as scripted?

And that goes for other scenes as well. The playout of Robert Loggia's death is pretty darn ridiculous.

And...though I'll bet 1983 preteens everywhere were talking about The Knife Through Vera Miles' Mouth....would Hitchcock have filmed that? (Maybe. The Torn Curtain and Frenzy murders were pretty bad; still not like THAT.)

---

I don't care how impressive the overhead shot of the girl running away is. The whole scene is just random.

---
Ha. Well, it IS an impressive shot, but it serves an unimpressive scene so its a wash.

For "film studies" I would commend anyone to fast forward through Jaws 2 where you will find a nearly identical scene on a boat at sea with boyfriend and girlfriend..and shark. Its pretty much a "lift."

Which reminds me: Roy Schedier, Lorraine Gary, and Murray Hamiliton all showed up for "Jaws 2" but the absence of Shaw and Dreyfuss and the replacement of them with a gaggle of perfectly coiffed late 70s teenagers with no personality (they all reminded me of that "I'm a Pepper, you're a Pepper" gang) sank THAT movie(oh, it made money, but it wasn't good.) "Jaws 2" and "Psycho 2" show us how and why the originals were classics...and the "2"s were not.

But everybody is welcome to like Psycho 2 better than Psycho. Its a free country. I think. Well, we have several countries here. They are all free. I think.

reply

[–] swanstep (2745) 5 years ago

But everybody is welcome to like Psycho 2 better than Psycho. Its a free country. I think. Well, we have several countries here. They are all free. I think.

Ager recently made a video where he rated Oliver! (1968) over David Lean's Oliver Twist (1948) (and every other version of OT for that matter)! This is simply madness. Oliver! (1968)'s fine and Oliver Reed is great in it - which is all Ager really needed to say I think - but Lean's Oliver Twist is *so* stunning that David Lynch lifted huge chunks of it wholesale for The Elephant Man in 1980 & still made his own acclaimed masterpiece. If you haven't seen it, check out even the first, Citizen-Kane-level, 5 mins or so of Oliver Twist (1948) on youtube to convince yourself that Oliver! (1968) would have to be some kind of film to be its superior:
https://www.youtube.com/watch

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Ager recently made a video where he rated Oliver! (1968) over David Lean's Oliver Twist (1948) (and every other version of OT for that matter)! This is simply madness.

---

Coupled with the "Psycho II" piece, I suppose we can say that we detect a "Contrarian" streak in Ager, which runs in certain critics and certainly creates room for thought.

There is an overall combination of elements that create a "classic" -- and an overall sense that some "pushback" is necessary. Hitchcock's huge canon is ripe for this kind of analysis. "On paper," I think that "The Wrong Man" is every inch the classic that "Psycho" is -- except the former is less "fun" than the "latter" and (in my case) doesn't come attached with all those memories of societal and community discussion.

The AFI twice in two decades ranked ONLY Rear Window, Vertigo, North by Northwest and Psycho(the latter three Hitchcocks made three-in-a-row) as among the greatest 100 movies of all time. And yet we can bet there are Hitchcock fans who prefer another four.

--

Oliver! (1968)'s fine and Oliver Reed is great in it - which is all Ager really needed to say I think -

---

I really dug Reed in that, and in general, I liked him when I saw certain movies of his. For instance in "The Three Musketeers" and "The Four Musketeers," he was the one with brooding, dangerous macho man charisma(the other three being Michael York, Richard Chamberlain and the forgotten Frank Finlay.) Reed was also in a number of movies I read about but didn't see -- like "Women in Love" with the nude wrestling match with Alan Bates. (Michael Caine said he turned down that movie, over that scene.)

In Oliver, Reed is a villain deluxe, but that young ghetto woman loves him anyway("As Long as He Needs Me") and pays the price.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

but Lean's Oliver Twist is *so* stunning that David Lynch lifted huge chunks of it wholesale for The Elephant Man in 1980 & still made his own acclaimed masterpiece.

---

I did not know that -- I do know that I saw The Elephant Man in 1980, I was better about catching the Oscar bait back then.

---

If you haven't seen it, check out even the first, Citizen-Kane-level, 5 mins or so of Oliver Twist (1948) on youtube to convince yourself that Oliver! (1968) would have to be some kind of film to be its superior:

---

I think I will try to do that. i do recall that "Oliver" winning the Best Picture award in the year of 2001(was it even nominated?) is one of those "wrong movie" scandals. I saw the 1968 Oliver on release and I recall thinking: expensive, great songs...DEPRESSING. (It was cruel how the kid "escaped" to nicer people but was dragged back to the thieves.) Bullitt was my favorite that year.

reply

[–] MizhuB (165) 5 years ago

I should say that I thought the plot twist...that Mrs. Spool was his REAL mother...was a real surprise, even though him slapping her over the head with a shovel was greeted with laughter from the audience.

I also thought: MAN, they just opened the door for a bunch of sequels. From now on, this story can go anywhere.

reply

[–] swanstep (2745) 5 years ago

I don't care how impressive the overhead shot of the girl running away is. The whole scene is just random.

Arguably Psycho II is full of 'dealbreakers' like this if one is prepared to be at all picky. Personally, at least on first viewing, some of Miles' & Perkins' and even Franz's acting choices (presumably how they were directed, so not their fault exactly) struck me as risible: too much hand-wringing, eye-popping, yelling, etc., whereas Hitchcock always directed actors to underplay, literally to keep their faces still for the most part.

Gradually, however, the film's strengths, starting with Meg Tilly's touching, underplayed performance, did begin to assert themselves, and I found the film got better and better as it went along. I ended up liking the film quite a lot, but always in that conditional mode where its original missteps precluded it from being a 'best of the year'-type film, let alone a game-changing, all-time great like the original Psycho. [With hindsight the big game-changing horror of 1983 was a brutally realistic, Austrian, serial killer, home invasion movie, 'Angst', strip-mining which gave Gaspar (Irreversible, Enter The Void, etc.) Noe his whole career.]

It's worth mentioning that Meg Tilly was similarly, sweetly impressive in one of 1983's biggest hits (and most overrated movies in my view), The Big Chill. She had a few more good roles after that but was never in another hit.

reply

[–] swanstep (2745) 5 years ago

BTW, there's this connection between Psycho II & Angst (1983): Angst tells the story of a psychopathic murderer who's released from jail after serving a ~10 year sentence, then within days tortures and kills 3 more people. This was based closely on a notorious, real case in Austria:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Kniesek

reply

[–] MizhuB (165) 5 years ago

This might make sense to nobody but me, but I thought Perkins' acting seemed almost one-note throughout, Vera Miles I always thought was an underrated actress, but here she overacted (in this case, maybe the fault of the director), and Dennis Franz..

I never saw him in that TV show he was on (Hill Street Blues?) but I saw him in three films. PSYCHO II, Dressed to Kill, and Blow-Out. And he acted exactly the same in all three. Loud, barking, twitching, overacting all over the place.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

This might make sense to nobody but me, but I thought Perkins' acting seemed almost one-note throughout,

---

We must confront this. The performance that Hitchcock got out of a 27-year old, newly-minted Anthony Perkins was a great one, perfectly modulated and (surprise!) very natural. Engaging, even.

And this: yes, Perkins was still thin 23 years later, and still had his hair...but he wasn't 27. His face was drawn and aged and make-up made him look older. This was "Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates," but it wasn't really. Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates, was Anthony Perkins circa 1960, reading the lines of Joe Stefano(very good), under the direction of Alfred Hitchcock(controlling about tone, brilliant about context.)

By 1983, Perkins has already damaged his own acting style with an over-reliance on tics and a kind of "sing-song, robotic" delivery that was "wrong." (I'll be frank: a drug habit was blamed for some of this.)

--

Vera Miles I always thought was an underrated actress,

---

Yes she was. Two great Ford movies, two great Hitchcock movies...100s of compelling TV guest roles...but never full movie stardom, and now...a mysterious recluse, one of the two sole survivors of Psycho(Pat Hitchcock is the other.)

--

but here she overacted (in this case, maybe the fault of the director),

---

I don't think the director really had the skills to modulate Perkins, Miles, or Franz. They came equipped to override him.

.

reply

[–] swanstep (2745) 5 years ago

Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates, was Anthony Perkins circa 1960, reading the lines of Joe Stefano(very good), under the direction of Alfred Hitchcock(controlling about tone, brilliant about context.)

Except on this board, Psycho doesn't get quite enough credit for its script and dialogue. It's a *very* quotable film, whereas Psycho II *isn't* (Franklin's previous, quite good films Road Games & Patrick aren't either; deliciously good dialogue is a scarce resource at almost all times in movies!). Ager & QT may like Psycho II a lot, but, come on dudes, to say it's better than the Original is extremely far-fetched, near-trolling.

Great movies get made each year but only a few break out to wide audiences and fewer still spawn legions of imitators & thereby change the whole cinematic climate. The movies that do *that* of course tend to be ultra-memorable, ultra-quotable: Casablanca, Psycho, Strangelove, The Graduate, Jaws, Die Hard, Pulp Fiction,.... Needless to say, one of the things all the imitators (including sequels) of these landmarks find hardest to match is the dazzling memorable dialogue (including monologues) that was so key to the originals. It behooves contrarians to keep this in mind before they mount their surprising cases for some imitator's superiority (shades of Spinal Tap's guitarist deludedly boasting, "I could play 'Stairway To Heaven' when I was 12, Jimmy Page didn't actually write it until he was 22. I think that says quite a lot.")

reply

[–] MizhuB (165) 5 years ago

I don't think the director really had the skills to modulate Perkins, Miles, or Franz. They came equipped to override him.

========

I don't think Franz could be modulated at all. I don't think he could be restrained with reins if he came with a bit in his mouth.

Funny thing about PSYCHO II. I worked with a guy who knew I wanted to see it because I was a Hitchcock fan. He said, the morning it was released, he saw it got a very bad review on TV. They said it got unintentional laughs, and that Universal was backpedaling, claiming 'it was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek'.

When I saw it, I believed it. I couldn't believe that scene about the toasted cheese sandwiches could be interpreted any other way.

It almost seemed like a parody of PSYCHO.

Don't get me wrong. I don't HATE the movie, I just take it for what it is.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I don't think Franz could be modulated at all. I don't think he could be restrained with reins if he came with a bit in his mouth.

---

LOL. Well, I'm not really inclined to defend him or his style. I think its downright weird that he became some sort of sex symbol on NYPD Blue, but then, if you write ANYBODY as the tough hero, they become one(they also gave him a beautiful wife who made him seem like that much more of a "winner with the ladies" -- until she got gunned down.)

So while we're at it, let's compare Franz's foaming at the mouth belligerence in Psycho II to Martin Balsam's cool , modulated and amiable performance in Psycho. Balsam plays Arbogast so cool for most of his time on screen that when he finally has REASON to overact, its a damn good reason: Mother has slashed his face and he's in mortal peril -- that proves mortal.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Funny thing about PSYCHO II. I worked with a guy who knew I wanted to see it because I was a Hitchcock fan. He said, the morning it was released, he saw it got a very bad review on TV. They said it got unintentional laughs, and that Universal was backpedaling, claiming 'it was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek'.

When I saw it, I believed it. I couldn't believe that scene about the toasted cheese sandwiches could be interpreted any other way.

It almost seemed like a parody of PSYCHO.

Don't get me wrong. I don't HATE the movie, I just take it for what it is.

---

Me, too. Here's the problem, I think: it is NOT a BAD movie. There is some plot to it. The actors are good enough(we may differ on their performances, but they are interesting people. ) And there WAS a high nostalgia value to seeing Anthony Perkins and Vera Miles(both rather faded stars in 1983) as stars again and to seeing THAT HOUSE again(though it lacks all the matte-shot atmosphere Hitchcock gave it; a 1983 critic said the house in Psycho II "looks like the Universal tour bus will be arriving any minute now.")

But its not really a good movie either. And it is certainly not a great movie.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Arguably Psycho II is full of 'dealbreakers' like this if one is prepared to be at all picky.

--

'fraid so. And I will concede that if one is a real "Psycho" fan, one comes prepared to nitpick. Looking for the flaws. This is the same thing with Van Sant's Psycho...even though it is meant to be the original Psycho, verbatim!

---

Personally, at least on first viewing, some of Miles' & Perkins' and even Franz's acting choices (presumably how they were directed, so not their fault exactly) struck me as risible: too much hand-wringing, eye-popping, yelling, etc., whereas Hitchcock always directed actors to underplay, literally to keep their faces still for the most part.

---

This is a very BIG flaw for me. I see I'm getting a little pushback on Dennis Franz, here, from couple of posters. I can't say I'm a big fan, and when he is used wrong(Die Hard II), he can be obnoxious and off-putting indeed. He found his "rhythm" on Hill Street Blues(where he played a bad cop who is killed, and came back as ANOTHER character) and then NYPD Blue(where he became an overweight tough guy sex symbol, Tony Soprano come early.)

I'll zero in on what I passed over previously: thanks to a friend working at Universal at the time, I came into a script for Psycho II(less the final scenes) when it went into production. I couldn't picture the actor playing "Toomey" on the page, but he was written as such an uncouth lout, that I immediately hated "Psycho II." Toomey actually says to Norman(a few times): "Hey, PSYCHO!" Its cringe-making.

And yet, when Franz got the part, he seemed to at least give it that "Chicago accent rhythm," sort of in the New York DeNiro/Pesci tradition: "Hey, ya psycho ya!" sort of thing.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

But flash back to Arbogast -- his smarts, his (fake?) politeness, his outta nowhere "digs" and retreat back to pleasantries. Versus Toomey, Arbogast was a very SOPHISTICATED character...played just right by Martin Balsam. Loggia's shrink is closer to Arbogast, but written without a real "center" -- and yeah, I'll say it again, his death is ridiculous.

Indeed, everybody is pitched in hysterical tones -- even Norman -- and it just doesn't feel like Hitchcock. (Well...except for, maybe, The Birds people...they were off-puttingly hysterical at times.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Which reminds me:

The "dumbing down" of Mother in Psycho II.

For a vicious monster(when killing), Mother has a certain articulate quality at other times:

"...in the cheap erotic fashion of young men with cheap erotic minds..."

"I'm sorry son, but you do look ludicrous trying to give me orders..."

"Its sad...when a mother has to speak the words that condemn her own son."

That's pretty good.

In Psycho II, mother is often saying (or writing) "Get rid of that slut" or "Get rid of that whore."

Psycho II gives us a "trailer trash" version of Mrs. Bates(complete with swear words) that undercuts the weird over-articulate version in the Hitchcock. I found it offputting(in II and III), every time mother referred to sluts and whores. Of course, she COULDN'T say that in 1960 Hays Code Hollywood...but I guess that's a plus, here.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Gradually, however, the film's strengths, starting with Meg Tilly's touching, underplayed performance, did begin to assert themselves, and I found the film got better and better as it went along. I ended up liking the film quite a lot,

---

We here reach that always-interesting point(to me) where a respected individual raises a position(here, positve) that should be politely engaged. And I will.

Meg Tilly was great casting. She didn't last long in movies (and married a studio chief who was, like 25 years her senior?) but she registered in a few. In 1983, her "prestige" movie was The Big Chill, but she wasn't a big part of that . In 1983, she had to carry Psycho II right alongside the famous Perkins(she didn't know who he was and they didn't get along)....and she did so.

Its funny that you think the movie gets better as it goes along(I think it gets worse from a reasonably interesting set-up), but if it does, Tilly's the reason. I fight taking these sequels too seriously, but you can consider that this girl (who, in the big reveal, proves to be the daughter of Sam and Lila) INDEED grew up with a horrible family story about her aunt's death, a slowly disintegrating and raging mother, and, eventually, a dead father and thus no help against her mother when Mother enlists her in this dangerous scheme. You can feel her pain.

---

but always in that conditional mode where its original missteps precluded it from being a 'best of the year'-type film, let alone a game-changing, all-time great like the original Psycho.

---

Yep. There are some nice twists along the way. It looks good(if far less mysterious than Psycho.) The actors are good, even if given little to work with.

And I DO like how the movie ends with "Psycho restored": dead mother in the window(voiced by returning Virginia Gregg from 1960 -- a great touch), Norman in front of the house on a spooky clouded night, the motel ready to open for business.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Indeed one reason I like Psycho III better than Psycho II is that Psycho II, which has none of the "plot premise" of Psycho, SETS UP Psycho III so that it DOES. To wit: dead mother in the house "talking" to Norman; Norman running the motel; Mother killing people(NORMAN killing people, in this one, again).

A key gimmick of "Psycho III" is to give us "Psycho from the other side": we SEE Norman and his dead mother talking as they watch guests arrive down below.

Psycho II -- which basically has the plot of the Castle-Bloch Strait Jacket of 1964(killer released to family from asylum; killings begin again) -- has none of that original set up.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I should say that I thought the plot twist...that Mrs. Spool was his REAL mother...was a real surprise,

---

Yes, it was. I don't think it quite "played fair" as a mystery solution , though. For one thing "Mrs. Spool" never participated in the film enough to put her on our list of suspects. She gets a couple of lines at the diner, a couple of close-ups(like watching Toomey insult Norman)....but isn't really a functional character.

And I was angry: To bring in this "real mother" was to seriously tamper with the original story OF Psycho: Norman's relationship with the woman he grew up with , in that house.

Psycho II wasn't a good enough movie to "re-write" the good one(er, great one) that Psycho was.

---

even though him slapping her over the head with a shovel was greeted with laughter from the audience.

---

Yeah, we were mis-led with the tea(which seemed to affect her somehow). The shovel was a violent killing implement, but the scene had a Bugs Bunny comedy to it(plus Mrs. Spool's convulsions on the floor in death, creepy-funny.)

My audience laughed hard. I guess they were supposed to. It didnt' feel like Hitchcock.

---
I also thought: MAN, they just opened the door for a bunch of sequels. From now on, this story can go anywhere.

--

Yep: Dead mother's in the window, Norman's running the motel(not working at a diner.) Anywhere. 3 and 4, as we found out. (Though 4, written by Joe Stefano, is based on 2 and 3 never happening!)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Meanwhile, whereas Perkins did NOT seem like the Norman of 1960 here, Miles seemed to "pick up Lila where she left off" -- righteous, angry, impatient. Just MORE SO. 23 years had burned away any other humanity that Lila could have. It was most justifiable(she probably pictured her sister's horrible murder every night), but...shrill was right for this character.

Interesting: in both Psycho and Psycho II, Vera Miles gets only one scene where she shares the screen with Perkins, and in both movies , they just BARELY interact. And in II, what's weird about it is that Miles is yelling at Loggia about Norman's release and his penchant for killing...and Norman is standing RIGHT THERE, ignored by her. I'm guessing: Lila can't really face the man who killed her sister.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

and Dennis Franz..

I never saw him in that TV show he was on (Hill Street Blues?) but I saw him in three films. PSYCHO II, Dressed to Kill, and Blow-Out. And he acted exactly the same in all three. Loud, barking, twitching, overacting all over the place.

---Brian DePalma "discovered" Dennis Franz and put him in Dressed to Kill(as the cop who gives the "shrink's speech" at the end) and Blow Out(as a crooked photographer/blackmailer) and I recall thinking, both times: I don't like this guy. He's greasy and obnoxious, I don't enjoy him on screen.

I think "Hill Street Blues" came between the DePalmas and Psycho II; so Franz had(for me) more personality going . And he was better than the script .

---

I'm trying to "split the difference" between liking and not liking Psycho II, but in the final analysis, I don't. I WANTED to, that was the weird thing. And -- hah -- I don't think I could have personally written or directed anything better.

Hitchcock's original Psycho required the skills of an established, brilliant director electing to "cheapen himself' in subject matter while bringing the same sophistication to the project he always did.

Psycho II had none of that to it.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

A thought on Psycho II AND Psycho III, together(SPOILERS FOR BOTH):

Both films posited a young woman who came to know and like(maybe love) Norman Bates as a "sweet, sad, misguided man child."

Both sequels play to the idea (often expressed here) that Norman Bates was a good guy somehow ruined by his MOTHER, and whose killer side is really ONLY his mother.

And so Meg Tilly(as a friend) and Diana Scarwid(as a potential lover) both try too hard to "keep Norman normal." They both die trying.

Though interestingly, Norman doesn't kill them. The cops kill Tilly; and Norman kinda/sorta kills Scarwid by letting go of her hand at the top of the stairs(he hears Mother yelling at him) so she takes a truly AWFUL version of the Arbogast fall to her death on the arrow of the cupid statue at the bottom of the stairs(another ridiculous sequel death.)

I think its kinda/sorta OK that the Psycho sequels posit Norman as a love object(hell, he gets MARRIED to an asylum nurse in Psycho 4) but I don't think Hitchcock ever thought of him that way. Whatever "connection" Norman makes with Marion in the parlor, it is not romantic, and Marion walks away from him. The MOVIE walks away from him, holds him at a guarded distance, respects his dark power.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Here's a little parlour game:

Is "Psycho II" better than...Hitchcock's Family Plot.

Its a bit of a stacked deck. Family Plot is Hitchcock "at the end," and old and not with much of a budget.

But more importantly for our purposes, Family Plot looks more like Psycho II than Psycho does.

For Family Plot was made 7 years before Psycho II. And, unlike Psycho, Family Plot is in color..

So in some ways, "Psycho II" might just give us a glimpse at what a HITCHCOCK movie, directed by the man himself, might have looked like in 1983. Given how close at times it looks to Family Plot.

This has been said: if Hitchcock had made Psycho in 1976 instead of 1960, PSYCHO would have looked like Family Plot.

Here's why: Psycho looked like a Hitchcock TV production of 1960, in some ways(b/w, Universal soundstagees, cheap production.) Well, Family Plot was said to look like ANY Universal TV production in 1976 -- to some, it looked like a Columbo episode, or a MacMillan and Wife episode. (Frenzy, filmed in London at Pinewood Studios for Universal release, carried none of this "Universal American TV" aura.

So suddenly, Psycho II (to my eyes) is in range of being as good as -- or better than , and ACTUAL Hitchcock. It was just a matter of choosing an INFERIOR Hitchcock. Family Plot.

Ah, but here's the catch. There's an author out there named Peter Ackroyd. He wrote a book on Hitchcock and one of his key beliefs is: Family Plot is the best Hitchcock since North by Northwest. Better than Frenzy. Better than The Birds. Better than PSYCHO! So somebody out there thinks that Family Plot is pretty good, and functions wonderfully as an expression of themes and literal "patterns"(parallel plots, parallel people)...a very intelligent work.

Well, THAT blows Psycho II out of the water.

Or does it?

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Family Plot IS overplotted, too slow in the first half, too emulating indeed of a Universal TV episode(but not all the time, there are some more expensive soundstage sets and more gorgeous color cinematography than any TV episode -- though alas, there are worse process car shots than TV.)

I don't want to bury this lede: of all the Hitchcock movies, the one that looks and sounds the MOST like "Psycho II" is...Family Plot.

And now, my answer: Family Plot is better than Psycho II. I will take Hitchcock with some "old age around the edges" and a sure grip on narrative and cinematics over the rather pasted together plot of "Psycho II." In short, it mattered -- even at the end -- that Alfred Hitchcock was the director of a film, more than Richard Franklin.

reply

[–] swanstep (2745) 5 years ago

no help against her mother when Mother enlists her in this dangerous scheme

While the reveal of Mary's parentage solves one script problem -why would even the most good-hearted young girl move into a house alone with a recently-released murderer of young women? - it creates multiple others. Believing what Lila does, how could she formulate a plan that puts her daughter in such jeopardy? And does Mary make sense? pre-reveal we understand her risk-taking as that of a super-good-hearted naif, but post-reveal her earlier risky behavior doesn't work. At least when Norman's not watching, she should have been on nervous high-alert at all times, which she wasn't.

[Note that Hitch himself couldn't always get his twists to work retrospectively, e.g., Madeline's reveal in Vertigo strains credibility. No ordinary woman can or would fake drowning, allow themselves to be brought home, undressed etc. by a strange man. At any rate, it's both hard to see how Elster could convince or pay anyone enough to try to do such a thing, *and* hard to believe that anyone 'off the street' (let alone Elster's actual paramour press-ganged) would be the combination stunt-woman & fearless actress able to pull it off.]

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

While the reveal of Mary's parentage solves one script problem -why would even the most good-hearted young girl move into a house alone with a recently-released murderer of young women? - it creates multiple others.

---

I'm reminded that the original Psycho -- for Hitchcock -- is a very PLAUSIBLE tale, no matter the Gothic look of the house and the cinematic flash of the murders.

Indeed, one critic -- Dwight MacDonald -- felt it was TOO simple: " (Marion) just happens to stop at a motel run by a homicidal maniac. Could have happened to any of us." All Marion really does is to stop, check in, make conversation with Norman, and take a final shower. Gets killed. Unlike Mary in Psycho II, she has no reason to know of Norman's psychosis.

Same with Arbogast. He finds the motel, asks Norman questions, reports in, heads up to ask Mother MORE questions....gets killed. From Arbogast's side of the ledger, he is simply doing his job.

But most of the Psycho II victims know of Norman's past and propensity for danger. And yet...they just walk right into things.

---
Believing what Lila does, how could she formulate a plan that puts her daughter in such jeopardy?

---

Well -- and again with some resistance for taking Psycho II too seriously -- I think the point is that Lila Crane Loomis has, by now, "gone a little mad" and is more concerned about 'getting Norman" than the safety of her own daughter. If there is a true "subject" of Psycho II, I rather think it is Lila rather than Norman. We see how the horrific events of 1960 went on to poison her entire life -- a likely sad and guilt-ridden marriage to Sam(Marion died coming to HIM; the Bates Motel is near Fairvale); a daughter slowly sacrificed to the cause of "getting Norman"(Mary points out that she's had to attend all sorts of victims rights meetings and rallies, evidently while Norman was still incarcerated.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

If there is one other explanation for Mary be willing to live in the house with Norman it is that she is already used to living with a crazy person: Lila. And Norman just seems so much nicer, though along the way, Mary says to him -- as he looks away , "glazed" -- "Oh, Norman...you're as mad as a hatter." i.e. she is willing to stay with him even believing him mad.

And it doesn't really work, does it? Not when Mary ends up dressing up like mother at the end(wrote one critic, "So many people end up dressing up like mother at the end I expected Alfred Hitchcock himself to show up in grandmother drag") or stabbing Loggia, or trying to stab Norman.

A bit of a mess...

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

[Note that Hitch himself couldn't always get his twists to work retrospectively, e.g., Madeline's reveal in Vertigo strains credibility. No ordinary woman can or would fake drowning, allow themselves to be brought home, undressed etc. by a strange man. At any rate, it's both hard to see how Elster could convince or pay anyone enough to try to do such a thing, *and* hard to believe that anyone 'off the street' (let alone Elster's actual paramour press-ganged) would be the combination stunt-woman & fearless actress able to pull it off.]

---

One of the reasons I much prefer Psycho to Vertigo is that while the former is pretty darn plausible, the latter is not. Its as if - in order to capture the "mood piece" and tale of obsession that Vertigo REALLY is -- Hitchcock was willing to pretty much throw logic plotting out the window.

Gavin Elster's scheme simply has too many moving parts, too many things that have to happen "just so" to work.

Now that said -- because everybody is supposed to be able to come up with SOME plausibility -- if Gavin Elster had so seduced and "brainwashed" Judy (likely more with promises of wealth and power than any youthful sexy guy abilities), yes, she WOULD jump into the bay, allow Scottie to undress her, etc.

Film writer David Thomson posited that Judy was, perhaps,a San Francisco stripper when Elster found her -- and hence willing to be seen nude, and athletic enough(the pole dancing) to handle the swimming.

But heck, making sense of Vertigo is like trying to make sense of ...Psycho II?

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Except on this board, Psycho doesn't get quite enough credit for its script and dialogue.

---

And it really should, shouldn't it? Among the big Oscar snubs of Psycho(alongside Picture and Perkins and Herrmann) was Joe Stefano's adapted screenplay. Hitchcock had a big hand in the plotting of the script, but I think the dialogue is all Stefano's and its very good: terse and modern sometimes, ornate and gothic sometimes, funny sometimes...a bit gruesome, sometimes.

---

It's a *very* quotable film, whereas Psycho II *isn't*

---

I can't remember much to quote from Psycho II, but I do recall a fairly good exchange from Psycho III. Norman has rescued Diana Scarwid from a bloody suicide attempt in ...the shower. They are at the hospital,her in bed, him in a chair:

Scarwid: I'm sorry. I really messed up your bathroom.
Perkins: (Beat) I've seen it worse.

Yes, I thought that had a little wit to it.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Meanwhile, back at Psycho, I've always liked this exchange, for how Arbogast "spins out" his suspicions in a sentence that just keeps getting rich with meaning:

Norman: Well, Mr. Arbogast, that's about it. I've got some work to do, if you don't mind...
Arbogast: Well, to tell you the truth, I DO mind.If it doesn't jell, it isn't aspic...and this ain't jelling. Its not coming together...something's missing.

Let's break that down: Like Norman, Arbogast couches the line "friendly,' "Well, to tell you the truth..." and here he reveals what he REALLY thinks after all this questioning..

"I DO mind." Uh oh. This man is suspicious, and getting officious -- a bit menacing -- and he's bouncing off of Norman's "if you don't mind."

So its a serious matter now, and Arbogast reveals a rather poetic sense of phrase: "If it doesn't jell, it isn't aspic" -- Stefano must have gotten that from his youth, his grandparents maybe? (In the remake , it is dumbed down to "if it doesn't jell, it isn't jello")

"And this ain't jelling." Arbogast plays out the phrase, adds in a colloquial "ain't" -- but he's still not done hitting his point: "Its not coming together, something's missing."

Norman is on high alert now, but I think Arbogast is "thinking out loud." Something IS missing: where did Marion go? Norman thinks he's made a pretty sound statement: people just come and go here. But Arbogast knows Marion was coming to Sam. So...it doesn't jell. Its not coming together. Something's missing. (Arbo's guess is: Marion is still here, hiding on the property, in the house maybe.)

A great long line of dialogue.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

BTW, there's this connection between Psycho II & Angst (1983): Angst tells the story of a psychopathic murderer who's released from jail after serving a ~10 year sentence, then within days tortures and kills 3 more people. This was based closely on a notorious, real case in Austria:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Kniesek

---

Well...examples are starting to pile up in opposition to my belief that the authorities would NOT release Norman Bates. I dunno, maybe I should just take that "release plot" at face value. I still think that a real-life Norman would be too famous and too vicious a killer to release at any time, but...maybe not.

And as for all these real-life killers being released...quite an indictment of the system, isn't it. I'm very cynical on things like this. You can abolish the death penalty, but if you release killers back into society, often SOMEBODY is going to die. Not the killer...a new innocent victim. Or two. Or three.

Which reminds me: in Psycho II, Mary can be seen reading the book "In the Belly of the Beast." This was written by a man in prison on murder charges. Based among other things on the convict's writing talent, Norman Mailer and some others petitioned for the man's release into society. They took him out to dinner at a restaurant, he got into an argument with the waiter and stabbed the waiter to death. Back into prison he went.

Just goes to show you....

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Except on this board, Psycho doesn't get quite enough credit for its script and dialogue. It's a *very* quotable film, whereas Psycho II *isn't* (Franklin's previous, quite good films Road Games & Patrick aren't either; deliciously good dialogue is a scarce resource at almost all times in movies!)

---

I'm reminded here that Richard Franklin was hardly a "nobody" when he was given Psycho II to direct(and Perkins asked to direct it first, but didn't get the chance until Psycho III.)

I have not seen those Franklin films you reference, but (as usual) I have read about them, and they evidently were enough of a calling card to get him to Hollywood(from Australia?) and to Psycho II.

Alas, Franklin's Hollywood career didn't last too long. I recall seeing his film "Cloak and Dagger," a modest thriller more for kids than adults. Its hook for me: husband and wife John McIntire(aka "Al Chambers") and Jeanette Nolan as a sweet old couple who prove to be ruthless old spies and killers. So Richard Franklin got to direct one more original "Psycho" actor(McIntire) in addition to Perkins and Miles.

But Hollywood didn't last for Richard Franklin. He didn't make a strong enough reputation, and perhaps his creative failures with Psycho II(not withstanding its good box office) "marked him."

But at least he's got those good early films that "made" him.

reply

[–] MizhuB (165) 5 years ago

Some of you may realize by now that I'm a nit-picker sometimes, but feel welcome to disagree with me.

I've always thought the conversation between Mother and Norman as Marion listens at the window was too low, and difficult to hear.

So, instead of hearing "...in the cheap erotic fashion of young men with cheap erotic minds...", I've always heard:

"...in the cheap NEUROTIC fashion of young men with cheap, neurotic minds."

I've also seen the line, 'Go on...go tell her she'll not be Pleasing her ugly appetite with MY food...or my son!'

I've always heard it, 'Go on...go tell her she'll not be APPEASING her ugly appetite with my food...or my son!'

Of course, I could absolutely be wrong. But that's what I hear.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Some of you may realize by now that I'm a nit-picker sometimes, but feel welcome to disagree with me.

---

Oh, we do...but always politely. And I for one...can be quite "weak" in my beliefs...my mind can be changed. Except I'll never think that Psycho II is better than Psycho (well, that's refine that ...better how? If Psycho II is "better" because there are more murders and hence more horror...I can't argue numbers. But I CAN argue quality.

---

I've always thought the conversation between Mother and Norman as Marion listens at the window was too low, and difficult to hear.

---

Ironic: some critics found the conversation too LOUD...as if Mother had some sort of loudspeaker set up for the argument.

There is this: Marion hears the argument at a distance because the window to Cabin One has been opened ...by Norman. Who said "Its stuffy in here."

Now maybe it WAS stuffy(the Cabins don't get many guests), but MAYBE Norman wanted that window open because he KNEW(or better, MOTHER knew) that with the window open, Marion would have to hear an argument directed at HER.

---

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

So, instead of hearing "...in the cheap erotic fashion of young men with cheap erotic minds...", I've always heard:

"...in the cheap NEUROTIC fashion of young men with cheap, neurotic minds."

---

I've checked both Stefano's screenplay and the 1974 Richard J. Anobile "shot by shot, line by line" book and its:

"..cheap .erotic fashion of men with cheap , erotic minds."

And that specifity is quite a "Hays Code needle" for 1960.

For in having Mother speak to Norman's "erotic" mind.. she is accusing him of hoping to ...have sex with that woman down there(Marion.) Not just to talk to her, not just to kiss her....its a very loaded word, "erotic." (And it follows, "By candlelight, I suppose...")

----

I've also seen the line, 'Go on...go tell her she'll not be Pleasing her ugly appetite with MY food...or my son!'

I've always heard it, 'Go on...go tell her she'll not be APPEASING her ugly appetite with my food...or my son!'

--

OK, on this one the Stefano script and the Anobile book show you to be RIGHT. Its APPEASING.

Here again -- coming so closely after the use of the word "erotic" Mother is referencing sex...and seeing Marion as the aggressor.. she won't be appeasing HER ugly appetite..with my son.

Eating a meal as a corollary for having sex is pretty standard issue in movies..Tom Jones comes to mind, as does Hitchcock's own Frenzy of 1972.

----

Of course, I could absolutely be wrong. But that's what I hear.

---

Well, you're 50/50 on the lines above, but what's interesting is they work ANY way you hear them.

reply

[–] swanstep (2745) 5 years ago

Rob Ager's latest post is an exegesis of Psycho's original, long trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQKOncuNslw
I haven't watched it yet (it's nearly 40 min long). Post thoughts here.

Update: I've watched it now. Nothing especially new or interesting this time.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Hmm...well, I'll still take a look.

I find that trailer to be quite the historical artifact. In movie history and in my personal history(it drove me out of the theater into the lobby while it played in 1965.)

And I sure wish more 1960's "writers on film" would have watched it. Then they'd see and they'd know:

Hitchcock wasn't "hiding" that shower scene from his audience, at all.

reply

[–] MizhuB (165) 5 years ago

I just watched it. One thing that Ager got wrong was when he was describing the scene where Lila finds the piece of paper in the toilet.

He refers to her as Marion's sister 'Mary'.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Rob Ager's latest post is an exegesis of Psycho's original, long trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQKOncuNslw
I haven't watched it yet (it's nearly 40 min long). Post thoughts here.

Update: I've watched it now. Nothing especially new or interesting this time.

---

I took a look. In general, no, not anything particularly new, but it is funny to see Ager confronting the "super spoiler" nature of the trailer. There's Hitchcock describing in great detail both the staircase murder(first, near the beginning of the trailer) and the shower murder(at the end, with a re-staged shot of Vera Miles in the shower.)

I guess this will just have to be my boilerplate statement: any critic or writer on film who says Hitchcock wanted to totally surprise audiences with that shower murder...never saw this trailer. This trailer -- which leads up to and lingers on the shower murder -- is perhaps the greatest "de-bunking of a myth" in movie history. But nobody cares?

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Ager makes one little mistake early on that I've found others make, too.

When Hitchcock says of the house "..and the most dire, horrible events took place in this house," Ager questions exactly what those were, and he says: "Does Hitchcock mean the murder of the cop?"

The murder of the COP. I suppose Arbogast, even as a private detective, fulfills the "structural role" of "the cop,' but the fact is that his PRIVATE detective status makes him somewhat more of a slippery character(Cassidy hired him to keep the illegality of the $40,000 from getting out) and a vulnerable one(he doesn't have the full force of the law behind him; even Norman figures this out when he throws Arbogast off the property.)

No less than the producers of Van Sant's Psycho made this mistake when promoting the start of production of that film in 1998. The promotional materials said this:

"William H. Macy plays the police detective who uncovers the secrets of the Bates Motel."

Since the Van Sant Psycho wasn't due to be released until December, I spent the bulk of 1998 wondering if William H. Macy was playing Arbogast OR Sheriff Chambers(an ACTUAL cop), and if the latter...well, who WAS playing Arbogast??

December brought the answer(Macy WAS playing Arbogast), but honestly, what sloppy promotion; "The POLICE detective who uncovers the secrets of the Bates Motel." Nope. Wrong.

---

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Ager in his trailer review takes note of yet another painting with nude people in it in the parlor -- just to the right of the door when Hitchcock enters(I don't think you can see it in the movie.) As it turns out the pictures/paintings in this parlor are pretty erotic stuff for 1960!)

And Ager asks a pretty good question: why did Hitchcock go to the trouble of having Vera Miles come in to play the shower victim in "new staged footage" when he could have used footage of Janet Leigh from the movie? Ager opines that perhaps Hitchcock was punishing Miles in some way here. Or trying to mislead us that Miles WAS the shower victim in the movie(but what would be the point of that? What is important is that SOMEONE dies in the shower.) I don't think so -- my guess is that the footage from the movie of Leigh in the shower was at once too fast and too "blurry" at times to hold still(as Vera Miles does) for the trailer.

I'll agree that Ager hasn't much new or different to say about Hitchcock's famous Psycho tour guide trailer, but I must admit that the trailer is ALWAYS a great watch, part of the "overall package" of promotion, atmosphere, and film history that Psycho always carries as a film classic. The trailer is an homage to Hitchcock himself at peak power(I think Ager says the movies is a "trailer for HITCHCOCK as much as his movie") and allows Hitchcock to walk around in the world of his creation -- from Bloch, yes, but given full cinematic life by Hitchcock.

Its a great trailer.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Rob Ager's analysis videos are brilliant, I always watch them and I've paid for a few of his longer ones too. Well worth a few quid.

reply