MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Do You Think They Told Lila?

Do You Think They Told Lila?

posted 5 years ago by Sandman81 (1510)
9 replies | jump to latest

After they pulled Marion's car from the swamp, and found her body, it probably wasn't hard for them to figure out the details of her death. She was found nude, wrapped in a shower curtain (which her cabin was missing) with multiple stab wounds. Based on how Norman was dressed when he attacked Lila, it would be pretty obvious that he ambushed Marion in the shower, while dressed like his mother. But do you think they told Lila the details of her death? Or did they just say that Norman Bates was acting as his mother and murdered your sister in her cabin, and leave it at that.

Also, do you think they found the money?

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 5 years ago

I think you'd probably say, "We found your sister's body; it was in a car in the swamp. She was killed by Norman Bates. We've got him now, he's in custody." You'd probably react a bit off of Lila's reactions, but I'm sure you'd want to clarify that she was stabbed, not drowned in a swamp.

Other than that, I think details maybe on asking. Like, if Lila wanted to know why Norman did it, you'd go into detail. If she asked about sexual assault or something you'd say, "No, we don't think so," and maybe get more into the psychology of what was bouncing around in Norman's mind.

[–] Sandman81 (1510) 5 years ago

Keep in mind that they didn't pull Marion's car out of the swamp until after the meeting in the police station. So Lila already knew that her sister had been murdered by Norman Bates. And the Psychologist had already kind of explained the mental state of Norman Bates's mind and his motives for killing. How much of that she believed is unknown, but she did see Norman dressed as Mother, with a wig and knife.

My question was more about whether the police tell her that Marion was stabbed multiple times while in the shower? I never thought about the sexual assault possibility, but I suppose if she asked you would assure her that there's no signs of that.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 5 years ago

Thanks for clarifying the timeline; it had been quite some time since I've seen the film.

Given that she was already clear on Bates' condition and psychological state (goodness knows, we all were after that rambling final scene...) I think the cops'd just say that they found her sister's body and they'd return it for burial (possibly after forensics guys looking at it - not sure what the state of that science was at the time).

Everything else would be based on her asking. I might say "stabbed", to clarify "not drowned", but I'd leave out multiple times unless she asked for details. I'd leave out the shower part unless pressed a bit. Not that I'd withhold anything, it's just that I would want her to have closure but not trauma. So any info she wanted (for closure) I'd be very forthcoming about, but I wouldn't offer it unless asked (to guard against trauma).

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

This thread rests well, I think, on two great aspects of Psycho:

ONE: The movie makes you wonder about what happened AFTER the story is over(so many movies seem to end at The End, and that's it.)

TWO: The movie makes you "think again" about scenes you didn't see, things you don't know. You have to imagine them.

So, here (and as with your comments above):

It would seem to me that next of kin as strong willed as Lila would DEMAND to know how and when and where her sister was killed. The psychiatrist had been told something(more on that below) , indeed a nude body with multiple stab wounds will tell us "in the shower , with a knife"(ala the "Clue" game) and Sam and Liila themselves witnessed Norman as Mom in killing mode.

But "nude" is not enough to CLEARLY say "the shower." Maybe Norman stripped the body after the murder(as Bob Rusk does in Frenzy.) Maybe Norman stripped Marion BEFRE the murder. (Lila would need closure on these horrible possibilities.) Maybe Marion slept in the nude.

The cops COULD only say that Marion was stabbed and nude, but if "Mother" gave the psychiatrist any other information...it would be decent(if hard) to share it with Lila.

Figure that Mother told the shrink "it was in the shower" the first time he talked to her. Or figure he got the information in a later interview...for Lila, on her request.

Then: figure how Lila Crane would have to live the rest of her life knowing exactly how and where her beloved sister died. A very, very hard life indeed. "After the movie ends."

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

CONT: Psycho II takes this up, and answers another question for after "The End": did Lila marry Sam? Psycho II says "yes, with a twist." They married and had a daughter , but Sam was dead before Psycho II starts. How, we're not told (stress heart attack?) Interesting: John Gavin was alive and well in 1982 when Psycho III was made(for 1983) release, but he's not in it because, we were told, he had just become President Reagan's ambassador to Mexico.

But what if John Gavin HAD been available? Would have Psycho II worked with Sam as a character -- or did he need to go to make the story work? We'll never know. We DO know that Psycho II was written for the psychiatrist played by Robert Loggia as a "new character" to have been...Simon Oakland, playing Dr. Richman from the first film. But the producers said that Oakland "was ill and his appearance wasn't too good" -- so they re-wrote the role.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

MEANWHILE:

Back at the idea of "Do you think they told Lila?"

Here's where the movie makes us think not about what happens AFTER it, but what happens DURING it:

What , exactly, did Mother (Norman) tell the psychiatrist about the shower murder?

The shrink tells Lila, "when Norman met your sister, he was touched by her, aroused by her, he desired her...
and that set off the jealous mother and MOTHER killed the girl!"

Can you picture MOther telling the shrink, "when Norman met that cheap tramp, he was touched by her, aroused by her , he desired her -- so I HAD to kill her before she could harm my son!"

Mother COULD say that(if she was the villain Norman had created in his mind) but Mother now wants to blame Norman so she may have said:

"Don't let him make you think that I killed that girl. I could see when he met her, he was touched by her, he was aroused by her, he desired her...but he didn't have the guts to take her...so he killed her."

And..would Mother say where? We can only guess: "He waited until she was naked in the shower, and then he did it. I suppose it was part of the cheap erotic fantasy in his cheap erotic mind. And he was a coward. It made it easier to kill her."

But hey...we don't know WHAT the hell the mother REALLY told the shrink. That's part of the magic of Psycho -- we can IMAGINE it.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

I've actually witnessed a fight where one of the combatants pulled a knife and killed the other. It was horrible in the amount of blood that the victim shed. The shower scene showed a lot of blood and much that was washed away, but it wasn't enough. I guess a more realistic scene would be hard to stomach. With the multiple stab wounds and the strength of Norman as Mother, her body would be in gruesome condition. I do think Lila saw the body as she had to identify it as next of kin. This would be after the county jail and psychiatrist scene. I'm sure Marion had bled out by then and an autopsy performed. A copy of the autopsy report would be sent to Lila even if it was 1960.

I think they would find the money and it probably was in okay condition. Maybe dirty and a bit soggy.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I've actually witnessed a fight where one of the combatants pulled a knife and killed the other.

--

Good Lord. I'm almost scared to ask the circumstances. The bloody murders in Psycho? I can talk about them all the live long day. REAL murder? Brrrr

--

It was horrible in the amount of blood that the victim shed.

---

That's what I've heard about stabbing deaths. Humans are pretty much high pressure cookers filled with blood. I've had some pretty bad nosebleed, and facial wounds are notorious for bleeding profusely(hence the bad slash down Arbogast's face)

---

The shower scene showed a lot of blood and much that was washed away, but it wasn't enough.

--

Part of the brilliance of the shower setting is that, indeed, much of the blood(most of the blood) DOES go away -- down the drain with Marion's life, and into her eye...

---

I guess a more realistic scene would be hard to stomach.

---

In 1960, yes. And the censors barely allowed what WAS shown. Even in 1998 with a "real" R rating, Van Sant only allowed a couple of additional stab wounds in Marion's back(fatal stabs, not slashes).

So very key to Psycho is how bloody it SEEMS(a lot) versus how bloody it really IS (not that much.)

Let's see: two gouts of blood on the shower floor as Marion is stabbed; the swirl of blood away from Marion and down the drain; the line of blood down the outside of tub leading to her wrist; the blood Norman mops up in the shower(I think this is the worst blood image); the blood on Norman's hands(shown longer in the German version).....and then, about a half hour later...the blood slash down Arbogast's face. And that's it.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

With the multiple stab wounds and the strength of Norman as Mother, her body would be in gruesome condition. I do think Lila saw the body as she had to identify it as next of kin. This would be after the county jail and psychiatrist scene. I'm sure Marion had bled out by then and an autopsy performed.

---

A next of kin id would be needed but perhaps Sam could substitute (I personally know of family friends agreeing to ID a dead body to spare the blood relatives the shock.)

Either way, only showing them Marion's face would be necessary. But still sad and shocking.

---

A copy of the autopsy report would be sent to Lila even if it was 1960.

---

Yes, no doubt. More of the horror of her post 1960 life...and perhaps reason for Sam to marry her. Out of guilt. Out of shared trauma. Out of protective feelings...

--

I think they would find the money and it probably was in okay condition. Maybe dirty and a bit soggy.

--

Here, we have the guidance of a paragraph near the end of Robert Bloch's book:

"It took almost a week to reclaim the cars and bodies from the swamp. The county highway crew had to come in with a dredger and a hoist, but in the end, the job was done. They found the money, too, right there in the glove compartment. Funny thing, it didn't have a speck of mud on it, not a speck."

Not a speck. I'm a fan of Robert Bloch's original novel, even as it was maligned by some(Stefano, Truffaut, Hitch himself) and a the wry, visual comment "(not) a speck of mud on it, not a speck" is one of the reasons why. That's good pulp writing to me. Is the word "speck" even used anymore?

And I'm reminded: in the book, Marion left the money in the glove compartment of her car. So -- no suspense about Norman picking up and discarding the newspaper...Hitch adds those great details.