Psycho (Hitchcock): Blah... (1 Viewer)

[Jack Briggs]

Welcome, Sarah--but I contest vigorously your contention that Strangers on a Train is "stupid." And that Psycho is "boring." Maybe it seems that way to some people. Yet Psycho, no matter how many times I screen it and no matter how well I know what's coming next, still makes me writhe with mounting tention.

Only a true artist can accomplish that.

Note that the legendary shower scene never once shows the knife making contact. Yet with the frenzied (no pun) montage the master director employed, this portrayal of a stabbing death is tense, disturbing, and compelling. Far more so than any number of over-the-top indulgences in slasher excess all too common today.

Also, those who know a thing or two about cinematography stop in their tracks when screening this man's work. Here's a filmmaker who could say so much with just the tilt of a camera (think The 39 Steps or Vertigo).

Again, what one may not like personally is not necessarily bad. There are so many reasons Psycho is looked to as the gold standard in suspense and psychological horror.

As a sidenote, calling Alfred Hitchcock the "master of suspense" does this one-of-a-kind filmmaker a huge disservice, even though he is the genre's master. How can the train-based love scenes in North By Northwest be topped in terms of erotic tension? Watching Eva and Cary in their knowing, witty, and clever interactions aboard the train seems far more erotic and tempting than much of what is on view in much of today's work. It's as if filmmakers have tossed subtlety to the winds in favor of that big opening-weekend gross.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Which way to the sandbox?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Chris,
Hitchcock actually used chocolate syrup and not chocolate milk. I wonder if he used Hershey?
Sarah,
Welcome to the forum, but you need to read this thread a little closer to understand why "Psycho" was so hyped. Furthermore, calling "Strangers on a Train" stupid or Hitchcock boring will most likely deter some other members from taking your posts seriously.
Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Crawford]

Rich,
I understand your frustration, but your last post wasn't nice.




Crawdaddy

 

[Chris Knox]

Crawdaddy,

I don't know why I wrote milk, I meant syrup...

 

[Paul_D]

its very very slow and quite frankly, boring. but if you think about it, a lot of hitchcock is that way.

One of the strangest statements I've ever read..... in my life.

 

[Steve Christou]

its very very slow and quite frankly, boring. but if you think about it, a lot of hitchcock is that way.

Great thread people, very constructive and educational.
Looks like the utterly pointless remake of Psycho would get a more favorable response from some of the posters on this thread. :rolleyes

 

[Brian_J]

My first experience ever actually appreciating a movie for something other than just action or summer fun was H's "Rear Window." Truly a remarkable film that began my appreciation for filmmaking.

Brian

 

[Mitty]

Hitchcock is one of a very select few in the history of the medium to combine artistry, daring and masterful craftsmanship (the cinematic trifecta if you will).

Psycho is, for my money, his finest work. It's groundbreaking, it's beautiful and it's one of the most finely and meticulously crafted films ever made. To watch it is like listening to a perfect piece of music.

Anthony Perkins' performance is also one of the finest performances ever committed to celluloid. So good and effective, in fact, that it practically destroyed his career since no one could see him in any other roles.

Not to mention that Bernard Herrmann's score is a astonishing piece of work in a career filled with astonishing work.

What can I say, I love the movie.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Just wanted to interrupt for a second (I swear I'm on somebody's ignore list here. ), but what was the fruit they used to simulate the sounds of stabbing? I've always thought it was a watermelon, but it was something else. It was a weird sounding fruit.

 

[Brad_V]

Try screening the film again. I just bet, in time, you will come to appreciate the film, even if you never end up liking it.

Heh, sometimes I have to wonder if there isn't a good bit of group-think involved in making a certain movie "a classic." I could say to someone, "Watch Shaolin Soccer a few more times and every day think about the good points that are there which you might be overlooking. I'm sure you will eventually see all its great qualities just as so many others have."

lol... that's being persuasive more than it is saying why a movie should be named a classic! Reminds me of the A.I. discussions. "You didn't like the ending only because you didn't understand it and didn't accept it as being the best ending, even though it _is_ the best ending for the movie. Kubrick wrote it, therefore it must be the best ending. You are just not seeing why yet. But you will, in time."

Keep saying stuff like that and someone might start thinking you're a part-time hypnotist.

Back to Psycho... was the movie popular when it first came out? So many "classics" flopped bigtime when they came out, only to be deemed as classics later. I don't know if Psycho is one of those or not. Probably the best example of that is It's a Wonderful Life. Maybe this would make for a fun new thread... "Should a movie be considered a classic if for 10 years audiences thought it sucked? Were they just too stupid to see it was a classic?"

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

I saw Psycho for the first time a little over a year ago. Despite knowing virtually every plot turn in the film, I still found myself completely freaked out by the experience. Mind you, I was about 22 when I saw it. This is, in my mind, one of the scariest movies ever made.

I can't explain why it affected me when so many other people my own age think nothing of it at all, and quite frankly I don't know if I even want to try to explain it. I'll simply say that it was because the film was great. It stands as perhaps my favorite Hitchcock film (with Rear Window a close second).

With regards to criticizing the classics, I think it's a good thing for people like Holadem to keep an open mind about old films and not simply accept them as great because other people say they are. However, Holadem, you have to realize that when you come to a place like this, where there are film buffs far more versed in film than you and I combined, your opinion will be questioned and challenged. Did you expect to hear from legions of dissatisfied Psycho viewers when you posted this thread? Just remember no one is condemning you personally. We're just disagreeing with your opinion. There is a difference.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Actually, if I remembered correctly, several critics panned the film, but the audiences ate it up. There was ambivalent reactions from audiences and critics alike because they never seen anything like this film before.



Crawdaddy

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

Back to Psycho... was the movie popular when it first came out? So many "classics" flopped bigtime when they came out, only to be deemed as classics later. I don't know if Psycho is one of those or not.

Brad, from having seen the documentary on the Psycho DVD, it appears as though the film was a smash hit.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Jeffrey,
I couldn't have said it better!
Crawdaddy

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I take it nobody has a good clue what the answer to my two questions were. I might as well be talking to myself here. :frowning: Maybe if I yell, "Psycho sucks, remakes rule" real loud, I'll finally get some attention in this thread.

 

[Robert Crawford]

You said it, I didn't! I always thought it was a watermelon.
Crawdaddy

 

[Sam Davatchi]

The infamous "shower scene" did very little for me. I was expecting some kind of a bloodbath. I would really like to knowwhy it is so goddamn famous.

For the same reason when a century ago they showed for the first time to an audience a black and white film of a train coming into a station, everyone hysterically wanted to run away!

 

[Chris Knox]

I've read in Janet's book that it was either mango or cantellope, but I'd have to go back and reread to make sure...

Chris

 

[Holadem]

I'm a little surprised that the attitude of so many on this board seems to boil down to the only possible reason people dislike certain classics is that they lack understanding of film language, aesthetics, history, etc. There is nothing progressive or open-minded about this attitude.

As expected, I entirely agree with this.
Do you really think that "appreciating the finner points of film making" that Psycho exhibits has anything to do with its failure to scare me? Or to make some of you feel better MY failure to be scared by it?
I acknowledged the technical achievement of that famous scene in my very first post.
Is it possible to see why it was groundbreaking, and yet not find it scary?
Do you think one really has anything to do with the other?
--
Holadem