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

[Holadem]

I watched this a couple of nights ago, and as the title of this thread suggests, I was less than impressed. 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. The only reason I can think of is that they don't actually show anything, and yet the scene is quite graphic at the same time. I would have never never noticed it if I hadn't watched the documentary. So for me, this scene mighgt be a wonder of editing, but little else - certainly not scary... Well, at least now I know where that overplayed tune "tsui-tsui-tsui-tsui..." comes from
The scene on top of the stairs actually worked much better for me
I have watched 4 Hitchcock movies so far - North by Northwest, Rear Window, The Birds and Psycho. This my least favorite, while Rear Window is by far the best IMHO. Which brings me to the following: While Hitchcock might be known as the master of suspense, much more appealing to me than the suspense or the mystery are the chracters, and the play between them. Within a few minutes I feel as if if had know these characters forever and it is really a shame to see some of them wacked. My favorite scenes in the Birds are the dialogues between the Mitch's ex lover and the lead lady. I like the dialogue and the characters so much that the supposedly creepy stuff becomes a distraction for me... :rolleyes.
I would like to hear your though on this movie
--
Holadem

 

[Lars Vermundsberget]

I prefer to ignore the "well-known fact" that Hitchcock was the master of suspense and that his movies are scary in any way. I simply prefer to see them as great!

 

[Ted Lee]

regarding psycho, i think it worked on many levels. it had great characters, a spooky setting, good soundtrack, violence, innovative camera moves, etc.
anthony perkins did such an outstanding job as norman bates. i mean, talk about a creepy guy.
on a side note, i think i heard somewhere that perkins has said that he wished he never did that role, because it pidgeon-holed him as an actor. he couldn't get any more roles because people only thought of him as norman bates.
as far as hitchcock goes, i really can't comment with authority - i've only seen a handful of his movies, but i know i've liked all of them. rear-window is probably my favorite - everytime it comes on i watch it. i've always liked his style, his characters and just the overall feel of his film. they always seem to have a cool "retro" feel.
at the time, i think what hitchcock did was innovative. when i watch his movies, i always end up thinking, "wow, that's was a cool shot!" or "what a neat concept..."
i don't know if anyone else at the time was able to present the genre so well. it's still imitated even now. anyone remember the end of "what lies beneath"? that whole chase scene totally reminded me of a hitchcock flick.
again, i'm no hitchock expert, but i'll give his movies a shot any day!

 

[Malcolm R]

I think you have to remember when this film was released. In its day, it was very shocking and graphic.

Today, when every scene is played out visually in all its bloody, special effects glory and suspense is virtually non-existent, modern audiences have been largely de-sensitized to graphic violence and find the original "Psycho" quite tame.

40 years ago, this was considered a "bloodbath."

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

I was expecting some kind of a bloodbath.

On the contrary, that scene works because it shows very little gore. Instead, the shock comes from Hitchcock's ability to combine camera work, framing, music and editing to create tension and suspense.

~Edwin

 

[Jason Seaver]

The other thing about the shower scene is that it dispatches what had been, to that point, the protagonist (and its biggest star), something like 20 minutes into the film. At the time, that was really shocking to the audience.

It's important to remember the Hitchcock pretty much invented the slasher genre here - not completely, mind you, but even M had protagonists that lasted from the start of the movie to the end. The shower scene is disturbing because it makes the villain our sole constant for the rest of the movie, which was revolutionary for the time and is still somewhat off-putting even today.

 

[Blu]

Psycho was a trendsetting movie. It was very envelope pushing for its time. Hitchcock's movies are pretty much all very good while some are way better than others like North by Northwest, Vertigo, Rope, Dial M for Murder, The Man who Knew Too Much, Notorious, etc.
I highly recommend any of them to any aspiring filmmaker to see how suspense should be handled.

 

[Michael Reuben]

The only reason I can think of is that they don't actually show anything, and yet the scene is quite graphic at the same time.

That about sums it up. That kind of thing is very hard to do. It's much easier to bring in the make-up and effects people for gross-out effects.

It may be impossible for anyone who grew up at a time when slasher films are an established genre to appreciate the impact of the shower scene on its original audience. Scenes in the shower or bathroom were uncommon at the time (on TV they were still taboo). Psycho shows a gruesome and unexpected assault in a private and intimate setting where someone would feel most vulnerable. Audiences of the time had never seen anything like it. By the time we get to the Freddy and Jason series, people are routinely being killed in the most unlikely private settings (e.g., before, during and after sex, on the toilet) -- and it's often played for laughs.

M.

 

[Tommy G]

There's a reason why this movie is known as the scariest movie of all time (with the exception of maybe the Exorcist). That reason is for the exact scene you are referring to. People were so frightened by the "unseen" that they were taking baths instead of showers. Spielberg picked up on this with Jaws. The simple fact that what is not seen is scarier than what is seen. I remember the summer of '75 and '76 and how few people were going into the ocean anymore. That same thing happened in '60 with showers. Hitch was indeed the master of suspense.

 

[John Sturge]

I personally prefer a similar film about a psycho released around the time of Psycho.
Peeping Tom.

 

[Holadem]

It may be impossible for anyone who grew up at a time when slasher films are an established genre to appreciate the impact of the shower scene on its original audience. Scenes in the shower or bathroom were uncommon at the time (on TV they were still taboo). Psycho shows a gruesome and unexpected assault in a private and intimate setting where someone would feel most vulnerable.

This makes sense and explains why I didn't relate to it. I have seen much more gruesome things and this is nowhere close to being the scariest movie I have seen.
It is my opinion that this movie is dated. When at the end the shrink his theory a la Hercule Poirot or Sherlock Holmes - like it was this tremendous revelation, I kept thinking "tell me something I don't know...".
I agree with the sentiment that what is not seen is often scarier than what is. The Others is probably the scariest movie I have ever seen. Psycho, seen or unseen moved me very little. Holy cow, is there anyone in Movieland who agrees with me?!
[EDIT] I am interested in hearing from those who saw it in recent years and liked it.
--
Holadem

 

[Holadem]

People were so frightened by the "unseen" that they were taking baths instead of showers.

Isn't that a little absurd?

--
Holadem

 

[Paul Richardson]

anyone remember the end of "what lies beneath"? that whole chase scene totally reminded me of a hitchcock flick.

Just the end? For me, the entire film was an obvious rip-off homage to Hitchcock films...including the music.

 

[Ted Lee]

yeah...good point paul. wasn't there somme scene in the bathroom that was also very hitchcockian?

holadem - i just saw psycho recently on tv...i still got a kick out of it.

as others have mentioned, it is important to remember when this movie was made. it was a mind-bender...no one had ever seen anything like it before. imo, the fact that it still "holds water" (get it...water? shower? hey...is this thing on) today is a testament to what a groundbreaking film this was/is.

 

[Jason Seaver]

I am interested in hearing from those who saw it in recent years and liked it.

I think I first saw it a year and a half or two ago (double-billed with The Birds at the Brattle; basically watching Hitchcock invent the modern horror movie). Admittedly, the shower scene didn't get me as much as the staircase scene, but that's because Psycho (and that scene in particular) is one of those movies that I sort of knew before seeing it via how thoroughly it has infiltrated pop culture. Much like I didn't realize that I'd never seen 2001 before plopping my butt down in the Coolidge in January.

I still loved Psycho, even if I knew to expect its most famous jump scene.

 

[Patrick McCart]

What is ironic, however, is that Psycho is really a satire on the low-budget American International Pictures films of the 1950's. Hitchcock deliberately made every aspect of the film in accordance to the AIP style and even with a tiny budget. Also, the "star" is killed in the first half of the movie
which makes fun of the sometimes dominating presence of a lead actor/actress.

 

[Mike Broadman]

For a modern audience, Psycho isn't about scaring us. It's about being creepy. I think Norman Bates is one of the creepiest characters in all film.

As a young person who saw modern horror and "scary" movies before seeing Hitchcock, Psycho is one that I can come back to every time.

 

[Rich Malloy]

It's kinda hard to get excited about a Psycho 101 discussion, and I certainly don't feel the need to defend it. I simply don't understand how anyone can fail to appreciate such an extraordinarily well-crafted film, a seminal film, a film that has been copied countless times and never topped, one in which every performance is pitch-perfect, every camera angle and movement a jaw-dropping revelation. Haven't a clue as to how anyone can remain unaffected by the brilliance of this movie. But I guess it's the same thing that leads some to proclaim Tim Burton or Luc Besson genuises. I don't think I'll ever get that, despite anyone's arguments in support.
And dated? Compared to what? "What Lies Beneath" was mentioned, but that movie pales by any standard, much less in comparison to "Psycho". Someone else mentioned the 80's slasher flicks, but surely no-one - not even Holadem - is suggesting that "Friday the 13th" is as good as "Psycho", much less good in and of itself. The first "Halloween" is brilliant, but it's no improvement upon and certainly no "update" on "Psycho". The "Tx Chainsaw Massacre" is similarly brilliant - like "Psycho", a low-budget masterpiece in its own right - but hardly displacing of "Psycho". I can't think of a single slasher flick that betters "Psycho", though there's certainly a handful worthy of being spoken in the same breath.

Well, at least now I know where that overplayed tune "tsui-tsui-tsui-tsui..." comes from

That's a great theme, to be sure, but certainly not the full extent of Herrmann's brilliance in "Psycho". Ever seen "Re-Animator"?
And you've really never seen "Vertigo", Holadem? "Notorious"? "Rebecca"? "Strangers on a Train"? "Rope"?
Watch movies much?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Not as absurd as dissing Hitchcock, a director imitated by several less than talented "Johnny Come Lately's" and a film that defined a whole film genre!



Crawdaddy

 

[Holadem]

Who the hell "dissed" Hitchcock?!!
This is exactly why voicing one's dislike for a classic is so difficult on this board.
What exactly must one do to criticise a classic here without getting flamed?! I professed my dissapointment with the movie and and backed it up. Excuse me for thinking that is what we are here for.
--
Holadem