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

[Brian_J]

I agree. You would think more filmakers (of horror) would have learned a thing or two from Hitchcock. Unfortunately, they apparently learned nothing. They just slap us in the face with gore, insert humor where it doesn't belong, etc.

Brian

 

[Seth Paxton]

Not sure I can explain how I do that, but suffice it to say that I'm still able to be "shocked" by elements that were intended to be shocking at the time.

This is a sidebar, but Mark I've found that as my film buff efforts have increased that this is a skill I've also learned.
I say learned because I do think it has to be. The other skill is to tolerate less accessible films, abstracts and other "art" films.
I think anyone can get to that point, but it takes work and obviously is not really the kind of effort most people are going to want to put in to it. I don't blame them. These are skills only for people that just want to be everything about film, just like buffs/fans of any other hobby/art. For most people this kind of effort just takes all the fun out of it, while for me it sort of adds to the fun.
That's why when I recommend films I often cut out some of the less accessible ones or hand out a warning first.
Another skill I have (which bugs my fiance to no end for some reason) is the ability to still feel geniune surprise/shock during a film I've already seen. When the moments are well-crafted I think they allow you to slip into that mindset. However, you have to be willing to let yourself go. (she gets mad when I have a shocked reaction to some reveal..."Haven't you already seen this!?")
Like being at a haunted house and despite knowing it's people in costumes you let yourself feel geniune fear. You could just as easily be defensive about it and pull yourself out of the fear by laughing at it all and not letting yourself go.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Does anybody know why this movie is so hard to find in a B&M store or why it carries a 30 dollar price tag? I've been wanting this thing for a while now.

 

[Seth Paxton]

But Jack is right, there has been a lot of 'dissing' of established classics on the forum in the past few months, what's going on?

Well, I think at least one aspect of this phenom is a good thing. People here at HTF are seeking out these classics in the first place. At least they are giving these films a chance.

It's not so crazy to have a reaction of "what was the big deal", especially with older films. I'm willing to respect that as long as they are willing to respect that a lot of people have very good reasons for thinking the film IS a classic.

We always hear "It's just cause some elitists say it is" but I think it was Jack (Briggs) who said to this "Yes, but the film had to EARN that respect from the elitists in the first place."


Holadem, well I think a lot of the complaints were from people who saw the film as pointless since they considered the original a classic in no need of improvement, not so much that it's some "awful" film. It follows the original too much to be awful in that sense, just pointless really.

You might be someone who sees real improvements. Obviously Van Zant thought there was something to be gained by the process. And looking at the cast you see a lot of other good actors that thought so too - Philip Baker Hall, William H. Macy, Robert Forster, Juliane Moore, Viggo Mortenson (Aragorn in FOTR) and Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche are pretty decent actors (though no Perkins and Leigh). I watched it exactly for this reason, despite the reviews. I was left feeling "what was the point" too but it was touched up just a tad to meet more modern sensibilites (like doing it in color for one thing...which I thought hurt it actually). But the film is no Battlefield Earth either.

And Dressed to Kill has enough differences to give you something fresh on the film while still holding to the core of the story pretty well. DePalma is a good director, especially in this period, despite being so obviously derivitive of Hitch.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Seth Paxton said:

Well, I think at least one aspect of this phenom is a good thing. People here at HTF are seeking out these classics in the first place. At least they are giving these films a chance.
It's not so crazy to have a reaction of "what was the big deal", especially with older films. I'm willing to respect that as long as they are willing to respect that a lot of people have very good reasons for thinking the film IS a classic.

I think that so far, a vast majority of the people on this forum have done so. Excuse my use of pop culture venacular, but it seems that whenever "fanboyism" has reared its ugly head here, the more established members of the HTF have pretty much calmed them down and provided some good guidance to that thing known as appreciation.
I think though, the hardest task is to get people to appreciate the "finer" things, if you will. This thread and the film Psycho are two perfect examples of people "not seeing the big deal". Fortunately for me, I saw the original film about five years ago (making me about 16 I think) and not only developed an appreciation for Hitchcock's superb craftsmenship, but also grew to like it as entertainment as well. Only Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter has done creepy as well as Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates.

 

[TheoGB]

I didn't see the challenge in Holadem's original post. I didn't agree wholly with him because I never really expected Psycho to be shocking because of it's age - a different time and all that.
Holadem obviously expected more from the movie than he could have got. This is often the case with a 'classic' movie!
The fact is that if you showed the average teen-to-twenties person Star Wars or Jaws for the first time today, they'd probably think it good but not worthy of the following it has. This could be true of any number of movies and it's because life moves on!
I think Holadem has received a harsher attack than necessary. I'm sorry people feel we shouldn't be able to 'attack' a 'classic'. The problem is that most movies obtain this through being original in their time or a Zeitgeist. When the world moves on they are left merely as great movies, but they should still be open to the same criticism as any other film, IMO.
Sacred cows are never healthy.

 

[Ted Lee]

fyi - i noticed last night that joe leydon has an essay on vertigo in the latest issue of sght. it's on the last page in the cinessentials section.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

In Holadem's defense, some aspects of the film, though, have dated very badly, most notably the tedious explanation by the psychiatrist at the end. If not for the famous double exposure sequence I'd just shut the thing off right there. It's particularly sad that this is right at the finale and tends to dampen what is for the most part an excellent picture.

Part of the problem is context, I think. If you've seen more older films--pre-Psycho horror in particular--you will see just how groundbreaking this was and in the ways that Hitchcock played with cliche--especially the Janet Leigh bit. Remember, this is a time where you expect the heroine to make it to the end of the picture, and the fact she's offed so early had to be utterly jolting---and the manner of her demise was pretty shocking as well....remember that nudity was strictly verboten then too. The use of suggestion rather than showing something is a lesson learned well from Val Lewton and forgotten today by the makers of gory bloodbaths that for me arouse a ho-hum. (Warner, where's the Val Lewton collection? oh I forgot, you won't release any RKO pictures that aren't Citizen Kane)

The restraint in particular is notable, considering the source material (real-life mother-obsessed Ed Gein of Plainfield, Wisconsin, who not only killed women, he gutted them out and hung them up like deer, robbed graves to skin the women's corpses and then danced in the graveyard wearing his woman-suit)....something that wouldn't be considered suitable to actually be seen on the screen till Texas Chainsaw.

 

[Mark Palermo]

I'm sorry people feel we shouldn't be able to 'attack' a 'classic'.... When the world moves on they are left merely as great movies, but they should still be open to the same criticism as any other film, IMO. Sacred cows are never healthy.

My sentiments exactly.

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.

And I'm not trying to bash Psycho, either. I really do think that's a great film, but I'm happy to see that there are people who are willing to vocalize that they don't.

Mark

 

[Aaron Thomas]

The infamous "shower scene" did very little for me. I was expecting some kind of a bloodbath.

The question is, does expecting a "thriller" to be a "slasher film" constitute a valid criticism?

For example, since I don't like musicals but enjoy historical dramas, I would dislike "1776" if I watched it unawares, but it would seem silly for me to dismiss its quality as a film for that reason alone.

It's ridiculous to attack an apple because it's not an orange.

Aaron Thomas

 

[Jack Briggs]

I really do think that's a great film, but I'm happy to see that there are people who are willing to vocalize that they don't.

On the other hand, some people need to differentiate opinions from fact, personal likes and dislikes from objective matters. Someone's disliking Psycho doesn't mean the film is less than great.

And I think that's what bothers me about some of the posts I've been reading ever since the school year ended. Someone weened on CGI-intensive, sensation-emphatic films may be prone to dissing, say, King Kong. Just because this hypothetical person may hate the 1933 classic doesn't mean the film is no longer great or valid.

There are several bad movies I just love. But I will never make a case for them being good. There are also a number of good and great films I don't care for. My own liking or disliking of them doesn't have any bearing on the films' stature.

Why this isn't clearer to some baffles me.

 

[Holadem]

There are also a number of good and great films I don't care for. My own liking or disliking of them doesn't have any bearing on the films' stature.

Why this isn't clearer to some baffles me.

Well, it is certainly clear to me, I am one of the biggest supporters of the idea that there are objective criteria to what makes a good movie - tough I wouldn't be able to list them. I argued that to death on this board, especially in that huge Armageddon thread. I can acknowledge greatness without liking it.

I don't like the "this film sucks 'cause Ididn't like it" posts either and have made that clear numerous times.

I would expand on this but I have no time today to write long replies (work).

--
Holadem

 

[Mark Palermo]

Ok Jack, but do you feel that the critical establishment is always correct in interpreting which films are good and great. Furthermore, is this knowledge accessible to anybody?

Mark

 

[Robert Crawford]

What specific knowledge are you talking about??????



Crawdaddy

 

[Jefferson Morris]

Ok Jack, but do you feel that the critical establishment is always correct in interpreting which films are good and great. Furthermore, is this knowledge accessible to anybody?

Not to put words in Jack's mouth, but I suspect his criteria for "greatness" are the film's endurance in the public's mind and its influence on filmmaking.

In the case of Psycho, neither of these attributes can really be debated--I mean, here we are forty years later still arguing about a film that's been imitated continuously since its release (culminating in an unprecedented shot-for-shot remake).

Using this definition, a film's "greatness" can be assessed with at least some limited degree of objectivity, and really has nothing to do with its critical reception or success/failure at the time of release.

--Jefferson Morris

 

[Ted Lee]

to add to jefferson -
whether a movie is defined as "great" is totally subjective, but there are movies that define a genre and can be seen as great examples: apocalypse now for war, the exorcist for horror, 2001 for sci-fi, etc.
psycho definitely falls into that category - it is a defining movie.
i suppose if the majority of critics or whoever also agree it can be said to be the "truth". of course there will be people who disagree but that's what makes it so much fun.
look how much activity we've gotten out of this!

 

[TheoGB]

For example, since I don't like musicals but enjoy historical dramas, I would dislike "1776" if I watched it unawares, but it would seem silly for me to dismiss its quality as a film for that reason alone.

I don't believe anyone in this thread, particularly not Holadem, dismissed the movie. He simply stated that he was disapointed with it.

 

[RobertR]

No matter how great something is, if it's experienced and imitated enough times, it loses its initial impact. For example (Jack will appreciate this analogy), the excitement of the first moon landing was practically palpable, but once it had been done, it was absorbed into the fabric of human experience ("ok, it's not new any more. give us NEW thrills"). This EMOTIONAL reaction does not lessen the greatness of the achievement, however.

 

[Chris Knox]

Regarding Janet Leigh in the shower scene. I think that it should be noted (and interesting) that making the shower scene didn't bother her one bit. It was only when she first watched it that she could no longer take a shower.
You are talking about a man who almost NEVER looked into the camera. He simply set up the appropriate lens for the particular scene and placed his camera where he thought it would have the greatest impact. Then he had the balls to tell his actors that his camera was absolute, having never hardly looked through the lens!!! Fantastic!
Even more interesting was the use of chocolate milk for blood as it looked the most gruesome given the parameters of black and white film. Understand also that this film galvanized the collective viewing audience of that time into absolute terror and shock having never showed a single puncture or stab wound. All of the violence is suggested by you the viewer. And as much as I concur with the opinion that the film is now dated, I feel it is imperative that I impress upon you that it was THIS film that set the date! I assure you that those who left the theater back then were thinking anything but 'blah'...
But, as others have pointed out, the film has been eclipsed by years of exposure to hard violence and gore and the film no longer holds the shock and scare that it once did. This doesn't matter to me as I view it several times a year for an even greater reason. Anthony Perkins absolutely kills me with a flawless performance. I could never express enough how truly perfect I feel his acting is in this movie.
If Run Lola Run had acting like that I might not have puked as much and thought you guys that recommended it to me were out of your minds...
Chris

 

[Sarah Temple]

okay, i used to be really really obsessed with psycho and i loved it for a long time. but i can understand why people who see it for the first time arent that impressed. i think the movie gets way to hyped up, when really its not that spectacular. its very very slow and quite frankly, boring. but if you think about it, a lot of hitchcock is that way. if any of you have ever seen Strangers on a Train, one of hitchcock's films, its really well... stupid. but i do think psycho is a must see. at the time it came out, people used to just walk into a movie in the middle. this movie did set the mold for actually watching the movie the whole way through. also, the main character dies half way through; in 1960, this was really strange. so, although it gets way too much hype and it is very slow, consider hitchcock- he's a boring guy. but thats just me.