PSYCHO (1960) Film Review by Ted Prigge Copyright 1998 Ted Prigge
Director: Alfred Hitchcock Writer: Joseph Stefano (based on the novel by Robert Bloch) Starring: Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, Vera Miles, John Gavin, Martin Balsam, John McIntire, Simon Oakland, Patricia Hitchcock, Virginia Gregg
I've seen "Psycho" about three times in my short lifetime, and I'm actually surprised how well it holds up even now. It's sad that many suspense films are so silly that you can't take them seriously, when at the same time, older films like this are almost as silly yet you can take them seriously. I'm not even sure how Hitchcock did it. Here's a flick where the protagonist of the film is killed off at the half-way point, and the supporting characters are left trying to find out what happens only to discover that one of the other main characters did it in drag. Looking at it like this, it seems so moronic that I can't believe I enjoy almost every minute of it. But that's the power of film, I guess.
"Psycho" is not the best film Alfred Hitchcock (who for my money is the greatest director who ever walked the face of this god forsaken planet) ever made, yet it's thought to be so by the general public. I think "Psycho" is definitely absolutely on Hitch's "Very Best" list, which includes such amazing films as "The 39 Steps," "Strangers on a Train," "Rear Window," and "Vertigo" (just to name a few). But it's just not his best. He's been better. But yeah, it's his most popular. Why is this?
It seems the answer to this is the infamous shower sequence, which is absolutely positively one of the 10 best-directed sequences I have ever seen on celluloid - there's no room for debate on this one. Hitch's editing, timing, everything has never been better on a scene, and just everything about it wreaks of greatness. But for me, at least, it's not why this film is just amazing. It's my favorite scene in the film, and yes, when I re-watched it on my birthday (the cool anniversary widescreen edition was one of my few birthday presents this year), I was blown away...and I rewatched it to see the editing and number of cuts, not just to see a glimpse of the supposed Janet Leigh nipple I've heard so much about. Honestly.
What makes this film so amazing for me is one thing: Anthony Perkins. I know that it's commonly said that Robert Walker's performance in "Strangers on a Train" is the best piece of acting in a Hithcock film - I mean, Nick Clooney has publically said that a couple times on AMC. But while his performance was brilliant in just the brilliance of it all, Perkins performance is brilliant because it gives us some sympathy...scratch that, a LOT of sympathy for the main subject of this film: Norman Bates.
First, let me give a quick run-down of the plot: secretary Marion Crane (Leigh), a bit of a tired-of-hiding woman (she's carrying on a little affair with the dashing Sam Loomis, played by the dashing John Gavin) who steals 40 grand from her employer when he entrusts her with the task of putting it in the bank. She starts on a paranoiac trek with the stolen money, and eventually winds up at a little middle-of-nowhere place, the Bates Motel. Too bad she didn't see the sequels first.
There, she befriends the lonely clerk, Norman Bates (Perkins), who lives in a giant, brooding house above the 12 rooms of the motel with his mother, whom we never see in these first scenes, but who's presence is made known in a couple scenes where she yells at Norman frantically. When Marion goes to take a shower that night, a woman sneaks in behind her, and stabs her fatally a bunch of times, and then leaves her to quickly die.
The second half of the film (you didn't think it was all just the shower scene, did ya? seems that way sometimes) deals with Sam and Marion's sister, Lila (Vera Miles), trying to discover what has happened to her. We also get to meet a private investigator (Martin Balsam), hired by the men who's money was stolen by Marion, who tries to do some snooping around every motel and hotel in a million mile radius, but, unfortunately meets at a short, and untimely end. In this half, we also discover the BIG twist, which Hitchcock tried to keep secret back in '60, but asswholes like myself and the people who made the sequels have spoiled for those of you who have never seen it (shame on us!).
The film was an escape for Hitch, who's previous film was the amazing-as-hell "North By Northwest" (my favorite Hitch, and the single best "chase" movie I've ever seen). "Psycho" is grittier, less glamorous, and features no name actors (for the time). This probably gave Hitch an excuse to do some wildly experimental stuff with his directorial tactics, like giving us more gory death scenes, killing off the protagonist, using inner-voice dialogue weirdly (Marion imagines what her friends and co-workers will say when they discover what she's done), and also giving us a killer the likes of which had never been seen, and has rarely been copied since.
This is the thing that makes the movie. Sure, the entire film is an amazing display of great suspense tactics. I'm just freaked out during the whole beginning, where Marion tries to escape cleanly, but can't stop giving herself away to everyone she comes in contact with. Okay, I'm freaked out during the whole thing. Directing-wise, it's a masterpiece.
But these things would leave the viewer with a flat experience if it weren't for the way Hitch, his screenwriter Joseph Stefano, and his actor playing the role, Perkins, show Norman Bates off. He's the killer of this film. He's schizophrenic, divided between Norman and his mother. It's his portrayal of the Norman part, which dominates most of his screentime, which is so great. Norman is not a homicidal maniac. Nor is he a transvestite. He's a mild-mannered, sensitive, and despereately lonely person, reaching out for any signs of life he can reach, but keeps getting trapped by his other ego. Who knows? If he wasn't schizoid, he and Marion may have hit it off. But his other ego, afraid he'll lose him to another person, has Marion killed off quickly and in a grizly state.
It's an amazing thing watching Perkins do his schitck with the role. He inhabits him with so much sympathy and so much to like that when you find out he's really the killer, it's devastating. I mean, he's such a great person! Sure, sometimes he goes a tad off kilter, most notably when talking about his passion: stuffing birds. But Perkins cleverly plays him, showing off more to like but hiding some bits of darkness within. And this set of levels get dangerously out of whack as the film progresses.
It's this that makes "Psycho" such a great film. It's this that separates it from any other film about serial killers/homicidal nutcases. I have never seen a film before or since its release that has been so sad when its killer is revealed. Sure, it almost spoils the entire film by giving us a denouement featuring almost nothing but psych-talk (ugh), but just fast-forward through that scene if you've already seen it, and watch that final scene with Norman in the chair with the blanket, with a voice over by his mother's ego (voice by an uncredited Virginia Gregg). The film quickly redeems itself from a final scene where those in the audience that didn't catch it the first time that Norman is crazy can have it fed to them on a spoon (I wouldn't be shocked at all if he didn't have some sort of fit with the distributors).
Never mind the shower scene. Or the big twist. Or even the paranoid beginning. That's all bullshit (they're amazing on their own, but an entire great film they do not make on their own). The reason this film is so amazing, why I think it's one of Hitch's "Very Best," is because of Norman Bates, and how he's portrayed. He makes the whole thing real. He's the real reason this is an amazing film, not because for two minutes, you get to see a perfectly filmed murder sequence. Although that scene's good for other reasons.
MY RATING (out of 4): ****
Homepage at: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/8335/
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews