Psycho III (1986)

reviewed by
Samir Roy


Review:  PSYCHO III

For a long time, this film has been misunderstood and dismissed as nothing more than a slice 'em dice 'em bloodfest. WRONG. The film has, for those willing to accept it, an unexpected modicum of depth and ingenuity, and a passionate, risky stylization that works marvelously. The spectacle of Anthony Perkins directing himself in the role for which he will be most remembered was enough to attract my attention, and I wasn't disappointed.

It is just a month after the disapperance of Mrs. Spool (from PSYCHO II) and Norman is still out at his motel. A young woman named Maureen Coyle who has started to question her faith in the her Mother, the Virgin Mary, arrives at the motel, after being thrown out of the car she was hithchiking in for rejecting the sexual advances of the aspiring rock musician who now works at the motel. Norman is attracted to her, but her initals and resemblance to one of his previous victims, (need I say which one) ressurect painful memories and dissaproval from Mother. But he persists in shyly courting Maureen as their paths cross, which eventually ends in tragedy.

The film is primarily a black comedy, a fact which somehow escaped most critics at the time. Apparently critics believed that Perkins was trying ONLY for horror, and didn't know what he was doing, resulting in unintentional camp humor. On the contrary, he was AIMING for this effect. PSYCHO III is a maliciously funny, tragic and at turns scary movie. The scares are kept to a minimum as the focus of the story is on Norman and his differing interaction with various people which don't end in murder. Many complained that Perkins was courting cliche in having a party of drunken jerks come to stay at the motel, yet they failed to notice how Perkins subverted this cliche by having them survive. In an ordinary 80's horror film, all of them, at least the unkind ones, would have certainly been slaughtered, but only one, and the only nice one at that, gets killed while the others just leave after their stay. It is also argued by some, particularly Dave Kehr of the Chicago Reader, that Perkins has made Mother a "pure camp figure" and a "bloodthirsty monster, which is as far from Hitchcock's original intention as possible". Quite the contrary, again. True, Mother does stop to straighten a painting on the way to a killing, (which is undeniably campy, but just as undeniably hilarious and unique in the filmic context in which it is placed) Mother, as created in Norman's mind, is a reflection of HIS perception of her. Seeing that "Mother" has killed everyone that Norman ever cared about or was attracted to, it is perfectly natural for him to think that his mother was nothing more than a bloodthirsty monster; even though "she" says she's doing it protect him, the consistency with which she kills anyone that comes close to Norman physically and emotionally should logically lead him to believe otherwise. When Norman is "Mother" he is behaving in the way he believes his "Mother" behaves, and if he thinks that she is a "bloodthirsty monster" which he has every reason to, than he will BE a bloodthirsty monster when he is "Mother".

Aside from that beautifully complex thematic structure that Perkins created with Norman, he has also given the film a deep and striking visual style to match his daring thematic style. Occasionally he mixes colorful references to Hitchcock and Argento, but he has a very unique style all his own. He has different sets built together, connected by either a door ar a hall so that instead of dissolving into the next scene, or just cutting straight to it, he will segue into scenes from other scenes in different sets by merely walking through the door or down the hall, and in one instance moving into a close up of a television in a bar, then as the camera pulls back, without cutting, we are suddenly in Norman's parlor. Perkins also has an adroit sense of lighting patterns, knowing just what type and color of light to use in each scene; sometimes chiaroscuro in a film noirish sense and sometimes wild and vibrant as in the sequence in which he discovers the body of a young woman in the parlor bathroom: the green neon light from the motel sign is filling the room, and he walks INTO that green light, half his face masked in darkness the other half lit in such a way that it exposes all his wrinkles and signs of aging in a green flesh which makes him appear monstrous yet deeply sympathetic, a brilliant exposition of the character of Norman Bates.

Perkins as actor is equally masterful, somehow managing to add nuance to his immortal portrayal of Norman. Watch as Norman and Maureen lay down together in her bed, and Norman, at first underneath, runs his trembling hands down her back, pandering unknowingly, before he somewhat unassuredly rolls over on top. Perkins demeanor during this incredible sequence clearly conveys that this must be the first time Norman has ever attempted to make love to a woman, and he's not sure how he should go about it. Finally he admits that he can't do this and the view of the two merely embracing as Perkins sinks his face into the mattress is puctuated by the image at the bottom of the screen clutching the edge of the bed, in unbearable anguish. That may be one of the best moments of acting he has ever done.

The rest of the cast is very good, particularly Diana Scarwid as the would be nun, and Roberta Maxwell, in a characterization reminiscent of the late great Thelma Ritter, as the pushy reporter out to prove that Norman is off his rocker again. Please don't skip this film on account of the party line that believe it to be stupid and unworthy of your time. And don't miss two of the best set-pieces from that year, even beating out the many in SOMETHING WILD, one involving ice-cubes and the other, a thematically brilliant visualization of Norman and Marion's paths crossing.

**** (4 stars) out of **** (4 stars)
Samir Roy

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum


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