Not crazy about "Psycho"
"Psycho" (1960 Alfred Hitchcock version.)
Overall Rating: ***
Many critics are wildly enthusiastic about Hitchcock; usually, I'm one of them. I wouldn't hesitate to give "North by Northwest" five stars overall, and four to four-and-a-half stars for many of his other films. But while quite a few people say "Psycho" is his best picture, I am not one of them.
"Psycho" opens with Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) having a Friday afternoon rendezvous with her lover, Sam Loomis (John Gavin). There, they rehash things they've been over before--he is deep in debt, and they can't get married until he's on his feet financially; he can't even stay around because he must return to Fairvale, and she has to go back to work. Resigned to waiting, she returns to the real-estate office just in time for a client to flash $40,000 in her face, claim that he doesn't carry more than he can afford to lose, and talk about money buying-off unhappiness. As if that weren't enough temptation, her boss asks her to put the money in the safe deposit box--her last task before the weekend. The temptation gets to be just too much.
Leaving Phoenix with her stolen fortune, she decides to head to Fairvale. The first night, she pulls over to the side of the road, and sleeps in her car. When a highway patrolman (Mort Mills) stops to see if she's all right, she becomes nervous, and he becomes suspicious. The next night, in the rain, she feels she can't go on--but not wanting to attract another patrolman, she stops at the out of the way Bates Motel. There, she meets an extremely meek Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), with whom she dines. But, she wants to get to bed, because she has decided to return to Phoenix and return the money. When she fails to return home, someone is bound to come looking for a missing woman with $40,000.
This movie is, in many respects, two movies. In the first half, we focus on Marion's battle with her conscience, and her inept but effective attempts to avoid the law. The rest of the movie is about the attempts locate her--which very quickly home in on the Bates Motel. This split presents one of two major problems with the film's story; either half the film is only an introduction for the main story, or half the film is resolution. The movie also depends too much on the psychiatrist in the final scenes; we don't see the case solved, we hear a lecture on it.
There are also just too many loose ends in this film. Since Sam seems to have lived in Fairvale for a while (he knows the sheriff and owns a store which seems to be inherited from his father), why doesn't Sam know the Bates Motel is the sight of the worst crime in town history? Also, while incompetent police seem to be a trademark of Hitchcock, here he just goes too far: the highway patrolman knows Marion is nervous, and watches her trade in her car in a hurry--but he doesn't follow her despite her strange actions. For that matter, how can Sam--who is apparently a deeply indebted hardware store owner--afford to fly to Phoenix, and why does he fly back to Fairvale just before the weekend, when he could see his girlfriend. Even if the trip were business, why is he in such a hurry to return home? (The possibility that he doesn't care isn't an explanation--if it were, why would he see her at all?)
Yet, with all the problems with the script, Hitchcock manages to build suspense. There's still a part of you that thinks (and perhaps, even hopes in a sneaky way) that Marion will get away--even though nearly everyone in a contemporary audience has seen--for a dozen times--what happens to her. After that, you spend the whole rest of the movie wondering if her loved ones find out what happened. They're close, but they don't have the solution. There is plenty that doesn't add up until the end of the film--so even having seen what happens, the audience doesn't know what happened.
The whole feel of the movie is supported by the use of light and shadow. There are little touches, like one scene where Sam and Lila (Marion's sister--played by Vera Miles) are looking for evidence and they're in the dark--figuratively and literally. When she's driving away from Phoenix, frequently, if the car isn't completely dark, shadows are cast across her face. In the shower scene, we see the victim in the light, and her killer is in shadows. Though the use of light and shadow is generally good, and the filmmakers avoid having any important action in light that would make it hard to see, too often there are shadows across even good characters' faces, so one wonders how much is simply an attempt to create a dark film (not that there isn't reason to make the film dark, considering that it's about various crimes).
The performances are also excellent. Anthony Perkins is wonderfully convincing as the ill-at-ease Norman--and the final scene, even though he doesn't speak a word in it, makes his a master performance. Janet Leigh is also marvelous in her role, waging a convincing battle of money versus fear and conscience. John Anderson, Mort Mills, and Pat Hitchcock add dimension to their smaller parts, too.
The shower scene in "Psycho" is possibly the best-handled murder in any movie. Considering just how many crime-dramas, war films, and bloodbath horror films have been made, there is a great deal of competition. Sharp music, frequent cuts to different shots (there are about 90 in the sequence, according to the Internet Movie Database), and the use of light, shadow, and silhouette combine to make it shocking even when you know what's going to happen. It makes a horrid crime horrifying--there is nothing that glamorizes murder here, nor is there excessive gore. The scene is so shocking that it alone is probably what caused the film to be rated R (this is the only "Hays Code" film I can think of that isn't rated G--though, as I understand it, the shower scene would have been a Hays Code violation). I'd say it's worth it to see the film just to see that scene in context. However, as well done as it may be, the one scene can't carry the whole movie.
The story I've heard about "Psycho" (and I wish I could remember who I heard this from) is that Alfred Hitchcock chose the novel because he wanted to see if he could make a good movie from a bad book. Many other critics say yes. Personally, I'd say so; though with Hitchcock, I expect great--not simply good.
Click here for a review of Gus Van Sant's remake of "Psycho."
Title: "Psycho"
Release date: 1960
MPAA rating: R (though arguably Hays Code compliant)
Overall rating: ***
Aprox. run time: 109 min.
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Writers: Joseph Stephano, Robert Bloch (novel)
Stars: Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, John Gavin, Vera Miles
Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/Psycho60.htm
Added to blog site: 8/4/09
Overall Rating: ***
Many critics are wildly enthusiastic about Hitchcock; usually, I'm one of them. I wouldn't hesitate to give "North by Northwest" five stars overall, and four to four-and-a-half stars for many of his other films. But while quite a few people say "Psycho" is his best picture, I am not one of them.
"Psycho" opens with Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) having a Friday afternoon rendezvous with her lover, Sam Loomis (John Gavin). There, they rehash things they've been over before--he is deep in debt, and they can't get married until he's on his feet financially; he can't even stay around because he must return to Fairvale, and she has to go back to work. Resigned to waiting, she returns to the real-estate office just in time for a client to flash $40,000 in her face, claim that he doesn't carry more than he can afford to lose, and talk about money buying-off unhappiness. As if that weren't enough temptation, her boss asks her to put the money in the safe deposit box--her last task before the weekend. The temptation gets to be just too much.
Leaving Phoenix with her stolen fortune, she decides to head to Fairvale. The first night, she pulls over to the side of the road, and sleeps in her car. When a highway patrolman (Mort Mills) stops to see if she's all right, she becomes nervous, and he becomes suspicious. The next night, in the rain, she feels she can't go on--but not wanting to attract another patrolman, she stops at the out of the way Bates Motel. There, she meets an extremely meek Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), with whom she dines. But, she wants to get to bed, because she has decided to return to Phoenix and return the money. When she fails to return home, someone is bound to come looking for a missing woman with $40,000.
This movie is, in many respects, two movies. In the first half, we focus on Marion's battle with her conscience, and her inept but effective attempts to avoid the law. The rest of the movie is about the attempts locate her--which very quickly home in on the Bates Motel. This split presents one of two major problems with the film's story; either half the film is only an introduction for the main story, or half the film is resolution. The movie also depends too much on the psychiatrist in the final scenes; we don't see the case solved, we hear a lecture on it.
There are also just too many loose ends in this film. Since Sam seems to have lived in Fairvale for a while (he knows the sheriff and owns a store which seems to be inherited from his father), why doesn't Sam know the Bates Motel is the sight of the worst crime in town history? Also, while incompetent police seem to be a trademark of Hitchcock, here he just goes too far: the highway patrolman knows Marion is nervous, and watches her trade in her car in a hurry--but he doesn't follow her despite her strange actions. For that matter, how can Sam--who is apparently a deeply indebted hardware store owner--afford to fly to Phoenix, and why does he fly back to Fairvale just before the weekend, when he could see his girlfriend. Even if the trip were business, why is he in such a hurry to return home? (The possibility that he doesn't care isn't an explanation--if it were, why would he see her at all?)
Yet, with all the problems with the script, Hitchcock manages to build suspense. There's still a part of you that thinks (and perhaps, even hopes in a sneaky way) that Marion will get away--even though nearly everyone in a contemporary audience has seen--for a dozen times--what happens to her. After that, you spend the whole rest of the movie wondering if her loved ones find out what happened. They're close, but they don't have the solution. There is plenty that doesn't add up until the end of the film--so even having seen what happens, the audience doesn't know what happened.
The whole feel of the movie is supported by the use of light and shadow. There are little touches, like one scene where Sam and Lila (Marion's sister--played by Vera Miles) are looking for evidence and they're in the dark--figuratively and literally. When she's driving away from Phoenix, frequently, if the car isn't completely dark, shadows are cast across her face. In the shower scene, we see the victim in the light, and her killer is in shadows. Though the use of light and shadow is generally good, and the filmmakers avoid having any important action in light that would make it hard to see, too often there are shadows across even good characters' faces, so one wonders how much is simply an attempt to create a dark film (not that there isn't reason to make the film dark, considering that it's about various crimes).
The performances are also excellent. Anthony Perkins is wonderfully convincing as the ill-at-ease Norman--and the final scene, even though he doesn't speak a word in it, makes his a master performance. Janet Leigh is also marvelous in her role, waging a convincing battle of money versus fear and conscience. John Anderson, Mort Mills, and Pat Hitchcock add dimension to their smaller parts, too.
The shower scene in "Psycho" is possibly the best-handled murder in any movie. Considering just how many crime-dramas, war films, and bloodbath horror films have been made, there is a great deal of competition. Sharp music, frequent cuts to different shots (there are about 90 in the sequence, according to the Internet Movie Database), and the use of light, shadow, and silhouette combine to make it shocking even when you know what's going to happen. It makes a horrid crime horrifying--there is nothing that glamorizes murder here, nor is there excessive gore. The scene is so shocking that it alone is probably what caused the film to be rated R (this is the only "Hays Code" film I can think of that isn't rated G--though, as I understand it, the shower scene would have been a Hays Code violation). I'd say it's worth it to see the film just to see that scene in context. However, as well done as it may be, the one scene can't carry the whole movie.
The story I've heard about "Psycho" (and I wish I could remember who I heard this from) is that Alfred Hitchcock chose the novel because he wanted to see if he could make a good movie from a bad book. Many other critics say yes. Personally, I'd say so; though with Hitchcock, I expect great--not simply good.
Click here for a review of Gus Van Sant's remake of "Psycho."
Title: "Psycho"
Release date: 1960
MPAA rating: R (though arguably Hays Code compliant)
Overall rating: ***
Aprox. run time: 109 min.
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Writers: Joseph Stephano, Robert Bloch (novel)
Stars: Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, John Gavin, Vera Miles
Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/Psycho60.htm
Added to blog site: 8/4/09
Labels: Movie review, ReviewsbyJohn
posted by John at 12/05/1998 02:19:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home