NOTE: This review will discuss the film's ending. If you haven't yet seen it, beware.
The film that made a generation wary of the shower[1], Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho is a landmark of cinema, one of the high-water marks for the man many consider to be one of the greatest directors in history. Janet Leigh stars at Marion Crane, a rather ordinary secretary who one day decides to steal $40,000 from her boss and run off with her unsuspecting boyfriend. After napping on the side of the road, she arouses the suspicion of the local authorities, but nothing comes of it. Nearly in the clear, she stops on a rainy night at the secluded Bates Motel. She rents a room, shares a pleasant enough discussion with Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), the son of the hotel's owner. Then, she is brutally murdered[2]. Meanwhile, back in Phoenix, Crane's boss starts to worry, both about his secretary and his cash, so he sends a private eye (Martin Balsam) looking for her.
While a great number of people would like to forget it ever happened, there's no denying that Psycho was remade in 1998 by indie auteur Gus Van Sant. Employing a shot-by-shot approach and starring Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche, the re-make is generally considered to be a horrific travesty, but has some value for our purposes[3]. One would assume that a shot-by-shot remake would approximate the quality of the original, at least to some extent. It doesn't. So what does this tell us about film? Well, for one, one could argue that the contributions of actors holds more value than originally assumed. After all, that's the major variable at play. Beyond that, though, it suggests that perhaps film is an art form where genius lies between the shots. That is, if the shots are identical and the script is identical, then what does it do to the auteur theory? Van Sant is no slouch of a director[4], so you have to wonder if his remake indicates that perhaps we're spending too much time analyzing the specifics of a shot, if perhaps there isn't something larger at play that conventional criticism can't put a finger on. It is, at the very least, something to ponder.
As for the masterpiece, to fully understand the impact Psycho had when it was originally in theatres, you have to know a little of the backstory. Hitchcock purchased the option to Robert Bloch's little-known novel without telling anyone, then proceeded to buy every available copy he could find. During the production, which was filmed under the fake title Wimpy, he planted casting rumors in the press that he was considering Helen Hays for the non-existent role of Mother, had a chair on set reserved for the character, and went to the trouble of billing Janet Leigh as the film's lead, despite the fact that she dies in the early going. Effectively this created two stunning plot twists with the dual benefit of being completely unexpected both in the context of the film and in the reality of anyone familiar with the various Hollywood machinations of casting. Few expect the lead to die in the first half of the film and fewer still expect the casting rumors to involve a character that is a figment of another character's madness.
Article comments
1 - Victor Lana
Thanks for a great review, Lucas. The film is very intense and tight with little if any down time. The scene with Janet Leigh and Perkins and his stuffed birds is beyond spooky. I first saw it when I was 13 on late night TV and was hooked right away. That scene when Martin Balsam falls backwards down the stairs is just icing on an already delicious cake.
Great stuff. Oh yeah, and that blood was red. I know it wasn't but it was in my mind. Man, that's scary!
2 - Scott Butki
You know, I need to watch this film again because I don't remember well the beginning bit about the theft, probably because I was so focused on the scene I knew was coming, namely the shower scene.
I seem to recall Hitchcock doing something like insisting the audience at the movie's debut be kept away from the public to add a guarantee the surprises would not be ruined.
This is an excellent review. I wrote a comment to you in your Clockwork Orange review comments - I think I'm going to have to go and read your reviews on the other films: they are that good. Keep up the good work.
3 - jack davis
yes. Hitchcock didnt play the film on a continuas loop so people couldnt see the end before the start! he also told the cinemas to shine green eery lights on random people to make them on edge!