Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho -- What Makes This Movie Great? (Episode 37)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 кві 2020
- This video reviews and analyzes Hitchcock's famous crime/horror classic, "Psycho."
I'll discuss a few ideas that Hitchcock is dealing with in Psycho, including Freudianism and Christianity, particularly original sin. We'll discuss how Psycho is about, in part, subversions, transgressions, and perversions, particularly those related to cultural norms.
We'll ask why Janet Leigh's character dies early; whether Norman Bates, played by Anthony Perkins, is really the main character; and what the significance of the Bates Motel is, in terms of perversions.
See joshmatthews.org for more great movie criticism. - Фільми й анімація
Given the reputation of the horror genre, the fact that Psycho is often considered an all-time classic of movies as a whole is truly a testament of it's quality
I believe Hitch paid author Robert Bloch $7,500 for the screen rights. That's all Bloch ever got, even though the film made millions.
Yes! The Score is amazing -- right from the very beginning with the titles -- that music creates a riveting tension -- that continues throughout the entire movie! AND when we see the Detective at the top of that staircase -- the return of the music at that point creates a real shock! AND for sure that Police Officer with his dark glasses is really unsettling!
Hitch was terrified of police officers, which could be why he included this creepy scene, which is out of place and does not move the story forward, but rather halts the story flow.
To me the most intense moment of the movie is when Normand is appearing in the basement with his wig and knife, shouting frantically and revealing his split personality. Hitchcock was a true master in creating complex scenarios where the origin of the horror has more to do with human psyche than monsters or creatures
And the indentation on the dead mother's bed reminds me of “A Rose for Emily, “William Faulkner's 1930.
Several critics remarked on this. I wonder if screenwriter Stefano read the story. Also, this video doesn't mention the horrid case of Ed Gein, on which the original novel was based.
Most people seem to miss something. When Marion is driving at night in the rain and imagines how angry they will be at her etc. she gets this half smile wide eyed mad stare that is repeated in the end by Norman.
We all go a little crazy sometimes
That scene is perfection.
not the same thing-her stare , his stare
In one clip she is driving on the left side of the road. Someone must have switched the rear projection film.
I studied Psycho for year 12 Media, and we focused a lot on the symbolism and scene settings to discuss what is going on for the characters (particularly Marian and Norman). Some of the main discussions are for the use of black and white (Marian’s bras in the first scenes), the frames behind Marian and Norman, as well as what they depict and the stuffed bird of prey behind Norman. It was very insightful.
We also studied “Misery” that year. My main takeaway is “Don’t trust a person named abates”.
Apparently my dad took my mom to see PSYCHO on their first date... and she thought afterwards that "she will never go out with this guy again" ... more than a decade later, when I was twelve, I got so ANXIOUS to see it and BEGGED my mom to be allowed to see it, because I had just bought Truffaut's interview book with Hitchcock and admired all those shower screenshots in it. The expression on her face was priceless, like I was a hopeless case... To this day, I think this film is a symphony in cinematic storytelling.
Vera Miles was an underrated actress. Hitchcock cast her to play Madeleine/Judy in Vertigo. She became pregnant. In which Hitchcock said to Vera. “Vera, don’t you know it’s in bad taste to have more than two.” She was under contract to him. So she got the part of Lila. She ended her contract on the set of Psycho. Check out her performances in a touch of larceny with James Mason and Hitchcock’s the wrong man opposite Henry Fonda.
Vera's not underrated for me. Brilliant actress, intelligent and photographed beautifully in some of her other movies. Impressive in "Beau James" she had a lot of ability. She is great in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence" and "The Searchers." Her scenes in the house and the basement are the best in "Psycho" IMO
An excellent book was published several years ago entitled ALFRED HITCHCOCK AND THE MAKING OF PSYCHO, still available on Amazon.
thank you
hey Dr. Josh Matthews.. you have a quality channel here. Setting the bar high by reviewing excellent movies from the past rather than earning clicks from latest releases - maybe you should do a bit of both though. Interesting your commentary is more on the directing rather than the acting. Thanks for contributing this stuff.
thank you. the channel focuses on meanings and interpretations, less so on the technique of making movies or movie history. I think you'll find the videos tend to relate movies to your real life.
thanks for the suggestion, too. I had intended to go to the theater and review new releases, but coronavirus hit. I'll eventually get to the theater eventually, or at least to new "early releases" via streaming.
Yours is a great review of "Psycho." I have subscribed to see more reviews that you have done.
"I've seen this movie twice." Rookie numbers, LOL. I've probably seen "Psycho" over 50 times, and adore it just as much every damn time.
This was still a fascinating analysis that I greatly enjoyed, and even made me realize things that I never had before, like your part about "the face of the law, and the face of death." That's really something, and shows that I can spend years reading and watching analysis of this film and still find something new!
thank you. any great art will allow us that awesome opportunity of rediscovering it anew every time we encounter it.
@@LearningaboutMovies Interesting analysis, but come on man! Only twice
I love the way you keep referring to Sam as "the half-naked man." That's hilarious!!! Btw, have you seen the film "Hitchcock", with Anthony Hopkins in the title role? A fictionalized behind-the-scenes look at how Hitch came to make "Psycho." There's a brief appearance by Ralph Macchio as Joseph Stefano, being interviewed by Hitch as a job applicant to write the screenplay (as we all know, he got the job). He tells Hitch he's in therapy, and Hitch says he can't imagine what he could possibly find to talk about, to his therapist, for a whole hour each week. Stefano casually replies: "Oh, you know... anger... my mother." Hitch doesn't react at all, but you know he just found the right man for the job! I found that brief scene hysterically funny.
if you get my ridiculous sense of humor, we will get along. I"ll have to watch that movie; never have seen it. thank you for the description.
@@LearningaboutMovies I quite enjoy your film analyses! Please keep 'em coming.
the film was taken from a book written on the making.
Highly agree! Its based on Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho by Stephen Rebello, its THE go to text when studying this film, highly recommended! The Hitchcock film is great, but it does take some liberties ie. The Hitchcocks didn't have to remortgage their house to finance the film, Alma didn't direct the shower scene, nor did she have an affair. Still, an enjoyable film, if only for Anthony Hopkins disappearing under a mound of latex to play Hitch!
Thank you for the video! I think the speech in the end was really useful as it is considering the era that the movie was released. The scene though that I think is dubious and satisfies the need for ambiguity (in a movie like this) is the very last scene in which the mother is speaking.
you're welcome.
I saw the movie with my parents and sister when it came out. I was 7 and she was 5 ! It didn’t really scare me because I think I was just too young to understand it. I do remember hiding my eyes when Vera miles finds the mother’s mummy. But my sister watched it and told me!
In reading about this film, Joseph Stefano, who wrote the screen play, was in analysis at the time. It was he who wrote and petitioned for the final scene with the psychiatrist. Alfred Hitchcock didn't want it, and had to be convinced to use it by Stefano and Hitchock's wife. Psychoanaylisis was very trendy at the time, Hitchcock was never in analysis. Another interesting note is that Hitchcock had some rather terrifying experiences with the police in his youth. He creates that menace with the police officer here to great effect.
Roger Ebert and many others HATE the 'explanation scene but it is a calming respite
from what we have been through and slowly helps us to understand it. Otherwise most patrons would have left the theater not knowing what had happened.
I think the psychiatrist explanation at the end was to redirect the focus away from the loss of Marion from her sister and boyfriend and direct it back to Norman Bates, even though they’re in the room. It’s another subversion I think.
Not the script. Not the novel on which the script is based. BUt..blocking, exposition, juxtaposition (editing), lighting (cinematography) and simplicity of narrative. It is my favourite film not just of Hitchcock but of any. Watch it every birthday. The perfect Auschwitz metaphor.
Could you explain the metaphor?
If you watching The Making Of, you'll hear how Hitchcock had an unsettling response to the police hence the portrayal
Someone said that PSYCHO plays like a triple episode of his TV show ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS! (This was the only one of his later movies to be filmed in black & white, like the series.) Similarly, the Rod Serling-written PLANET OF THE APES is like a long episode of THE TWILIGHT ZONE.
Have you seen Brian De Palma's "Dressed to Kill"? Wikipedia says it has "several direct references" to "Psycho," but there are so many similarities regarding the plot, characters, and how scenes are structured that it seems like a complete ripoff. And then of course, there's the 1998 remake from Gus Van Sant that mimics the film entirely, shot by shot. I wonder what the purpose of that kind of approach is. What are directors trying to achieve or convey by explicitly aping another director's work? Van Sant said his version of the film was an experiment to prove that great films can't be copied in such a literal way, but if that was his actual reason for making the film, it seems quite foolish to spend millions of dollars just to make a point I'm sure most people already agreed with. I haven't seen "Obsession," but I've heard that it rips off "Vertigo," so it seems De Palma was definitely going for something with this approach.
I never understood what Van Sant was doing. Borges already made fun of this kind of thing in "Pierre Menard," where a man tries to write Don Quixote again, word for word, without reading the book. Psycho has been ripped off so much that, if it weren't so great, it would be condemnable for inspiring so much schlock. I feel that De Palma is highly overrated, though I don't have great arguments for that; just a gut feeling after being soured by too many of his movies. My suspicion is that the friend group he hung out with helped boost his name brand.
Hello Dr! I’m fourteen and I just watched this movie. It, more so than any other film, changed my life. What other Hitchcock films would you recommend?
thank you. most of them. Hitchcock made "adult" movies, meaning for older audiences than movies shoot for these days. Hopefully they will still speak to you:
-- Vertigo
-- Rear Window
-- Notorious
-- To Catch a Thief
-- Dial M for Murder
-- North by Northwest
-- Strangers on a Train
-- The 39 Steps
And many more. Everything after Psycho in his filmography is not as good, I think, though The Birds is famous.
@@LearningaboutMovies the birds is definitely a good one, although pale in comparison to Psycho. I have seen all the above hitchcock films except for Notorious...is that the one with Ingrid Bergman?
Outside of Hitchcock try these, preferably without knowing anything about them in advance, if you love what Hitchcock did:
- Blood Simple
- The Fisher King
- Pi
- Dark City
- eXistenZ
- Mulholland Drive
- mother!
- Mandy
- The Lighthouse
- Beau Is Afraid
You might like them and find a few parallels.
@@elevenseven-yq4vu Thank you! I'm sixteen now and I completely forgot I wrote this comment... I think two of those are on my Letterboxd watchlist. Thank you so much! I will totally look into them
@@marnazelle0414 I keep hearing about Letterboxed, but I try to abstain for fear of getting addicted.
Great analysis! Sorry for the delay, am new to your channel. Psycho is such a classic, indeed its legacy cannot be understated - am a huge fan of this film and of Hitchcock in general. Sorry if you've already mentioned it on here before, but also check out Peeping Tom, directed by Michael Powell and released around the same time as Psycho - pretty much its British counterpart (but had a very different effect on the director's career).
thank you. thanks for joining as well - you are right on time, as these videos are supposed to be able to last for a long while, I hope.
Very good movie, thanks for the info.
you're welcome.
I agree on the point about the ending with the Psychiatrist explaining Norman's condition indirectly to the audience. I think Hitchcock should have given the audience more credit and not have to give an exposition on Norman's psychique.
they would have had no idea what the hell the movie was about. naive take, no hindsight.
A single woman having an affair with a divorced man is by no definition adultery,
according to Catholic commandments, which Hitchcock would know, it is under the "adultery" commandment. That's what I meant.
You do realise this film is based on a book; Hitchcock didn't think up these marvellous twists...
Your point?
What a great movie that really puts the audience in the mind of a killer, with the great twist in the end that is still copy cat today
Psycho does have sequels
What adultery? Neither Marion or Sam were married. I don't see the sin in their actions. Apart from the stealing, obvious sin but not the sex.
I might've misspoke. "Fornication" according to the Catholic Church, which would fall under the adultery commandment. I say that because Hitchcock seems to know his theology.
Good video.
thank you.
Im 1960 split pesoanily was un heard of back the.
I heard they had to poonfeed it to the audeinc
sI herd that was another thing that many think made it ground breakiine .
GREAT REVIEW
There was no adultery in the movie. Marion and Sam were not married. They were just having a nooner. Alfred Hitchcock had a fear of the police.
fine, yes, let's get it right: fornication. Which is covered under the adultery law in the ten commandments. They are different, though.
Everybody fears the cops. The movie, as usual for Hitchcock, features sin, guilt, and the law.
I'm shocked your teacher showed this movie to 13 year olds!
LOL.
I'm baffled.
it's even more baffling when you consider she showed it in a small town with a lot of uber-religious folks in it, where it would be obvious that a bunch of people would object. She didn't strike me as a "fight the man!" kind of person either.
@@LearningaboutMovies That's very interesting. Maybe write a story about this - I'd read it!
It’s so old and tame compared to most things now. Like Supernatural, Stranger Things and Buffy is scarier than this movie. Hell The Walking Dead is scarier. Hahahahahaha.
@@cordeliachase601 I always get an education from you younger people, in you tube comments - thank you.
If you again check out the psychoanalysis at the end, I bet you can find where he is wrong.
who is "he"? I forget what is in this video.
@@LearningaboutMovies The analyst is not always correct and one can figure this out. So you guessed correctly about why it was there, just do not know why yet. Subverting expectations?
She dies early because its unexpected.
yes.
Prior to this movie has a woman ever been brutally murdered on screen? Was this the first time?
good question, I thought about this and am not sure. I recall femme fatales being killed in noirs, on-screen. That would be a gun shooting someone and bloodless. Hopefully, though, somebody can come along and answer you defintively.
@@LearningaboutMovies I know the monster movies prior to this there was a lot of screaming, fainting, taken hostage, and then eventually rescued. Damsels in distress kind of stuff.
Now this film is undeniably a masterpiece, but its influence has unfortunately made multiple personalities highly stigmatized to this day, and thats the one flaw, even though the truth is in this movies case its very clear it is not a problem with the disorder, but with this case specifically, an outlier
This comment was made after I, a person with a self-created second personality myself, watched it for the first time and loved it
I would also think that human evolution would stigmatize multiple-personality disorder, as it would probably harm mating, the basis and impetus for life. Likely the movie mainly stirs up those instincts.
@@LearningaboutMovies truly, i created a second self out of feeling incomplete alone in my head and into biopunk self hacks too
Psycho was based on a true story that was for more shocking than the movie and the public knew all about it. Look up Ed Gein.
it's not really based on ed gein.
Ok, here's the thing with PSYCHO...I think it's a great movie ONLY up to and including the shower scene. Once that's over with the movie becomes pedestrian. Just from a cinematography point of view if nothing else. So many great shots in the first part of the movie. Definitely that cop with the glasses and well, everything. Janet driving. The apt liaison scene. All the awkwardness of the office scenes. The downtown shots are so crystal clear, etc. Of course the shower scene is a masterpiece. But once she's dead, so is the movie. It just becomes boring with no great shots. Balsam's death scene on the stairs is incredibly clunky and in the lexicon of Hitchcock scenes is hardly worth mentioning. Even the basement scene is an anti climax. I like Vera Miles' positioning and her hit the light with her arm, but really, you get a momentary shock of the apple-headed mom but really it's a momentary gotcha but hardly horrific. There is ONE shot though at the end of the movie that IS wonderful and that's of course the shot of Perkins just sitting there in all his crazy self. Just classic imagery. Now the "explanation" scene is horrendous and should never have been there. It's so insulting to the audience. I mean, we get it, Norman is a nut. We've figured that out. If you HAD to have it, tighten the whole scene up and yes, I agree with you Dr. make it more ambiguous and also it should have been more interactive with the other characters. Don't just have an actor stand there and explain the movie basically. So that's my take: First half of movie: MASTERPIECE. Second half of movie: Nothing special.
Maybe it should be reversed with the Vera Miles part first ( adapted accordingly )
The movie isn’t great. When it came out it was considered evidence that Hitchcock had entered his decline.
Doubt it. It was nominated for Oscar's and made millions.
wow, inverted populism.
Cool movie but overrated tbh