Popcorn in Bed youtube channel reacts to Psycho - Psycho (1960) Discussion

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

She is doing very well. Over a thousand patrons, each paying at least $3 per month. Not bad for just reacting to films/tv.

reply

[–] Doghouse (447) 3 years ago

Thanks for that link, Swanstep. I had expected to watch maybe five minutes, anticipating, perhaps, some vapid, cynical or impatient reactions (yeah, my "ageist" prejudices are showing), but damned if I didn't stick with it for the duration.

While Cassie may not be what we might call a sophisticate, she has an agile and intuitive mind, picking up on the little things and properly contextualizing them, as well as appreciating the dramatic dynamics Hitchcock so successfully employed. But what really sells it is her complete emotional investment in what she's watching. She's committed to giving the film a fair go, without allowing a jaded, 21st-century viewpoint to intrude upon or impede that commitment.

And it's especially satisfying to witness such sincere admiration of Hitch's craft over the clockwork excesses of what passed for thrillers in succeeding decades. I think the man himself would have been quite gratified to watch a truly uninitiated viewer react just the way he'd intended sixty-one years ago.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

She is doing very well. Over a thousand patrons, each paying at least $3 per month. Not bad for just reacting to films/tv.
---

A pretty nifty way to make a living...though I guess as with all such "internet trades," you have to have some star quality to develop the followers. This "reactor" is a blonde young woman with a pretty face and a lovely, big smile -- and she has a great voice, youthful to the point of child-like, but sweet and innocent -- rather contrasting here, to the movie at hand (Psycho..which she cutely calls PSYCHO! a scary time or two, in homage to that great title itself.)

In watching this, one of my first "questions to myself" was:

Even though the video LOOKS like the work of a "simple girl next door amateur," there seems to be some technical work and technology used here that suggests a professional at work. Is she the one? Or does she have help?

I am speaking to:

How the ongoing footage of her reacting(in a small circle in the corner of the screen) matches up EXACTLY to the footage from the movie that fills the screen. "How they do that?" One camera points at her as she reacts --- and the movie is projected...how? Where?

I did notice when she was screaming and cowering during Arbogast's murder that they showed her doing so "in the small circle in the corner of the screen" and ALSO filled the screen briefly with her screaming(in black and white, versus the color of her reaction footage.) Hmm.

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

And this: how fascinating to watch Psycho play "in continuity" in about 29 minutes, versus the hour and 49 minutes that the movie actually runs. This has been done in the past with 8mm versions that simply remove whole chunks of the film and "boil it down" to the basics and the three shock scenes and then Norman in the cell.

But here, I noticed that some "technical device" allows for the continual , frame by frame deletion of looks and pauses and some dialogue in a very subtle way. The actors deliver fewer lines; pauses are removed, etc. Very precise.

I watched part of this more than once, and I figured out that this "technical device" allowed them to show all of Arbogast's murder EXCEPT -- they cut out his "process fall down the stairs." One moment, he is slashed at the top of the stairs(overhead shot, close-up), the fall begins and then BOOM...he's on the floor getting finished off. A sneaky way to remove the most criticized shot in the scene.

And this: "Cassie" is actually (I would guess) reacting only to this 29 minute version of Psycho being projected for her viewing pleasure. UNLESS...she watched all 109 minutes of Psycho and the technology cut the movie and her reactions down to 29 minutes. Hmm. I wonder.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Thanks for that link, Swanstep.

---

And from me as well, swanstep. I DID enjoy.

---

I had expected to watch maybe five minutes, anticipating, perhaps, some vapid, cynical or impatient reactions (yeah, my "ageist" prejudices are showing), but damned if I didn't stick with it for the duration.

--

I guess these "reactor videos" have sprung up everywhere (I"ve also seen them with trailers of NEW movies before the movie even comes up) and I seem to remember watching one here on Psycho where the young reactor was less than impressed. Indeed one can watch Psycho through jaded modern eyes and refuse to see it as it WAS -- sometimes Norman's fruit cellar reveal is mocked rather than feared.

But not here.

----

While Cassie may not be what we might call a sophisticate, she has an agile and intuitive mind, picking up on the little things and properly contextualizing them, as well as appreciating the dramatic dynamics Hitchcock so successfully employed.

---

In discussing Psycho with Truffaut, Hitchcock noted that "the audience likes to try to think ahead and guess what's happening" and Psycho was designed to keep dashing expectations ("I was playing a game with the audience..." Hitchcock said, and also "I was playing the audience like an organ.")

Cassie "thinks out loud" and gives us some of that quality here. I liked how , as the camera swooped down into the Phoenix hotel room, Cassie asked out loud "Is there going to be a murder?" No, Cassie, not here in THIS Hitchcock movie, but in Rope...that's exactly what happens in the opening scene.

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

When they reach my favorite shot in Hitchocck..Arbogast climbing the hill to the house, Cassie tenses up but sensibly opines, "I hope he has a gun." I wonder how many audience members in 1960 wondered the same thing. Private eyes like Peter Gunn and Mike Hammer ALWAYS had guns, but Arbogast seems much more realistic and I'm not sure modern private eyes CARRY guns. Of course, it doesn't matter, even if Arbogast HAD a gun, Mother never gives him the chance or the time to draw it.

----

But what really sells it is her complete emotional investment in what she's watching. She's committed to giving the film a fair go, without allowing a jaded, 21st-century viewpoint to intrude upon or impede that commitment.

---

I did rather love how during exciting, suspenseful or shocking moments of the film, Cassie's biggest exclamation was "oh, my gosh! oh, my gosh!" -- which suggested the more innocent sensibility of a more innocent time(1960, at the Hays Code movies, at least). She also demonstrated something that I think younger people who "get" Psycho express in written posts of admiration: how MODERN it is, how well it still works in structure and pacing and character. As she continues to watch the film, she expresses a great deal of respect for its acheievement and how it DELIVERS.

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

And it's especially satisfying to witness such sincere admiration of Hitch's craft over the clockwork excesses of what passed for thrillers in succeeding decades. I think the man himself would have been quite gratified to watch a truly uninitiated viewer react just the way he'd intended sixty-one years ago.

---

Yes. You can picture Hitchocck sitting across the room from Cassie and nodding in satisfaction as she "gets it."

Interesting to me: in her intro , Cassie indicates that she will be next be watching 12 Angry Men, and I didn't see that video but I wonder, how would she react to THAT? That film is a series of jury discussions about a murder. It never has the shock moments that Psycho has , or the building suspense (though it has building DRAMA.)

By watching Psycho, Cassie gets to participate in one of the great "audience participation movies" of all time. And you can SEE how it works in her reactions.

To wit: Famously, there is no horror atmosphere or plotting until Marion reaches the Bates Motel, so all Cassie can react to is the "Marion plot" -- the hopeless flight, the bungled cover-up, the cop, California Charlie. Cassie gets into all this, but doesn't really know where all this is leading.

When Marion reaches the Bates Motel and we see the sign in the dark and rain(such a famous moment in movie history) she says "Bates Motel...that's familiar to me." You almost wondering if she knows more that she says she knows. But probably not. "Bates Motel" is a title of a TV series, its a phrase that has been bandied about with Norman Bates(which Cassie also declares as "familiar to her") for decades now. And since Cassie has only been alive for TWO decades(she's 20)...these are probably terms just "floating in her consciousness."

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

To her credit, Cassie declares the Bates Motel and house on first view as "creepy"(I personally think that Psycho becomes a horror movie not at the shower scene, but much earlier with Marion's arrival at this spooly arena for terror.)

She also finds Tony Perkins on first, shy, winning appearance as "not creepy." She will soon disavow that reaction.

During the parlor scene, Cassie goes along with it UNTIL Norman goes into his "mean routine"(voiced by Mother)..."People always mean well...they cluck their thick tongues..." and Sweet Cassie demonstrates an almost immediate fear of and anger towards "the new Norman" and voices what others over the decades have no doubt thought: "Get in your car, Marion! Get out of there.")

Whether he is playing too blunt, or playing fair, Hitchcock here certainly demonstrates early on Norman Bates' capacity for anger and menace...I have always assumed that part of the suspense in this film derives from the audience's belief that Marion SHOULD leave, that there is something wrong with Norman, that she is unwise to stay...and...what's going to happen?

Thus with Carrie we reach the infamous shower scene and her reaction at first is simply "showering with her mouth open?" This is the "big moment" in this reactor video, the moment that we realize we are watching Psycho with a young person who simply hasn't HEARD of "the shower scene" and hence doesn't really know what she is watching.

And then the door opens beyond the shower curtain. Cassie watches the scene yelling "What am I seeing here?!" (I believe the "technical device" removes some of the stabbing) and screaming and most importantly, almost CRYING over Marion's fate("Marion is going to DIE?")

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

From this point on, Psycho works on Cassie as it was always intended to work by Hitchcock. Whatever disinterest or wonderment or curiosity "Marion's story" has on a first time viewer of Psycho, once Marion lies dead on that shower floor EVERYTHING changes, including the mood of the story and the unrelenting suspense of the story. Cassie says of Norman's clean-up of the body "this is disturbing" and changes her opinion of him: "He's a real creep."

I was touched by how much, and how often, Cassie refers back to the death of Marion as something...sad. "This movie can't have a happy ending, because Marion is dead," she says at one point. And at another, almost in tears "I just wanted Marion and Sam to live together on a private island." Cassie in her innocence and feminine empathy locates yet another key to the lasting power of Psycho : the big murder in it, actually BOTH murders in it, are terribly, terribly SAD. Tragic. Unnecessary.

The hardware store scene. Lila enters. "Who's this?" Cassie wonders. Arbogast enters. "Who's THIS?" Cassie wonders. Its just how the story is supposed to work at this point.

Cassie watches Arbogast and Norman with a rooting interest in Arbogast finding out: "We need justice for Marion." When the detective says "If it doesn't jell, it isn't aspic" she says "I don't know what that means"(which is why Van Sant changed it to "If it doesn't jell, it isn't jello," ugh.) Listening to the final porch conversation: "Oh, the detective thinks Marion paid Norman to stay here." And Cassie is truly chilled by Norman's weird, giggly smile when the detective drives away.

During the phone booth scene, Cassie surmises "Oh, no...are they going to kill HIM?" Interesting, are THEY going to kill him. By now, Cassie sees Mother and Norman as a villainous TEAM, and its true. Norman rather SLOWLY becomes a villain in Psycho....step by step.from accomplice to...

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Arbogast reaches the stairs. Cassie "My palms are sweating." Cut to the chase: Mother running out of the room.

This is the highlight of this reaction video, if you ask me.

It demonstrates yet again that while the shower murder is the most famous scene in the movie in history(it has had a book written just about IT, a documentary filmed just about IT)...the staircase murder is simply a more fun, shocking, big BOOM of a horror sequence. (Hitchcock himself said that the staircase murder was more shocking than the shower murder.)

Cassie's "one woman scream" as Mother advances on Arbogast matches up to full house screams I've heard during the scene -- the scream GROWS, gets bigger with each shocking moment that we realize Arbogast is as doomed as Marion was, and there are further peaks for screaming -- the close up on Arbo's slashed face, and the nightmarish "finishing off shot."

NOW, Cassie KNOWS she's in a classic.

The movie itself now rather runs for the exits but Cassie is dutifully stunned by the Sheriff's revelation of dead mother ("That's a twist!") and both scared enough and confused enough by the fruit cellar climax to show why the shrink scene was needed.

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

swanstep wrote:

Well, today Cassie watched Psycho, the first pre-1970 film to which she's reacted.

---

It is interesting to me that Psycho seems to have been given "privileges" as a pre 1970 film to stand alongside the movies from the 70's through the 90s as a "modern film of the 20th Century."

I recall a Universal VHS promotion which had Back to the Future, Jaws, Animal House, American Graffiti, The Sting...and Psycho...as if that old black and white Hitchcock filmed had earned its stripes to be kept alive as a commercial product as well as classic.

I also recall taking the Universal Studios tour in November of 1998..a few weeks before Van Sant's Psycho was to come out. I went into a gift and video/DVD shop and...Hitchcock's Psycho was playing on DVDs on several screens(to promote the Van Sant, no doubt.)

Anyway, Psycho has stayed current, both back in the 20th Century and today and here is Cassie...taking a look at it for all to see.

Though she says she will soon reach The Wizard of Oz(THERE 's a timeless modern film) and 12 Angry Men(from whence Hitchcock cast his Arbogast.)

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

swanstep wrote:

It may be hard to believe that anyone could watch Psycho for the first time these days without having had at least some of its secrets spoiled for them, but seeing is believing in this case.

--

I will admit that there were times when I wondered if sweet young Cassie was maybe not being honest with us...was she REALLY in the dark about the shower scene and the twist ending?

But over time I decided: no. She doesn't know. She has no reason to know. Key: when the opening cast credits rolled, she said "I don't know any of these people."

And so she was gifted seeing Psycho the way Hitchcock wanted it to be seen(no wait -- she didn't see that 1960 trailer with the shower and staircase murders discussed)...and WE were gifted watching someone see it for the first time, too.

Which brings up this: one sees "debates'in the moviechat boards: why put SPOILERS on a movie that has been out for decades and that "everybody knows."

Well...because of Cassie. She's only 20 years on this earth and there will be a LOT of "old movies" that she doesn't know.

I guess I'll start putting SPOILER warnings on my Psycho posts. Hah.

---

Enjoy!

---

I DID!

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

PS. A stray thought. Young sweet Cassie calls her show "Popcorn in Bed." As opposed to "Popcorn on the couch." And she's in bed(or ON bed), though in street clothes -- a pretty blouse here.

So I will still speak to Cassie as being an innocent here, but i wonder if she hasn't picked up a few young male fans who like the idea of watching a movie with Cassie in her bedroom....

reply

[–] swanstep (2631) 3 years ago

So I will still speak to Cassie as being an innocent here, but i wonder if she hasn't picked up a few young male fans who like the idea of watching a movie with Cassie in her bedroom....

Surely there is some of that going on. In some ways, there's a whole new tier of service being created where people with something darling or winning or magnetic about them get to monetize that likeability and provide valuable friend-like services to a semi-mass audience. I've occasionally wondered whether there's something vampiric about the amount of enjoyment I can get out of watching young minds encounter something great whether it's Hitchcock or The Beatles...

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

So I will still speak to Cassie as being an innocent here, but i wonder if she hasn't picked up a few young male fans who like the idea of watching a movie with Cassie in her bedroom....
---
Surely there is some of that going on. In some ways, there's a whole new tier of service being created where people with something darling or winning or magnetic about them get to monetize that likeability and provide valuable friend-like services to a semi-mass audience.

---

Its the newest branch of something we've had for years: the "friend-like" services provided to us all by (1) movie stars ; (2) TV dramatic and comedy series stars; (3) TV hosts (from Johnny Carson to the Today Show gang in the morning.) Now, thanks to YouTube -- hundreds? thousands? millions? -- of "unknowns" are trying their luck at being our "virtual friends." Evidently some of them DO land contracts with one of the 1,000 content providers out there(broadcast, cable, streaming)...but they have to have something going first. I'm not sure if "Cassie" is quite that marketable, but maybe.

I also notice that Cassie gets the participation thing going -- viewers voting for what movies she should watch; "brackets' to determine the winners. And she references something I'm not familiar with -- a "pantreon"? (sp?).

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I've occasionally wondered whether there's something vampiric about the amount of enjoyment I can get out of watching young minds encounter something great whether it's Hitchcock or The Beatles...

---

I'm not sure its vampiric, but it is an opportunity to see if a younger person can/will truly appreciate the entertainment that made the lives of our older generation.

Psycho was a "major thing" through the entire sixties, in my experience. All the talk at school. All the talk from parents. The 1960 release. The 1965 re-release. The 1966 CBS failed showing. The local showings in 1967. The 1969 re-RE-release ("See the version of Psycho that TV dared not show!")

But how the heck did Psycho keep hanging on -- through the 70's, 80s, 90s and beyond -- even as The Exorcist and Jaws and Halloween and Alien stepped up?

I'd say the answer is: high school and college classes. Psycho became a "text," as novels once were. Meanwhile, TV syndication(the 70's), VHS and cable(the 80s) DVDs(the 90s), and streaming(today) keep it available.

And so: we get to watch Cassie finally come to see Psycho and...its fun. And hopeful. Our favorite movies just may NOT fade into nothing, after all.

reply

[–] swanstep (2631) 3 years ago

Its the newest branch of something we've had for years: the "friend-like" services provided to us all by (1) movie stars ; (2) TV dramatic series stars; (3) TV hosts

Yes, and think, for example, of how some versions stardom have always *depended* on becoming more or less explicitly *everyone's* boyfriend or girlfriend or 'America's Sweetheart'. The '90s were absolutely full of this sort of phenomenon perhaps especially on the female side: Julia Roberts, Meg Ryan, and the gals from Friends were all these maximally girlfriendable types, peaking perhaps with this Rolling Stone cover announcing Jennifer Aniston as simply 'The Girl Friend':
https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/54721985024277bb31eac322/master/w_1280,c_limit/1416599785_jennifer-aniston-rolling-stone-cover-467.jpg

Since then it's kind of felt like Hollywood 'virtual boyfriends' have been more prominent. Keanu Reeves and Ryan Gosling, in particular, have quite patchy filmographies box office-wise, but their statuses as 'the internet's boyfriend' in memes etc. keep them hot between box-office hits.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Yes, and think, for example, of how some versions stardom have always *depended* on becoming more or less explicitly *everyone's* boyfriend or girlfriend or 'America's Sweetheart'.

The '90s were absolutely full of this sort of phenomenon perhaps especially on the female side: Julia Roberts, Meg Ryan, and the gals from Friends were all these maximally girlfriendable types,

---

And this "girl friend" aspect broke different ways. I suppose for straight women, these girl friends were "virtual besties." If gay, something more erotic. For men -- well, I think it is somewhat interesting that Roberts and Ryan and Sandra Bullock(a VERY big star) "led" not with erotic appeal, but a certain "sisterly" feeling. Yes, Julia Roberts played a hooker in "Pretty Woman," but possibly the least erotic (or realistic) hooker ever.

--
peaking perhaps with this Rolling Stone cover announcing Jennifer Aniston as simply 'The Girl Friend':
https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/54721985024277bb31eac322/master/w_1280,c_limit/1416599785_jennifer-aniston-rolling-stone-cover-467.jpg

---

Ah, I remember that cover well. A classic case of "nudity without nudity" except no, wait , this one had nudity!

And this surprised me at the time. One of my little arguments with women in the 90s was: "You tell me that Jennifer Anistorn is beautiful...I don't get the erotic vibe. KELLY PRESTON? There, I get the erotic vibe." Its just how women "present" to the opposite sex.

Ms. Anniston certainly overcame the "bestie comedy gal" vibe with that Rolling Stone cover but...the sexy aura never really "held." Soon, Aniston was just goofy again.

Stray thought: Anniston posed as she is on a bed here -- THAT could transform Marion Crane's opening scene into something pretty erotic. In either version of Psycho. But I don't think Janet Leigh was up to it, even if the Hays Code was dropped(but who knows, no Hays Code, maybe Janet would have been adventurous.)

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Since then it's kind of felt like Hollywood 'virtual boyfriends' have been more prominent. Keanu Reeves and Ryan Gosling, in particular, have quite patchy filmographies box office-wise, but their statuses as 'the internet's boyfriend' in memes etc. keep them hot between box-office hits.

---

I'm reminded of female dorm rooms and bedrooms I was in my younger years with Robert Redford and Warren Beatty -- and later Tom Cruise and Johnny Depp -- festooned across the walls. A nice rite of passage. (One gal I knew in college in the 70s had CLARK GABLE photos in her dorm room. Obviously a nostalgia freak.)

Guys "back in the day" had such photo posters on their walls as: Steve McQueen jumping the bike in The Great Escape. Paul and Bob as Butch and Sundance. Paul -- but not Bob -- playing cards in The Sting. And Al Pacino and James Caan had separate Godfather posters. Al also had a Serpcio poster that Travolta's FICTIONAL character has in Saturday Night Fever.

Keanu Reeves continues to intrigue me. He got a lot of bad reviews over his decades in the business, but I find him quite likeable and rather beautiful on screen -- remember, he's my pick to play Norman Bates in the 1998 remake. He had what Tony Perkins had -- shyness AND erotic appeal (not so, Vince Vaughn or Jeremy Davies or Freddie Highmore.) More to the point, Reeves has had a few major hits over his career: Bill and Ted; Speed(a lotta fun and great chemistry with Sandra Bullock), The Matrix(his big franchise), and now John Wick(his OTHER big franchise.) Reeves is a major star despite his reviews.

Ryan Gosling can't quite seem to get traction or "lift." There's that other cute Ryan -- Reynolds -- out there with bigger hits and the pretty star wife. Gosling also looks alarmingly like Fourth Tier star David Arquette(who doesn't act much anymore...I think he "professional wrestles."!!)

reply

[–] Doghouse (447) 3 years ago

"Famously, there is no horror atmosphere or plotting until Marion reaches the Bates Motel, so all Cassie can react to is the "Marion plot" -- the hopeless flight, the bungled cover-up, the cop, California Charlie. Cassie gets into all this, but doesn't really know where all this is leading."
- - -
What struck me was how significantly moved she was by the Marion/Sam romance aspect. Once taking hold, it remained in her mind all through the film, and to which she returned at the end, reflecting on the sadness of Marion never finding her "private island." To Cassie, they were Rick and Ilsa; Scarlett and Rhett; Heathcliff and Cathy; Romeo and Juliet. The romantic tragedy of doomed love.

Although the terminologies hadn't yet been coined, there was certainly a conceptual cultural awareness in '60 of what are now called "chick flicks" and "guy movies." When SHE chose what to see, it might have been Strangers When We Meet; when HE did, it might have been The Magnificent Seven. I wonder which of them was the more likely to choose Psycho.

It's a facet I hadn't considered, and I wonder also if Hitchcock did. I can imagine that hypothetical couple. Hitch gets 'em both with the then-sensational sexual candor of the opening scene. But maybe his interest wanes a bit as the clothes go on rather than off amid talk of can-they/can't-they get married, while hers sharpens. Then the theft. HE: Now things are gettin' good. SHE: Oh no...but look what she's willing to do just to be with Sam.

Now they're both strapped in, before either can realize what kind of roller coaster they've boarded.

After the ride was over, and she returned to Marion and Sam, reflecting on all the "if onlys," I thought of you, ecarle.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

"Famously, there is no horror atmosphere or plotting until Marion reaches the Bates Motel, so all Cassie can react to is the "Marion plot" -- the hopeless flight, the bungled cover-up, the cop, California Charlie. Cassie gets into all this, but doesn't really know where all this is leading."
- - -
What struck me was how significantly moved she was by the Marion/Sam romance aspect. Once taking hold, it remained in her mind all through the film, and to which she returned at the end, reflecting on the sadness of Marion never finding her "private island." To Cassie, they were Rick and Ilsa; Scarlett and Rhett; Heathcliff and Cathy; Romeo and Juliet. The romantic tragedy of doomed love.

---

Yes.."Cassie" was certainly willing to hold on to sadness about Sam and Marion when so much modern criticism(and chat criticism) seems to mistrust the relationship in some way -- Sam sometimes gets hit as selfish and not quite loving Marion enough, but I saw more -- in the hotel room scene, Sam starts off as a guy who "only" wants Marion for the sex (understandable enough, given their age and bodies and Janet Leigh's killer sexuality) but he seems to thaw out to wanting Marion under "respectable" circumstances.

The scene ends with Sam uncommitted and Marion suggesting that "I'm thinking about it"(leaving him for another less burdened guy) but the film cruelly and tragically tells us later (Sam's letter writing scene) that he DID decide to marry Marion (without the word "marry" being shown in the letter.)

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Psycho suggests a number of "what ifs" BEYOND the "what ifs" of the story. I can picture Marion living in the hardware store backroom for ONLY SO LONG, and then lovingly pushing Sam to an apartment or (rental?) home while taking some sort of job to help him. (A secretary at the local DA's office, perhaps?) I'm reminded how The Apartment of the same year ends with Jack Lemmon voluntarily jobless but ready to find SOMETHING - -which in 1960 was doable both for him and for the Shirley MacLaine character who will likely drop her elevator girl job if Lemmon seeks to relocate(with her.)

But...the shower scene ends all hope, indeed, of Sam and Marion making it.

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Although the terminologies hadn't yet been coined, there was certainly a conceptual cultural awareness in '60 of what are now called "chick flicks" and "guy movies." When SHE chose what to see, it might have been Strangers When We Meet;\\---

An interesting film --- Kirk Douglas in the year of Spartacus stuck in suburbia and courting a married woman(Kim Novak) not his own wife. They made a better matched pair that Jimmy Stewart and Novak, but Douglas was almost "too muy macho" for any suburban relationship. With Ernie Kovacs(soon to die in a 1962 car crash) and Walter Matthau(smarmy, villainous) in support. And the wacky idea of Pacific Palisades(now home to Steven Spielberg and other ultra-wealthy show biz folks) as a "regular" suburban community.

--

HE did, it might have been The Magnificent Seven.

--

1960. What a year. I was THERE. But too little to really dig it.

---
CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I wonder which of them was the more likely to choose Psycho.

--

Hitchcock opined somewhere "I would like to point out that I believe the women in a couple generally chooses the movie to see." I would tend to agree -- I've seen a lot of Meg Ryan, Sandra Bullock and even Melissa McCarthy movies in my time. Its part of the deal.

But it is weird: There was a US movie series called "Movies for Guys Who Like Movies" and that's certainly me with all these "men on a mission" favorites:

The Mag 7
The Guns of Navarone
The Professionals
The Dirty Dozen
The Wild Bunch(which perverts the concept into a horror movie with Hitchcockian montage style)

And for all of that HOW COME I'm a Hitchcock fan? Huh?

Most of his movies are about romantic male-female couples. And MOST of his movies have happy endings for the couple: To Catch A Thief, The Man Who Knew Too Much, NXNW, Torn Curtain, Family Plot.

I suppose the suspense sequences and set-pieces in Hitchcock overrode the usual "chick flick/guy movie thing": Farley Granger and Robert Walker have a good fight scene on the carousel in Strangers on a Train and Cary Grant has to duke it out on Mount Rushmore in NXNW.

But this: "NXNW" clearly follows a MALE PROTAGONIST(that's a key reason I love it) and The Birds follows a FEMALE PROTAGONIST(that's a reason, frankly that I don't -- specifically with THAT untried female "star.")

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Psycho pulls a bait and switch. It is very much about a FEMALE PROTAGONIST(Marion Crane) until it kills her and then a MALE PROTAGONIST (Norman Bates) takes over -- but he's never a hero, not even once. He's playing for the bad guys.

My Man Arbogast gets to lead the movie for 20 minutes ...he even rather backs off Perkins as Norman, and his big set piece (the stairs) opens with shots that rather mimic Grant in the corn field in NXNW before all hell breaks loose.

Maybe Psycho messed so much with "genre" -- a chick flick? a movie for guys who like movies? LILA as the major second act protagonist; Norman, Arbogast and Sam as male variants on a theme.

--
Two more ideas "on point":

ONE: If Cassie sees Psycho about Marion and Sam uber alles, we have Janet Leigh's quite sensible comment in a DVD interview. She said that once Perkins enters the movie "the plot has to be: which guy is Marion going to choose?" She's kind of right, and we can figure 1960 audiences got into that idea. Perkins (top billed) would likely win; Gavin's Sam would likely reveal some bad sides: uncaring maybe, a cheater perhaps.

Janet Leigh had made lots of movies about "choosing the guy"; she maybe had the best read on Psycho of all.

TWO: As "dull"(but not really) as Marion's pre-Norman story is in Psycho(well, it IS sexy and suspenseful but it refuses to be MORE)...I'm reminded that a LOT of 1960 movies could play start to finish with as little real "pep" as Marion's story. In short, Marion's story was pretty run-of-the-mill for 1960.

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Case in point: about a year ago, I watched, on TCM , a movie called "A Touch of Larceny." Because: 1960 (I like that year.) And the stars: James Mason (looking and sounding exactly as he did in NXNW ; still well put together and handsome enough); Vera Miles(in the same year as Psycho but here glamourous beyond belief, photographed in shimmering light with diamonds and mink, as I recall). That NXNW/Psycho linkage was enough to draw me in -- and George "Rebecca/Foreign Correspondent" Sanders was in it, too (we could see him as Vandamm watching him act against Mason.)

But this: that movie was DULL. It had a plot, a beginning, a middle and an end, but it just meandered along to a "necessary" and unevental finish. I can't remember the plot at all -- just the Hitchcock actors in it.

And "Marion's story" is about at that level of "non-narrative narrative." I'll bet a LOT of 1960 audiences went along with it, because that's what they USUALLY got -- certainly not what Psycho had in store for them.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

It's a facet I hadn't considered, and I wonder also if Hitchcock did. I can imagine that hypothetical couple. Hitch gets 'em both with the then-sensational sexual candor of the opening scene.

---
Sure. I've had a "joke line" I have used with some women in my life when a movie sports a handsome man and a gorgeous woman: "One for you and one for me." Hitchcock delivered both in the opening scene in Psycho.

Truffaut offered to Hitchcock a witty line from a French critic:

"Because John Gavin is shirtless but Janet Leigh wears a bra, the scene is satisfying to only one half of the audience."

Hitchcock replied that the scene WOULD have been more exciting with Leigh's bare breasts rubbing against Gavin's chest, but he was just being provocative/prurient(as he is also in Hitchcock/Truffaut.)

Interesting: when Van Sant made an R-rated Psycho in 1998, Anne Heche kept her bra on but Viggo Mortensen's Sam showed his butt. Fair is fair.

---

But maybe his interest wanes a bit as the clothes go on rather than off

--

A funny phrase, a funny concept, and that's how the scene is BUILT: everybody remembers Sam sans shirt and Janet in her bra but very SOON...they are clothed and talking depressing divorce stuff.

---

amid talk of can-they/can't-they get married, while hers sharpens. Then the theft. HE: Now things are gettin' good. SHE: Oh no...but look what she's willing to do just to be with Sam.

---

Well, this probably DID pull Cassie in...let's get those young lovers together and see if they can pull off this theft--maybe disappear to Mexico? (But hey, why is this called Psycho? Its a title that suggests horror...)

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Another angle: in a 1960 Coronet magazine photo article on Psycho, Hitchcock "comments" (in writing) on a photo of Leigh and Gavin, Hitchcock (or someone for him) writes: "They're in love. He has to pay alimony to his ex-wife. So do they plot to kill the wife? You'll see!")

---
Now they're both strapped in, before either can realize what kind of roller coaster they've boarded.

---

So often movies modernly are called "thrill rides" but Psycho really was. Its break with staid narrative tradition(see: A Touch of Larceny) went somewhere else, what one critic called: the historic moment when movies chose sensation over plot.

---
After the ride was over, and she returned to Marion and Sam, reflecting on all the "if onlys," I thought of you, ecarle.

--

Well, I thank you, Doghouse. You don't always comment here, but it is heartening to know that you READ. Means a lot. Always an erudite and kind approach.

reply

[–] JonJohns65 (3) 2 years ago

ecarle, I know this thread is months old, but I've just discovered it. I am part of Cassie's community. Cassie watches the entire movie, and Patreon members get to have her reaction on one screen, or window, and their own version of the film in another window. (Due to copyright, Cassie cannot actually show the film to paying members) Her Editor, a guy named Mike (Professional Paid Editor) from the U.K. then edits her recorded reaction to the full film, and then edits for continuity, and 'silences' parts of the film to skirt YouTube copyright, and to make the edit of the film 'understandable' and to include her 'best' reactions. It's quite the juggling act. He is masterful. Mike has to have more than a rudimentary understanding of the film in order to do this, right? And he has to pick and choose Cassies reactions to include on the Youtube edit as well, excluding reactions that play over a part of the film that doesn't flow...

reply

[–] swanstep (2631) 3 years ago

Even though the video LOOKS like the work of a "simple girl next door amateur," there seems to be some technical work and technology used here that suggests a professional at work. Is she the one? Or does she have help?

I haven't thought about that side of things much, but I guess you are right: Cassie's reaction videos have always been quite slickly, even seamlessly edited, and with considerable shrewdness about the underlying film. I'd guess she has some key family/friend help at least, but there are certainly all sorts of ways these days for people to collaborate online. Is there an army or tier of people out there that provides editing services to reactors for a cut of any ad revenue? And, look, AI-assistants in software these days *are* pretty amazing (there's a youtube channel for an SFX house called Corridor Crew which occasionally does vids about new software options where they show *how* quickly they can do fx shots with the latest AI assists - typically the speed-up is at least 10-fold and sometimes its 100- or 1000-fold: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmJ74774RO8) so we'd probably be shocked by what sort of product the average consumer can make themselves right now.

BTW, there's a Netflix comedy special from Bo Burnham (the comedian/actor/director who was the 'love interest doctor/swine' in Promising Young Woman) called 'Bo Burnham.: Inside' which is *entirely* made by him in his backyard shed/bunker. It includes the following recursive take-down of 'reaction videos':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZVMB8mrNO0

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I haven't thought about that side of things much, but I guess you are right: Cassie's reaction videos have always been quite slickly, even seamlessly edited, and with considerable shrewdness about the underlying film. I'd guess she has some key family/friend help at least, but there are certainly all sorts of ways these days for people to collaborate online. Is there an army or tier of people out there that provides editing services to reactors for a cut of any ad revenue?

---

All interesting to me. See, that's what's amazing to me about Cassie's site: it gives off a "I'm just doing this in my bedroom as a lark" vibe -- AND has the kind of high-tech production values that allows for the continual commentary on Psycho in a way that we could only dream of a few decades ago.

Which reminds me. Its a kick when Cassie notices how Arbogast crawls across his front seat to exit the car from the passenger side -- "Why's he leaving the car THAT way?" A detail likely unnoticed in 1960 by audiences and quite glaring today.

---

BTW, there's a Netflix comedy special from Bo Burnham (the comedian/actor/director who was the 'love interest doctor/swine' in Promising Young Woman) called 'Bo Burnham.

---

Oh, yeah, THAT guy. He had an interesting face.. It seems that to be truly promising, an actor has to have an interesting face.

==
: Inside' which is *entirely* made by him in his backyard shed/bunker. It includes the following recursive take-down of 'reaction videos':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZVMB8mrNO0

--

I'll take a look. I suppose reaction videos are becoming so prevalent that a takedown was inevitable by someone...

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

I think the most I've seen is Natalie Gold with around 5000 patrons. That's at least $5000 per month and probably much higher. Just for reacting to movies/tv.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Wow!

I suppose the movies have ALWAYS been about the "talking about them after." From the school playground to the water cooler to the dinner date ..to the internet...we all like the shared experience of watching entertainment.

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

True. And they share a few things in common. Both are highly personable, attractive. Good for them!

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Yes.

"Stardom" -- charisma, likeability, humor...is a rare quality and occurs in different places these days.

reply

[–] swanstep (2631) 3 years ago

@Trevor. Yeah, I've watched quite a few Natalie Gold vids too (e.g., I've been rewatching Game of Thrones with her. That series self-destructed quite spectacularly in its last two seasons, so there's no way I'm ever going to invest the time to rewatch the whole thing again, but Nat's fast track through the show has been an absolute blast). I think you're right that Nat and Cassie have almost the same very watchable formula. Interestingly, *Nat* answers ecarle's 'Who's doing the editing?' question very directly, explicitly crediting her editing to one Cameron Marek and provides a link to his youtube page, which has a link to his main website:
https://www.cammarek.com/about
I'm guessing that there are probably thousands of people at roughly this level, who probably start out just offering their video post-production/software skills to friends then end up make it some sort of business.

I don't *do* or even know much about platforms such as Instagram and TikTok but I'd guess that a lot of the most 'successful' people on those platforms get and pay for a lot of help. 'Reactor Support Services' (including post-production) may not be a full-time job yet but I'd bet that 'Influencer Support Services' and 'Platform Post-Production' are.

reply

[–] swanstep (2631) 3 years ago

Since this thread has become a discussion in part of reactors, and young-ish female reactors specifically, it's worth keeping in mind that there are plenty of other options around on youtube. A channel I've recommended before is Deep Focus Lens a.k.a. Maggie from Texas. She's an old-fashioned thoughtful critic and expert reviewer, smart and quite intense without being at all doctrinnaire or dogmatic. Maggie's attractive but by no means is she trying to be anyone's virtual girlfriend. Her review this weekend of The Many Saints of Newark (she can't recommend it) is a classic of highly informed criticism. Enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFHhJnzQprY

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Since this thread has become a discussion in part of reactors, and young-ish female reactors specifically, it's worth keeping in mind that there are plenty of other options around on youtube.

---

Yes. Suddenly there they are were when I looked at Cassie's. Wow. What a world of sharing we have.

Hey, I do it here, but I write. I certainly have no desire to be SEEN.

--

A channel I've recommended before is Deep Focus Lens a.k.a. Maggie from Texas. She's an old-fashioned thoughtful critic and expert reviewer, smart and quite intense without being at all doctrinnaire or dogmatic. Maggie's attractive but by no means is she trying to be anyone's virtual girlfriend.

---

Ha. I suppose I moved Cassie from "sweet and innocent" to "come hither" with my assessment that young men might like her. She DOES seem innocent. But SHE is the one who calls her show "Popcorn in Bed."

Its like the Sheriff's wife says in Psycho: "They found (the bodies of Mrs. Bates and her boyfriend) together.....IN BED."

Which, when you come to think of it, was pretty racy stuff in a Hays Code movie. Another Psycho breakthrough.

---

---

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Her review this weekend of The Many Saints of Newark (she can't recommend it) is a classic of highly informed criticism. Enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFHhJnzQprY

--

I'll see the movie first. Probably this week. As with "Cry Macho" I can turn on my TV right now and watch "Newark" on HBO Max, but also as with "Cry Macho" I'm going to the movie theater first. Big screen and all that.

"Sight unseen," I've developed these thoughts about The Many Saints of NewarkL

ONE: Its taken fourteen years for The Sopranos to FINALLY develop some sort of offshoot. On the other hand, it took 23 years to get to Psycho II.

TWO: It occurs to me that The Sopranos could never "spin off" a character(say Paulie or Carmela) because to do so...showrunner David Chase would have to explain what happened to TonY Soprano. The show was doomed to end where it ended...no further explanation allowed.

THREE: The "prequel" route has been taking with Better Call Saul as a prequel to Breaking Bad. What's interesting with Better Call Saul is meeting a bunch of characters who MUST survive this prequel series...because they don't die until the years of Breaking Bad. This Sopranos prequel -- with its 30 years earlier timeframe -- will play the same way.

FOUR: Evidently, if this prequel is a hit, showrunner David Chase can make two or three more, as Michael Gandolfini grows older and can play Tony Soprano in the years between the 70's and 1999. Interesting.. Maybe.

Or maybe not. Rumor has it that the two-hour "Many Saints" movie can't come close to the 86-hour Sopranos saga.

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

And this: I claim Love Actually as my favorite movie of the oughts(2000-2009.) I got my reasons -- though I have found articles that call it "S--, Actually." I don't care.

But the truth of the matter is that my favorite movie of the 2000s may well have been The Sopranos. It ran in 1999 as well. But it certainly gripped me all the way to that awful non-ending. (Great movies have great endings -- see: Psycho.)

But the secondary truth of the matter may be that my favorite movie of the 2000s was a tie: The Sopranos and Mad Men. One started just a month after the other ended in 2007. And both series shared a writer(Matthew Weiner.)

Oh, well. I'll be seeing the Many Saints of Newark. And right now, its the only game in town for a "favorite movie of 2021." Cry Macho was an impressive achievement(91 year old stars over title in movie) but not much of a "real movie."

reply

[–] swanstep (2631) 3 years ago

Many Saints builds the following bridge between Psycho and The Sopranos: Vera Farmiga has played both young Livia Soprano in Many Saints and young Norma Bates (both outside and inside of Norman's head) in Bates Motel.

reply

[–] swanstep (2631) 3 years ago

But SHE is the one who calls her show "Popcorn in Bed."
Its like the Sheriff's wife says in Psycho: "They found (the bodies of Mrs. Bates and her boyfriend) together.....IN BED."
Which, when you come to think of it, was pretty racy stuff in a Hays Code movie.

I guess I heard "popcorn in bed" very innocently but maybe 'in bed' just does essentially have a little more allure to it than I was hearing. I'm reminded that Madonna had a self-produced documentary back in the '90s called 'Madonna: Truth or Dare' in the US... but its international title was "In Bed With Madonna":
https://todayinmadonnahistory.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/in-bed-with-madonna-dvd-release.jpg
Allegedly, Madonna herself only wanted the US title but Miramax's international distribution partners liked the more sexualized title.

reply

[–] swanstep (2631) 3 years ago

BTW, the NY Times had a very interesting article this weekend about how The Sopranos is experiencing a huge burst of popularity with younger (college, 20s & 30s) viewers who read it as 'a parable about a country in terminal decline':
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/29/magazine/sopranos.html

(You'll need to get a bit sneaky to read the article without buying a subscription to the NYTimes.)
It occurs to me that The Sopranos might be getting the same assist from advanced high school & colleges that Psycho got and still gets: The Sopranos is acclaimed as *the* benchmark, aspirational show for all of prestige TV, one that contains the technical DNA of what success looks like in the long-form TV medium. Kids get to watch it as teaching tool for all that much as Psycho was *the* film for many years used to teach everything from the basic notion of an auteur to what excellence in sound and editing and performance and shot-making,etc. consists in, indeed all the key concepts you need to understand any film film and why it is or isn't successful.

Psycho and The Sopranos may end up more twinned in history than we'd ever have guessed when that screen went blank back in the '00s.

reply

[–] JonJohns65 (3) 2 years ago

Hi there, I know this thread is 5 months old, but I only recently discovered it. I am a member of PiB's 'community' on Youtube, Patreon, Discord, etc. Cassie hired a professional editor when her Patreon community grew to a level that would financially support hiring a 'full time' editor. His name is Mike, he lives in the U.K. and he is very talented.

reply

[–] swanstep (2631) 2 years ago

@JonJones65. Thanks for that info.. Sharp decision by Cassie to get herself a good editor/sensitive collaborator.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Agreed here. The "Patreon community" educates me in one direction, Cassie's being savvy(or directed) enough to seek an expert in the UK gives her Utah-based enterprise a certain international cachet.

thank you JonJones65.

reply

[–] swanstep (2631) 2 years ago

Popcorn in Bed (sweet, innocent, slightly conservative, almost seems like she's from the 1950s, Cassie) just caught up with Rear Window:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRMQZtO5rJw

A couple of minutes in she remarks on how Jimmy Stewart despite his hangups about marriage seems like a really good, nice guy to her. But then she shudders & and says something to the effect that 'I hope Hitchcock isn't going to catch me out again the way he did with Psycho's nice-seeming but awful Norman Bates'. You really get the sense of her having been a little scarred by the fundamental trick Psycho plays with Anthony Perkins' beauty and charm. Unsuspecting audiences and particularly unsuspecting young women (within minutes) fell hard for Perkins's Norman in 1960, and still do if they're sheltered enough.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Popcorn in Bed (sweet, innocent, slightly conservative, almost seems like she's from the 1950s, Cassie)

---

There's that little cutie. Hails from Provo, Utah, it says? Mormon, maybe?

I suppose I should note that she's young enough to be my daughter(or granddaughter), so I'll take a benign view of her. I assume that her fans are young on the one hand, but she IS (here and with Psycho and 12 Angry Men and a few others) taking up the movies of MY generation (or earlier, Rear Window is before my time) so...we have some common ground.

In this one, she seems to have a sense of "persona." She chews a red vine through the reaction suggesting that the innocent lil' gal just MIGHT be hipper than she seems...

---

just caught up with Rear Window:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRMQZtO5rJw

---

I'll cut to the end on this one:

I liked how Cassie noted, after the climax concludes, the shot of the cop up in the window reporting on how Thorvald confessed to everything and how one "item" is in a hatbox in Thorvald's closet.

Cassie is intrigued at how willing Thorvald was to confess everything(well, he was a tortured soul) but she is MOST on point about how little off-screen time is afforded Thorvald's confession. He could not have POSSIBLY said all those things in the brief seconds we have a few shots of Stewart(on the ground), Kelly, Corey, Ritter.

Hitchcock "toyed with talk and time" on another occasion that Truffaut commented on: in NXNW on the Chicago airport tarmac, the Professor briefs Thornhill on the entire plot while the propellors of a nearby plane drown the conversation out(WE know the story already). Truffaut remarked that the propeller shot cut down the NEED to have the Professor take too much time to explain everything("It would have taken much longer in real life," said Truffaut) but at least Hitchcock devotes SOME lengthy seconds to the Professor talking. It seemed believable to me.

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Versus the professor's "propeller talk" in NXNW, the cop in the window at the end of Rear Window seems to be covering a much less believable short length of time(a few seconds) in which Thorvald confessed so much.

I believe that I have amused myself in the past trying to emulate just how FAST Thorvald would have had to talk to tell his story.

"Alright I confess I killed my wife, I strangled her and cut her body into pieces and I buried her head in the flower garden but that dog kept trying to dig it up so I killed him and moved the head to a hatbox in my closet and I'll give you a tour of the East River to show you where the suitcases are."

There, done.

Perhaps the cop in the window took more time to tell the story than Thorvald. Hah.

Hitchcock toyed more believably with time in Psycho. Remember how when Arbogast returns to the motel, he noodles around in the parlor and office before heading up the hill to his doom? Hitchcock evidently TIMED Perkins running up to the house and going inside and getting dressed to kill...and the seconds involved are how long Arbogast noodles around(and climbs the hill.)

Same thing, I would surmise, with the shower scene. The footage of Marion subtracting 700 from her bank book, going into the bathroom, flushing the paper down the toilet and beginning her shower...gave Norman time to get dressed and get down the hill(Hitchcock had already shown him up at the house.)

Same thing with Lila's exploration of the fruit cellar. Enough time was allotted(in footage of Lila's descent) to accommodate Norman putting dress and wig on, upstairs.

---
CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Cassie was confused about exactly WHICH human body part was in that hatbox. Seems funny to me that she got mixed up on that. A hatbox. Hats go on the HEAD. The idea that Thorvald has spent some time puttering around his apartment with a head in his closet posits Rear Window as "the Psycho of 1954" -- its just that all the gore and dismemberment is in the MIND. (This was remedied in a Tales from the Crypt episode from the 80's which had someone arrest a Thorvald type -- they opened up his big suitcase and there was a full-on, gory depiction of severed limbs with the dead woman's head plopped atop them. No imagination needed THAT time.)

More knowledgeably, Cassie wonders about the role of the "mystery woman" in Thorvald's wife, but I'd say that Hitchcock gave us enough to work with. Thorvald had a nagging wife but he also had an interested girlfriend(it was 1954, even lowly salesmen could attract more than one woman). We see Thorvald talking on the phone with her flirtatiously (with his wife in the other room! And she sneaks out to confront him!) We see Thorvald in the hallway with her. We hear that this woman received luggage in a distant town(not luggage with body parts; evidently just the real Mrs. Thorvald's clothes.)

So Thorvald had a girlfriend, and she likely HAD to know about the murder to do the things she did. We can figure that Thorvald will lead the police to her.

Hitchcock was from an era where everything did NOT have to be explained(the Psycho psychiatrist not withstanding.)

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

A couple of minutes in she remarks on how Jimmy Stewart despite his hangups about marriage seems like a really good, nice guy to her.

---

A good, nice guy? He's always seemed rather ornery, tempermental and whiny to me in that picture -- really, it was a real test of the audience's willingness to identify. And he has that GORGEOUS younger woman at his beck and call and he keeps pushing her away?

I'm sure this all made more sense in 1954, and I KNOW that James Stewart was a major star in the fifties, and I UNDERSTAND that young actresses like Grace Kelly and Audrey Hepburn were paired with much older men(it was the way of movie stars, and remains the way of the world.)

Still , James Stewart in Rear Window, and James Stewart in Vertigo, and James Stewart in Rope and (a little bit) James Stewart in The Man Who Knew Too Much....is playing really irritating and obnoxious men even with the oh shucks veneer of his voice and manner. He seemed to be Hitchcock's "go to guy" for playing unheroic heroes. It was a thematic statement on Hitchcock's part. The director of "charming villains" also gave us a few "uncharming heroes" (suddenly I can picture Stewart as an Americanized Richard Blaney in Frenzy.)

Cary Grant opposite Grace Kelly in To Catch a Thief is an older man, but matches Kelly in beauty and gives us charmingly grumpy where Stewart gave us aggressively off-putting.

---
CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

But then she shudders & and says something to the effect that 'I hope Hitchcock isn't going to catch me out again the way he did with Psycho's nice-seeming but awful Norman Bates'.

---

The poor dear. Watching Psycho first puts you on guard against a LOT of Hitchcock men.

This: Anthony Perkins, pre-Psycho, was evidently sold as a "young Jimmy Stewart type" -- innocent, aw shucks -- so that helped make Norman Bates all the more surprising in the end. I've noted that in some "time warp situation" where Psycho was made when James Stewart was 27 years old, maybe STEWART would end up playing Norman Bates and typecast for horror thereafter.

---

You really get the sense of her having been a little scarred by the fundamental trick Psycho plays with Anthony Perkins' beauty and charm.

--

I'm reminded of the story(from Perkins himself) that Hitchcock lured him into taking Psycho by saying, "Tony, you ARE this movie." For all the horror and shock in the film, the fact that it is anchored by a "nice young man" whom women found incredibly hot really is one of the reasons that Psycho is so powerful and -- weirdly -- "warm." We like Norman for a lot of the movie -- though, I would contend, we never like him ALL the way past a certain point(the parlor: "click their thick tongues.).

---

Unsuspecting audiences and particularly unsuspecting young women (within minutes) fell hard for Perkins's Norman in 1960, and still do if they're sheltered enough.

---

Even now if one looks at clips from Psycho on YouTube with Perkins you'll see in the comments section gals(in the main, I suppose some gay men too) saying "That Tony Perkins was so HOT!" in that hurts-the-heart-with-yearning way that movie stars can affect fans. Irony: he's the hottest in the scene with Arbogast, something about that black crewneck sweater and the tight close-ups from a flattering angle...

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

All that said, one of things that bugged me about the Psycho sequels is how they postulated that women STILL could fall for Norman's looks and charms(even as an older, somewhat more wizened man) even KNOWING of the horrible knife murders he committed. I never bought that because these women didn't seem to be those usual equally-insane types who fall in love with the Night Stalker killer while he's in prison.

About which: isn't that a FASCINATING aspect of how society must countenance mental illness and look the other way? MULTIPLE women fall in love with the WORST psycho killers who are in prison, and some of them go to the trouble to marry them(on paper only.) Madness. Sheer madness. Living right among us.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Meanwhile, back at Popcorn in Bed:

I think Cassie was quoting 150,000 subscribers which means...she's making some big dough, now, yes? I mean even if a subscriber only paid $1 dollar a year...$150,000 a year? Is that how this works? Though I suppose she has to pay the "tech" guys who make the show look that way. And I'll assume that my $1 example is "way low."

She had a list of key fans on the YouTube page...a lotta guys.

But this: there's a lot about the internet and what it has wrought that leads me to call ilt "Satan's Machine" but there is also a lot of good possible from its world.

And I'm realizing, with these 1,000s of views of "old movies" on Cassie's page and all those others that -- indeed -- a younger generation may well come to know and like(maybe even love) a select group of "old movies" after all. These movies will NOT be lost to the sands of time and no knowledge of them.

Hitchcock's best films are a good bet to make a hit with younger generations. They were thrillers, they were ahead of their time(at least modern), they "teach cinema," they have murders and some pretty good action scenes and great dialogue. (The multitude of kissing scenes and romance may be dated, but I still like them.) Hitch might just be getting yet ANOTHER career with a new generation.

I've noted something recently. That famous 1960 trailer where Hitchcock gives away the staircase murder(first) and the shower murder(at the end of the trailer) seems to be disappearing from pages on Psycho, replaced by modern "clips package" trailers. The replacement trailers are , perhaps, both shorter and more modern(with scenes from the movie) than Hitchcock's 1960 original trailer, but this: I'm thinking someone out there wants to REMOVE the spoilers about the two murder because a new generation WILL be watching Psycho "knowing nothing about the plot at all." Its time for those two murders -- and the twist ending -- to become SPOILERS once more. Cassie's fans await.

reply

[–] JonJohns65 (3) 2 years ago

Hey there, I know this thread is 5 months old right now... Cassie has 175k Youtube subscribers, and an avg of 2300 Patreon members. Youtube revenue is fickle, and weird. She could possibly be making $15k per month, but probably not that much from Youtube. The demographic def swings hard on the testosterone side, but recently has gotten a lot of women followers, due to a few 'chick flicks' like Dirty Dancing.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

ecarle, I know this thread is months old, but I've just discovered it.

--

Well, it is gratifying to have responses to months old threads...and your responses here are certainly interesting an illuminating about exactly how a "reactor" YouTube star like Cassie "gets it going and puts it all together."

---

I am part of Cassie's community. Cassie watches the entire movie, and Patreon members get to have her reaction on one screen, or window, and their own version of the film in another window. (Due to copyright, Cassie cannot actually show the film to paying members) Her Editor, a guy named Mike (Professional Paid Editor) from the U.K. then edits her recorded reaction to the full film, and then edits for continuity, and 'silences' parts of the film to skirt YouTube copyright, and to make the edit of the film 'understandable' and to include her 'best' reactions.

---

Very interesting...a lot of work to get the "flow" right. In the "Psycho" screening, I noticed the flair with which Cassie's reaction to Arbogast getting attacked was presented...HER reaction, the moment from the movie on screen at the same time... a shift to Cassie IN BLACK AND WHITE reacting. Its arguably the biggest shock moment in the film, and it gets its "stylistic due" here. I suppose it is a "star /director" thing -- Cassie is the star, Mike is the director who makes the reaction piece have real impact. (Mike also -- smartly? -- removed Arbogast's process screen fall from the sequence; I love it, but many think it is "fake.")

---

---
CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

It's quite the juggling act. He is masterful. Mike has to have more than a rudimentary understanding of the film in order to do this, right?

---

Yes...I have been similarly amazed by "clips packages" from movies that seem to find JUST the right moments, JUST the right lines. The experts who put these together must watch movies several times to "collect" just the right moments and lines.

---

And he has to pick and choose Cassies reactions to include on the Youtube edit as well, excluding reactions that play over a part of the film that doesn't flow...

---

I suppose there is a bit of "actressing" in Carrie's reactions -- she knows she's the star. I find that she often has to maintain a "mildly interested" face even in the slower minutes of the watch. She also sometimes chews popcorn, licorice, and other snacks...and chewing is an actor's trick. (Ala Tony Perkins chewing Kandy Korn in Psycho.)

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Hey there, I know this thread is 5 months old right now...

--

And brought back to life!

--

Cassie has 175k Youtube subscribers, and an avg of 2300 Patreon members.

--

What, if I may ask, IS a Patreon user? I guess this is where people can vote on movies to watch and "communicate" with Cassie, but I don't know.

---

Youtube revenue is fickle, and weird. She could possibly be making $15k per month, but probably not that much from Youtube.

---

That's pretty good money. Clearly, she puts effort into watching the films...it looks like WORK. But marketing is the other side...1000s of fans watching her. I am very much in favor of all this; I had thought that movies like Psycho and movie stars like Tony Perkins were about to be "lost to the sands of time and forgotten" but indeed entire new generations may become fans all over again -- IF the movie is as engaging as Psycho.

--- The demographic def swings hard on the testosterone side,

--

Aha. Well, I suppose "guys like movies" (especially horror movies) but this backs up my theory that the cute but innocent Cassie probably attracts "virtual wannabee boyfriends" with her "popcorn in bed" come on(ENTIRELY innocent but hey, she's in bed.)

The whole thing with movies -- but especially TV talk shows like the Today Show in America -- is creating "imaginary friends" for all of us. If you're a hetero guy, a pretty woman will certainly "connect" and hey, she's talking to YOU. From a TV studio thousands of miles away, maybe, but the connection is made. Usually innocent, only sometimes dangerous.

Anyway, I can see a young fellow "adopting" Cassie as a cute girl to watch, watching interesting movies. Harmless. As long as the fellow pursues a relationship with a REAL girl in real life.

---
CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

but recently has gotten a lot of women followers, due to a few 'chick flicks' like Dirty Dancing.

--

Hmm...well, the more the merrier. Cassie can be a girlfriend to girls, too. Funny thing: I once saw Psycho on a list of "all time great date movies" because its scares and suspense have the woman clutching at the man for much of the movie -- without things ever getting TOO gory.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

bump

reply