First time I watched this - Psycho (1960) Discussion

[–] roger1 (2493) 2 months ago

I just finished watching this for the first time. The hype around this film is unbelievable, and I have to say, on first viewing, I was a bit underwhelmed.

I guess I learnt something here. Even with films, acknowledged as brilliant, keep expectations either low or neutral.

---

That's probably a good approach. Psycho still plays as a well-directed, well-written, well-acted, well photographed, well-edited movie with some of the greatest art direction in movie history(the HOUSE , inside and out, and the MOTEL.)

But I daresay that Psycho can NEVER, modernly have the impact that it had in 1960, or even(by my estimation) for the entire decade of the 60s, as people kept discussing it, and it got two re-releases to theaters, and it was cancelled for a CBS network showing(making it MORE controversial than it ever was), and finally hit local TV channels acroess America for high-rated "community watches."

I've always been suspicious of a movie "not standing the test of time." Psycho DOES stand the test of time as a very good movie. It does NOT stand the test of time as an event that as one person wrote: "gave the nation nightmares."

One thing to "try" as a mental exercise. Imagine these scenes that you probably just watched in interest but now accompanied by MASSIVE SCREAMS:

The shower murder.
Mother running out of her room at the detective.
Mother stabbing the detective on the floor.
Norman at the motel suddenly behind Sam in the office doorway: "You looking for me?"
Lila jumping at her own image in the mirror in Mother's room.
Norman running into the house just as Lila ducks under the stairs to hide
Lila turning and deciding to go through the door to the fruit cellar.
Mother's face revealed in the fruit celalr.
Norman running into the fruit cellar dressed and wigged as Mother, knife upraised.

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (2493) 2 months ago

ALL of these scenes were accompanied -- in 1960 I've read and in a screening I attended in 1979 -- by ever-rising screams that literally shook the theater.

I don't think that ANYONE can truly experience Psycho without hearing those screams. Without them, its...just a story. But a VERY good story.

reply

[–] PersistentViewer (1835) 2 months ago

Thanks for your thoughts.
Yes, the impact back then with old films, and now are totally different. Maybe watching this alone in a dark room, would have a bigger impact.

reply

[–] roger1 (2493) 2 months ago

Thanks for your thoughts.
Yes, the impact back then with old films, and now are totally different.

--

Well, ESPECIALLY Psycho. Audiences evidently couldn't believe just how far Hitchcock was going to go with those murder scenes -- LONG seconds of MULTIPLE stabs (in the shower scene), the knife down the face to the detective, the shrieking music (that REALLY made audiences scream), the overall brutality that censors had NEVER allowed before.

OTHER movies of 1960 weren't built on such "new shocks" and hold up better today: The Apartment. The Magnificent Seven. Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin and the Rat Pack in the original Ocean's Eleven. These are "just stories." No shocks.

---

Maybe watching this alone in a dark room, would have a bigger impact.

--

That MIGHT create some of the terror that audiences felt in 1960. I had an experience many years after I first saw Psycho -- on TV , not in 1960. I was very jaded about the shocks and the suspense by then, but I was house sitting an empty house, all alone and Psycho came on TV late at night and I found that the "creaks and cracking noises" of the house put me "on edge" while I watched Psycho and suddenly, the movie DID feel very frightening not only during the murder scenes but between them. It was as if I was being returned to the EMOTIONS of those first time audiences in 1960.

As film director/actor/critic Peter Bogdanovich said "Psycho was the first movie that made it dangerous to go into a movie theater." Which was true. People didn't necessarily want to go into a dark theater and watch THAT movie. Could they handle it? (Many could not and walked out.) And as Hitchocck himself said IN 1960 "You will feel the true terror of Psycho AFTER you see it...at home, all alone...in the dark." And there are many stories of THAT happening too. People going to bed with the lights on.

reply

[–] Melton (2531) 7 days ago

It’s crazy that Psycho was considered so extreme and shocking… when only 10 years and change later audiences would be put through the unmitigated trauma of The Exorcist, which is still a genuinely shocking piece of cinema and I even doubt it would get an R rating today.

reply

[–] roger1 (2493) 7 days ago

It’s crazy that Psycho was considered so extreme and shocking… when only 10 years and change later audiences would be put through the unmitigated trauma of The Exorcist, which is still a genuinely shocking piece of cinema and I even doubt it would get an R rating today.

---

Probably not. It was saddled with an X at first and the studio and director William Friedkin had to fight to get it down. Modern ratings people would likely be far less forgiving about the abuse of a FEMALE near-child on screen.

As for the "10 years and change": Quentin Tarantino names Jaws and The Exorcist as perfect movies, but not Psycho. I'd guess that one reason is that Psycho back in 1960 was still too much of a CENSORED time at the movies, and doesn't look all that modern today.

The difference came in 1968 as the R and X ratings allowed all sorts of content(nudity, simulated sex, ultraviolence and cussing) and a few years of movies "opened the door" to The Exorcist' total assault in 1973.

I don't think there is ONE cuss word in Psycho. I don't think anyone even says "hell" or "damn." Well, by The Exorcist, we've got the possessed Regan yelling "Your mother sews socks that smell!" (well, that was the SNL translation for TV; do the interpreter work. Ha.)

Still, in the 60's, EIGHT YEARS (from Psycho in 1960 to the X/R 1968) WAS a long time, and five more years to The Exorcist in 1973 was even longer. So Psycho still staked out ITS bona fides by breaking its taboos essentially as the 50s ended. One 1960 critic called Psycho "the sickest movie ever made" and it was pretty close. The long trauma of the shower murder. Marion Crane's ensuing nine minutes as corpse..."once human, now meat." The then hard shocks of both Bernard Herrmann's screaming violines AND the violence(committed by a truly creepy human being -- Mother) on screen. And then the reveal that Norman murdered his own mother, gutted her corpse, stuffed it and kept it around the house.

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (2493) 7 days ago

To each their own, but I'm among those who found The Exorcist...kinda funny. This kid sitting there all ugly saying the most horrible obscene things. The green vomit spraying into the face of the priest(and hanging there as dripping goo.) Regan slamming the crucifix between her legs wasn't funny but it WAS a grossout. The whole movie was a grossout. And not much of a thriller -- unlike as in Psycho and Jaws, people aren't attacked and killed in shock sequences.

Anyway, the 13 years from Psycho to The Exorcist had a LOT of changes to culture and movies and books and that made for a tumultuous time. The 17 years from The Exorcist to the 21st Century saw movies "calm down" and play more to teenage audiences, from Star Wars to Lord of the Rings to Marvel.

Two more thoughts:

One: a lot of the obscenity and sexual violence of The Exorcist was probably well in place in American life(REAL life) in certain parts of the US way back when Psycho came out...it just took 13 years for the movies to catch up "on screen."

Two: Plus the entire religious angle of The Exorcist: its really about how science and medicine fail -- and only God can save the girl. A whole lotta people don't agree with THAT today.

reply

[–] DoctorThirteen (10641) 7 days ago

'Regan yelling "Your mother sews socks that smell!" (well, that was the SNL translation for TV; do the interpreter work. Ha.)'

That's hilarious! 😂

reply

[–] CalvinJarrett (285) 8 days ago

Your complaint is what most critics love about Psycho. The fact that we're led to believe this is a story about a troubled woman's theft/embezzlement and her get-away when in fact this is just a device to get her into that motel and within the maniacal clutches of Norman Bates. After talking-to Norman and (erroneously) considering him to be an odd yet well-intentioned person, she was all set to return to Phoenix, return the money and face the music. However, someone else had other plans for her after she innocently broke bread with Norman and engaged in simple conversation. Then the focus changes. The stolen money was the Maguffin. The story switches and becomes something much scarier than whether a thief will get away with the money.

reply

[–] jcnyclv (1401) 7 days ago

Very well said!

reply

[–] liscarkat (16750) 7 days ago

In the first hour, you're not supposed to know exactly what's going on. Marion and her decisions are supposed to keep you wondering. You're not supposed to expect her to be killed off so quickly. The fact that there's not a big buildup to her death is what makes it shocking. Hitchcock knew exactly what he was doing, but your expectations weren't met.

reply

[–] PersistentViewer (1835) 7 days ago

Yes, I read Hitchcock said murder in films should happen quickly and unexpected. I read the film wrong.

reply

[–] Melton (2531) 7 days ago

Hype can dent films, but I’m confident that you’ll warm to Psycho with time.

Hitchcock films are just really fun, I love how he plays with your expectations and gets your imagination going.

How many of his films have you seen?

reply

[–] PersistentViewer (1835) 7 days ago

This and Vertigo. The latter is great.

reply

[–] Melton (2531) 7 days ago

Yeah Vertigo’s my fave, it’s a bit darker than most. Many of his films (including Psycho) feel like comedies where he’s trolling you, but Vertigo ain’t messing around.

I recommend Rope if you want some expert suspense trolling, and for R-rated Hitchcock try Frenzy.

reply

[–] PersistentViewer (1835) 7 days ago

Thank you.

reply

[–] letess (1036) 7 days ago

This movie was made 64 years ago. Can you name some other movies as old or older than this that you’ve just seen for the first time and that you liked a lot.

What did you think of 8-1/2. La Dolce Vita. Diabolique. The Apartment.

reply

[–] PersistentViewer (1835) 7 days ago

A bunch of Roger Corman films I quite enjoyed. Haven't seen the ones you mentioned.

reply

[–] CalvinJarrett (285) 5 days ago

Sidney Lumet's 12 Angry Men was from 1957, and it is a movie that - no matter when you see it - you'll be talking about it. It is timeless.

reply

[–] letess (1036) 5 days ago

Excellent movie. One of the greatest movies ever made. Actually, in 12 angry Men, not the content but the performances mirror those in Oppenheimer. We can go on and on and even include movies before and after 1960 including foreign films, but do you think OP (PersistentViewer) will be able to get acquainted with watching great movies and feel their impact? It’s an art to make movies, but it’s also an art to appreciate and celebrate them even though they’re way before one’s time and you see them years after they were made. If he/she was underwhelmed with Psycho, what can you say to such a person? Vertigo is no. 2 on Sight & Sound list, will he/she get that one? If all you’ve watched has been Corman.

reply

[–] CalvinJarrett (285) 5 days ago

It's okay that PersistentViewer was underwhelmed by Psycho, letess. Perhaps with repeat viewings, s/he will come to appreciate it. However, Psycho, perhaps more than any other film, has been the victim of overhype. When you constantly hear the plaudits of critics who appraised the film and fans who were fortunate enough see it in theaters in 1960, it's practically impossible for the film to live up to the expectations PersistentViewer et. al. have created in their imaginations.

What can I say about such a person? Nothing critical. Vertigo is a fantastic film and one that I think PersistentViewer will appreciate. I acknowledge that film appreciation is an art form, but I don't think it serves anyone well to be elitist about cinema. There's room for everyone's opinion when it comes to film commentary. It's never too late to join the table. I also think that Roger Corman has his place in the movie business. Though not all hits, I think he brought something to the art form that was unique and pioneering. He made The Baby (1973), right?

reply

[–] letess (1036) 5 days ago

I had the unique pleasure, actually on this website if you can believe, to be in a discussion with someone who saw Psycho at the time it came out. I think he mentioned his parents not knowing. He said it was like nothing he’d ever seen before or since but he had a problem with the ending with the psychologist’s explanation. I can see how today’s audience would wonder what is all the hype and I wonder what they think about The Exorcist as well. One of my favorites - kind of in this genre - made by Chabrol is Le Boucher (The Butcher) in 1970 and I saw it 35 years after it came out - and I think it’s one of the best films even with the some of the blood/cadaver scenes that don’t look real.

There are a lot of people who won’t see movies before certain time periods, like the 90s. Never heard of Vertigo, Hitchcock or even Casablanca. And you can be elitist or not, but just wonder what happened? Six months ago I saw La Dolce Vita for the first time - so that’s 65 years after the movie - I went crazy - I loved it. But I didn’t like as much 8-1/2, the favorite of all time other than Citizen Kane. And yet it dropped from top 10 to 33. For someone else seeing La Dolce Vita - they wouldn’t like B/W, wouldn’t like subtitles. There’s nothing wrong with liking Corman. Nothing wrong with giallos either.

reply

[–] CalvinJarrett (285) 4 days ago

I never saw La Dolce Vita (or any Fellini movies, for that matter). Not that I'm avoiding it/them, it's more like delaying gratification by waiting to open a meaningful gift.

I seem to recall seeing Le Boucher. Did that star Stephane Audran? I have such a hazy memory of it because I had to have seen it in the '90's or early 2000's. But I wonder if it had to do with a serial killer and perhaps a kidnapped child?

Yes, I am jealous of your moviechat buddy. Hitchcock was a marketing genius when it came to Psycho. I think he mandated that theaters not allow patrons to enter the theater late to create buzz and eliminate outside distractions from the plot/viewing experience. There were so many firsts. The first time a toilet was shown on film. That shower scene. If I'm not mistaken, the first time a serial killer was shown on film (save Peter Lorre in M, but that's not quite the same thing). But, surely, the first time dissociative identity disorder was depicted on film. That scene where Martin Balsam bites it. That had to have broken records of on screen violence at the time. I also wonder if a corpse/skeleton was ever depicted so graphically like toward the end of Psycho. I could well see how a 1960 audience member would run out of the theater or at least into he bathroom. Certainly not today, but they must not have seen anything like this before.

reply

[–] letess (1036) a day ago

Yes, Le Boucher with the Stephane Audran. A serial killer of women in the Dordogne area of France where there are prehistoric art in caves that mirror the primitive killings. Somewhat of a lingering psychological ending as well. I saw it way after it was released. Why can you see some movies long after they are released that resonate and some that don’t? Psycho hit me like a ton of bricks with Janet Leigh on the bathroom floor and that long shot of her eye. I will never get it out of my head. The dissociative identity disorder was the topic I had with the poster who saw Psycho in 1960. On this category btw which posts are historic. He didn’t think the explanation was a positive thing for the movie and I thought I would need that if I was able to see it then.

Movies on lists are changing. The older submissions to BFI S&S are slowly dropping or being removed. There were no Bunuel movies on that list - no Melville. Heat and LA Confidential were not on the list. They are done every 10 years and as far as the 2012 list, I have only seen 6 out of the top 10. Yet, Tarkovsky had three films on the list. I just saw my first Tarkovsky film last week, Nostalghia. You have to see these in a theater preferably with a like movies audience. What I have noticed is newer directors and those in the film industry love Cassavetes, especially A Woman Under the Influence, which was way down the S&S list. Maybe it is a British vs. American thing.

I watch what’s coming down the pike at today’s Cannes. And Audiard, one of my favorites with Un Prophete, just got a 9 minute standing ovation for his new movie Emilia Gomez. It sounds fantastic.

reply

[–] CalvinJarrett (285) a day ago

I don't go in for ranking lists. As you alluded, the more time goes by, the less older movies make those lists. The judges tend to be younger people, and they don't have the same appreciation for vintage movies like you and I do, lets. There, that's as elitist as I'm going to get. Hopefully, it makes me sound old and not elitist.

I know a lot of people look at the psychiatrist's explanation at the end of Psycho as hokey, but I think it was necessary at the time. People have to remember that a 1960 audience would have no understanding of dissociative identity disorder. Maybe ... maybe Three Faces of Eve (1957) would lend some aid. But that character was essentially non-criminal, and the trigger for her alters was complete b*llsh*t. So, while clumsy, it was necessary to spoon-feed the audience the psychopathy of Norman's mind. It also made the final scene all the more chilling.

reply

[–] Puvwall (1236) 5 days ago

Watch the sequels, they are good. bit more fast paced. And are a great time capsule of when they were shot.

reply

[–] Nanook (1465) 5 days ago

The top of the staircase shot will never not scare the hell out of me, and I've seen the film ten times easy over three decades. It also ruined taking showers for a bit, not nearly as much as Jaws ruined swimming in the ocean for me, but tomato/tomato.

As a huge horror fan I have to place it in my top twenty, maybe top ten, mostly for the groundbreaking (think Citizen Kane) horror filmmaking, but also because it truly scares me in parts.

reply