Review: Psycho (1960)

Review: Psycho

****SPOILERIFIC REVIEW**** Save the review for later if you’re one of the two people with no lives who haven’t seen this film already. You’ve been warned...

Janet Leigh plays Marion Crane, a woman on the run after having stolen money from her employer, who decides to stop for the night at Bates Motel. Here she meets the Motel’s strange, meek owner Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), who is a real mummy’s boy. John Gavin plays Leigh’s lover Sam Loomis, whilst Vera Miles’ is Marion’s worried sister and Martin Balsam turns up as nosy detective Arbogast. John McIntire (as the local sheriff), Mort Mills (as an intimidating motorcycle cop), Simon Oakland (as a psychiatrist), and Patricia Hitchcock (as Marion’s co-worker) offer support.

This 1960 Alfred Hitchcock thriller is a very good film, and probably one of Hitch’s five best films. However, there has always been something holding me back from loving it as much as I love the other four Hitchcock films I’d put in the top 5 films made by the great director (“Strangers on a Train”, “Vertigo”,“The 39 Steps”, and “Shadow of a Doubt” being the first four). Part of the problem might be that this is more of a classic ‘spook house’ film, a fun park ride full of twists and shocks that leaves a terrific first impression but for me doesn’t have as much replay value as other, deeper Hitchcock films. Not every great film can be watched over and over again (Have you watched “Gandhi” or “Schindler’s List” lately?). Watching this film more than once isn’t as much fun. For instance, it’s a big effing red flag that Norman invites Marion to dinner at his house after having just met her one minute ago! You don’t think about that so much the first time around, but it’s unavoidable the second or third time around. I really do like this film a lot. I just think it sits behind four other films by the director that I can watch over and over again.

What Hitchcock has made here is schlock horror. Oh it’s expertly made schlock horror, far better than his later film “The Birds” for instance, but it’s still a dressed-up William Castle (“The House on Haunted Hill”)film without the skeleton flying into the theatre audience. And that’s not a bad thing necessarily, as this is a really, really good B-grade shocker made by an A-grade filmmaker. It’s lots of fun. But it ain’t no “Strangers on a Train” or “Vertigo”, and no one can convince me otherwise. If it weren’t Hitchcock, I’d probably love it for the B-grade schlock it is. But it’s a Hitchcock film nonetheless, and it’s considered by most to be a masterwork. Personally I think it’s little better or worse than the similar but lesser-known “Peeping Tom” from the same year.

We open strong, with the unforgettable title design of Saul Bass (“Anatomy of a Murder”, “North by Northwest”, “Goodfellas”, “Vertigo”),backed up by the iconic Bernard Herrmann (“The Day the Earth Stood Still”,“Cape Fear”, “Taxi Driver”) score. It’s certainly an exciting score and there’s a lot more to it than the just the screeching chords for the shower scene. Herrmann’s work here goes a long way to hiding just how slow the film is in the early going. I must say, though, that the date and time cards are completely unnecessary. Hitchcock’s unfortunate love of back-projection shots for driving scenes are annoying, but less so than in “Marnie”.

One of the film’s strongest assets next to Herrmann’s score is the terrific B&W cinematography by Robert Burks (“Strangers on a Train”, “I Confess”, “To Catch a Thief”, “Vertigo”), one of the all-time great cinematographers. It’s grainy and lurid at times, but deliberately so, and actually still quite stunning at times. Whether or not I like Hitchcock essentially making grindhouse shocker, the cinematography is appropriate. There’s some really awesome shots and angles here, especially in the opening scenes where combined with the score, they give the film an added tension. This is important because let’s face it, the crux of the film is really only when Marion gets to the Bates Motel and meets Norman.

I’d still have cut about five minutes or so, say the car dealer scene which is entirely unnecessary. I’m also of the opinion that there’s way too many scenes where Marion is hearing voices in her head whilst driving. None of these scenes are necessary because that’s what actingis for. I think that is probably the most dated element of the whole film (along with Hitch’s fascination with toilets and bras, as though these are shocking things to see in a film. I doubt even in 1960 that anyone much cared). A lot of this stuff could’ve been eliminated, not so much because the film is slow, but because 104 minutes is way too long for a piece of schlock like this, if you ask me, no matter how high-grade the schlock is.

Getting back to the cinematography, there’s a great shot of the pouring rain that not only makes it near impossible to see the road ahead, but also unsettles the already guilt-ridden Leigh. It’s quite brilliant, actually. There’s a great use of shadow and camera angles in the dinner scene where the stuffed animals represent mother spying on Norman in disapproval. There’s also a marvellous shot in the same scene of a stuffed black bird looking like it’s pecking Leigh on the neck. A prescient symbol of impending doom? I also love the cynical close-ups used to introduce the character of Arbogast.

At this point I need to get something off my chest as it’s frankly a pre-requisite in reviewing this film: The shower scene is without question one of the most brilliant pieces of editing, shot composition, and scoring in the history of cinema. The bit with the drain and Leigh’s eye, in particular is stellar. There. Now can I move the fuck on? Good. It’s terrific, but personally I think there are two better scenes in the film, which I’m sure I’ll catch hell for. Deal with it, folks.

Firstly, there’s a brilliant scene where Norman tries to drown the body. I love this because after Marion leaves the picture, Norman becomes the protagonist in a way. I never warmed to Marion’s sister or Sam enough really, and like “Strangers on a Train” there’s a part of you that almost roots for Norman and certainly worries that he’ll be caught. Pretty remarkable for the time I’m sure. Credit where it’s due, the death of Marion was a masterstroke by Hitch. Killing off a star before an hour is up was a great trick indeed. It’s not a trick used often enough in my view, and when it is, it gets botched, ala “No Country for Old Men” where it was off-screen.

The other great scene that I love is the death of Arbogast. This for me is vastly superior to the shower scene. It might not be as artistic, but it’s more of a shock, or at least it was for me. It also introduces us to the character of ‘Mother’. I also need to make mention of the house in the film (Is it still located at Universal Studios? I went there in about 1991, but haven’t been back since), which is incredibly creepy even to this day. It’s certainly iconic. However, am I the only one who thinks the Motel area itself looks too much like a film set? It looks phony to me. Lots of people have a problem with the psychobabble ending with shrink Simon Oakland. I used to (which you’ll know if you’ve read my review at epinions.com), but now I feel it’s only the length of his speech that I take issue with. I certainly think the final shot is one of the film’s best.

Anthony Perkins is perhaps the second most iconic element to this film outside of the Herrmann score. This was the performance and character that made, and sadly, killed his career. Never a great actor, he excels at the more neurotic and psychotic elements of Norman, but it’s his more outwardly bland, slightly awkwardly affable person that sells Norman. And the transition from Norman to ‘Mother’ (and all of its implications) must’ve been one helluva shock for audiences of 1960, no doubt about it. Unfortunately, bland and forgettable is largely what Perkins was as an actor, and he really only shined when playing Norman-esque roles (the underrated black comedy “Pretty Poison”, for instance). To be perfectly honest, as memorable as Norman is, to me he’s not the match of Robert Walker’s Bruno Antony or Joseph Cotten’s Uncle Charlie in cinematic villainy. Both of those characters are more subtle and complex movie villains, and in fact those films (“Strangers on a Train” and “Shadow of a Doubt”, respectively) are more complex and entertaining. The one area where Perkins’ Norman perhaps trumps those two (and indeed, it’s one of the more complex aspects to the character) is that we instinctively find ourselves more sympathetic to Norman than either of those other two (charismatic as they indeed are), either because he seems initially too meek and affable to be a threat, or perhaps it’s the knowledge that he’s not in proper control of his own mind.

Janet Leigh doesn’t leave nearly as great an impression as Perkins, but she’s certainly a more effective leading lady than Tippi Hedren. She ain’t no Grace Kelly, though. John Gavin to me is the film’s sole casting problem. He’s bland as hell in a reasonably important role that was crying out for an Eli Wallach, Bruce Dern, or James Coburn. Someone with a bit of charisma or sleaze about them. Instead, Hitch went for the pretty boy. Go figure. Much better is Martin Balsam, one of the all-time best character actors, who is solid as a rock as the cynical, inquisitive detective who meets his match in Norman. Call it the John Williams role, perhaps. John McIntire is another great character actor, and whilst he has very little to do here, he does it well. Mort Mills has even less to do but leaves an unforgettable impression. As was often the case, Pat Hitchcock steals her few light-hearted moments.

The screenplay is by Joseph Stefano (“The Black Orchid”), from the Robert Bloch (“Asylum”, “Strait-Jacket”) novel. Neither man did anything much else in their careers, another indication that this isn’t A-grade material, perhaps.

This isn’t Hitch’s numero uno masterpiece, but it’s one of his best films and certainly one of the best films of its type. But don’t tell me this ain’t a piece of schlock.

Rating: B+