|
Post by abraxas on Sept 30, 2010 9:22:04 GMT -5
Psycho was based on a novel written by Robert Bloch a student and long time friend of H.P. Lovecraft, Bloch also wrote several episodes of the original STAR TREK.
The book was influenced by the exploits of Ed Gein, the Wisconsin ghoul, who robbed graves and made a "woman suit " out of the flesh of corpses. He also made masks from the faces of the bodies he dug up. He killed two woman, possibly even his brother who died in a fire, presumably he was dead before the fire and the fire was set to hid it.
Psycho is a phenomenal cinematic achievement, what made it so ahead of its time was the way in which the film played out, it starts off as a classic chase movie, and it had the potential to continue on with the premise, and it would still be an engrossing story.
It is really two movies in one, one which is about a case of stolen money, a chase film where a woman steals a great amount of money to bail her boyfriend out of his financial troubles. It could have followed this storyline all the way through, but then out of nowhere the premise switches. As the women is driving to her boyfriend and away from the police, she comes across a neglected motel...the Bates motel.
This is the genius of this movie, just like the birds which starts off like a light hearted romp about a crazy society babe, (a typical movie premise of that day), but then it abruptly shifts to horror.
This is why Hitchcock was one of the greatest directors ever.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Sept 30, 2010 9:42:45 GMT -5
Do I go for the historical/influential route and give it a 5, or should I go for the more honest approach and give it the 2 I think it really deserves based solely on the film itself?
My mom always told me to be honest, so unfortunately, it's a 2.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Oct 1, 2010 4:37:28 GMT -5
Jesus Christ man!! I wont even bother commenting beyond that, I mean anyone who would give a 2 to one of the great films in history......I just don't know how to respond to that I give up, uncle uncle>
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Oct 1, 2010 4:39:53 GMT -5
I know what must of happened - GL got confused and thought we were talking about the 1998 film. Although awarding that a 2 is being generous to say the least.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Oct 1, 2010 8:55:15 GMT -5
5. I have commented extensively on this one in the past. Needless to say, it is an all time favorite of mine. Anything less than a five is shameful.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Oct 1, 2010 9:49:15 GMT -5
I know what must of happened - GL got confused and thought we were talking about the 1998 film. Although awarding that a 2 is being generous to say the least. No, I know which one I'm talking to. Historical legacy is the only thing this one has, the rest of it is just deathly dull for me. That means more to me than whether or not it's important to the genre's history. That fact is utterly bullshit in regards to what a film should be based on, and the film itself, withheld from any other outside factors, should be the only thing you judge a film on. To me, it has nothing all that special. And I've given the 98 one at least a 4 out of 5 several times when we've gone to discuss it.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Oct 1, 2010 9:51:25 GMT -5
Jesus Christ. You just said you like the Gus Van Sant shot for shot remake better than what might very well be the finest horror film ever made? God help you
|
|
|
Post by GL on Oct 1, 2010 9:57:09 GMT -5
Yeah, so?
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Oct 1, 2010 9:57:33 GMT -5
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Oct 1, 2010 10:00:30 GMT -5
So, I honestly think you are just saying that to get people fired up, because it is just not really possible that you give this a two and love fucking Godzilla flying drop kicks. Not really possible
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Oct 1, 2010 10:05:35 GMT -5
Whaoo now hold on there, keep my boy Godzilla out of it
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Oct 1, 2010 11:48:50 GMT -5
because it is just not really possible that you give this a two and love fucking Godzilla flying drop kicks. LOL A 5 from me. Great film and everything works for me; the acting, the music, the visuals and the story. One of the few movies I like a lot better than the book it is based on (of course I read the book years after I saw the movie for the first time, and knew it well.)
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Oct 1, 2010 14:38:48 GMT -5
No, I know which one I'm talking to. yeah I know, I was just takin' the piss ( Aussie slang for having a joke). I certainly don't agree now, but when I was a kid i prefered Psycho 2 over the original - but that was mainly because of the B&W,and the higher body count in the sequel,cause at that point one of my most important criteria in a film was how many died.As I grew up though I began to appreciate a lot of films that i did'nt care for at 10. I've really got to pick up the 50th Anniversary Blu-Ray I hear it's absolutely fantastic .
|
|
|
Post by GL on Oct 4, 2010 10:10:45 GMT -5
Unfortunately, HNT, I'm being completely serious. The film, to me, is just not all that interesting at all. What Abraxas claims is a virtue of the film, the tonal shift early on from the chase into the horror film, is fucking infuritating because, 1: I don't care for those types of films at all so to be focused for that length of time on a subject matter which doesn't interest me is a recipe for extreme and utter boredom, 2: The engrossing part it would've been had it stayed on that course is a bold-faced lie since the set-up has it known early on she's the culprit, so any investigation is going to lead directly to the character the audience knows from the initial frames did it, so any chance of pulling a switch would be simply to force plot-holes into the story to keep it going in a direction the audience wouldn't expect, and that's not really something that would be accepted in that time where it was demanded that stories be a prime factor in the movie-making process. No one in Hollywood would've allowed a film to go into production if they believed it didn't have a strong story. A good one is subject to debate, but not one that's a weak story.
Then there comes the third part, which I don't believe is a part of the film itself but it still needs to be brought up: it's by Alfred Hitchcock. Looking back at the man's resume, it's impossible to imagine the man would've suddenly shifted styles away from the suspense-thrillers he was doing for so many years before this one, with a title as "Psycho" nonetheless, that it's hard to imagine anyone would've been fooled into thinking this wasn't going to stay on the route of being about her heisting the money.
Then there comes the biggest part, the film's promotion. Hitch made a demand that usher's close off the theater doors to anyone coming in after the film had started to run to prevent people from missing the opening twist. From the very beginning, he made it about the tonal shift that was going to happen, because he wanted people to be shocked by the surprise he was instructing people were going to see. To me, that just doesn't make sense: you want people to be shocked at something, so you're deliberately forcing the situation with a whole bunch of outside rules so that they are forced into seeing it? You're going in expecting it, so how can it be a surprise?
Finally, there's the big problem I personally have with it: the focus for so much on the killer. I want them to be as unknown and foreign as they can be, so that they're that much more terrifying. The more we're around Norman, the easier it is to see that he's going to be crazy, or at least unhinged a little, so him going off-the-handle isn't a shock since we can piece together the clues from his personality and behavior, all because we were around him for a period of time. Him yakking endlessly with her in the parlor room, with the detective and then with the sister while they're all investigating the motel afterward are just endlessly dull, and because of the focus on him, not that interesting.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Oct 4, 2010 14:43:24 GMT -5
Unfortunately, HNT, I'm being completely serious. The film, to me, is just not all that interesting at all. What Abraxas claims is a virtue of the film, the tonal shift early on from the chase into the horror film, is fucking infuritating because, 1: I don't care for those types of films at all so to be focused for that length of time on a subject matter which doesn't interest me is a recipe for extreme and utter boredom, 2: The engrossing part it would've been had it stayed on that course is a bold-faced lie since the set-up has it known early on she's the culprit, so any investigation is going to lead directly to the character the audience knows from the initial frames did it, so any chance of pulling a switch would be simply to force plot-holes into the story to keep it going in a direction the audience wouldn't expect, and that's not really something that would be accepted in that time where it was demanded that stories be a prime factor in the movie-making process. No one in Hollywood would've allowed a film to go into production if they believed it didn't have a strong story. A good one is subject to debate, but not one that's a weak story. Then there comes the third part, which I don't believe is a part of the film itself but it still needs to be brought up: it's by Alfred Hitchcock. Looking back at the man's resume, it's impossible to imagine the man would've suddenly shifted styles away from the suspense-thrillers he was doing for so many years before this one, with a title as "Psycho" nonetheless, that it's hard to imagine anyone would've been fooled into thinking this wasn't going to stay on the route of being about her heisting the money. Then there comes the biggest part, the film's promotion. Hitch made a demand that usher's close off the theater doors to anyone coming in after the film had started to run to prevent people from missing the opening twist. From the very beginning, he made it about the tonal shift that was going to happen, because he wanted people to be shocked by the surprise he was instructing people were going to see. To me, that just doesn't make sense: you want people to be shocked at something, so you're deliberately forcing the situation with a whole bunch of outside rules so that they are forced into seeing it? You're going in expecting it, so how can it be a surprise? Finally, there's the big problem I personally have with it: the focus for so much on the killer. I want them to be as unknown and foreign as they can be, so that they're that much more terrifying. The more we're around Norman, the easier it is to see that he's going to be crazy, or at least unhinged a little, so him going off-the-handle isn't a shock since we can piece together the clues from his personality and behavior, all because we were around him for a period of time. Him yakking endlessly with her in the parlor room, with the detective and then with the sister while they're all investigating the motel afterward are just endlessly dull, and because of the focus on him, not that interesting. Fair points, my friend. Let me try to respond. 1) The tonal shift was clearly a shock to anyone watching the film. And, there would have been any number of ways to continue it down its original path. Why did she steal the money? did Sam encourage her to or otherwise want her to? What were Sam's debts that she intended to pay? An answer to any of those questions could have yielded all kinds of shocking Hitchcockian twists and even pretty clearly spiraled into layers of murder, deceipt, and trickery. Don't believe me? I ask you, what is it about the plot to North by Northwest that starts out in the first half hour as a whole lot more than what we have here? 2) I don't think that anyone is saying that this film would have shifted away from suspense thrillers. Certainly, there is all kinds of suspense to be wrought from the plot of Marian stealing the money and taking off. Why did she do it? Was anyone else complicit in the theft? Will the cops catch her? In fact, exploring those questions would have been much more in line with traditional Hitchcock films than the Psycho plot twist was. 3) Hitchcock's promotion had little to do with what the film was about, and everything about making more money and changing the way that people view films. In the old days, you bought a pass to go to the theater for the day, you saw some cartoons or a short before the main film, and then you saw one or two films. You could stay all day for the price of admission and watch them as many times as you wanted. Psycho changed all of that. By having the theater closed, Hitchcock changed the way that we go to the movies to be the way it is now. You pay to see one film, and you leave when its over. He made a bunch of money by making that change. Also, don't forget that Psycho was the first mainstream film to be released with an age restriction, so it became important to institute policies that limited access to the theater. 4) Your final point is more a matter of personal preference than anything. I will say, though, that the film does a pretty good job if you go into it with no foreknowledge or preconceptions of making it believable that the mother is the killer. Bates looks strange, but mostly like a momma's boy or a pussy, not a cold blooded killer. Finally, today when we watch that we see someone who is obviously crazy. That's mostly because of how many times subsequent films have ripped this off from Psycho. When this movie came out, there was no such stereotypically crazy performance. This was the origianator. Most audiences wouldn't have seen that coming in 1960.
|
|