Step two: In the comments section below, post a perspective/reaction you have not just to the film, but to the article. Your post should be thoughtful and thorough, and grammar and spelling counts. Once you've posted your comment, you're ready for step three: extra credit. You may comment on your peers' responses as much as you'd like. Feel free to agree, disagree, build, re-direct, etc. Just keep it friendly.
Once again, we are conducting a discussion here. Ask questions. Respond to others. Respond to people who have responded to you. Etc.
Once again, we are conducting a discussion here. Ask questions. Respond to others. Respond to people who have responded to you. Etc.
I thought the article was very thorough in its description of the making of Psycho. It really hinted at the ambition and personality of the director Hitchcock, and how Tony Perkins was the most involved in his character. While this effort was appreciated, there were some actors whose work ethic just didn't impress Hitch.
ReplyDeleteAs for the movie, there is not very much in it that seems dated when you compare it to the great thrillers made today. The dialogue is full of depth, the two leads give chilling performances that seem detached, not too common in American movie acting before because an over-the-top theatricality was embraced. Often times there wasn't much nuance. Hitchcock really knows not only how to control his brilliant visual style, or map out his story with such skill; he also knows how to bring out the best in his actors, or his "cattle".
I agree with Chris, It was very well made and it had great cinematography. I thought it was really cool how they made Norman Bates have two personalities. It was really cool. I also loved how well Norman Bates acted as his mother. Great old woman voice.
DeleteThe article was very interesting to me. It spoke of all of the troubles that Hitchcock had with the film. The casting of the film was focused on the most, and it added new characteristics to both the actors and to Hitchcock himself. I was surprised that Hitchcock did not drop Vera Miles or John Gavin due to their disagreements. I thought that it was interesting that the Mother was cast, but it made sense. I feel like the secrecy of the movie must have been very important, and the article states exactly how Hitchcock kept that secret.
ReplyDeleteThe movie was fun to watch with the knowledge of different shots and angles that were used. It was a good movie, but I think they should have added some dramatic irony. Not enough to spoil the ending, but I felt like it could have been more thrilling. The only dramatic irony that they include is the shot where we see someone entering the bathroom as Marion Crane is showering.
i really enjoyed the movie. i felt that that the story arch kept the audience interested and when it did start to get a bit boring something major would happen and cause a dramatic change in the story. this made it seem as if there were multiple stories going on at once and in a way there was. the article provided some back story about Hitchcock and the film and was an interesting read. i liked the explanations behind his systematic way of doing things like the camera angles and how the different shots would take place. i also like how Hitchcock let the actors act like their characters, adding things that they felt there characters would do and leaving out things that they wouldn't do.
ReplyDeletemy only complaint about the movie was how Hitchcock did the end. I felt that having someone just explain Norman did his complex character a disservice and in a way undermines the audience intelligence. i felt that they should of changed how Norman was explained somehow, how he could do it i don't know but it definitely needed a change.
I agree that the ending was a little dull with the presentation, but I think Hitchcock wanted the story to be clear. If he hadn't explained Norman at the end, the story could be misinterpreted and open to argument. It seemed that Hitchcock wanted it to be perfectly clear what happened.
DeleteI also think it was really cool how Hitchcock let the actors add to their characters. Not many directors will let them do that because it may draw away from the original character too much. I don't think Hitchcock was acting like the audience was stupid by making the end like that, I agree with Trace's opinion.
DeleteI think the article is much more about the impact Psycho had on the film industry than the way it was made. Hitchcock wanted to make a movie that unlike anything anyone has ever seen before. The opening scene is the first scene ever to show a man and a woman horizontally on a bed. The movie was way ahead of its time, and the article talks about the way Hitchcock really pushes the limits for 1960. Between the shower scene, the opening scene, and the shocking twist ending, Psycho was a sign of what was to come for future films. I did like the way the article discusses how Hitchcock cared way more about the production of the film, the cinematography, and its design. Hitchcock way more focused on these aspects on the film, rather than it’s casting. He didn’t feel like the film needed these big name actors. He still cared about getting actors to fit roles and personalities of their characters, but it was a much less issue compared to other aspects. I really enjoyed this article and I learned a lot about Alfred Hitchcock and Psycho.
ReplyDeleteWhen I found out we were going to watch Psycho in class I got very excited, and it reached but did not exceed my expectations. I’m usually against watching films that are made before the 1970s and watching this was definitely a new experience for me. I have seen tons of movies that have made within the last 30 years, and I was impressed how much more entertaining and exciting this film was compared to other more recent films I enjoy. The camera angles were flawless, the acting and dialogue were excellent, and I felt very engaged with film from the very first scene because it was very intense. I was eager to find out what was going to happen next. However, I felt like the story was a little tedious in the beginning, and whole part with the police officer was a little unnecessary. And although the twist was great, I think the film suggests that Norman is the killer from the very moment we meet him, which in way could take away the shock factor of the ending. Nonetheless, I still enjoyed this film very much, and it’s about time I’ve started watching Hitchcock movies. I know I said a lot, but does anyone want to agree or disagree with me?
I have seen many Hitchcock movies and I have always thought he was a director ahead of his time. Compared to the stupid schlock musicals MGM put out and the good but formulaic detective/gangster movies from Warner Bros, his work seems so much more insightful and unique. While Psycho is probably his best film in terms of shock value and creepiness, I think Notorious and Vertigo are two of his best films in terms of how he dealt with the characters and their secrets or obsessions, thus creating the most suspense. Of course the daring visual style is always present in many forms that are great study for film class.
DeleteI disagree, I felt that the police officer was necessary. The police officer was meant to apply pressure to Marion. She needed the physical reminder that she is doing something wrong. The reminder speeds her on her way to her fate at Bates Motel. He was also the person that first suggests the idea of a motel when she cannot drive anymore. So, in a way, the police officer chases Marion to the Bates Motel.
DeleteI definitely agree with you, Andrea. The police officer gave the audience anxiety just as he kept freaking out Marion. He was everywhere she was and it made me want to make him disappear so Marion can get away. I feel like he was a very necessary character.
DeleteIn a way I kind of agree with Matt I, I thought the cinematography was great, but I feel like the police scene was needed because it showed the friendly connection Norman had with the town sheriff. To me, It came off like the sheriff knew Norman on a personal level and that he didn't suspect him to be the murderer.
ReplyDeleteI thought the article was interesting. I liked how Janet Leigh talked about the way the movie was filmed. Hitchcock seemed like an intimidating guy to work with though.
By the way, did anyone notice Hitchcock's cameo in this film? He makes a cameo appearance in every one of his movies. This one in particular is hard to catch, but some of his others are easy to spot.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b6WjVmNpAc
YEAH! I knew that too. I think it's super crafty. If I was a director, I would totally do this too.
DeleteI felt the story pulled us in really effectively. The movie always was so suspenseful I did not know what would happen next. I liked how when Norman Bates killed Ms. Crane the camera zoomed in to the eye and made the scene that much more eerie. I loved it. I also liked when Ms. Crane just arrived at the Bates hotel and when Norman brought her food. While she was eating I liked how there was hints put into the dialogue of Norman of who he really was. Great movie.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you Alex. It really engaged the audience into the story and sucked us in right away. Even though I saw this movies years ago, I totally forgot how it ended and it was still so suspenseful in my opinion. After Norman kills Marion, the way the camera pans and zooms out from her eye has a really great effect. The music really had a really big effect in my opinion too. When she was driving, without the really suspenseful music, I wouldn't feel her anxiety or nervousness to the amount I did with the really suspenseful music.
DeleteI agree with your point that the dialog and delivery was fantastic and the angles add to the suspense but i feel that the music must be mentioned along with the first two. The power of the tune and its dominance are extremely powerful and make scenes in the move truly great. for example when Marian was driving the car, fleeing with the money the music plays loudly. if the music was not there the it would be just a girl driving a car and would be rather boring.
DeleteMarion*
DeleteI thought that the article was very interesting. It cleared up things about the movie and went behind the camera to explain how it was made and why. Alfred Hitchcock definitely had a vision and he was determined to make it the way he specifically wanted. He tried to push the boundaries that the 1960's had set by making this film. I thought it was really interesting how they said that there was nudity and after he "revised it" they accepted it without making one change.
ReplyDeleteI had no idea what the movie was about when I first heard we were going to watch it. However, I thought it was an extremely well crafted movie. I can't remember a movie that has as much of an impact on the audience as this one did. You can tell that Alfred Hitchcock knew what he was doing and knew how to sway the audience. The different camera angles create effects that can't be portrayed by actors. Like when Norman just turns his head and looks at the camera, it creates a dark and mysterious effect that makes it very intriguing. Overall, I really enjoyed the movie.
Hitchcock really did well in making the film and using cinematography to his advantage. I can tell Hitchcock painstakingly planned the scenes to produce the desired effect in the audience. In the beginning, when the camera went through the window and happened upon the love scene between Sam and Marion, I felt like an intruder—like I shouldn’t be there. I think that may have been Hitchcock’s intention. Also, in the scene where Marion is driving, the camera would switch off between Marion and the stretch of road before her. I noticed that although the road stayed the same size, the camera kept getting closer and closer to Marion. In those scenes, I could feel the tension on the screen. A good director is marked by the degree he affects his audience. According to the article, there was a very profound reaction at both ends of the spectrum. Either people were thrilled and wanted to see it again, or they thought it was an abomination and should be banned. In my opinion, if one director can cause such a stir, then he is a cinematic genius.
ReplyDeleteThe article was very interesting and illuminated me to details of the production that I hadn’t been aware of during the viewing of the film. I didn’t know Hitchcock had a low opinion of actors in concept. I suppose he was very protective of his vision and didn’t want anyone to compromise it, even the people responsible for carrying out the vision. However, that did not mean he was closed to the ideas of others: Perkins approached him with ideas he had about the script and the blocking of a scene and he received them and thought they were good. I suppose that if any new idea stayed within his vision or improved it, then it was considered good. I was also surprised by the fact that Hitchcock used several actresses to portray Mother before the revelation scene. After watching the whole movie, I thought it was all Perkins. I kind of understand why he did it though, Hitchcock didn’t want to give the ending away by suspicion that Norman really was Mother. I also wondered if Hitchcock intended for the atmosphere on the set to be so formal and uncomfortable.
This music in this movie is brilliant.
ReplyDeleteWithout the music throughout the film, especially during the shower scene, the movie would have been much less scary in my opinion
Deleteyeah. and the scene where she's driving...because I feel like that scene is so long and without the loud, suspenseful music the scene would be nothing.
DeleteI agree. A lot of times, music, not just in this movie, tells you what you're supposed to be feeling during a slow or silent scene. It's interesting that scenes where nothing was happening physically could still be so important/emotional just by adding music or sound.
DeleteI loved the way the music made the scenes more powerful.
DeleteI think it's interesting how in control Hitchcock was during filming despite all of his obsessiveness as well as obstacles from others. He gave the actors some free space but always kept them chained to his vision. Especially with Gavin and Miles, he seemed to basically tell them how to act and expect their scenes exactly as he wanted. He also went out of his way to get control over the whole film, by filming cheaper, swearing the crew to secrecy, and manipulating eventual audiences and censors. And it all worked in the end, when it became so successful and popular. By having final say on everything, he was able to make Psycho his way and it ended up being really great. The somewhat slow and meandering then suddenly surprising plot, inappropriate scenes for the time, and complicated yet effective camera movements and angles made this movie pretty unique, as well as exactly what Hitchcock presumably imagined in the first place. If the studio or censors had been allowed to interfere, it probably would be shorter, less shocking, dumber, and worse.
ReplyDeleteThis was a great experience. I enjoyed the movie a lot—it was so much more thorough and daring than most movies you find today. The article really gave you insight as to Hitchcock’s unique and inspired style. I found his opinion on actors very interesting—the way he sees them kind of like pawns, like molds for the director to use to portray his thoughts. While that makes him sound manipulative, he does have a point. We seem to watch movies simply because of the actors in it. Hitchcock’s movies depend a lot more on setting and plot than movies do today. On that note, this movie was very interesting because it shows that you don’t need technology to create very strong effects. The article talked about how he planned out what his camera would be doing ahead of filming, “all for concise effects.” The movie had no special effects, yet it had so much more mood and plot than many films today do. Furthermore, I found it interesting how Hitchcock treated his cast. He had a different relationship with each one of his stars, ranging from frustration to disappointment to pride, yet they all ended up in the movie anyway. I suppose that shows that Hitchcock doesn’t believe that an actor makes the movie—a movie can be good no matter who’s playing in it (that’s a bit extreme, but in a nutshell that’s true.)
ReplyDeleteWhile I found the article interesting it did not answer the question,why there were no people of color in the movie.
ReplyDeleteI would really to like to know what Hitchcock told Janet Leigh to do to loosen up John Saxon.
ReplyDeleteThe article really told a lot about the film. It gave some of the background to the filming of the movie and pointed out a lot of facts about Psycho. Now I can understand the movie better.
ReplyDeleteI also would like to add I like how the movie posters advertised being in the film from the very beginning. Very unusual
DeleteI thought it was unusual as well that they wouldn't let anyone in after the begining of the film. Hitchcock always beleived a movie should be watched from begining to end. I agree with him.
DeleteI thought it was interesting that the whole film was shot with Hithcock's TV crew. Also that Paramount did not back the film. Looking back at it now they probably wish they would have. If they did though it wouldn't have been the same. This shows that Hitchock was such an amazing filmmaker. He could make a masterpiece without the help of a major production company.
ReplyDeleteI thought Hitchcock's movies was the greatest of all time because he thought so much into his movies. For example, in the article it said he talks with Janet Leigh about everything from the wardrobe, the suitcase, what she had in her suitcase but yet he only talked with Tony Perkins once before filming. I believe that it was to show distance with Perkins character.
ReplyDeleteAlso, to raise question about why the movie was filming in black and white and not color. I believe it was Hitchcock's way of saying he knows best. In the Oscar winning movie of last year, "The Artist", it was a silent black and white film. While many audience members did not like the film because it was so old fashioned. Many movie critics and directors loved the film and could see why it was made like that.
I really enjoyed Albert Hitchcocks movie phsyco, it had everything a good film needed, perfect actors, good scenery, interesting plot, the music matched the mood of the character and the audienc perfectly as well. the black and white film i think made the movie even better, it created this kinda of mysterious affect to it, it drew you in and made you look at the picture more attentively. the voice of the movie was very old fashioned as well but it gave a rough kind of feeling to the movie which fit the plot perfectly. In the article they talk about choosing the actors for the characters, it states how Marriane Crane's personality should be shown to the audience and it is completely on point. Normans character also was suppose to be portrayed as a thin tall man who is soft spoken and hesistant, this was exactly how norman was in the movie. he gave off a very hesistant uncomfortable mood, if he did not show that i believe he would not of been that goo of a physco.
ReplyDelete