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.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the shock value might not hold up as much today as it had back then, I thought that Psycho was a great film that holds up to the praise it has been given. After considering the time period and reading the article, I can tell this film was ahead of it's time. This film must have been really intense for audiences at the time, and I can probably see why the studios were not that willing to fund it. Hitchcock was a visionary, and the article offered a good insight to who he was as a person. He seemed to run a tight ship, and I'm surprised he thought of actors as cattle. I think that was what it took I guess to make a successful movie, if he hadn't done that maybe movies like Psycho would not have been made. Do to the onscreen violence and shower scene, I wonder if Hitchcock knew he may have been creating the first slasher film. Does anyone think that this was the first slasher film, or even counts as a slasher film? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteI am in agreement that this film is ahead of it's time. Psycho could be considered one of the fathers of the slasher sub-genre. The slasher sub-genre wasn't really popular until about 20 years after Psycho. However, the slasher films nowadays are very different than Psycho. Slasher films nowadays include the useless murders of characters who we don't really get to know. Every time someone dies in Psycho, the entire plot is changed dramatically. If Psycho were released today, I would not consider it a slasher film.
DeleteTrue, I guess the opinion on whether or not this is a slasher film lies within the eye of the beholder. I have to agree that the only real thing that this film shares with other slashers is slashing and a body count. Other slasher films such as Friday the 13th are usually like exploitation films, and Psycho seeks to shock rather than to exploit. It defiantly does not follow the usual formula, so it is even debatable whether it even helped start the genre. I do know however that this movie may have gotten some inspiration for the Norman Bates character from Ed Gein: a real life serial killer who has also been the inspiration for Leatherface and Buffalo Bill. That's pretty interesting.
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Gein
"Every time someone dies in Psycho, the entire plot is changed dramatically." I've never really considered this, Alex. But you are 100% correct. And like you said, in most modern slasher flicks, heck even the ones since the 1970s, victims are just fuel for the plot...something to burn time until the movie is over. How many people die in a Friday the 13th movie or a Texas Chainsaw movie? Who knows...They don't really count as people, just bodies.
Delete"Psycho seeks to shock rather than to exploit." Van, interesting. Prove it. And what's the difference?
DeletePsycho is a movie that was created to take audiences off guard and offer them something that they had not seen before. This film was delicately constructed to create a well crafted story that let the audience into many surprises. Many audience members going in to the film probably did not know that the highest billed actress was going to be killed early on in the film, and no one probably saw the shower scene coming. All of this made Psycho a mysterious film that also drew people in with it's shock value. Exploitation films on the other hand were created to entice viewers to come in on the promise of violence, sex, and other taboo within the film. While Psycho focuses on a intricate plot of a serial killer living with a duel persona, an average exploitation flick would have a plot along the lines of "an island full of feral women, where sexuality is uncontrolled by civilization" or "a one armed biker who searches for an evil monster who has kidnapped his girlfriend"(these are not real but could probably pass of as exploitation films). What makes Psycho a shocking film rather than an exploitative film is that Psycho focuses on a plot rather than the use of gimmicks to attract an audience.
DeleteI'm usually not a fan of "scary" movies, mostly because nowadays they just use loud noises and things popping up to try to make you jump. Psycho, however, was very well done in terms of its dialogue and cinematography. The movie was slow at times, but never in a way that bored you, only making you want to see what would happen next. Learning about Hitchcock's method also interested me. He views actors as "spoiled children," yet gives them freedom with their character. It seems like that would be a conflicting formula, but one that worked nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that new scary movies are just plain stupid and often funny at times.
DeleteI think funny is a good word to describe many horror movies these days, especially when it comes to the decision making of the character. "Oh, everyone that has lived in this house dies, I think I'll move in and investigate the place"
Delete" Oh no a man with a chainsaw is chasing after me, time to lose all my coordination"
DeleteI thought that the way the article described Alfred Hitchcock's management of the characters, in the film Psycho, was really well done. I like how Hitchcock allowed the actors to interpret the characters in their own way. Hitchcock had said, "I will only interfere if you don't come up where I need your or you go too far". He also allowed the actors to have their own input on the script. Which worked out perfectly for him in the final movie. How heavily Hitchcock focused on his characters, and how open he was for the actors own input helped make Psycho into a wonderful film.
ReplyDeleteDo you think this is usually the case? In other words, does opening up the script to actor's interpretations always lead to better interpretations? In what cases, like Psycho, might this help, and in what cases might this impede?
DeleteI also thought it was great how he gave the actors freedom. He understood that you need more than just your own voice to make something truly great.
DeleteI think that giving the actors the freedom to interpret was really helpful with the character Norman Bates. It seems that Tony Perkins was able to become the character in a way that comfortable and personal. I think that if Hitchcock had directed him more it would have made Bates's character less understable.
DeleteI have seen some other Hitchcock films, and I have to say that “Psycho” is my favorite. I enjoyed it the most because I was able to understand the story on a whole new level through the cinematography. I found it fascinating how I could perceive that Norman Bates had more power over Marion just by the camera’s angle and positioning. I also found the article to be very interesting, specifically Hitchcock’s relationships with the actors and actresses. I was surprised to learn that he gave lots of room to Tony Perkins to develop Norman Bates’s character because he seemed seemed very strict about the rest of the movie. He seemed much more uptight with Janet Leigh because he had her in many times before the filming of the movie to help her explore the character of Marion Crane. Hitchcock may have been stubborn when quoted he would not let anyone get in his way, but I think that his stubbornness allowed “Psycho” to be a masterpiece.
ReplyDeleteWhat else have you seen, and what makes Psycho better?
DeleteI have seen North by Northwest, Rear Window, Vertigo, The Man Who Knew Too Much, and Suspicion. I was able to appreciate Psycho more because understanding the cinematography felt like having the ability to read between the lines. I have to admit that Psycho creeped me out the most and a bit too much because the murder scene in the shower was so long and elaborate. Most of the other movies I saw there was a stab or gunshot, here or there, but they were not accompanied by the same music and vulnerability of the character.
DeleteThis is the second time that I have seen Psycho, and I liked it the first time but I think I liked it better this time. The reason I say that is because I looked for different camera angles and shots, and I could more appreciate the shots they used to manipulate how the feelings of the viewer, and it can make the scene feel more scary, or intense.
ReplyDeleteI also liked the subtle kind of things that Hitchcock was doing with the camera angles. Like the conversation between Norman and the woman. There was a low angle shot on Norman to make him seem powerful and a high angle shot on the woman to make her seem weak. It gave a way the whole plot in that conversation. Like the stuffing and taxodermy things. I also liked the positioning of the birds and what they did for the scene as well
I agree with you on Hitchcock's camera work. Each movement of the camera creates such a uncanny feeling. Even when the camera is fixed on one character, it definitely causes the audience to feel anxious. It really keeps the tension going on in the film.
DeleteAt first the film was confusing until i saw it a second time Hitchcock leaves us more with a shock in a way and same with the actors. They found it confusing at first until they started seeing what he wanted. And in the article it shows much more detail as behind the camera type of structure and as HitchCock said "It doesnt matter how big the part its what you make of it".
ReplyDeleteAlthough i didn’t think the movie was confusing, I agree with you about the article. He wanted everything the way he liked and he was very structured with everything. In the article it says “He laid down for her the ground rules that so infuriated certain actors. Hs camera was absolute. Every move was planned before any performer even talked with him” Hitchcock was a perfectionist and you could tell just by the way he set up his movies. He wanted everything spot on.
DeleteThis is the first time I have seen a Hitchcock movie. I think it is a really good movie. My favorite aspect of it is the camera work. The camera work seems to be ahead of its time. I especially like the part where the camera tilts up to the door frame while Norman enters his mother's room. It creates an eerie felling because you don't know what is going on. I also like the camera angles in the bird room scene. I liked how they used the birds to set the mood of the scene.
ReplyDeleteSomething that I found interesting in the article was how they hired the actors. Anthony Perkins, who plays Norman Bates, did not even read the script to get the job. Hitchcock only signed him because his looks perfectly fit the role. This is an example of Hitchcock's unconventional ways.
One of the reasons I enjoyed this movie was also because of the camera work . For some reason I really like how the ending was done when she found the corpse and there was a quick glance at Norman, following a reaction shot of her of noticing Norman and that he is right behind her. I believe that shot added more of a eerie tone because of the fact at that moment the viewer found out that the killer was no other than Norman Bates.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis was my second time watching Psycho and I have to say that I appreciate it more. When I first watched this film I didn't know what it was about and had know idea that there were even names for the types camera angles and views. When I watched it again I fully understood what each term meant and how it was used in the movie to create drama and a sense of intensity. I loved how in the first 30 minutes of the movie Hitchcock tells you the whole plot of the movie just with camera angles and views and from the script.
ReplyDeleteI liked the article because it told me the back stories of all the actors and how they become a part of this movie. I also liked how it showed Hitchcock getting frustrated and pissed off with some actors cause they were doing something that he didn't want. This showed that directing something takes skill and can be very hard at times.
I agree that it was nice to see Hitchcock using the camera to create a sense of drama. It's amazing to me how great horror filmmakers know how to create a sense of dread just by placing the camera closer or farther away.
DeletePsycho is one of those movies that inspires me to make movies. It fuels up the creativity inside me because of its wonderful story and excellent camera work. a lot of the camera angles give a sort of sense that someone is watching. This is done in the shower scene and even when Marian is driving. Every shot is planned and executed perfectly and it shows. The low angles of Norman with the birds in the background just shows how Hitchcock knows how to set the scene. The movie can't be great just because of the writing or the acting. A lot of times the background of the set can help make the viewer feel whatever the director wants them to. A great director can truly do whatever they want to the audience while still keeping what they want in mind. Hitchcock knows this and uses it to his advantage. The exciting scenes are timed well so we can get more involved with the story. The use of the score during the car scene in the beginning is flawless. As she drives although she isn't exactly in evident danger the music suggests that she is. So it keeps the audience on their toes. The use of making the camera see what's behind Marian gives us a sense that she is being followed by someone. I always found myself looking at the back of the window to see if the cars would be key to something but they really weren't until the cop. We watch the cop car in the back because that's what we were doing before even though there was no cop car following her before. Alfred definitely understands that he is in control and he uses that to his advantage.
ReplyDeleteGoing off your point on the music, I really liked the trend that whenever a character was by themselves in the first half of the film, that signature ominous music would play. Sometimes something nerve-racking would follow, sometimes it wouldn't, and that was what always made it so intense.
DeleteI can see why this is a movie that would inspire you. Im sure many directors today find inspiration in Hitchcock's movies as well. The scenes are executed perfectly and the music is timed perfectly throughout the movie. Everything Hitchcock puts in the movie is there for a reason.
DeletePsycho has always been my favorite Hitchcock movie. Although it has been frequently replicated throughout the years, it still holds up. The cinematography and dialogue are brilliant. I also like that it shares similar traits with almost all of Hitchcock's movies such as the use of suspense. I thought that the article was very interesting. I found Hitchcock's attitude towards actors and the way he favors some over others funny.
ReplyDeleteIt is my first time seeing Psycho and I was impressed with the quality of the film. I appreciated the pacing that Hitchcock had throughout the film, keeping the audience on their toes at every moment. I especially loved the fact that even us, the audience, knew what was coming, it was still unexpected and surprising. Hitchcock has a fantastic way of setting atmosphere without even having the main lead speaking. The tension and shock that is sprinkled throughout the film leaves a memorable impression on the audience and I love it. I was aware of the magnitude that was Psycho, but upon reading the article, I was surprised that the film was not supported by Paramount. It was interesting to read about Hitchcock's struggle to bring Psycho to the public and keeping his vision and thoughts within the film. I especially found it interesting when the article discussed his relationship with actors and actresses. Being a rather uncooperative director, it was interesting and a bit humorous to see Hitchcock develop deep relationships with the actors and actresses of Psycho. My favorite part of the article has to be near the end, when the public is introduced to Psycho. The diversity of reactions and impressions of Psycho were incredibly interesting and surprising that I found it a bit funny. A film that Hitchcock planned to simply shock the audience, did more than that. I love films that have lasting effect on the audience, definitely makes them much more memorable and classic.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Because it was my first time seeing the movie, I had similar first impressions. Although I have not seen many 1950s movies, I got the impression that Hitchcock was a unique director. The entire concept of the movie at the time held a major twist and I found it incredible. Also, as somebody who has only watched a couple of black and white movies, I felt that the lack of color did not take anything away from the film. In fact, I thought the contrasts added to the creepy atmosphere. I also agree with your point that the shock is everlasting. Psycho is one of those movies that is always referenced and talked about, even to this day. It has paved a foundation for modern day movies that include killing off major actors as well as multiple personalities. It's cool to see who sparked these ideas.
DeleteBecause of watching shows like Law and Order SUV as well as CSI miami from time to time I liked the investigation part of it. It was an interesting film overall as well. It was entertaining to constantly think about what is going to happen next and what the main conflict was supposed to be and the reasons for it. It reminded me of Law and order since there's always a twist in the story that the viewers sometimes just can't predict. As for the cinematography that was done it showed me effectively that there is more to filming then just pointing the camera and zooming in and numerous types of panning . It made me appreciate films today even more because of Psycho.
ReplyDeleteI find it very interesting how the psychiatrist at the end explained Norman Bates' mental condition of having double personalities; one of his and one of his mother. It's very eerie how the personality of his mother has more power than his and how well he imitated her character. I am fascinated by psychology and this case is very interesting. As for the article, I think that it's surprising how the movie was filmed on a low budget, yet it became one of the most well-known movies of all time.
ReplyDeleteI found that the article was very interesting because it brought light to some background about the movie that I otherwise would have missed. For example, the article highlighted that Hitchcock was set on finding a famous actress to kill in the first third of the movie to "better maximize the shock." Back then, directors did not kill the character the audience was following, let alone somebody famous. Because the movie was made such a long time ago, I didn’t get that full effect because I wasn’t aware that woman who played Marion was famous. Also, from my understanding, it was much more of a shock that he killed her so early in the movie because back then that didn't happen. I would argue that that particular twist is more prominent in modern movies, therefore less effective nowadays.
ReplyDelete