UNIVERSITE CHARLES-DE-GAULLE – LILLE 3
UFR ANGELLIER
CLOSE-UP ON
ALFRED HITCHCOCK’S PSYCHO:
Spectatorship and Point of View
Mémoire présenté en vue de la validation de la première année de
Master Arts, Lettres, Langues et Communication
Mention Langues, Cultures et Interculturalité
Métiers de l’Enseignement du Second Degré en Anglais
Juliette DUFLOT
Sous la direction de Mme Patricia KRUTH
Juin 2013
UNIVERSITE CHARLES-DE-GAULLE – LILLE 3
UFR ANGELLIER
CLOSE-UP ON
ALFRED HITCHCOCK’S PSYCHO:
Spectatorship and Point of View
Mémoire présenté en vue de la validation de la première année de
Master Arts, Lettres, Langues et Communication
Mention Langues, Cultures et Interculturalité
Métiers de l’Enseignement du Second Degré en Anglais
Juliette DUFLOT
Sous la direction de Mme Patricia KRUTH
Juin 2013
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr Patricia Kruth for her advice, her patience and the time she
devoted to me all along the progression of this thesis. I would not have been able to complete
my work without her precious help. She made me discover a lot of interesting theories and
films, and she also helped me understand some notions of psychoanalysis.
I would also like to thank Mrs Clare Axby for being the proof-reader of my thesis.
Thank you to Mr Jean-Philippe Luchez and Ms Juliette Duthoit for helping me as
much as they could. Their knowledge of computing was really useful.
Finally, I want to thank my family as well as Ms Soraya Haddad for being supportive
during the writing of the essay.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4
PART I: THE POINTS OF VIEW IN PSYCHO ................................................................... 6
1.
Marion’s Point of View ........................................................................................... 8
2.
Norman’s Point of View ........................................................................................ 14
3.
Arbogast’s and Lila’s Points of View .................................................................... 19
PART II: THE SPECTATOR TRICKED BY HITCHCOCK ............................................ 25
1.
Mrs Bates ............................................................................................................... 26
2.
The Murder of the Star ........................................................................................... 27
3.
Clues Given by Hitchcock ..................................................................................... 29
4.
An Open Ending .................................................................................................... 35
PART III: THE VIEWERS OF PSYCHO ........................................................................... 37
1.
A Film That Demands the Participation of the Audience ...................................... 38
2.
A Very Controversial Film .................................................................................... 45
3.
The Impact of Psycho on XXI st Century Spectators ............................................. 49
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 52
1)
Filmography............................................................................................................... 53
2)
Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 54
3)
Websites..................................................................................................................... 55
Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 57
Introduction
When Psycho was released in 1960, Alfred Hitchcock managed to trigger the curiosity of
the spectators. Posters – saying that latecomers could not enter the cinemas – were printed,
and the director also made a trailer with glimpses of some key scenes of his film. Psycho has
now become a classic in the History of American cinema.
Psycho was a pioneering film because it broke the conventions of classical Hollywood
narration: the star of the film is murdered during the first half and the film is left open-ended.
Moreover, it is considered as a forerunner of the slasher genre, which is a subgenre of the
horror film. Slasher films always involve “a mysterious psychopathic killer stalking and
killing a sequence of victims usually in a graphially violent manner, often with a cutting tool
such as a knife or axe1.” Norman Bates is an archetypal psychotic serial killer.
A lot of critics have dealt with this famous film, mainly focusing on Hitchcock’s daring
choices, the shower scene being the best example. At the time, censorship was still very
present and directors had to respect the Hays Code. Hitchcock brilliantly managed to get
around it without being censured.
The film is not only about a psychotic killer who cold-bloodedly murders women. It tells a
lot about human nature and people’s desires. These issues are highlighted thanks to the use of
different points of view. Indeed, we are often left alone with one particular character, which
allows us to share his or her deepest feelings. The question of the point of view in Psycho has
not been discussed in depth by either academics or critics. And yet, it happens to be a crucial
element for the understanding of the film. Indeed, the several points of view that we are given
enable us (or not) to investigate and to fill in the gaps in the plot. To a certain extent we
become active. Yet, on the other hand, Hitchcock also uses these different points of view, as
well as particular cinematic devices, to trick us and even to deceive us sometimes.
1
Wikipedia, Slasher film, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slasher_film#Forerunners.
4
Therefore, we can wonder about the actual role of the spectators. How does Hitchcock
involve us? Why can it be said that we are part of the plot as if we were one of the characters?
How is it possible for us to empathise and even sympathise with characters who commit
crimes such as theft and murder?
I will first discuss how we become investigators thanks to the different points of view.
Then, I will deal with the devices Hitchcock uses to trick us, to finally talk about the real
voyeurs of Psycho. In this essay, I propose a new close-up on Psycho.
5
PART I: THE POINTS OF VIEW IN PSYCHO
6
The notion of point of view (from now on abbreviated as POV) can be defined in several
ways as explained by Patricia Kruth in her article about Stanley Kubrick’s Lolita2. In the
article, the author quotes Laurent Jullier for whom there are five definitions of a point of
view:
[…] le point de vue réel du spectateur […]; - le point de vue optique induit par
la caméra, ainsi que le point d’écoute formé par les sons et leur mixage… ; - le
point de vue depuis lequel, s’il s’agit d’images narratives, l’histoire est
racontée […]; - le point de vue que le film porte sur le monde […]; - le point
de vue critique que pose le spectateur une fois le film terminé, c’est-à-dire le
jugement de goût.3
In other words, the five different kinds of POV are the one of the spectators, the one given
by the camera, the one from which the story is told, the one that the film has on the world and,
finally, the judgement of the spectators on the finished film.
This part will focus on the POV of the protagonists of Psycho – Marion Crane (Janet
Leigh) and Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) – and two less important characters, the
detective Arbogast (Martin Balsam) and Marion’s sister, Lila Crane (Vera Miles).
One could think that the best way to show the POV of a character is to use subjective shots
only. The spectators are shown what the character sees as if they were the character himself or
herself. Yet, this theory was questioned after the release of The Lady in the Lake directed by
Robert Montgomery in 1946. In this film, the subjective camera is used almost all the time.
The audience sees through the eyes of the protagonist, Phillip Marlowe (played by Robert
Montgomery). However, is it not easier to adopt a protagonist’s POV when one can also see
this person? As David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson explain, the question of the relevance
of the subjective camera remains unanswered: “The history of the technique has teased film
theorists into speculating about whether the subjective shot evokes identification from the
audience. Do we think we are Phillip Marlowe? The problem of audience identification with a
point-of-view shot remains a difficult one in film theory4.”
2
Patricia Kruth, « Le spectateur, le monstre et la victime : le point de vue dans Lolita de Stanley Kubrick »,
in Didier Machu and Taïna Tuhkunen (dir.), Lolita, roman de Vladimir Nabokov (1955) et film de Stanley Kubrick
(1962), pp. 153-170.
3
Laurent Jullier, « Points de vue », in René Gardies (dir.), Comprendre le cinéma et les images, p. 67.
4
David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson, Film Art: an Introduction, p. 292.
7
1. Marion’s Point of View
An intimate scene
The first two characters who are shown in the film are Marion Crane and her lover Sam
Loomis (John Gavin); they are in a hotel room. They discuss their illicit relationship (they are
not married) and the fact that Marion would like to have a respectable relationship with Sam.
This is an in medias res opening and the spectators have to imagine what the situation is
regarding what they see on the screen. The setting helps us understand that their relationship
is illicit. For instance, several times we see them standing in front of a blind which is closed.
It can be interpreted as a metaphor for their relationship; they have to hide from the rest of the
world.
Fig. 1: The use of the blinds shows that their relationship is illicit
A crane shot is used, and we are shown the skyscrapers of Phoenix, just before we break
into the hotel room. Hitchcock has even specified the time and place in order to convey a
sense of realism. Moreover, the scene takes place in the middle of the day and it is the only
moment when Marion can meet her lover. In his interviews with Truffaut, Hitchcock explains
that:
Dans l’ouverture de Psycho, j’ai éprouvé le besoin d’inscrire sur l’écran le nom
de la ville, Phoenix, puis le jour et l’heure où commençait l’action, et cela,
pour arriver à ce fait très important : il était trois heures moins dix-sept minutes
de l’après-midi, et c’est le seul moment pendant lequel cette pauvre fille,
Marion, peut coucher avec Sam, son amant. 5
5
François Truffaut, Hitchcock, p. 226.
8
The audience can easily identify with Marion. Janet Leigh was a star; therefore the
spectators knew that she would be a major character. (It will be discussed in the second part
that this was a trick used by Hitchcock.) Also, she is the first character who appears on screen,
lying on the bed.
In the public sphere
When Marion arrives at her office, she talks with her colleague Caroline (Patricia
Hitchcock). There is a striking difference between the two women. Caroline is a married
woman concerned with her husband and her family. She keeps talking about them to Marion
who is hardly listening to her and puts on her lipstick at the same time. Marion embodies
femininity and desire whereas her colleague represents order and married life. Then Marion’s
employer, Mr Lowery (Vaughn Taylor) and her wealthy client, Mr Cassidy (Franck
Albertson), enter the room. The latter throws forty thousand dollars in cash onto Marion’s
desk and Mr Lowery, concerned about the money, asks Marion to put it in the safe deposit
box at the bank. Soon after this, Marion pretends she has a headache and has to go home. She
tells Mr Lowery that she is going to deposit the money before going home.
In a private place
There is a dissolve between the scene at the office and the next scene showing Marion in
her bedroom. As a result, the spectators do not know yet that she has kept the money.
However, the envelope containing the money is rapidly shown to the spectators thanks to
what we can call a “privileged shot” (i.e. a shot, usually a close-up or an extreme close-up,
that is meant to attract the audience’s attention to an element of the plot) [10:49]. (This will be
developed in the third part).
Fig. 2: A shot to catch the spectators’ attention
Fig. 3: Another shot for the audience
9
We see her alone in a private place, her emotions are thus real. She looks rather anxious
(hence the importance of using both shots in which we can see her and subjective shots) and
seems to already feel remorse concerning what she is about to do: stealing the money.
Moreover, there is a subjective POV shot when Marion is getting dressed. First we have a
medium close-up of her [11:06] and then a reverse shot shows the envelope containing the
forty thousand dollars. This technique makes the audience believe that the money is going to
trigger the plot but it is only a McGuffin (this will be developed in the second part). A few
seconds later, Marion looks at herself in a mirror [11:30]. As Donald Spoto remarks in The
Art of Alfred Hitchcock, mirrors are a metaphor for “the need for introspection6”. He writes
that “for a true glimpse of our divided selves, one consults a mirror7”. In this scene, Marion is
looking at herself as if to show that she is aware that she has an “evil” side. She knows that
stealing the money is a sort of sin, but at the same time she seems to be determined to do it
(she is able to face her own gaze). Besides, she is now wearing black underwear whereas she
was wearing white underwear in the opening scene. (This point will be discussed in the
second part.)
The escape
There is another dissolve and the following shot shows a close-up of Marion in her car.
Her anxiety is almost palpable and this is reinforced by the voice-over. Indeed we share what
she hears – the voice of her lover Sam. She is on her way to meet him but he does not know it
and she imagines his reaction at her arrival. The voice-over is a clever device that enables the
audience to share the character’s POV. Bordwell and Thompson write that:
A film’s plot may give us access to what characters see and hear. We might see
shots taken from a character’s optical standpoint, the point-of-view shot, or
hear sounds as a character would hear them what sound recordists call sound
perspective. This would offer a greater degree of subjectivity, one we might
call perceptual subjectivity. 8
Then she needs to stop at a traffic light and her interior dialogue also stops. The only
sounds that we can hear are the faint noise of the engine as well as the footsteps of the
pedestrians crossing the street. This highlights the tension because the heroine is trying to run
away and she is stopped because of the traffic light. The scene reaches its climax when Mr
6
Donald Spoto, The Art of Alfred Hitchcock, p. 317.
7
Ibid., p. 317.
8
David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson, op. cit., p. 85.
10
Lowery, Marion’s boss, crosses the street. At first, they instinctively smile at each other but
Marion soon realises her mistake. She has told him she needed to sleep because of a headache
and, as a consequence, her presence in the town might look suspicious. Moreover, the man
turns back, frowning. At that moment, the musical score starts and we can hear strings playing
at a rapid pace. This renders the beginning of the main character’s trouble and the necessity of
leaving quickly. Therefore the protagonist keeps on driving. Two dissolves are used to show
that time has passed. The close-ups on Marion’s face make the audience share her anxiety and
they make us see that she is tired. After a fade to black, a long static shot shows Marion’s car
parked in the middle of nowhere. The heroine has spent the night sleeping in her car. A
policeman arrives and wakes her up. The use of the subjective camera showing an extreme
close-up of the policeman’s face highlights Marion’s fear [14:23]. A series of shots/reverse
shots also shows how frightened she is. They start talking and she tries to justify her presence.
The question she asks: “Have I broken any laws?” is rather ironic [15:00]. She has not broken
the law for sleeping there but the theft of the forty thousand dollars makes her a criminal.
Nevertheless, her behaviour makes the policeman suspicious; he wants to see her license.
Then, there is a medium close-up showing Marion looking for her papers [15:44]. The camera
is in the car (on the passenger’s seat) and the policeman is in the background, gazing at what
Marion is doing (Fig. 4). She turns her back on him, which strengthens the fact that she has
something to hide. Moreover, since the policeman is just behind her, she seems to be trapped.
Indeed she is trapped in her car but also in her life because of the theft.
Fig. 4: Shot showing that Marion is trapped
11
When the policeman leaves, the stressful music resumes. Marion keeps gazing at her rearview mirror because the policeman follows her. She seems relieved when he leaves the main
road.
At the shop
The next scene takes place at a garage. Marion is in a hurry and wants to sell her car and
buy a new one as soon as possible. The salesman is rather suspicious because she does not
even try to negotiate the price. The irony of this sequence rests on the salesman’s question:
“You look in a hurry, someone chasing you?” Marion rapidly answers: “Of course not!” Yet,
the policeman has come back and he is watching what she is doing, which reinforces the
tension of the scene. Marion then goes to the ladies’ room in order to take the exact amount of
cash (seven hundred dollars) that the salesman is asking for. The ladies’ room is really narrow
and it is shown in a high angle shot which reinforces Marion’s, and therefore the audience’s,
feeling of entrapment. Moreover, in the room, there is a mirror, a prop traditionally used, for
instance in film noir, to enhance entrapment. Once the transaction is finished, Marion hurries
to leave. In the meantime, the policeman has come near the shop and the scene ends with a
medium shot showing the policeman and the two salesmen looking suspiciously at Marion.
The stressful musical score resumes.
Still running away
A device already used (the voice-over) starts again: Marion hears the voices of the
salesman, the policeman, her boss, her colleague Caroline and Mr Cassidy. Marion keeps on
driving and she seems more and more anxious. However, an extreme close-up shows her
grinning; her eyes are wide open [25:25]. She looks like a conspirator who is determined to
succeed, but the pouring rain puts an end to her escape. She cannot see anything and needs to
stop in order to avoid an accident. She arrives at the Bates Motel.
At the Bates motel
There is nobody in the motel, but a subjective low-angle shot reveals someone walking
near a window in the nearby imposing Gothic mansion inspired by Edward Hopper’s House
by the Railroad9 (1925). Then, Norman Bates arrives. When he makes Marion sign the
register, she writes Marie Samuels. The spectators are aware that she is lying since they
9
See Appendix 1.
12
already know her real name. The subjective shot used here reinforces the fact that it is
Marion’s POV that we share. The same happens when Norman asks for her home address. At
first she seems to hesitate but then she looks at her newspaper where “Los Angeles” appears
on the front page, so she pretends she lives there. Norman is very obliging and Marion seems
a bit less nervous. He offers to prepare dinner for her and she accepts. Yet, when he leaves her
room, her face becomes tense again and the worrying music resumes: she needs to hide the
money. After she has done so, we can hear the voice of a woman, seemingly Mrs Bates,
arguing off-screen with Norman about Marion’s presence. Just like Marion, the audience
cannot see what is happening, we only hear the discussion. We do not know more than her
and we empathise with Norman who takes Marion’s defence. A subjective shot shows him
arriving. Marion then stops looking through the window in order for Norman not to realise
that she was peeping at him. When he comes back, she apologises for having caused him
trouble; Norman looks rather sad. When they arrive in Norman’s parlour to have dinner,
several subjective shots show a lot of worrying stuffed birds; Marion looks a bit intimidated.
Yet, she seems more relaxed when they start talking; their conversation is shown in a series of
shots/reverse shots. Norman talks a lot about himself, Marion does not want to give details
about her life since she is running away. They talk about Mrs Bates’ illness and Marion tries
to give advice to Norman. However, when she suggests Mrs Bates could go to an asylum,
Norman’s face becomes angry, which seems to scare Marion a little. She pretends that she is
very tired and goes back to her room. Then, for the next two minutes and a half, the spectators
share Norman’s POV (see the second subpart).
Marion’s last moments
In the motel room, a medium shot shows Marion writing [45:40]. A subjective shot shows
the paper with the accounts that she is keeping. She then tears her note, throws it into the
toilet and flushes it down. She undresses and goes to the bath to have a shower. At one point
[47:04], the audience knows more than her because the camera is placed so that we can see
Marion in the foreground and the shadow of someone entering the bathroom in the
background. Yet we cannot see the intruder distinctly because of the shower curtain. This
creates a strong feeling of suspense. The music starts at this point, which makes us understand
that something is going to happen. The shower curtain quickly opens; Marion turns around
and starts to scream. An extreme close-up of her mouth strengthens the feeling of fear [47:19].
She is stabbed several times and the blood splashing onto the bathtub makes us understand
that she will probably die from her injuries. To show her last instants, the camera tracks down,
13
following the heroine’s fall, and the music starts to fade as a sign of Marion’s imminent death.
The water draining from the tub turns into an extreme close-up of her dead eye, an eye that no
longer sees; Marion does not blink anymore, she is dead [48:39].
Fig. 5: Close-up on Marion’s frozen gaze
Then the camera tracks out; it can be interpreted as a change of POV. The film is not
finished and the protagonist is dead. As a result, the story is going to be seen through the eyes
of other characters.
2. Norman’s Point of View
In his parlour
The audience starts to share Norman’s POV a few minutes before Marion’s death. When
she leaves his parlour, a subjective shot shows the register that she has signed. Norman smiles
because he realises that Marion has just lied to him. When she said good night to him, she
stated that her name was “Crane” whereas it is “Samuels” that is written in the register. Then
Norman goes back into his parlour, stands still for a few seconds as if he was hesitating about
what to do and takes off a painting hanging on the wall. The painting hides a hole looking
onto Marion’s cabin. At first, the audience does not know it; an extreme close-up on
Norman’s profile shows him peeping at something. Then, a subjective shot shows Marion
who is undressing [44:14]. This shot lasts for a few seconds and is followed by an extreme
close-up of Norman’s eye which highlights the fact that we have shifted to his POV [44:18].
After another subjective shot showing Marion again, Norman puts the painting back on the
hole. He looks anxious but determined at the same time and goes back to the house in a hurry.
A static low-angle long shot reveals the imposing mansion that looks frightening in the
darkness [44:57]. The spectators penetrate the house for the first time; now, we know more
14
than Marion. Norman hesitates to go upstairs and instead goes to the kitchen where he sits
down at a table. On a second viewing, his position (crouching in a foetus or a bird-like
position) becomes a clue as to his madness, but we do not notice it the first time around.
Hence the importance of watching the film again, of re-reading it.
Fig. 6: A clue as to Norman’s madness
After Marion’s death
Norman rushes into Marion’s room and goes to the bathroom. A medium close-up with a
slightly low angle shows him from the back looking at the murder scene in the bathroom
(Fig. 7). Film theoretician Jean Mitry uses the term “semi-subjective” to define a shot in
which we both see the character and what he or she is looking at 10. In Fig. 7, we find an
interesting variation on this device, as revised by Hitchcock. We see both Norman and the
wall of the bathroom. Yet, we do not actually see what he is looking at. The low angle
combined with a tight framing foregrounding the character's back prevents us from seeing
what we would like to see. This is a way for Hitchcock to tease the spectator and sustain
tension, as well as deal with problems of censorship. (A more conventional semi-subjective
shot can be seen in Fig. 30). In this mopping-up scene, we can consider that we share
Norman’s POV – even if we do not have POV shots – because he is the only character on
screen and the camera keeps filming him at a very close range.
10
This is, for instance, discussed by Gilles Deleuze on: Université Paris 8, La voix de Gilles Deleuze en ligne,
http://www2.univ-paris8.fr/deleuze/article.php3?id_article=92.
15
Fig. 7: The closeness of the camera and the low angle increase the tension
by both involving the spectator and hiding the murder scene
The spectators do not see the body; our curiosity reaches a climax because we cannot see
Norman’s reaction in this shot that lasts only six seconds but that seems to be much longer.
Then, Norman turns around and looks horrified. He sits down on the bed as if he was
wondering what to do. He switches off almost all the lights and starts cleaning everything.
After putting Marion’s body on the shower curtain, he looks at his hands with disgust; they
are covered in blood. The tempo of the music accelerates as Norman starts mopping rapidly
[52:57]. Both his behaviour and the music convey the necessity of getting rid of everything
quickly. After cleaning the bathroom, he goes back into the bedroom, carefully avoiding
touching Marion’s body. We do not see her corpse but a low-angle shot shows Norman
looking at her with disgust [54:08]. He leaves the room without looking back.
Once again he is very methodical and does everything he can to conceal the murder. He
puts Marion’s body as well as her belongings in the boot of her car and goes back to her cabin
to check if he has not forgotten anything. He notices that Marion’s newspaper is still on the
bedside table. The audience is shown this thanks to a subjective shot [57:39]. At that moment,
the spectators know more than Norman; he does not know anything about the theft. Therefore
we wonder if he is going to unwrap the newspaper and what he is going to do with the money.
What follows is full of dramatic irony since the protagonist rapidly takes the newspaper and
throws it into the boot; he does not notice the money.
Then, he decides to immerse the car into a muddy stretch of water. A series of
shots/reverse shots show the car sinking and stress Norman’s anxiety. Thanks to several
extreme close-ups, the spectators share Norman’s fear. The sequence with the car lasts for
about three minutes and, at one point [59:22], the car stops sinking. Norman’s dread is
palpable; he stops chewing his candy and has a look around to check if nobody is coming.
16
What is really striking as we share Norman’s POV is that, since he lives alone in a remote
place, we tend to share his fear of others. The protagonist hardly speaks but his body language
and eye movements tell a lot about who he is. Indeed he keeps on chewing candies, just like a
child, as if he was not a grown-up11. It gives him a childish personality and, at the same time,
it shows his anxiety when he keeps on chewing. The spectators are left alone with Norman
and we share his feelings. The sequence ends with a subjective shot showing the car totally
immersed [59:48]. After this sequence, we switch to Arbogast’s and Lila’s POV (this will be
discussed in the third subpart).
When Arbogast leaves the Bates motel, Norman looks at the investigator’s car going away,
smiling [1:11:55]. He must be relieved and think that he has got rid of the detective for good.
After this scene, we share Arbogast’s POV.
After the murder of the investigator, Norman hears someone (the spectators know that it is
Sam) yelling Arbogast’s name off-screen. A close-up of his face shows that he is annoyed
[1:19:00]. We stop sharing his POV for several minutes and we switch to Lila’s and Sam’s.
Getting rid of the evidence
After the sequence at the sheriff’s, we share Norman’s POV again. He enters his house and
goes upstairs. He enters a room upstairs and the audience can hear a conversation between
Norman and his mother thanks to an off-screen voice. Our curiosity reaches a climax since the
sheriff has just told Lila and Sam that Mrs Bates was dead. An overhead shot is used (just like
the one used a few seconds before Arbogast’s death) and we see Norman carrying his mother
and going down the stairs [1:26:22] (Fig. 8). At that moment, the audience still thinks that
Mrs Bates has killed Marion and Arbogast and that Norman wants to hide her in order to
protect her.
11
In the DVD bonus, Janet Leigh says that it is Anthony Perkins who suggested it would be interesting if
Norman was fond of candies.
17
Fig. 8: Overhead shot of Norman and his mother
We switch again to Lila’s and Sam’s POVs.
When Lila is investigating in Norman’s house, Sam talks to Norman in his office in order
to prevent him from stopping Lila. Norman becomes suspicious and senses that Lila is in his
house. He hits Sam on the head and rushes into the house.
Norman Bates versus Mrs Bates
Before we see Norman for the last time, a psychiatrist explains to Sam, Lila and other
people that “Norman Bates no longer exists”. Indeed the man suffers from schizophrenia and,
according to the doctor, the other half of Norman’s mind (Mrs Bates) “has taken over
probably for all time”. Besides, he asserts that he has been told from the mother’s half of
Norman’s mind that Marion and Arbogast have been murdered. He also explains the fact that
Norman has killed his mother and her lover.
A man brings Norman a blanket and he replies “Thank you” with the voice of an old
woman. We cannot see Norman yet; we can only hear him pronounce these two words in an
off-screen voice. Then, we enter the room in which he is locked up and we see him seated on
a chair. A tracking in is used in order to get closer to the protagonist and at the same time we
hear what Norman thinks thanks to a voice-over narration. It is rather ambiguous since it is
the voice of a woman that we hear. Then, a close-up of Norman shows him smiling as the
audience can distinguish a skull superimposed upon his face [1:48:09]. As a result, we are led
to think that it is Mrs Bates’ POV that we share at the very end of the film.
18
3. Arbogast’s and Lila’s Points of View
The establishment of a contract
A fade to black initiates a new POV [59:49]. The following sequence opens with a
subjective shot showing the page of a letter being written. At the top of the letter, we can see
“Sam Loomis Hardware”. We have Marion’s lover POV. Sam is writing to Marion; he
expresses his feelings for her and invites her to come to live with him even if he lives in a tiny
place. The spectators do not have time to read the letter. Yet, it does not really matter since
Lila Crane, Marion’s sister is about to come into Sam’s shop and they are going to talk about
Marion.
A static shot shows Lila Crane outside, in front of Sam’s office [1:00:26]. From now on,
the audience will not only share Norman’s POV. We are about to alternately share Norman’s,
Lila’s and Arbogast’s POVs.
Lila and Sam start talking. We quickly understand that they do not know each other and
that Lila resents him. She explains Marion’s disappearance to him. We can see a man outside
Sam’s shop peeping at them [1:01:08]. We do not know his identity yet, so it conveys a sense
of suspense. Lila is convinced that Marion has eloped and that she is hiding at Sam’s place,
but the latter replies that she is not. In the meantime, the man who was looking at them enters
the shop. There is a close-up on his face that lasts for a few seconds. This can be seen as a
privileged shot since neither Lila nor Sam have noticed him; it is a shot to draw the
spectators’ attention. A subjective shot shows Lila and Sam talking together. Sam asks if
Marion is in trouble and the voice of a man (the man who has just entered the shop) interrupts
their conversation and asks: “Let’s all talk about Marion, shall we?” [1:01:40]. The two
protagonists turn around to look at the man and the audience understands that it was the man’s
POV that they have just seen [1:01:42]. Then he introduces himself as a private investigator
called Arbogast. There is no dramatic irony since we learn this information at the same time
as the characters. The investigator explains to them that Marion has stolen forty thousand
dollars. At first a medium shot shows Arbogast on the left of the frame and Sam and Lila
together on the right (Fig. 9) [1:02:07]. The actors’ blocking means that the investigator is
suspicious and that he does not trust the two characters when they say they do not know
where Marion is. Nevertheless, after having talked to them, he starts to believe them and it is
shown thanks to a medium close-up in which the three of them are really close to each other;
it proves that they are about to investigate together (Fig. 10) [1:03:17].
19
Fig. 9: Arbogast versus Lila and Sam
Fig. 10: They are going to collaborate
Arbogast’s investigation
Arbogast starts to look for Marion and goes to all the motels of the city. In order to show
this to the spectators, the director has chosen to use several superimpositions. A rapid musical
score is used to give a sense of the quick investigation. The superimpositions stop when we
arrive at the Bates motel, and a static medium shot shows Norman reading. The two men start
talking in a rather friendly way. However, when Arbogast speaks about Marion and especially
when he wants to see the motel register, Norman becomes tense. A low-angle close-up on his
face emphasises his stress [1:06:48]. Then, when Arbogast discovers that a “Marie Samuels”
was here, he rapidly understands that it is Marion Crane who registered under a false name.
“Marie” looks like “Marion” and “Samuels” must be a reference to her boyfriend’s name
“Sam”. Arbogast does not accuse Norman of lying to him because he wants to know more
about the case. Even though the spectators know the truth, they are eager to know what is
going to happen next and, more precisely, if the investigator will be able to discover the truth.
The detective asks several questions to Norman who is not really convincing when he replies.
A series of shots/reverse shots is used to show their conversation and the use of close-ups of
Norman’s face proves that he – and what he says – is being analysed in detail by Arbogast.
When the inspector asks Norman if he spent the night with her, Norman’s smile fades away,
which can be considered by Arbogast as a feeling of guilt [1:08:07]. He resumes asking
questions, he wants to know if Marion is still at the motel. Norman starts laughing – his
reaction seems a bit awkward – and he invites the investigator to follow him into the cabins.
Yet, a subjective shot shows Norman hesitating to enter the first cabin (which was Marion’s
cabin) and going to the second one [1:09:53]. Arbogast is more and more suspicious and
keeps gazing. Another subjective shot reveals someone standing near a window in the Gothic
mansion [1:10:02]. A few seconds later, Norman denies the fact that there is someone in his
20
house. However, since Arbogast has seen someone, Norman has to confess that he lives with
his mother. Norman prevents Arbogast from talking to his mother and the investigator leaves.
Arbogast sharing information
Then the investigator calls Lila in order to explain to her about his meeting with Norman.
He says that he wants to go back to the motel in order to talk to Mrs Bates. A static medium
close-up of Arbogast shows him on the phone. This can be viewed as a comment on his
relationship with Lila; they are working together in order to discover the truth.
After his conversation with Lila, a dissolve takes us back to the Bates motel. We can see
Norman near the motel. The investigator goes into Norman’s office but he cannot find him so
he decides to go into the house. He decides to go upstairs, which is shown thanks to a crane
shot. A privileged shot shows a door opening slowly [1:16:50]. Then we see Arbogast again
and the next shot is an overhead shot which shows both the man going up the stairs and the
door opening [1:16:58]. There is a lot of suspense since the spectators know that someone is
about to arrive. The high pitched strings start [1:17:00] and someone goes out of the room
with a knife in his or her hand. Arbogast is savagely stabbed and a fade to black definitely
puts an end to his POV [1:17:13].
A new investigator: Lila Crane
Just after Arbogast’s death, we can see Lila and Sam waiting in Sam’s shop. Lila is
worried since the investigator has not come back whereas he was supposed to. As a result, she
decides to go to the motel but Sam prevents her from doing so. He wants her to stay at his
shop in case Arbogast comes back and he goes alone to the motel. He starts shouting
Arbogast’s name and, in the meantime, the audience can see Norman looking at the muddy
stretch of water which proves that he has got rid of Arbogast just as he got rid of Marion.
When he goes back to his shop, Sam tells Lila that he did not find Arbogast at the motel.
Therefore he suggests that they should talk to the deputy sheriff.
A dissolve leads us to understand that we are at the sherriff’s home [1:19:48]. They tell
him the whole story. The sheriff does not seem to believe in their theory concerning
Arbogast’s disappearance. Yet, Lila is so concerned that she manages to make him call
Norman. His conversation with Norman confirms his theory since Norman says that the
detective has not come back to his motel after their interview. Besides, the sheriff informs
Lila and Sam that Mrs Bates is dead. And yet Sam is sure of having seen an old woman in the
21
house. The sequence ends with a close-up of Lila’s face which shows that she is determined to
continue the investigation with or without the sheriff’s help [1:24:36].
Sam and Lila meet the sheriff and his wife at church and the sheriff reasserts that Mrs
Bates is dead and that the woman Sam saw must have been an illusion. Nevertheless, Sam and
Lila are convinced that there is something wrong and they decide to go back to the Bates
motel. After a dissolve [1:27:52], the next scene takes place in a car. The medium close-up of
the two protagonists reminds the audience of the scenes showing Marion in her car and
therefore contributes to the suspense: are they going to die too? Sam and Lila establish a
strategy: they will register as husband and wife and will look for every detail.
Fig. 11: Marion on her way to death
Fig. 12: Lila and Sam on their way to
discover the truth
At the Bates motel
They enter Norman’s office and Sam insists on signing the register even though Norman
says it is not necessary. The composition of the three-shot showing Sam and Lila on the left of
the screen and Norman on the right epitomises the confrontation between them [1:29:03].
Fig. 13: Sam and Lila versus Norman
22
We can notice the presence of a mirror just next to Sam. This prop was not used at random.
(This point will be developed in the second part.)
While Sam is signing the register, we can see that Lila is already investigating; she looks
suspiciously at everything. Once they are in their cabin, Lila explains to Sam that Norman
must have stolen the money. She is convinced that Arbogast was about to discover the truth
when he was stopped. They decide to go to the cabin that Marion occupied. They look
everywhere and Lila finds a piece of the note that Marion threw into the toilet. She wants to
talk to Mrs Bates and asks Sam to create a diversion.
On her way to the house, a cross-cutting between the house and Lila, and Sam with
Norman, is used to heighten the suspense. We know that she is about to discover the truth in
this place. There is nobody in Mrs Bates’ bedroom. However, her clothes are still in her
wardrobe and there is still soap near the sink. All these elements make us think that she is still
alive. The suspense is very intense at that moment, the spectators totally share Lila’s anxiety
and they are as afraid as she is when she thinks someone is watching her [1:37:17]. In fact it is
her own reflection that she has seen in a mirror but since she is looking for Mrs Bates, she
must have the feeling that the woman could be anywhere. A cross-cutting with Norman and
Sam is used once more to amplify the suspense. Then, our doubts are confirmed with the
subjective shot showing Mrs Bates’ bed [1:37:26]. There is the shape of a body which proves
that someone was in this bed not long ago. Lila goes into another bedroom which seems to be
that of a child (there are a lot of toys). Yet, there are also elements that must belong to an
adult (books and a record-player).
Then, Lila goes down the stairs and looks through a window (this is a subjective shot) from
which she sees Norman coming [1:39:49]. The suspense is even stronger than before, she
needs to hide. The rapid pace of the music intensifies the sense of urgency. Lila hides behind
the stairs [1:39:58], and a static long shot shows her looking at Norman who is approaching
and then entering the house. Hitchcock did not use a subjective shot here, yet the spectator has
the feeling of being part of the action; he or she is hiding as if he or she was a third character
of the plot. Norman goes upstairs, so Lila could run away but she discovers a door beneath the
stairs (shown in a subjective high-angle shot [1:40:11]) and she seems to be anxious to
continue her investigation.
She arrives in the cellar and we can see Mrs Bates from the back [1:40:34]. Mrs Bates is
not far from Lila, but the use of a series of shots/reverse shots, when Lila comes closer to her,
makes the scene last longer and conveys a sense of suspense (Fig. 14).
23
1
2
3
Fig. 14: A series of shots/reverse shots that heightens the suspense
Then, when we discover that the woman is dead, Lila starts screaming and her shout is
amplified by the strings we heard in the shower scene. The murderer then arrives with his
knife but he is stopped by Sam. Most of the scene is shown through Lila’s eyes and we
discover at the same time as her that Norman is the murderer.
To sum up, the use of the different POVs is a clever device to involve the spectators in the
plot. Indeed, since we identify with the protagonists, it gives us the feeling of being characters
in the film; we thus become investigators. However, even though we share the main
characters’ POVs, Hitchcock still manages to trick us.
24
PART II: THE SPECTATOR TRICKED BY
HITCHCOCK
25
Thanks to the different POVs used, Hitchcock allows the spectators to be part of the action.
Moreover, we sometimes know more than the characters and it heightens the sense of
suspense and of dramatic irony. For instance, we know before the other characters that
Marion has been murdered. Yet, we sometimes think that we know what is to follow but we
are tricked by the director. The latter said to Truffaut: « La construction de ce film est très
intéressante et c’est mon expérience la plus passionnante de jeu avec le public. Avec Psycho,
je faisais de la direction de spectateurs, exactement comme si je jouais de l’orgue. » He even
goes on adding : “On tourne et on retourne le public, on le maintient aussi loin que possible de
ce qui va se dérouler. » 12
1. Mrs Bates
The most striking element of the film is the character of Mrs Bates. Indeed, during the
major part of the film, the spectators are convinced that she is alive and that she is Marion’s
and Arbogast’s murderer. We have doubts when the sheriff tells Lila and Sam that she died
several years before. This increases the suspense since we are anxious to know what has
really happened, and we also want to discover the identity of the person who talks to Norman
and who sits behind the window of the mansion.
The importance of off-screen sounds
When Marion is alone in her room, she can hear Mrs Bates arguing with Norman. Then,
we have a shot of “the house that speaks”. Indeed, the conversation can be interpreted as a
sort of off-screen sound within the screen. A similar technique was used in Rear Window
since the walls between the windows create areas of off-screen space within the space of the
screen.
After Marion’s death, the spectators are “left alone” in her bedroom until they hear
Norman’s voice (it is an off-screen voice) screaming: “Mother, O God, Mother, blood,
blood”. At that moment, a static low-angle shot shows the Bates house that looks more
mysterious than ever [49:30]. Critics have argued that the two lights that we can see coming
from the house may be interpreted as Mrs Bates’ presence. Amanda Wells asserts that: “Seen
through the hotel room window after the shower murder, the house is dark except for the two
12
François Truffaut, op. cit., p. 231.
26
bright lights that resemble eyes, perhaps signifying Mother’s watchful presence 13.” Even if
this comparison may be debatable, the spectators are convinced of Mrs Bates’ presence thanks
to Norman’s words.
Other cinematic devices to delude the spectators
The spectator can be misled by the POV of a protagonist. Here are two examples. A
subjective low-angle shot — Arbogast's POV — shows someone standing at the window
[1:10:02]. Yet, Norman claims that there is nobody home. His answer is very spontaneous and
it reveals that he is telling the truth. There is nobody at home since he killed his mother
several years before. He says: “I’m not capable of being fooled, not even by a woman.” Then,
Sam also sees an old woman behind a window, which increases Lila’s curiosity as well as
ours.
Another device is used. Mrs Bates is seen three times in the film if we exclude the several
shots where we see the shadow of a human being behind the window of a bedroom. Indeed,
we obviously see her at the very end of Psycho when we discover the truth about her and
when we see her skeleton. Yet, we also see her when Arbogast is killed. Hitchcock used
overhead shots in order to show her without showing her face. The same kind of technique is
used when we see Mrs Bates for the second time. Norman is holding her in his arms and they
are arguing (see Fig. 8). As a result, the audience is focused on their conversation and they do
not pay attention to the fact that they cannot see Mrs Bates’ face. Hitchcock obviously seemed
to take pleasure in tricking the spectators:
[…] si je l’avais montrée de dos, j’aurais eu l’air de masquer volontairement son
visage et le public se serait méfié. […] Le public porte tellement d’attention au
dialogue qu’il ne pense pas à ce que fait la caméra, grâce à quoi nous sommes
maintenant à la verticale et le public ne s’étonne pas de voir Perkins transportant
sa mère, vu à la verticale par-dessus leurs têtes. C’était passionnant pour moi
d’utiliser la caméra pour égarer le public. 14
So, here, Hitchcock deludes us thanks to the angle of his camera.
2. The Murder of the Star
Marion Crane, played by Janet Leigh, is the first character the spectators see and they
quickly share her POV. Besides, Janet Leigh was a famous actress and spectators of
13
14
Amanda Sheahan Wells, Psycho, Director Alfred Hitchcock, p. 47.
François Truffaut, op. cit., pp. 233-235.
27
Hollywood films were used to follow the star from the beginning until the end. As Hitchcock
explains to Truffaut: « Je vous parie tout ce que vous voudrez que, dans une production
ordinaire, on aurait donné à Janet Leigh l’autre rôle, celui de la sœur qui enquête, car il n’est
pas d’usage de tuer la star au premier tiers du film. » 15 Therefore, Marion’s death is totally
unexpected.
At first, we are convinced that the story is going to be about Marion’s theft, and also her
relationship with Sam. It is emphasised by the presence of the policeman as well as by the
conversation between Marion and Norman. Marion does not reveal her true identity to him;
she does not confess what she has done but Norman’s comments make her change her mind.
She decides to go back to Phoenix and to give the money back. After Marion’s death, a
tracking shot shows the newspaper in which the money is hidden [49:19].
Fig. 15: The close-up in Marion’s bedroom
Fig. 16: The money hidden in the newspaper
This is what Hitchcock called a McGuffin16. It is an element that starts the action and
sometimes justifies it. A McGuffin is a plot device, a desired object that the protagonist
deeply wants to obtain, protect or control. It can be anything: a place, a person or an object for
instance. At the beginning of the film, the McGuffin plays an important role. However, its
importance declines as the plot goes on.
In Psycho, the McGuffin is the money; we think that it is going to be a major element of
the plot but, in the end, it has no real importance. The action is triggered by the close-up on
the envelope full of money in the bedroom scene. Indeed, since Marion stole the money, the
spectators have been led to think that the whole story would be about the theft. As a
consequence, the audience is completely puzzled when they realise that the money was just a
pretext. They did not even think that Marion Crane could die, which proves once again that
they have been tricked by the director. The latter explains this to Truffaut:
15
Ibid., p. 231.
16
Alfred Hitchcock, Hitchcock, la légende du suspense, http://hitchcock.alienor.fr/cinema.html.
28
Je crois quand même que le public a eu pitié de Janet Leigh au moment de sa
mort. En fait, la première partie de l’histoire est exactement ce qu’on appelle
ici à Hollywood un « hareng rouge », c’est-à-dire un truc destiné à détourner
votre attention, afin d’intensifier le meurtre, afin qu’il constitue pour vous une
surprise totale.17
In his study of Hitchcock’s film entitled The Unconscious, Anthony Easthope suggests that
the film is made up of two narratives and not one. Indeed, since Marion Crane dies early in
the plot, there has to be something else to follow:
To begin with, there are two main narratives, not one. Marion’s story has no
necessary connection with her death; it is pure chance that she stayed at the
Bates Motel. Her death initiates a second narrative; and a main character who
is not one but two people. But we don’t find this out until near the end.18
3. Clues Given by Hitchcock
Norman’s behaviour
In The Power of the Image: Essays on Representation and Sexuality, Annette Kuhn argues
that “an actor’s role is assumed like a mask, the mask concealing the performer’s ‘true
self’19.” Psycho can be analysed as a play within the play since Anthony Perkins performs the
character of Norman Bates who himself acts as if he were Mrs Bates from time to time. The
film may be interpreted as an example of Shakespeare’s famous lines: “All the world’s a
stage, / And all the men and women merely players” from As you Like It. Besides, at the end
of the film, a shot showing Norman arriving in the house can be seen as a metaphor for a
theatre. The two parts of a curtain frame the window and Norman is right in the middle of the
screen. When the curtains open in a theatre, a story is about to be told. In the film, it is the
truth that is about to be revealed (see Fig. 17).
17
François Truffaut, op. cit., p. 230.
18
Antony Easthope, The Unconscious, pp. 131-133.
19
Annette Kuhn, The Power of the Image: Essays on Representation an d Sexuality, p. 52.
29
Fig. 17: The curtains resemble those of a theatre
When Norman describes the cabin to Marion, he cannot pronounce the word “bathroom”.
First, we could think it is due to his shyness. Yet, the audience will rapidly understand that
Norman has chosen to rent this cabin to Marion on purpose because there is a hole between
the wall of his parlour and that of the bathroom. He will be able to spy on her and he has
probably already planned to do so.
When Norman decides to clean the bathroom and to hide Marion’s body, he is very
methodical. He uses the shower curtain to wrap her body and he is careful of getting rid of all
the evidence. He does not panic and behaves as if he had already done such a thing. The
spectators do not realise this when they watch the film for the first time because they are still
shocked. Yet, Norman’s determination is arguably a clue about his guilt.
When Arbogast questions Norman about Marion, he replies that nobody has come into his
motel for a couple of weeks, and he adds that he does not even ask the customers to register
anymore. Yet, he still changes the linen and affirms that: “Old habits die hard.” [1:06:03].
This may be another clue given by Hitchcock. Indeed, when uttering such a sentence, Norman
does not only talk about the linen, he possibly also refers, consciously or not, to the fact that
he is a serial killer and that he cannot help but murder people.
At the end of the film, when Lila investigates in the house, the decoration of the second
room she enters is double-sided. There are elements belonging both to the bedroom of a child
and that of an adult at the same time. Here, Hitchcock gives us clues concerning Norman’s
personality. Indeed, even if he is a grown-up, he still sleeps in the bedroom of his childhood
and needs his mother as much as a little child does. He needs to speak to her and to have her
consent. To a certain extent Norman has remained the little boy he used to be.
30
The importance of costumes, sets and props
At the beginning of the film, we penetrate into Marion Crane’s intimacy. She is shown in a
hotel room with her lover Sam Loomis. The character is half-dressed and wears white
underwear. On the contrary, when she is in her bedroom, after the theft of the forty thousand
dollars, she wears black underwear.
Fig. 18: Before the theft
Fig. 19: After the theft
The use of the black and white colours is probably another clue given by Hitchcock since
white is traditionally associated with heaven and what is good, whereas black represents evil.
Consequently the director may have wanted to show that there are two sides in everyone’s
personality. Besides, the scene where Marion is seen in her black underwear happens just
before she escapes with the money, which reinforces what has just been said. In her book,
Amanda Wells writes about the use of black underwear as Marion’s “descent into evil20.”
Birds are a recurrent theme in Psycho, which is quite appropriate for the future director of
The Birds (1963). A lot of critics, such as Donald Spoto and Amanda Wells, have dealt with
this theme. When Marion and Norman enter the latter’s parlour, several close-ups are used to
show stuffed birds. One of them is a bird of prey and it can be seen as symbolic of Norman’s
state of mind [34:44] (Fig. 20). Indeed, he is about to kill Marion. Moreover, just before she
leaves the parlour, a low-angle medium close-up shows her standing with a stuffed crow next
to her [42:33] (Fig. 21). The beak of the animal is directed to her neck and it can be seen as a
metaphor for the knife which will kill her. Besides, it can be said that the stuffed birds
represent Mrs Bates in two ways: she has been stuffed by her son and she is about to kill
Marion via Norman.
20
Amanda Sheahan Wells, op. cit., p. 52.
31
Fig. 20: Norman, the predator
Fig. 21: Marion, the victim
Another important element of the set is the painting that is used to hide the hole in the wall
between Norman’s parlour and Marion’s bedroom. Even if the spectators do not have time to
see it properly, the painting has not been chosen at random. An explanation for this choice is
given by Barbara Creed:
The painting (…) is that of Susanna and the Elders21, a fictional story set during
the Jewish Exile in Babylon; it is particularly interesting in relation to voyeurism.
Two elders conceive a passion for Susanna whom they spy on when she bathes in
the garden. (…) The painting depicts the moment where they apprehend her, trying
to hold her semi-naked struggling body. Susanna and the Elders points to man’s
voyeurism and desire to punish woman for her supposed sexual sins. Before
removing it from the wall, Norman stares for a moment at this painting, as if the
scene it portrayed matched his own private fantasy22.
In his film Psycho, directed in 1998, Gus Van Sant makes explicit the sexual fantasies
Hitchcock merely hinted at: in the second film, indeed, Norman does not only peep at Marion,
he masturbates at the same time.
The stairs, as well as the insistent opposition between what is up and what is down (hence
the themes of verticality and horizontality), also have a lot of importance. In L’Escalier dans
le cinéma d’Alfred Hitchcock: Une dynamique de l’effroi, Lydie Decobert explains that the
scene in which Norman goes down the stairs with his mother to place her in the cellar means
that he has decided to take control of his own mind and wants his late mother to stop
controlling him:
21
See Appendix 2.
22
Barbara Creed quoted by Amanda Wells, Psycho, Director Alfred Hitchcock, p. 50.
32
Mais cette mère n’est pas morte pour lui, elle l’habite et dans la seconde scène
préparant “la descente au tombeau”, Norman décide de ne plus être
l’instrument d’actes criminels qu’il réprouve et dont il a honte, adoptant pour
la première fois une attitude d’homme vis-à-vis de cette femme possessive audelà de la mort! Il s’agit de la maîtriser et de punir ses forfaits.23
Besides, the basement may be seen as a metaphor for Hell whereas the attic is a reassuring
place where Norman has kept all the souvenirs of his childhood. Decobert goes on explaining
the difference between what is upstairs and what is downstairs: « En haut, la mère “parait”
vivante (on la croit vivante) tandis qu’en bas, elle “apparait” morte (on la voit morte). »24 The
basement can thus be analysed as the place where the truth is to be revealed. Besides, if Lila
had not decided to go downstairs, she would not have discovered the truth about Mrs Bates,
and therefore about Norman.
The window shots are really important and they tell a lot about the compulsive voyeuristic
nature of Norman. For instance, the series of shots/reverse shots starting [1:28:13] is
interesting because it is not only made up of the usual succession of two or three shots that
make the spectators understand that they are dealing with a POV shot. In his book Point of
View in the Cinema25, Edward Branigan calls the three-shot structure a "closed structure".
Here (Fig. 22 to Fig. 26), shots 1, 3 and 5 repeatedly show Norman at his window, and this
pattern is even more than a closed structure. The repetition of the shots stresses Norman’s
urge to gaze. Also, the lace curtains possibly connote the character's feminine side. Thirdly,
the presence of the curtains themselves, as props, introduces the metaphor of the theatre once
again.
23
24
25
Lydie Decobert, L’Escalier dans le cinéma d’Alfred Hitchcock : Une dynamique de l’effroi, p. 58.
Ibid., p. 59.
Madinkbeard, Branigan on Point of View, http://madinkbeard.com/archives/branigan-on-point-of-view.
33
Fig. 22: First shot [1:28:14]
Fig. 24: Third shot [1:28:19]
Fig. 23: Second shot [1:28:16]
Fig. 25: Fourth shot [1:28:20]
Fig. 26: Fifth shot [1:28:23]
Another prop plays an essential role. When Lila goes into the cellar and sees Mrs Bates
from the back, there is a light bulb in the foreground [1:40:34]. The director did not use the
light bulb at random. Indeed it symbolises the light of knowledge and reinforces the idea that
Lila is about to discover the truth. This scene ends with a close-up of Mrs Bates [1:41:22].
The use of the light is very interesting because, as Lila has hit the bulb, light and shadow are
to be seen on Mrs Bates as the light swings. It may therefore suggest that, even if the truth has
been revealed, there is more to discover.
34
4. An Open Ending
The conventions of classical Hollywood cinema
Hollywood spectators were used to films with a closure. In her book, Amanda Wells lists
the basic conventions of classical Hollywood narrative cinema as follows: 1) equilibrium,
disruption and re-equilibrium, 2) closure, 3) cause and effect, and 4) the protagonist26 (the
spectators were used to following the protagonist from the beginning until the end of the
film). In Psycho, this pattern is not really followed. We can consider that the equilibrium
corresponds to the beginning of the film, and then Marion decides to steal the money and the
phase of disruption starts. There is obviously a closure but it is not quite complete. Indeed,
even if Marion’s murderer is found, the spectators do not know what will happen next. Has
Norman committed other crimes? Is he going to be imprisoned? Is he going to be sent to an
asylum? Will he be freed after some time? All these questions remain unanswered; this is why
we cannot really speak of a closure.
Moreover, most of the time, the spectators identify with the protagonist. Here, the main
character, Marion Crane, dies rather rapidly. As a result, the pattern of the basic conventions
of classical Hollywood narrative cinema is totally shattered.
Comparison with Rear Window
The open end of Psycho can be compared to the end of another famous film directed by
Hitchcock in 1954: Rear Window. The murder mystery is solved but we are left with a lot of
questions concerning the protagonists’ future.
The main character, L.B. « Jeff » Jeffries (played by James Stewart), is a photographer
who has to stay at home because of a broken leg. He has nothing to do but look at his
neighbours. Voyeurism is one of the main themes of the film. Jeff cannot help but watch his
neighbours. Besides, when he looks at them, subjective shots are used, just like in Psycho
when we share the POV of a character. So, the audience identifies with Jeff, which reinforces
the fact that the spectators are voyeurs themselves. Moreover, Jeff looks at his neighbours
through their windows which are rectangular just like a screen or the stage of a theatre. The
window shots are obviously really meaningful: blinds are rolled up at the beginning of the
film and they are rolled down at the end. It thus conveys a sense of show within the show.
26
Ibid., p. 29.
35
One could think that Jeff’s need to spy on his neighbours is due to the fact that he is a
photographer. Yet, it is even more than that. Jeff is obsessed by his neighbours and, as soon as
he is convinced that one of them has killed his wife, he has the strong need to investigate. In
this film, Hitchcock shows that being a voyeur is part of human nature. At the beginning,
Stella, Jeffrey’s nurse, reproaches him for peeping at his neighbours. And yet, when he starts
explaining his theories about the murder, she becomes more and more interested and wants to
help him. The same situation happens with Lisa Fremont (Grace Kelly), Jeffries’ girlfriend. It
is even more striking with her because she is presented as a wealthy woman who is almost
exclusively interested in fashion. All this shows that the need to watch other people is
inherent to human nature.
Jeffries is a voyeur during the whole film and once he has convinced Lisa and Stella that
his neighbour has killed his wife, they become peeping toms as well. At first they disliked his
habit of gazing at his neighbours but, rapidly, they started doing the same.
At the end of the film, when the killer enters Jeffries’ room, there’s a reversal of situation.
A high-angle close-up on Jeffries shows that he is the one who is now being watched. Also,
the use of the high angle highlights his inferiority. He is not in control of the situation
anymore; he is being threatened.
At the very end, when the killer is arrested, everything is back to normal. The neighbours
start their usual activities again and Lisa and Jeffries presumably live together. Jeffries has
just fallen asleep while Lisa was reading. She must be reading an adventure book that belongs
to him. Once she is convinced that Jeffries is fully asleep, she takes up a fashion magazine
instead; it seems that human nature cannot be changed. Likewise, in Psycho, Norman will
always be struggling with his two personalities. Besides, even if the two characters in Rear
Window are shown together, the spectators do not know what kind of relationship they have.
Will they be able to live together despite their differences? A lot of questions remain
unanswered in this film, just like in Psycho, which emphasises the active role of the spectator.
Indeed, we have to “fill in the gaps” and to imagine what is to follow.
36
PART III: THE VIEWERS OF PSYCHO
37
1. A Film That Demands the Participation of the Audience
As already stated, Hitchcock insisted on the fact that he took pleasure in directing his
audience. Even though he tricked them a lot in Psycho, he directed his film in such a way that
the spectators were part of it. Here are some types of shots that involve the spectators,
sometimes misleading them.
Shots that mislead the spectators
The use of “privileged POV shots”
We could define a “privileged point of view” as follows: “The 'objective point of view'
involves treating the viewer as an observer. A major example is the 'privileged point of view'
which involves watching from omniscient vantage points27.”
At the very beginning of the film, when Marion is in her bedroom, a privileged POV is
used to show us the envelope, containing the money that she has stolen, lying on her bed
[10:49]. We first have a tracking shot, which is followed by a close-up (as it is shown in Fig.
27 and 28). There is a second privileged POV shot, in Marion’s cabin that Norman is cleaning
after her death, when we see the newspaper. These are emphatic shots, as if the director were
telling the audience: “Look at this”.
Fig. 27: Beginning of the tracking shot…
Fig. 28: … followed by a close-up
As was already mentioned, when Norman cleans the room after the murder, the spectators
can see the newspaper in which the money is hidden [56:51]. We think he is going to forget it
27
The ‘Grammar’ of Television and Film, Narrative Style,
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/gramtv.html.
38
and that it will probably help the people who will investigate to discover the truth about
Marion’s murder. Yet, through an obtrusive tracking shot, the spectator is shown the
newspaper once again before Norman throws it out in the boot of Marion’s car. It is a cutaway which can be seen as a reminder, as if Hitchcock were asking: “And what about the
money?”
1
2
3
Fig. 29: The use of a cut-away (#2) as a reminder
The use of a semi-subjective shot
We have seen that semi-subjective shots show both the character and what he or she is
looking at. A good example is when we can see Norman taking the key of Marion’s cabin
[28:45] (Fig. 30). Indeed, he is hesitating and then he chooses the key of cabin one. If we had
not seen this shot, we would not have had any suspicion about Norman. We are made to
wonder about the character’s motivation.
39
Fig. 30: Semi-subjective shot of Norman hesitating
A tracking shot used to create dramatic irony
When Marion is having her shower, we see her murderer entering the bathroom whereas
she does not, which tremendously heightens the suspense [47:09]. This is reinforced by the
tracking shot which makes us focus on the intruder. We believe the murderer to be a woman.
Fig. 31: Beginning of the tracking shot
Fig. 32: End of the tracking shot
The two overhead shots
Two other interesting shots are the overhead shots used before Arbogast’s murder and
when Norman holds his mother. The camera angle is so unusual that we perfectly know that
we do not witness the scene through the eyes of a character. The question is: who sees? These
two shots are misleading because we have the false impression that we see better. We think
that Arbogast’s killer is Mrs Bates and we do not suspect that the latter is dead when she is in
Norman’s arms.
Fig. 33: The use of overhead shots to trick the audience
40
A zero focalisation that makes the audience part of the action
The spectators are witnesses when Lila is hiding behind the stairs while Norman is looking
for her [1:39:58]. We have an “objective POV”; a semi-long shot shows the two characters.
There is an omniscient camera. We have the feeling that we are part of the action. Indeed, the
way the camera is placed makes us believe that we are a third character in the plot.
Fig. 34: A zero focalisation
To sum up, the use of a privileged POV is a clever device to involve the spectators in the
story. Indeed, we feel that we are part of the plot and we want to know what is to follow.
However, we do not necessarily need a privileged POV to be involved in the story. Indeed,
semi-subjective shots, unusual camera angles (such as the overhead shots) and also the use of
zero focalisation make us part of the story.
As we have already seen, one of the most important questions is: who sees? Film
theoretican Christian Metz has answered this question and he talks about “plans subjectifs
sans sujet”. These shots are to be found for instance in Peeping Tom (1960). At the beginning
of the film, the protagonist, who is a serial killer like Norman, is hiding a movie camera under
his jacket. He has planned to kill a prostitute and to shoot the scene. The shots that are used to
depict this opening sequence are really interesting since the spectators do not see through the
eyes of the main character; we see through the grid of the camera viewfinder. Once again, the
audience is directly involved in the plot; there is nobody behind the viewfinder except the
spectator himself.
The psychiatrist’s explanation of Norman’s schizophrenia
At the end of the film, the psychiatrist gives a rational explanation of what has happened.
He explains that Norman has a split personality and that half of his mind is controlled by him
while the other half is controlled by his mother. He also states that “Norman Bates no longer
exists” because his mother has taken control. It is clearly shown in the following scene in
which the spectators watch Norman but can hear Mrs Bates’ thoughts. David Bordwell and
41
Kristin Thompson discuss the fact that we enter Norman’s mind thanks to the camera
techniques that are used:
The next-to-last shot of the film shows Norman sitting against a blank white
wall, while we hear his internal monologue. The camera again moves forward
into a close-up of his face. This shot is the climax of the forward movement
initiated at the start of the film; the film has traced a movement into Norman’s
mind28.
The superimposition of Mrs Bates’ skull over Norman’s face reinforces this point. However,
can it be said that the film has a real ending? The last shot shows Marion’s car being dragged
from the muddy water. This is a metaphor which shows that the truth has not been totally
revealed, there is more to discover. Since it is the end of the film, the spectators have to
imagine what may follow. We are active once again.
1
2
Fig. 35: A case not entirely solved
28
David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson, op. cit., pp. 276-277.
42
A reversal of situation
As Jacques Lacan explains in Les Quatre concepts fondamentaux de la psychanalyse, there
is always someone who gazes and someone (or something) who (or which) is being gazed at.
In the scopic drive (voyeurism), the voyeur cannot exist without the exhibitionist. Lacan
writes: « ...voir et être vu [...]. Freud nous présente comme acquis que nulle part du parcours
de la pulsion ne peut être séparée de son aller et retour, de sa réversion fondamentale, de son
caractère circulaire. »
29
The two
complementary series of shots below allow us to
understand the mechanics of voyeurism and they exemplify the condition of the voyeur linked
to his window.
1
1
2
2
3
3
Fig. 36: Norman peeping at Lila
29
Fig. 37: Norman being peeped at by Lila
Jacques Lacan, Les quatre concepts fondamentaux de la psychanalyse, p. 199.
43
In Psycho, Norman is the one who watches most of the time. Yet, when Lila sees him
arriving in the house (Fig. 37) and also when we watch Norman in the mental home, the
peeping tom is being peeped at. Norman thus fully becomes the object of the spectator’s gaze.
We could almost speak of his “to-be-looked-at-ness”, a term forged by Laura Mulvey to
describe the status of women in Hollywood films who are the objects of both the (male)
characters’ and the (male) spectators’ gaze:
In a world ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between
active/male and passive/female. The determining male gaze projects its phantasy
on to the female figure which is styled accordingly. In their traditional
exhibitionist role, women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their
appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to
connote to-be-looked-at-ness.30.
The end remains rather ambiguous because, even if the truth has been revealed,
Norman/Mother is watching the audience as if he/she was aware of being watched. Thus
he/she still has some sort of control. Amanda Wells explains that this scene tells us a lot about
Hitchcock:
The closing shot of Psycho, of Norman/Mother staring out directly at the audience,
acknowledging that he/she is being watched by the policemen and psychiatrist and
by the audience thus makes sense within the thematic schemata of the film and
within a wider understanding of Alfred Hitchcock’s œuvre as director/auteur [...]
Hitchcock, however, wants the spectator to be aware of their role as ‘watchers’ of
the film, and in so doing he also draws attention to his role as the manipulative
author and enunciator of the text, signifying his own authorial presence.31
This sequence makes the audience reflect on the human condition. Indeed, thanks to the
different POVs we adopt, we have different wishes. For instance, we want Lila to get out of
the frightening house but at the same time we want her to discover what is in the cellar.
Donald Spoto explains this when he says: “Even more important is the fact that the viewer of
the picture is of two minds, and this Hitchcock establishes with a relentless exploitation of
audience identification through point of view32.”
Most of the time, when spectators go to the cinema or watch a film, they are the voyeurs
even though they are not necessarily aware of it. Indeed, they penetrate into the intimacy of
the characters and see through the eyes of some protagonists. For instance, in Dans la Maison
(François Ozon, 2012), Claude, a teenager, interferes into one of his friends’ life. He spends a
30
Laura Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and the Narrative Cinema”, Screen, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1975, pp. 6-18.
31
32
Amanda Sheahan Wells, op. cit., pp. 41-42.
Donald Spoto, op. cit., p. 318.
44
lot of time at his friend’s place and cannot help but watch his mother. It can be said that he is
a peeping tom. Moreover, just like in the film Peeping Tom, the main character needs to
watch other people, women as it happens. These elements tell us that watching other people
is, to a certain extent, a need; it is a scopic drive.
Going to the cinema or to the theatre can be associated with the notion of catharsis. Indeed,
the spectators can see the tragic fates of people who have yielded to their impulses. Since they
live these tragic fates by proxy, the spectators are supposed to resent the impulses that led the
characters to their tragic destiny. According to Amanda Wells:
What the narrative of Psycho is really about is the mechanics and politics of
watching – which is at the heart of the cinematic experience. With the horrific
murder scene in the shower at the very centre of the film, perhaps Alfred
Hitchcock was really challenging the spectators to see just how far they would
go with their own voyeuristic behaviour.33
Indeed, the audience has mixed feelings. We do not want Marion to be murdered but, at the
same time, we want to know what is going to happen. We cannot help but watch. This is why
the end of the film is so unsettling: Norman is watching us as if he wanted to remind us that
we have been peeping toms during the whole film.
2. A Very Controversial Film
A story that could happen to everybody
What makes this film so shocking is its realism. Indeed, it is very easy for the spectators to
identify with Marion Crane. At the beginning of the film, we are given the time and place,
which makes the story real. According to Amanda Wells, it is this realism that makes Psycho
so distressing:
Alfred Hitchcock knew he had audiences thinking this could happen to anyone,
in any town in America, and that is one of the reasons the film so frightened
spectators who were more used to fantasy horror films about zombies and
vampires.34
Besides, since we share Marion’s POV until her death, we become her accomplices to a
certain extent. The film opens in medias res and the spectators rapidly understand that Marion
and Sam’s relationship is illicit because they are not married. And yet, we want to know what
is going to happen, our curiosity is triggered. Moreover, when Marion steals the money, we
33
Amanda Sheahan Wells, op. cit., p. 42.
34
Ibid., pp. 56-57.
45
side with her (even if stealing is not right) and we want the policeman to stop investigating.
We are relieved when she arrives at the motel. However, when Norman is watching her, we
cannot help but watch her also. Hitchcock used a lens that resembled the most a human
being’s eye. As a result, when we watch her through the hole, it is as if we were at Norman’s
place. We want to know what is going to happen. As Jean Douchet explains: « Notre désir de
voir va encore se fortifier : Perkins est comme nous et regarde sa cliente se déshabiller. Va-t-il
y avoir viol ou vol ? Ni l’un ni n’autre mais pis. »35
The shower scene is the most famous moment of Psycho. A lot of critics have dealt with
this scene and they all agree to analyse it as a metaphor for the main protagonist’s will of
giving the money back. Indeed, Marion is cleansing her sins. The shower thus acts as a sort of
purification. Marion is smiling as if she was relieved to have changed her mind and to have
decided to give the money back [46:46] (Fig. 38).
Fig. 38: Marion’s “purification”
On the other hand, the spectators side with Norman after Marion’s death because, deep
down, we wish Marion’s car to disappear into the muddy water. Jean Douchet adds:
Enfin, elle [la voiture de Marion] s’enfonce complètement, définitivement.
Nous poussons un soupir de soulagement. Les ténèbres – ou notre inconscient
– ont englouti, croyons-nous, à jamais, notre complicité de vol. Mais pour cela,
nous sommes devenus complices d’un crime…36
Nevertheless, when we discover that his mother is dead and, therefore, that Norman is the
murderer, we do not side with him anymore. We feel that we have been betrayed to a certain
extent. This is what Truffaut explains in his interviews with Hitchcock:
Au début on espère que Janet Leigh ne se fera pas prendre. Nous sommes très
surpris par le meurtre, mais dès qu’Anthony Perkins efface les indices, on lui
devient favorable, on espère qu’il ne sera pas inquiété. Plus tard, quand on
35
36
Jean Douchet, « Hitch et son public », Cahiers du cinéma n°113 (novembre 1960).
Ibid.
46
apprend par le shérif que la mère de Perkins est morte depuis huit ans, alors
brusquement on change de camp et on devient contre Anthony Perkins, mais
par pure curiosité.37
We keep on changing our opinion, as we adopt the POV of the protagonist that we follow.
A film that went beyond conventions
Censorship
In 1960, Hitchcock’s project was very daring. Indeed the Paramount refused to pay for the
film because they thought it would be a failure and, among other things, they were opposed to
the fact of showing a woman being murdered in her shower. Censorship was still very present
at the time. As a consequence, Hitchcock financed the film himself and shot Psycho with his
television crew. He explains his daring choices in his interviews with Truffaut. For instance,
he told the director that he wanted to show Marion in her underwear in the hotel room in order
to adapt to the new audiences:
Je ressentais le besoin de tourner la scène de cette façon, avec Janet Leigh en
soutien-gorge car le public change, il évolue. La scène classique du baiser sain
serait aujourd’hui méprisée par les jeunes spectateurs […]. Je sais qu’euxmêmes se comportent comme John Gavin et Janet Leigh, et il faut leur montrer
la façon dont ils se conduisent eux-mêmes, la plupart du temps.38
Before releasing his film, he had to show it to people working for the Motion Picture
Production Code (also known as the Hays Code). Hitchcock managed to convince the censors
to maintain certain scenes and certain lines stipulating that he would remove others. For
instance, he would have preferred to show Marion naked at the beginning of the film (when
Marion is in the hotel room with her lover) and said to Truffaut that the scene would have
been more interesting. He probably wanted to challenge the conventions of Hollywood
cinema and to shock the audiences from the beginning. Hitchcock must be referring to this
sort of scene when he says that he had to cut some shots in order to have other scenes
accepted.
The shower scene was obviously problematic. The censors said that nudity was too
present. However, Hitchcock sent the scene back to them and they could see no nudity. In
fact, because of the numerous shots and the quick editing, the spectators have the feeling that
they see nudity. Yet, it is only a cinematic effect, – another trick. The audience think they see
37
François Truffaut, op. cit., p. 231.
38
Ibid., pp. 226-227.
47
Marion naked but nothing is actually shown39. This sequence is made up of over fifty shots
that last for two or three seconds. Therefore, spectators have the illusion of watching a gory
scene whereas, in reality, they only see details. Hitchcock decided to use very quick shots in
order to make the spectators think that each shot represented a cut in Marion’s body (the knife
never actually touches her body). All these elements, mingled with Bernard Herrmann’s
screeching music, contribute to create one of the most famous horror scenes in the history of
cinema. Rumour has it that this scene was actually directed by Saul Bass, the graphic designer
who made the opening credits of the film and who storyboarded some of Psycho’s scenes. Of
course, Alfred Hitchcock, as well as Janet Leigh, denied this, and the main actress claimed
that the whole sequence was directed by Hitchcock himself.
The direction of the audience
Hitchcock decided to “kill” the star of the film, which was a real challenge for the time, as
we have already seen. He wanted to do something different, to shake people.
After the release of the film, Hitchcock continued to “direct” the audience. Indeed, he
made a trailer explaining some of the major elements of the film (the shower scene in
particular) in order to make people want to see the film. Moreover, it was forbidden for
belated spectators to enter the theatres. By doing so, the director maintained the suspense
around his film. Obviously, he did not want the spectators to arrive after the murder of Marion
Crane. Since Janet Leigh was the star of the film, the spectators would have spent their time
looking for her. There were a lot of posters reading: “No one… BUT NO ONE… will be
admitted to the theatre after the start of each performance.”40 And to top it all, the director
bought all the copies of Robert Bloch’s Psycho (the novel that inspired Hitchcock) to prevent
the audience from knowing the end of the plot.
Rumour also has it that, in order to maintain the suspense around his film, Hitchcock made
his cast and crew swear that they would not reveal anything. As Vera Miles explains: “When
we started to work, we all had to raise our hands and promise not to divulge one word of the
story41.”
39
See Appendix 3.
40
See Appendix 4.
41
Stephen Rebello, Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho, p. 81.
48
The presence of female characters
The question of gender is also at stake in Psycho. Indeed people were used to seeing films
whose main character was a man. In the film, it is slightly different. As Amanda Wells
explains, Marion represents a sexual threat. At the very beginning of the film, we understand
that she has an illicit relationship with her lover Sam. At the time, at the start of the sixties,
women were more sexually free than before thanks to, for instance, new methods of
contraception. However, it threatened the traditional vision of the family. Marion Crane’s
brutal murder can be interpreted as a punishment for her sexual transgressions. The fact that
she smiles in her shower has also been interpreted by some critics as a sign of sexual
enjoyment. This is reinforced by Norman’s comment when Marion is having dinner in his
parlour. Norman says to her: “You eat like a bird”. For Amanda Wells: “Norman implies that
although Marion may try to appear dainty just like a bird she must really have a tremendous
appetite and therefore, underneath the surface be a voracious man-eater42.” As a consequence,
her murder may be analysed as the disappearance of the sexual threat.
Also, we can notice that Marion is punished for her sexual transgressions whereas Sam
Loomis, her lover, is not. Feminist critics have stated that Psycho is an evidence of the
patriarchal ideology of Hollywood. Laura Mulvey pointed this out and, as already discussed,
she forged the term “to-be-looked-at-ness”.
However, one has to bear in mind the character played by Vera Miles, Lila, who is
Marion’s sister. As soon as Marion dies, Lila appears and she is the one who will discover the
truth about her sister’s death. Therefore, the image of women in Psycho is not wholly
negative.
3. The Impact of Psycho on XXI st Century Spectators
As already stated, censorship was still very present in the early sixties. As a result, the
impact of the film was much more important than it is today. Nowadays, people are used to
watching scenes of sexual violence.
Gus Van Sant’s Psycho
In 1998, director Gus Van Sant, who admires Alfred Hitchcock, decided to direct a film,
also entitled Psycho, which was the almost exact replica of Hitchcock’s work. It was a
stylistic exercise for Van Sant. Indeed, he uses the same shots as in the original film. The
42
Amanda Sheahan Wells, op. cit., p. 72.
49
main difference between the two films is the fact that Van Sant’s work is in colour and not in
black and white. The director also chose to add some shots such as those of clouds when
Marion is having her shower. This addition is not surprising because the director always
shows clouds in his films; they are his signature. Moreover, in the hotel room, we can hear
people having sex in the other bedrooms. Sexuality was much more present in the media at
the end of the twentieth century than in the sixties. Furthermore, Sam Loomis is naked in this
version, and when Norman watches Marion through the hole in the wall, he masturbates. In
the scene where Arbogast is killed, there are two furtive shots (just like the clouds in the
shower scene except that they are shorter): the first one is a half-naked woman who wears a
mask (once again it is an emphasis on sexuality), and the second one represents a lamb in the
middle of a road (this shot is rather gloomy and the presence of the animal may be linked to
Norman’s passion for taxidermy). In the scene where Lila looks for information in the Bates
house, she discovers a pornographic magazine in Norman’s bedroom. The basement is much
gloomier in the second version. It is filled with animals (stuffed or still alive) and Mrs Bates’
body is more frightening. Also, in one the last shots, the dissolve from Norman’s face to his
mother’s skull is more visible.
To conclude, Gus Van Sant’s version brings out sexuality and death which are two very
important issues in Psycho. This was made possible because the Hays Code had been
abandoned as of 1968.
Hitchcock directed by Sacha Gervasi
In 2013, Sacha Gervasi directed a biopic about Alfred Hitchcock which opened to mixed
reviews43. The film focuses on Hitchcock’s life at the time he decided to direct Psycho. It is
rather hard to discuss the degree of reliability of this film since it is not a documentary; the
main elements are true even though, for instance, it is hard to believe that Hitchcock watched
his actresses through a hole. The film depicts quite well the obstinacy of the Master of
Suspense. Even if he was told by everyone not to direct Psycho because people thought it
would be a failure, he did not listen to them and directed it. He also did not hesitate to pay for
it since Paramount did not want to finance this ambitious project. Hitchcock is often seen
alone in this film, which highlights quite well the fact that nobody believed in his project.
Despite some inevitable doubts, the Master was convinced that his film would be a success.
43
AlloCiné, Hitchcock, http://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefilm-189691/critiques/presse/.
50
The only person who supported him was his wife, Alma Hitchcock, and she probably played a
major role in the success of this masterpiece.
In the film, it is also explained that Psycho was shot in a studio and that the director
maintained the suspense until the release of his film. All these elements contributed to trigger
the spectators’ curiosity, which may explain why the audience was so anxious to go and
watch it.
Some cinemas used the release of this film to show Psycho again. The cinema Le Palace,
in Cambrai, organised a special evening where the two films could be seen as a double bill44.
A personal investigation revealed that it appealed to a lot of spectators who were eager to
watch Psycho again. This tends to reinforce the fact that, even if Psycho was directed more
than fifty years ago, it still appeals to spectators in the twenty-first century. As a modern
classic, it also keeps encouraging new academic approaches.
44
See Appendix 5.
51
Conclusion
In this close-up on Psycho, we have seen that Hitchcock not only directed his actors, he
also directed his spectators. He used cinematic techniques, which usually enable the
spectators to have the best vantage point, in order to trick us. For instance, we could think that
the addition of the different points of view allows us to know more than the protagonists. And
yet, the Master of Suspense manages to deceive us thanks to other cinematic devices, such as
overhead shots and also off-screen sounds, costumes, sets and props.
Voyeurism is one of the main themes of Psycho. Norman is a peeping tom; for instance, he
takes pleasure in watching Marion. However, he is not the only one to be driven by
scopophilia, this is also the case of the audience. Indeed, we are anxious to know more, we
want, and even we need, to gaze. It may explain why the end is so disturbing. Norman/Mother
is gazing at us for several seconds that seem to last forever, as if he were pointing out the fact
that we are voyeurs, as much as he is.
We can also wonder why Hitchcock chose to direct such a film. He probably wanted to do
something new, a film that no director would have dared to make. As shown in Sacha
Gervasi’s Hitchcock, Alfred Hitchcock chose to make his film even though all his relatives
and acquaintances were against the idea. It tells a lot about the director’s personality. Indeed,
he wanted to go beyond the conventions and to shock people. The theme of voyeurism was
most certainly not chosen at random. Hitchcock apparently chose his actresses for their
physical appearance and he was attracted by beautiful women. Yet, nothing has been proved.
A lot of sequels were directed (one of them was made by Anthony Perkins, Psycho’s
protagonist) and, even though the theme of voyeurism is also tackled, they fail to be as
unsettling as the original film. The plots are rather similar to Hitchcock’s Psycho, which may
explain why these films were not as successful as the first one. What makes Psycho a unique
masterpiece is its originality and, obviously, Alfred Hitchcock’s touch.
52
1) Filmography
PRIMARY SOURCE:
Psycho, Alfred Hitchcock, with Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, Vera Miles, USA, 1960,
thriller, 109 min.
SECONDARY SOURCES:
Dans la Maison, François Ozon, with Fabrice Luchini, Ernst Umhauer, Kristin Scott Thomas,
France, thriller, 105 min.
Hitchcock, Sacha Gervasi, with Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson, USA,
2013, biopic, 98 min.
Lolita, Stanley Kubrick, with James Mason, Sue Lyon, Peter Sellers, United Kingdom, 1962,
drama/romance, 152 min.
Peeping Tom, Michael Powell, with Karlheinz Böhm, Anna Massey, Moira Shearer, United
Kingdom, 1960, thriller, 101 min.
Psycho, Gus Van Sant, with Vince Vaughn, Anne Heche, Julianne Moore, USA, 1998,
thriller, 99 min.
Psycho II, Richard Franklin, with Anthony Perkins, Vera Miles, Meg Tilly, USA, 1983,
thriller, 112 min.
Psycho III, Anthony Perkins, with Anthony Perkins, Diana Scarwid, Jeff Fahey, USA, 1986,
thriller, 93 min.
Psycho IV, Mick Garris, with Anthony Perkins, Henry Thomas, Olivia Hussey, USA, 1990,
thriller, 96 min.
Rear Window, Alfred Hitchcock, with James Stewart, Grace Kelly, USA, 1954, thriller, 112
min.
53
2) Bibliography
BORDWELL, David, THOMPSON, Kristin, Film Art: an Introduction (1979), Boston,
McGraw-Hill, 2004.
DECOBERT, Lydie, L’Escalier dans le cinéma d’Alfred Hitchcock : Une dynamique de
l’effroi, Paris, L’Harmatan, 2008.
DOANE, Mary Ann, Femmes fatales: feminism, film theory, psychoanalysis, New York,
Routledge, 1991.
DOUCHET, Jean, « Hitch et son public », Cahiers du cinéma n°113, 1960.
DURGNAT, Raymond, A Long Hard Look at ‘Psycho’, London, British Film Institute, 2002.
EASTHOPE, Antony, The Unconscious, London, Routledge, 1999.
JULLIER, Laurent, « Points de vue », in René Gardies (dir.), Comprendre le cinéma et les
images, Paris, Armand Colin, 2007.
KROHN, Bill, Alfred Hitchcock, Paris, Cahiers du cinéma, Collection Grands Cinéastes,
2007.
KRUTH, Patricia, « Le spectateur, le monstre et la victime : le point de vue dans Lolita de
Stanley Kubrick », in Didier MACHU and Taïna TUHKUNEN, Lolita, Paris, Ellipses, 2009.
KUHN, Annette, The Power of the Image : Essays on Representation an d Sexuality, London,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985.
LACAN, Jacques, Les quatre concepts fondamentaux de la psychanalyse, Paris, Seuil, 1973.
MULVEY, Laura, “Visual Pleasure and the Narrative Cinema”, Screen, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1975,
pp. 6-18.
REBELLO, Stephen, Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho, New York, Dembner
Books, 1990.
SHEAHAN WELLS, Amanda, Psycho, Director Alfred Hitchcock, London, York Press,
2001.
SPOTO, Donald, The Art of Alfred Hitchcock, New York, Anchor Books, 1992.
TRUFFAUT, François, Hitchcock, édition définitive, Gallimard, 1993.
54
3) Websites
Alfred Hitchcock, Hitchcock, la légende du suspense, http://hitchcock.alienor.fr/cinema.html,
consulted on the 30th of January 2013.
AlloCiné, Hitchcock, http://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefilm-189691/critiques/presse/,
consulted on the 17th of March 2013.
Ciné-Club, Le Son au Cinéma, http://www.cineclubdecaen.com/analyse/son.htm, consulted on
the 11th of April 2013.
Madinkbeard, Branigan on Point of View, http://madinkbeard.com/archives/branigan-onpoint-of-view, consulted on the 22nd of April 2013.
Stephano, Joseph, Psycho (1960) movie script, http://sfy.ru/?script=psycho, consulted on the
15th of November 2012.
Télérama, “Hitchcock”, de Sacha Gervasi, petit film sur un grand tournage,
http://www.telerama.fr/cinema/hitchcock-de-sacha-gervasi-et-les-autres-films-de-lasemaine,93145.php, consulted on the 18th of March 2013.
The ‘Grammar’ of Television and Film, Narrative Style,
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/gramtv.html, consulted on the 16th of April
2013.
The Guardian, Secrets of the Psycho shower,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/mar/29/psycho-body-double-marli-renfro, consulted on
the 20th March 2013.
Université Paris 8, La voix de Gilles Deleuze en ligne, http://www2.univparis8.fr/deleuze/article.php3?id_article=92, consulted on the 10th of April 2013.
Wikipedia, Catharsis, http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis, consulted on the 14th March
2013.
Wikipedia, Motion Picture Production Code,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code, consulted on the 18th of
March 2013.
Wikipedia, Objet a, http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objet_a, consulted on the 27th of December
2012.
Wikipedia, Psycho (film), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho_%28film%29, consulted on the
13th of December 2012.
Wikipedia, Slasher film, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slasher_film#Forerunners, consulted on
the 12th of April 2013.
55
56
Appendices
Appendix 1
House by the Railroad (1925)
by Edward Hopper
57
Appendix 2
Susanna and the Elders
by Willem van Mieris (1662-1747)
Another version of Susanna and the Elders (painted in 1610)
by Artemisia Gentileschi
58
Appendix 3
Series of photograms reproduced in the booklet accompanying the DVD "PSYCHOSE : La
collection Alfred Hitchcock en DVD", p. 13.
59
Appendix 4
Poster used when the film was released
60
Appendix 5
Poster used in March 2013 at the cinema Le Palace in Cambrai
61