© 2007 William Ahearn
Some films are beyond criticism and “Psycho” is one of
them. Based on a novel by Robert Bloch that was, in turn, based on newspaper
reports about the serial killer Ed Gein, the book misses the true and despicable
nature of Ed Gein whose grotesque deeds could not be adequately covered in
family media outlets. The true depravity of Gein would go on to inspire Leatherface
in “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and Buffalo Bill in The Silence
of the Lambs. Gein was the type of over-the-top killer that
captured the imagination of the public as Albert Fish, the child-killing cannibal,
had a generation before.
For the most part, the film follows the book closely. It
does leave out Norman Bates’ studiously reading numerous books and various
other character nuances but that is being picky more than being critical.
The truth of the matter is: It’s not much of a book and if it wasn’t
for the movie, I doubt it would still be in print. It wasn’t written
in any clever or imaginative way as to make it a cult classic and this is
another rare case of the movie being better than the book. The only place
where Psycho is better than “Psycho” is in the explanation
of Norman Bates’ psychosis: In the book, it’s tossed of in a conversation
between the boyfriend and the sister, and in the film it is a tedious mishmash
of psychobabble delivered by the psychiatrist played by Simon Oakland. Hitchcock
had affection for parlor-game level psychology and it marred several of his
films and the most obvious cases are “Spellbound” and “Marnie.”
In “Psycho” it functions more as anticlimax than anything else.
Did anyone need to have it explained that Norman was a psycho with a mother
complex? Had Hitchcock included the scene where Norman “rescues”
his mother from the cemetery, none of the psychobabble would have been even
necessary.
While “Psycho” spawned an entire industry based on what
became known as slasher films, there is another more important aspect to “Psycho”
that was also beginning to appear in other films around the same time and
it spelled death for the standard monster film of the time. We have met the
monster, and he is us, these films seemed to say and that reality stole the
thunder from vampires, werewolves, Frankenstein monsters and the like. (It
would take Anne Rice’s epic re-visioning or humanizing the vampire to
save the fangs and cape franchise some five years or so after “Psycho.”)
One of those films is Georges Franju’s “Eyes Without
A Face,” which opened in 1959 and would be the typical mad scientist
serial killer film except the doctor isn’t played as insane and is only
trying to restore his disfigured daughter. Killing young women and ripping
their faces off is just part of the procedure. This is a very intense flick
and was very controversial when it opened.
The film that really needs to be mentioned when talking about “Psycho”
is Michael Powell’s “Peeping Tom.” Powell was a long-time
director and producer in the UK and directed films as diverse as “Black
Narcissus,” “The Red Shoes” and “Thief of Baghdad.”
Powell and Hitchcock were friends and came up together from the silent film
era.
“Peeping Tom” and “Psycho” are similar in
that they both portray serial killers and “Peeping Tom” opened
several months before “Psycho.” While the Hitchcock film is scary
and shocking, Powell’s film is deeply creepy in that the personal life
of the psychotic became part of the film. This isn’t the story of an
off-screen killer, the killings are up-close and personal and it is a disturbing
look at what at that time was unexplored territory.
It is such a disturbing film that the reaction at the press
screenings lead to the end of Powell’s career in the UK. He would do
several US TV shows and some films in Germany and one in Australia but he
was yesterday’s news at home. Martin Scorsese has been instrumental
in resurrecting Powell’s films. (Powell married Scorsese’s editor,
Thelma Schoonmaker, around the time of “Raging Bull.”)
When Hitchcock found out about the reactions at the press screenings
for “Peeping Tom” in the UK, he canceled the US press screening
for “Psycho.”
There is one last film that needs to be mentioned to put
“Psycho” into perspective and that is Geogers Herni Clouzot’s
“Les Diaboliques” that was made in 1955. Clouzot is one of my
favorite filmmakers having made “The Wages of Fear,” “Quai
des Orfevres” and “The Raven.” “The Raven” –
a murder and suspense film – is so good that when it was released in
occupied France during the war, the Nazis banned it. After the war, the Free
French banned it as well. There might be a better recommendation for a film
but I can’t think what it might be. If suspense – or brilliant
filmmaking – is your cup of tea, see “The Raven” as soon
as you can.
“Les Diaboliques” – Hitchcock tried to buy the
rights to the novel but Clouzot beat him to it – became a huge success
even in the US where foreign films were shunted off to the art house circuit.
It was Clouzot who was being referred to as “the master of suspense”
rather than Hitchcock who was, for the most part, turning out fluff in the
mid-1950s. Hitchcock attempted a serious film with “Vertigo” –
that was based on another book by the authors of “Les Diaboliques”
– and finally achieved the critical claim he craved even if it came
many years after the release of the film.
“Psycho” offered Hitchcock the chance to reclaim his
position – whether he ever deserved it or not – as the master
of suspense and it would be the last good film Hitchcock would make until
“Frenzy” (and I seem to be one of the few people who appreciate
“Frenzy”).
“Psycho” is a must-see film. Not Hitchcock’s best
– and certainly better than most – but an important film that
changed the way we view horror and violence on screen.