I Can't Wait for "The Making of 'The Making of Psycho'"

Hey look! Another dumb idea coming out of Hollywood! For those too lazy to click the link, Fox Searchlight is going to make a movie about the making of Psycho called "Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho" (maybe this will be the first film in a series in which Hitchcock is a wizard who uses his special powers to make movies and fight evil). My response, like so many of my responses to news out of Hollywood, is "why?" Why do we need a movie based on this? Christ, the Blu-ray already covers this in its special features:

• The Making of 'Psycho' (SD; 1:34:12) is an incredibly excellent feature length documentary on virtually every aspect of the film's production;
• 'Psycho' Sound (HD; 9:58) is an interesting look at the new technologies employed to isolate discrete elements of a mono sound stem to create a 5.1 experience;
• In the Master's Shadow: Hitchcock's Legacy (SD; 25:58) offers some interesting comparisons of Hitchcock sequences with those in other films, and includes a wealth of interviews with directors like Martin Scorsese and John Carpenter who have been influenced by Hitch;
• Hitchcock/Truffaut (Audio; 15:20), an interesting Psycho-centric snippet from their 1962 interview sessions;
• Newsreel Footage: The Release of 'Psycho' (SD; 7:45) is somewhat misleadingly titled, as this is really a "pressbook on film" for exhibitors, describing the "no admittance after the film starts" policy that made Psycho's original roadshow exhibition such a sensation;
• The Shower Scene (SD; 2:30), offers the iconic sequence with and without Herrmann's riveting score;
• The Shower Scene: Storyboards by Saul Bass (SD; 4:10), an interesting compendium of Bass sketches which helped Hitchcock to plan his setups for the sequence;
• 'Psycho' Archives (SD; 7:48), a collection of publicity still;
• Posters and 'Psycho' Ads (SD; 3:00), including some international versions;
• Lobby Cards (SD; 1:30)

Do you think there will be a detailed account of the shower scene?

There's a feature length documentary already available on the subject! What more could you want? Some actors impersonating other actors trying to act? I'm not big on biopics to begin with, But I fail to see any way that Anthony Hopkins doesn't come off as portraying Hitchcock as anything but a caricature (his persona already portrayed him as such). Then you have Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh? Johansson has enough trouble playing one part, let alone a part within a part. 

The biggest issue is what's the story? Just making the movie? The controversial fallout? Since it's a movie about real events, the filmmakers are bound the fudge a little of the reality of what happened. Are they going to contrive obstacles to create tension? It's not a story like Ed Wood where we see an underdog trying anything to make movies. Hitchcock had already made Rear Window, Vertigo, and North by Northwest, not to mention at least ten other lauded films. Yeah, Psycho was independently produced, but Hitchcock had a bit of cache and wasn't hurting for cash himself.

And in the end, who is the market for a movie like this? People who love Psycho will already know the story and many will have seen the feature length documentary or even read the book on the making of Psycho (which happens to share a title with this movie). As the writer of the linked article notes, movies about movies seem to be gaining traction and Psycho has a high profile, so why not make a movie about it. There's no concern as to whether they should make a movie about it, it's just the easy thing to do. The least they could do is make a movie about the making of Apocalypse Now (which already has a very good documentary made about it) or, better yet, the making of Dennis Hopper's The Last Movie. That has everything. An overblown ego, drugs and alcohol, budget overruns. 

Or, instead of making movies about the making of (real) movies, let's just make movies.

You're Not Wearing Your Tie: Frenzy

Frenzy is Alfred Hitchcock's penultimate film. There's a lot to suggest that as artists age, they lose something intangible that leaves them unable to create at their peak level anymore. Independent filmmaker and buddy of Bruce Campbell, Josh Becker, wrote a piece about the Lifespan of Creativity. Whether you fully agree with the thesis or not, there's a lot of evidence to support it. Hitchcock's prior few films to Frenzy were failures at the box office and one finds little love for Family Plot, his final film (while it's not terrific, I give Torn Curtain some leniency, but I do have a bit of a man-crush on Paul Newman). Hitchcock was 73 when he made Frenzy and a damn fine movie it is. Maybe he got lucky in his old age or he found material that suited his abilities, but Frenzy is a ripping yarn.

The film starts off deliberately, establishing the characters and their relationships with each other. There is very little waste in Frenzy and nearly everything that happens in these early scenes comes back later, so while some may find them a bit slow, the rest of the movie benefits greatly. The necktie murderer has struck again (and Hitchcock is among the witnesses who sees the body wash ashore of the Thames). Richard Blaney (John Finch, who is awesome in this) is fired and hard up for cash. He has a relationship with the barmaid, Babs (Anna Massey) from where he was just fired. His friend Rusk (Barry Foster, though apparently it was offered to Michael Caine first) is well-off and sympathetic to his struggles and he has an ex-wife (Barbara Leigh-Hunt) with whom he takes out his frustrations of the day. Then we watch his ex- get murdered. I hesitate saying by who because only thirty minutes in, the murderer is revealed. However, there's some nifty misdirection so I choose not to take the experience away from you, the would-be viewer.

By revealing the killer so early, it changes the dynamic of "stalking the victim" trope we are so used to in slasher movies and others of this ilk. There's no need for POV shots or shadowy cheats so that we don't reveal the killer, or my favorite: " It's you!" We watch the killer go off with a woman and know she's doomed unless someone intervenes. Not likely. 

On the other hand, Hitchcock plays with one of his favorite themes: the wrong man. Evidence piles up and every little thing our innocent man does ends up biting him in the keister. There's very little he can do. Especially when a "witness" is giving her statement to the police describing him in full detail and, even though she wasn't in the same room as the man and the victim, she is fully willing to say what was happening inside said room. I can't help but feel like this scene is a satire of police investigations and how they build a case (and on people who want to "help"). The audience knows the truth, but damn it, this women is certain that she's right!

There are some elements that don't really make sense if one thinks about them. Hitchcock would refer to those of us that do as "the plausibles." For instance, if the neck tie murderer is truly a serial killer who leaves behind no clues and is seemingly random, why would he all of a sudden start picking off people he knows and trying to set up a frame job? Isn't that exactly how people get caught? There's also some silliness in the manner in which people die. Tongues hanging out of their mouths, strained look on their faces (OK, the latter might happen after strangulation, but the dangling tongues looks ridiculous).

I'm not really concerned about those aspects, though. While there's nothing as memorable as the shower scene or the crop duster, there's some really delightful stuff happening. The scene in the potato truck is tense and funny and momentarily has the viewer rooting for the bad guy. The writer (Anthony Shaffer) really does a great job a ratcheting up the tension and throwing up roadblocks. There's also an amazing backwards tracking shot after a victim gets taken up to the killers apartment. We don't follow them up the stairs. Instead, Hitchcock lingers on the staircase then slowly backs out of the building into the bustling street and holds on the entrance for several beats until some girls walk by and a scream is heard. It's incredibly effective and apparently, there's a hidden cut which I missed entirely. Frenzy features several of these holds while action happens off-screen or behind doors and every time it feels like a bold, but natural decision. On top of all that, the film has one hell of a great button line.



This trailer is truly bizarre. Hitchcock's narration is almost identical in style to that of his trailer for Psycho, except it's edited like so many cheesy horror movies from the '70s. It's almost as if the studio was indulging Hitchcock to be silly, but didn't trust him to make the movie appealing. I don't know what it is, but there's something disjointed about it. Maybe that's why the keep hacking the word "Frenzy" in half in the trailer...

Introduction/The Psycho Series

I was reading an article about worthwhile horror sequels. They may not be better than the originals, but they stand on their own merit. Amongst other films, the article mentions Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, The Exorcist III, and all of the Psycho sequels. I realized that for a lot of the iconic horror films, I've only seen the original (probably for the better), but the article made me curious about the sequels. Curious enough to (probably) torture myself with a marathon. So I'll be visiting many of these series and writing up my experience here. I don't know the exact form it will take (if I'll write after each film or when it's all done), but a form it shall take. I'm going to be under the wire today since I have a work meeting to go to later so I may not get to IV (plus, I have to find and hook-up the VCR). I'm not going to talk about well-trod series like Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, or Evil Dead as much as I may like them all. Also, remakes don't get consideration though my curiosity will lead me to watch both Exorcist prequels.

First up: the Psycho series. The interesting thing about this series to me is that most people forge there are sequels. I know I did. And why would one of the great, classic thrillers of all time need sequels? And how is there enough story for Norman Bates to sustain three additional movies (I tend to think there isn't). I'm looking forward to where this rabbit hole might take me. We'll see how I feel by the end of it. A special shout-out to Movie Madness for having II, III, and IV while Netflix has none. Movie Madness: There in a pinch (not their real slogan). I can tell you already, judging by the posters, I don't think I have to worry about anything happening to Norman Bates.

Psycho
--While Marion Crane is running off with the money and getting increasingly paranoid, Norman Bates doing... something. I'm actually very curious about what Norman Bates does when he doesn't have a customer to fixate on. Maybe I do want sequels.

--And is Marion's paranoia making her imagine those voices or are they actually what's going on back in Phoenix?

--It's been a while since I've see this film, so I totally forgot how much foreshadowing there is.

--I'm very impressed at how well Janet Leigh was able to keep her eye open and still as Hitchcock pulled back from it after Marion Crane's murder even if part of it was a freeze frame. Oops! Spoiler alert!

--The "passing of the torch," so to speak (or more appropriately, the "murder of the main character so I can have the spotlight") has been talked about a lot, so I won't dwell on it. But aside from being bold and pretty seamless, I'm very curious if any of the sequels will try the same thing, or at least something like it (and if it could even work a second time).

--I'm really sad that I wasn't around to watch this when it was first released. Aside from the various surprises (the shower scene, the real state of Norman's mother), the trailer prepares the viewer for a massacre of sorts and aside from some standard suspense, nothing really unusual happens for 45 minutes. Did the audience get restless? Were they expecting it to be funnier? (And yes, this is just an excuse to post the trailer.)


--By golly, Anthony Perkins is awesome in this movie. I hope he doesn't turn into a caricature in the later films (as the Psycho III poster seems to indicate).

--The restraint of this movie is pretty amazing. No trick scares or music trying to falsely ratchet up the tension. Just the mystery punctuated by moments of intensity and violence. I wish more horror movies used this approach.

--From IMDB: "After the film's release Alfred Hitchcock received an angry letter from the father of a girl who refused to have a bath after seeing Les diaboliques (1955) and now refused to shower after seeing this film. Hitchcock sent a note back simply saying, 'Send her to the dry cleaners.'"

--It's been said before, but the ending after the discovery of Mother is not necessarily pointless, but kind of a drag. Nothing like finishing up a tense thriller with gobs of exposition.

--I definitely need to upgrade to the Blu Ray.

No surprises. Psycho holds up wonderfully, is masterfully made and incredibly tense. The score is amazing and it features some great performances (though apparently Hitchcock referred to John Gavin as "the stiff"). Now we jump forward 23 years to let the director of FX2 follow up one of the greatest directors of all-time's most famous (and one of his best) films. Perhaps a reason to be slightly excited, Psycho II is written by Tom Holland who wrote Class of 1984, Fright Night, and Child's Play (and also directed the latter two).

Psycho II


My updates my be a little sparser for this one since I've never seen it and have no idea what it's about (I didn't bother watching the trailer), so I'm going to try to pay a bit more attention to it. Vera Miles is back (in addition to Anthony Perkins), so that's something, and Jerry Goldsmith does the music which I can't complain about too much (though right now it's sounding awfully melodramatic).

--It starts out with the old, black and white Universal logo, which is cool, then the shower scene from the original. Maybe people had forgotten about it 23 years later?

--Lila married Sam Loomis? The boyfriend of her dead sister? She has no right to be indignant about Bates' release under the guys of protecting his victims. Some sister...

--OK, I'm going to try not to make this a snark-fest. I want it to be good.

--Norman Bates: Hotel owner/line cook.

--He's looking awfully tan for being locked up for 23 years.

--Meg Tilly looks exactly like Jennifer Tilly. It's crazy.

--Lesson learned, don't look at character names on IMDB before watching a movie I haven't seen. I hope that wasn't one of the big twists (I think it was)...

--Almost thirty minutes in and already this movie is mildly ridiculous. Whereas the original creates a somewhat realistic scenario and characters acting in believable ways, this one is already kind of a mess. There's a sort of hackneyed relationship with the first film. And suddenly Norman not only has mother issues, but knives are a source of torture for him. Silly.

--Norman's regression is coming a little to fast for me. I wish they'd taken their time with it.

--I think we're meant to believe that Norman killed all of his victims in the shower with the amount of importance that's been put on it (there's a weird pause after every mention of the bathroom or shower). Just because it's the most famous scene doesn't mean you need make it the centerpiece of the sequel.

--I'm a little surprised that this fell into the slasher trap of introducing horny, drug-using kids to the plot.

--I definitely spoiled the film for myself. Pretty sure I've got it all figured out an hour into it. Stupid IMDB cast listing.

--Hmmm... maybe I was a bit too hasty...

--The references to the first film are a bit too much for me. It's not enough to have some original cast members and the same set? You have to fill it with call-backs and re-enact shots?

--Mother issues are worked into more than one relationship here. I think I appreciate it, but it also seems a bit on-the-nose.

--There's a scene where a woman moves across the foreground vacuuming. I like to think that would have been Hitchcock's cameo.

--OK, something awesome just happened that I can't spoil for you, but it was amazing.

So... Psycho II is a pretty silly movie. One of the things I like best about the first film is that Norman Bates seems just like a normal person who's trying to cover up for his mother. In this, he's always a mental patient. You question why he would have ever been released, he regresses so fast. The screenplay is the biggest problem. It's all over the map and if you think about anything, it makes even less sense. The acting isn't nearly as good, Meg Tilly being the most awkward the most often, and is frequently pitched at an inappropriate level. The saddest thing for me is Jerry Goldsmith's score is totally uninteresting. He did Alien and Gremlins! I know he's got better in him. I feel like he approached Psycho II as just another paycheck. Since most of you probably haven't seen Psycho II (and I'll admit that there are some decent things about it), I won't go into details, but just about everything that seems clever falls apart upon reflection. The good things make the film all that more disappointing since it doesn't explore them any more than it does. I think I may be going easy on the film just because I wanted to like it, or at least have fun with it.

I've got to admit, my enthusiasm for part III is diminished a little, now. But we've got Anthony Perkins taking his first trip behind the camera as director (first of two) and the man who would write The Fly, Dragonheart, and Kull the Conqueror.

Psycho III


Once again, I know nothing of this film aside from what I mentioned above. I'm even going to avoid the IMDB page for risk of spoiler. I'm definitely not going to get to Psycho IV today, so hopefully this will tide you over for now.

--Both sequels have been rated R. Kind of surprising since Pyscho would easily still get at PG.

--Wow. The intro got my attention. Feels like and Exorcist film. Or one of The Omen movies. Though it also feels like a Vertigo homage.

--Carter Burwell did the music. One of his first credits. This series certainly has a good pedigree of composers.

--Jeff Fahey is ridiculous. I like it.

--It's early, but this film already has some visual references to the original. I wonder if it wouldn't seem so obvious if I wasn't watching them all in a row. For Psycho II, definitely. This one's too early to tell.

--"Stupid bitch! You could've been cummin' instead of goin'." Classic.

-- They get a lot of mileage out of the shower scene footage from the original in these sequels.

--I can already tell what the problem is going to be with this film. The only reason it exists is because of Norman Bates as a character. The viewer doesn't really care about these other characters. If we're watching this movie it's because we want to learn more about him.

--Well, that was an interesting little happening. Maybe these other characters aren't so bad.

--Nevermind. The film just had to cop out and let her live.

--Actually, I'm going to have to mull this one over.

--Anthony Perkins' acting gets more and more awkward as these films go on. I don't know if it's intentional or that he doesn't know how to act psychologically disturbed in a subtle manner anymore.

--It just occurred to me that these movies are exactly like the Scream series (vice versa, really). You have a tortured main character (mentally here, physically in Scream) who keeps having murders happening around him and there are innumerable red herrings and characters to obscure the real killer who is only to be unveiled at the end. Only the Scream series is better.

--Homecoming! More anonymous victims?

--I like that Norman Bates keeps his mother outfit close at hand and kept so nicely at all times.

--Definitely would recognize all of the references to the original. This one has shot for shot moments.

--You can definitely feel the influence of the slasher genre on these films.

--Probably the worst part of these sequels is that you don't feel that Norman Bates has changed remotely over the course of three films. He's still the same disturbed man, so everything becomes redundant.

--Thus far, the only new thing that these films have brought to the original has tainted the impact of the original. Not exactly what one is looking for in a sequel.

--If these films are going to be all about Norman Bates' psychosis, I wish they'd do more to exploit it. Play around with his perception versus reality. Stuff like that.

Well, I'm happy that Norman isn't as over-the-top crazy as the poster would indicate and there are several marked improvements over II, but it's still not very good. I detailed most of my issues above, there was a lot in this movie that didn't make sense. Like why would Norman seek to hire anyone? That's plain ridiculous. However, Jeff Fahey may be the best part of the film, so I guess I'll let that slide. The reporter character is a tired trope in film in general, but here she's just a cardboard cutout of a character. I can't even remember her name. Aside from just making money, there's no reason for either of these sequels to exist (and I hold out little hope IV), though that's pretty much why sequels exist to begin with. They don't even do anything different or unique with the material. They are trying so hard to honor the original that they just end up making cheap knock-offs.

Tomorrow: The made for TV sequel Pyscho IV: The Beginning (of what? We'll have to wait and see) directed by Mick Garris, who has a lot of credits of a mediocre nature, but most notable for creating the unsurprisingly mediocre Masters of Horror series. HOWEVER... the film was written by Joseph Stefano who wrote the original. Intrigue!

Stay tuned...

Psycho IV: The Beginning


The biggest hiccup in watching Psycho IV: The Beginning was if my VCR was going to work and it does! Success! I'm going into this with zero expectations. I imagine that it's going to be about the relationship between Norman and his mother which is perfectly clear in the original Psycho. I don't know if we really need to go into it any further. Plus, since this one was made for TV, I can't even pretend it's a money grab. And remember, Mick Garris directed the "more faithful," but less good The Shining mini-series. I can't believe I'm going to watch a VHS. I can't remember the last time I chose to do this.

--Tracking!

--There was a Universal Studios trailer prior to the movie. Actually, that makes a lot of sense.

--Olivia Hussey! And Henry Thomas (aka Elliott from E.T.) as young Norman Bates.

--They're using Bernard Hermann's original score. It's still awesome. Let's see how it meshes with this movie.

--I feel like radio call-in shows as plot points were really big in the late-80s and early-90s.

--Norman Bates is doing all right for himself.

--Huh. Boobs. I guess it was made for HBO or something...

--I'm kind of surprised that Psycho IV isn't the story about what drove Norman to kill his mother. I hope this surprise leads to enjoyment.

--The screeching violins don't really work out of the context of the original. The blend of image and music is inadequate.

--Ah, there's the super-young Norman.

--There's something that doesn't mesh about Norman Bates in the original and him spilling his guts to a radio host in IV.

--John Landis cameo!

--Did people used to keep strychnine in their kitchen cupboards?

--There's some inconsistency with the events portrayed here as they are shown to happen in earlier movies.

I was all set to rate Psycho IV higher than the other sequels. Much of the flashback stuff is fairly effective, if unsurprising. Unlike the other sequels, it does add to Norman's story. However, the radio call-in show stuff kills the movie. It's totally absurd that Norman Bates would unload like this, especially with as much therapy he's gotten in his life at this point. For all intents and purposes, he should have his own psychiatrist. It's ridiculous. Then, when it finally gets to the flashback of him killing his mother and her boyfriend, the movie values shock and action over accuracy. The more time I spend with and thinking about Psycho IV, the less I like it. However, absurdity aside, I think it does the best at emulating the tone of the original without simply repeating the beats. You could definitely feel the influence of 80s slasher movies on II and III and that is lacking here. Perhaps Bernard Hermann's score is all that the others needed to make them better movies...

I'm beginning to think that if I do this more, the overall article is going exhibit the same trend, which may not make for the best reading on your part. Hell, I don't think I'm entirely happy with the format of this write-up. I'll definitely do this again, it just may take a different form next time unless I'm told otherwise. I'm a little nervous to give away spoilers from the sequels since I'm sure many haven't seen them.

Anyway, thanks for reading! I'll take suggestions for the next series if you're feeling frisky.