Squee wrote:
I often wonder how I would think of movies if I had not seen every shocking scene before. What if I had gone into this movie not knowing a damn thing? Would I like it even more?
I saw this and Planet of the Apes without knowing about the twists, and those viewings were great. But it's an ephemeral thrill. The excitement wanes quickly, and that's that.
Psycho works differently, though not worse, if you know the twist. The effect is similar to that in Rope: you already know the secret beforehand, so that your concern as a viewer shifts from trying to figure out who the mother/murderer is to how Perkins' character is concealing it, or showcasing it.
In some ways, the film works better if you already know about Norman Bates' drag. Because then, you begin to ask more difficult questions which have no answers, and which render the film more terrifying. This is partly why the explication scene at the end is such a misstep; it deflects from (though it does not, by any means, wholly undo) the investigative process the viewer is forced to pursue.
Psycho is a truly great film, but I don't think it's Hitchcock's best. I agree with you, dolcevita, that in some ways Hitchcock is relying on a gimmick with Bates, although it's something he can't really do anything about; it's the material itself, and he does as good a job with it as anyone could have. With Vertigo and Rear Window (in my opinion, Hitchcock's best films), issues of voyeurism and identity are dealt with even more deftly than they are in Psycho. And Notorious and Rope are more disturbing in some ways because of their exploration of the nature of fascism.
_________________In order of preference: Christian, Argos
MadGez wrote:
Briefs. Am used to them and boxers can get me in trouble it seems. Too much room and maybe the silkiness have created more than one awkward situation.
My Box-Office Blog:
http://boxofficetracker.blogspot.com/