Psycho (1960)

fig 1.

One of the most notable movies we've watched thus far, it's kind of hard to criticise, but very easy to examine. Unlike Alfred Hitchcock's 'The Rope' which had a very experimental nature, Psycho has a rather more serious screenplay in comparison, utilising techniques that compress suspense into a neat package. The delivery is remembered in earnest for such reasons. 

fig 2.

The film doesn't depend wholly on metaphor or symbolism to produce the horror atmosphere, instead having a more naturalistic tone synchronized with the audience and their attentions. 'Our interpretation is expected to be based on a process of cultural association, on connecting the story (like the stars) of one film to another.' (Giddings, Robert and Erica Sheen 2000) The usage of sublime in films is used mostly in connection with the horror genre, something that has been used in conjunction with cinematography first and foremost.  In order to make something scary, and therefore real, a director needs to pull an audience in, whisper in their ear, then scare the heck out of them. To achieve this there is therefore no possible point in the audiences mind where something bad has got the opportunity to present itself, to this end, Psycho is shot in a contiguous nature similar to real life events. 

Things like metaphor or symbolism have their place in setting the scene but they are in no way placed to be possibly distracting as well. Mainly, the film is about reenacting something that has actually happened, and so has requirements similar to real life, those being pertaining to the usage and application of techniques by the director who is and also was very well known for how he built suspense. In this reflection it is correct to say that that although important to the building of atmosphere for the production movie, semiotics are merely external, not lending themselves to plot at all, rather they are more suited to the image the film leaves instead.

fig 3.

The idea of design is more restricted to cinematography in this case, and it is a good example of how its usage can effect what exactly is shown. Understanding this can help us see what can make a film great. Knowing so is an enlightening thing, and reaches us that the process of making is also the process of creating. There are a few memorable scenes in this film because of cinematography, in particular the scene in the parlor, where for several scenes the camera is offset to seemingly indicate thought, although some feature an imbalance that reaches more toward the same style as Stanley Kubrick, where in most key scenes the shots appear symmetrical approaching asymmetric when characters have a sort of psychological imbalance going on. It is almost its own new film when observing the movements of the camera over than of the content, since it reveals so much underneath what is shown on screen.

fig 4.

What makes a twist? The element of surprise presumably, since it can in some ways loop into this mechanic. When a film builds up to this scene where a twist is revealed, the outcome can literally be anything. The art is in what is to be revealed. Nowadays the idea of having one is severely numbed in juxtapose with the amount of CGI or similar ludicrous elements that are so easy to have, but such things can have negative effects as well. Notably Hitchcock intends to limit himself from the very beginning before production because he understands that through this process good content becomes more distinct or concentrated. 

When a twist is made in Psycho however, the build up entirely hinges on the audiences expectations, and so is directed in a way that completely understands the screenplay inside and out. The importance of understanding the audience and plot as one when creating horror should never disregarded and therefore be considered ultimate. By this meaning that horror is, at its core, should be about building up to some kind of reveal rather than simply revolving around it's own creepy aesthetic. The understanding of this balance can mean the difference between a good or a bad film in today's standards.

fig 5.

In closing, there are most certainly things that come together to make this film successful, but most importantly, the direction makes it possibly immortal, as pointed out in Ebert's review.'What makes "Psycho" immortal, when so many films are already half-forgotten as we leave the theater, is that it connects directly with our fears: Our fears that we might impulsively commit a crime, our fears of the police, our fears of becoming the victim of a madman, and of course our fears of disappointing our mothers.' (Ebert, 1998) Having Psycho as an inspiration for many movies could be considered a holy grail of sorts, and it is definitely up there with other suspenseful movies such as Jaws. Lastly, as a movie which has set new standards and survived the years up to this point it would be a good thing to say that it is definitely a good movie, and everyone should see it, albeit without spoilers. 

Bibliography

Ebert, Roger. "Psycho Movie Review & Film Summary (1960) | Roger Ebert". Rogerebert.com. N.p., 1998. Web. 26 Jan. 2017.

Giddings, Robert and Erica Sheen. The Classic Novel: From Page To Screen. 1st ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000. Print.


Figures
fig 1. Hitchcock, A. (1960). Psycho. [poster]

fig 2. Hitchcock, A. (1960). Psycho. [film still]

fig 3. Hitchcock, A. (1960). Psycho. [film still]

fig 4. Hitchcock, A. (1960). Psycho. [film still]

fig 5. Back cover of "Alfred Hitchcock: The Complete Films" by Paul Duncan. (1960). [photograph]