Review of Psycho (2007) by Brent B — 13 Mar 2013

The decades of horror movies that have cursed us for so long would get an immediate face lift in 1960 thanks to a little book called 'Psycho'. At the time and height of his success as the Master of Suspense, Alfred Hitchcock kept looking for something that would suit his fancy. One of his assistants would point out to him a positive review on the book 'Psycho' and before you know it it was love at first sight. He gathered up several prints of the book before production began to tone down the surprises that would follow once it had been made into a film. However, making 'Psycho' would almost be duly impossible.

Studios are always keeping a watchful eye out for bestselling books. It's usually where Hollywood scoops up it's "originality". They weren't pleased with the book 'Psycho' and didn't want anything to do with it or Hitchcock. Paramount would go about distributing the film after it was made, but Hitch himself would take on the challenge of financing the film himself and have the crew that works for his television show 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' take part in this exciting new project. (It would cost less with his television crew.) Since he was tied to a contract with Paramount, they had NO choice but to distribute the film. They really didn't want him to make it. Boy, were they ever so wrong in the end! Perfect example of how much Hollywood doesn't have faith in ANYTHING!

Writer James P. Cavanagh would pen the script, but his first draft of it proved to be dull and he was eventually swapped out for a newbie named Joseph Stefano. Stefano was perfect in that he was going through therapy at the time of writing the film and much of his therapy had to do with his own relationship with his own mother. The adaptation of the book would prove to be a success with the exception of the book itself not being full adapted. Several changes were made to suit a different side to the book's story by having characters be more fleshed out and to provide a sinister atmosphere in terms of what we think we see and know. Like for example, Norman's interactions with his mother are too overexposed in the book while in the movie it's toned down and we're never really given too much info on Norman as a person which leaves the audience guessing. (Is it the mother? Or Is it Norman?) Also the violence is heavy in the book while in the film it's toned down. Thanks to the effective quality of B&W the violence (particularly in the infamous 'Shower Scene') is still graphic, but more haunting than grotesque.

The character of Norman Bates (played brilliantly by Anthony Perkins) was invented by it's author, Robert Bloch, who modeled the character after notorious killer Ed Gein. Gein was only known for murdering two women, but wasn't exactly deemed as a serial killer exactly. He was, however, a truly sick individual with mommy issues of his own. Bloch, who lived near Gein himself, took interest in his crimes and wrote a book partially based on him. The movie takes a much different take on Bloch's book. The story goes in the film as such:

Marion Crane embezzels $40,000 from one of her employer's clients. She flees to meet up with her lover to help him out of a debt. On her way, she raises suspicion in a officer but is able to elude him as she continues her journey. While in a storm, she pulls into a roadside motel called 'Bates Motel'. Norman Bates helps her and gives her a room for the night. When Marion's sister goes looking for her, as well as a detective, it all leads them to that very Motel where they discover a shocking truth from the nice young man who helped her out of a storm.

A huge marketing campaign at the time of it's release involved a crafty gimmick. No one was to be allowed in to see the film once it began which meant that if you left during the film or were late to see a showing you weren't allowed in. It was so that people wouldn't get confused when they didn't see the sexy Janet Leigh onscreen for a long period of time. It worked tremendously and so did the film. It scared the bejesus out of people! Because you have to remember that horror movies, up to the point of 1960, were about pure fantasy. They only dealt with monsters or vampires or some type of creature from outer space. Never had there been a monster that was just a nice young man who owned a little motel.

Overall, this is one of the greats and provided a much needed wake up call in the horror genre as well as in America at the time when it came to serial killers. They could very well be your next door neighbor and you not even know it.