Movie #45: Released in 1960, 109 minutes, directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Seen it before!

LetterBoxd Score: 4.5 stars

I’ve seen this several times before, and have always liked it. It still feels really unique and singular, despite there being a million slasher movies in its wake. Others have even copied the mid-plot rug pull, such as Barbarian; though I think it’s probably much more common to just do a cheap version of the trick, where you pivot to the main movie after spending ten minutes with some characters who get killed before opening credits. That’s pretty common these days (off the top of my head, Get Out, It Follows, The Empty Man all do it).

One thing that struck me on this viewing was how much of a contrast this movie feels to The Apartment, which I was just observing feels old fashioned in a way that European New Wave does not. This has elements of the old fashioned studio style, but in other ways it feels really new and bold and experimental. There’s the story structure, the editing of the shower attack, the way Perkins acts, and some of the unusual overhead shots. Kudos to Hitchcock for trying something like this out on his 50th movie or so. The man was not resting on his laurels. Good for him.

I initially came away thinking of this movie as a perfectly executed and quite inventive genre picture, but nothing deeper than that. But later I watched this video essay, which pointed out layers I had never noticed before. The main one being that there are a lot of intentional parallels between Norman Bates and Marion Crane.

• We hear both Marion and Norman’s thoughts at important points in the movie. For Marion, it’s when she’s driving and imagining everyone talking about her. For Norman, it’s the end of the film, when his inner monologue becomes his mother’s voice. In each case, the character stares straight into the camera and smiles.
• Marion says her wish is to have a respectable dinner with Sam, with her sister there. Instead, the only meal she eats is with Norman. It’s quite respectable, explicitly held in the parlor, rather than her bedroom. And while her sister isn’t there, Norman’s mother is – in a sense.
• Most obviously, Norman and Marion are the only two characters who transgress. They also both have run-ins with the law, that force them to dissemble and lie. They both have to hide evidence of their crimes ($40,000 in Marion’s case… Marion’s body and her car, as well as the money, in Norman’s case). They both, ultimately, meet bad ends.
• I didn’t notice this, but the essay argues that Marion and Norman are frequently depicted with mirrors.
• Both have fractious relationships with paternal figures. Norman with his mother, Marion with the older man whose money she steals who keeps talking about his daughter (incidentally, one of the only things we know about him is that he wants to buy his daughter a big house… houses and parents).
• Even the names Norman and Marion are very nearly anagrams of each other. And apparently Hitchcock changed the name from Mary, which it is in the book, to Marion.

Seeing the connection between these two opens creates another layer to appreciate this movie; the first 45 minutes are not just an elaborate rug pull. They’re thematically integrated in a way I’ve never thought before. I’m not totally sure what to make of it, other than to observe that Norman’s set of circumstances tends to be darker and more serious – more heinous crimes, more threatening maternal figures, more encounters with the police. Maybe it’s that he goes through with the crime and commits, and she wants to reverse course. I don’t know, but I like that this element is in the movie.

Why would someone think it’s one of the ten greatest films ever made?

Experimental, but its ideas aren’t so easy to copy (even when you do them shot for shot!), which lends it a singular and uneasy charm. It’s perfectly executed as a genre picture (anyone can watch it and be drawn in) but there are hidden depths.

Next: La Jetee