I think it's time we revisit "Psycho" (1960) and the BRILLIANT performance given by Anthony Perkins

Yes. he no longer existed, as indicated by the final shot of his face which dissolved into the face of his mother. she was "saving" us from him.

One of my favorite films, OP.

Also, one of my fav film performances. Anthony Perkins was scary! And gorgeous! You are right, I don’t think any of us would feel threatened by someone that looked like him, at least not in the way of this film. Maybe threatened in a sexual way or by his good looks.

I watched this a few years ago with a gay friend who had never seen it, and when Bates shows up in drag at the end he said “oh shit, he a drag queen?! Yes Hunty! Now sashay away to the looney bin boo. But you look cute, at least”. I was dying.

What ethnicity was Perkins? He had gorgeous olive skin, thick dark hair, beautiful brown eyes... dark features, like an Italian or Greek, only he was neither.

He was beautiful in his youth.

His only Oscar nomination was for "Friendly Persuasion", which I've never seen. Both he and Leigh brilliantly captured the sadness of their characters' lives in "Psycho", so desperate for a chance to be happy, but somehow doomed.

I loved the scene when him and Leigh sit down and chat.

I Think It’s Time We Revisit The Aspie Thread Copycat’s BEST EVER psych meds before his pulse goes Straight Down the Shitter and is Seen as. Great beauty in Its Day?

Loved the daffy "Norman took a wife?" lady

I've had such a huge crush on him. He was so cute.

Would Norman Bates be considered transgender today? Or just a crazy dude who dressed like his Mom and killed pretty women?

Both

Anyone who hasn't, check out 78/52, the doc on the shower scene and its impact on pop culture. Excellent.

"“78/52’s” title, which refers to the sizable number of setups and cuts in the shower scene, indicates how laser-focused this documentary is going to be, detailing how and why Hitchcock devoted a full week out of a four-week schedule to shooting that one sequence."

Perkins deserved an Oscar? That's hilarious. If he hadn't have LUCKED into this part (or sucked into it?) he'd have been forgotten by 1965.

R12

Why so jealous, Mr Hunter?

The Best Actor nominees were Burt Lancaster for Elmer Gantry, Jack Lemmon for The Apartment, Laurence Olivier for The Entertainer, Spencer Tracy for Inherit the Wind, and Trevor Howard for Sons and Lovers. Burt was the winner.

R14 Perkins should have been on that list

Remember when Vince Vaughn played him? That's how you appreciate the newness of Anthony Perkins' portrayal.

No, I don't r16. I can't stand his costar, so I never saw it.

R4 I’ve seen FP, but dont even remember it. Interesting how some actors roles are more memorable than their Oscar wins or noms. I was just thinking the other day about Jack Albertson. Hardly anyone has seen his Oscar role for The Subject Was Roses, but everyone remembers him in Willy Wonka and Poseidon Adventure more.

[quote]how did he not get an Oscar nomination for that role? It is one of a kind, especially for its time.

Sometimes one of a kind or groundbreaking films and performances are passed over for more conventional ones because the Academy, especially in more conservative eras, just wasn't ready for them. Psycho may have been a hit with the audiences, but critical reaction was mixed. Some found it vulgar, depraved and lowbrow. And Tony Perkins, convincingly playing a psychologically damaged, crossdressing, serial killer, made Academy members too uneasy to reward. Instead they nominated conventional performances by conventional leading men, like Burt Lancaster, Laurence Olivier, and Spencer Tracy.

R19 yes. Perkins role was pretty crazy if you look at in through a 1960 lens. But Psycho did just OK in the Oscar noms with director and supporting actress. I think it was on the strength of it being such a hit. But no way the actors branch was going to accept a cross dressing killer for a nomination.

Was Perkins nominated for that Oscar? Because while I'd have a very hard time choosing between him and Lancaster, who was just awesome as Elmer Gantry, Perkins was incredible as well.

Perkins was mainly known as a puppy-eyed male ingenue before that time, up until then his career was mostly spent playing romantic young men. Although there was a dark, slightly crazy vibe to him that had already come out in some roles, such as in the excellent "Fear Strikes Out" about a baseball star having a breakdown. That was IMHO one of the reasons Perkins was cast, the fact that he was chiefly known for playing sweeties. His turning out to be batshit evil must have been a shock to 1960 audiences.

FYI the "Psycho" music has made it to the Muzak playlist! Yes, I was in a store on Halloween night, and the usual crap popular music was playing, and what should come on but the churning violins of "Psycho"!

Congrats, Bernard Hermann, your score has wormed its way so deep into pop culture that it's played in grocery stores.

I thought Perkins was excellent and memorable in the role. The fact that we are talking about him 60 years later says something about his lasting impact. He really did get typecast because of this role though. Leigh was very good, too, mostly because she underplayed her part, making her fate even more shocking. Often overlooked is Martin Balsam in the small, but pivotal role of the investigator. His conversation with Norman is mundane on the outside, but fraught with tension.

Speaking of "Fear Strikes Out", I remember Jim Piersoll (the subject of the movie and also a TV teleplay starring Tab Hunter) was interviewed once, and said in a quote as non-PC as you can get "They did my life on film twice, and both times I got played by fags".

He was cast because of what he looks like. He is the opposite of what Norman was in the books

( Whisper) : " In bed..."

"Name's Arbogast"

R21, No, Perkins was not nominated for "Psycho." His sole Oscar nomination was for "Friendly Persuasion," about a Quaker family during the US Civil War. I've seen it once, which was enough.

Leigh and Perkins are so good that, when the film switches to Gavin and Miles, it suffers a bit. They're just not as interesting to watch, though Gavin was stunningly gorgeous. Oddly enough, it's the opposite in the Gus Van Sant remake. The first 50 minutes are a slog with their miscast leads and then Viggo and Julianne come in and give the film an adrenaline shot. A shame it was in service of a totally useless film school exercise.

This might be one of the main movies I'd love to take a time machine to see back when it was first released. There had never been anything like it. I can't even imagine how crazy people must have been when the shower scene happened. It's still shocking to this day simply because it throws out all the rules of traditional screenwriting like following its lead until the end of the film.

R28, and it wasn't just the shower scene that shocked audiences. In the opening scenes we see America's sweetheart, Janet Leigh, lying in bed, wearing just a bra and slip and a big, satisfied grin, and shirtless John Gavin sitting on the SAME bed! And through their conversation, we learn that they are an unmarried couple stealing away for a few hours from work for an afternoon tryst. Scandalous! Unmarried couples were never shown sitting on the same bed as it insinuated something indecent. Here, there is no doubt. And when we see Janet a few scenes later flushing a note down the toilet, that really set them on edge. A toilet had never been shown in movies or television as it was also considered indecent.

R28, have you seen the movie Hitchcock (2012)? It covers in considerable detail the making of Psycho, with Anthony Hopkins as Hitchcock and Helen Mirren as his wife, Alma Reville. It's a good movie, and it does contain a scene of the audience reaction to the shower scene at the premiere.

That's a recreation, but it's pretty close to the reaction of the audience when I saw the movie at a repertory theater in 1978. In those pre-VCR days, most of us had never seen an uncut version of Psycho before. (It was much too strong for network television at the time.) Even though we knew what was coming (because everybody had heard about it, of course) the audience screamed, hid their eyes, and did all the stuff you see in Hitchcock.

I love this film. One of the greatest ever made.

I still hide my eyes during the shower scene and I'm a pretty serious horror fan who can tolerate all kinds of blood and guts, but there's something so vicious about that scene that really freaks me out. You've really grown to root for poor, tragic, complicated Marion and you hope she gets out of her "private trap" and to have her go out like that is so unbearably cruel. Hitchcock really was a genius.

Also, older horror films relied on a build up of tension and atmosphere, while modern films just try to be shocking.

That is partly why Psycho is still chilling 60 years later.

R24, how was Norman described in the book?

And BTW, when the film came out, Hitchcock sent out minions to buy up every available copy of the book. He didn't want anything out there spoiling his little surprises.

R34 in the book Norman is short, very fat, bald with glasses... a very homely man in his late 40s that people could not stand to look at and someone you would not wanna be around.

For the film he was changed to tall, slender, lean, very handsome and charming, and young. Hitchcock did not believe Marion would have stayed in the Motel if she pulled up and saw this hideous, creepy short man with no social skills. He wanted it to be believable to the audience that Marion would feel comfortable staying there, alone, with Norman, so he wanted someone that looked like Perkins, who is “All American, Boy Next Door” in looks. No one would look at him and feel threatened, most would find him inviting and tempting, so it made sense Marion was ok to be around him.

Also, Hitchcock wanted the audience to sympathize with Norman, and genuinely like him, so he wanted someone young, handsome and charming. This would also shock audiences more when the big reveal happens that he is the killer. Hitchcock felt if he kept Norman the same as the book that audiences would suspect he is up to no good right away, as opposed to someone that looks like Perkins.

It’s all very telling of how people perceive others, if you think about it. Hitchcock did know what he was doing.

Also... (from Wikipedia)

In the novel, Norman becomes "Mother" after getting drunk and passing out; in the movie, he remains sober before switching personalities.

In the novel, Norman is well-read in occult and esoteric authors such as P.D. Ouspensky and Aleister Crowley. He is aware that "Mother" disapproves of these authors as being against religion. In the film, Norman is not portrayed as being intelligent. He stumbles over the word "falsity" when describing the paradoxical saying "not eating enough to keep a bird alive."

I like that Hitch was self-aware enough to know that if a woman pulled into a motel and saw a man who looked like him behind the counter, she'd bolt the door and push her nightstand against it. She definitely wouldn't want to join him for sandwiches and chit chat in his parlor.

I always loved that it sets both Marion and Norman up as being in their own private traps and desperately wanting to get out of them. For a minute, you think the film could be about them liberating each other and running away like Thelma and Louise.

Hitch also changed Norman’s personality.

In the book, Norman is very intelligent and well read, while in the movie he is not very smart, and fumbles over words.

However, smart Norman was not good at conversing and not charming, while dumb Norman was good at chatting and very charming.

"The Best Actor nominees were Burt Lancaster for Elmer Gantry, Jack Lemmon for The Apartment, Laurence Olivier for The Entertainer, Spencer Tracy for Inherit the Wind, and Trevor Howard for Sons and Lovers.

Wow, what a group of amazing actors and performances. I do think Perkins should have gotten an Oscar nom but I guess the competition was too strong. I thought Olivier should have won that year.

Janet Leight should've won Supporting Actress.

R40 I 100% agree.

I still think the most innovative thing was killing off the star less than half way through it. Totally shocking then as mentioned above. Have any other films done such a thing since?

R42, yes.

Playing a hooker always beats a murder victim at the Oscars.

I was just about to say, Drew Barrymore was promoted as the star of Scream, did the promotion thing, was the face of the Poster, and some ads had her name above the “Scream”.

Then when people watched, she was killed within 10 minutes. It was very shocking at the time.

Hitchcock was wise to make that change, because if a lone woman on the run pulled into a motel and found it deserted except for an obvious creep, she'd probably keep going. Hell, she'd probably feel so spooked she could get in another couple of hundred miles before she felt sleepy again!

Which probably makes "Psycho" one of those rare films that is better than the book. I haven't read the book, it's probably been out of print for fifty years, but yes - making Normal into someone a woman might trust has to make things both more believable and more suspenseful. Some of Hitchcock's films are meant to be watched more than once and this is one - it holds up as a shocker on initial viewing, and as a complex horror story on repeats, when we can see how much madness is under Norman's sad puppy eyes.

That is very telling of human perceptions.

Young, handsome, fit white man = safe.

Old, hideous short fat bald white man = creepy.

Imagine if he were a black man.

R47, Norman doesn't just look "safe" at first sight because he's young and good-looking, he feels "safe" because he seems very sweet and vulnerable. He behaves like this awkward, harmless, good-natured, totally not aggressive guy, someone who is shyly reaching out to Marion, someone who wouldn't hurt a fly.

And BTW one of the more believable things about the movie is that even though Norman seems very sweet and innocent, Marion never completely lets her guard down with him. She chats and eats, but when he starts to open up and show the first hints of creepiness, she backs away from him and goes back to her room.

Re the pic @ R4 - love Norman's reflection on the window (suggesting split personality).

But then there are a lot of mirrors in the film, like here . . .

. . . and here . . .

I know someone that works in Hollywood castings and he said that it’s a known secret in Hollywood that Perkins was a HUGE WHORE with men. He slept with thousands in his lifetime, supposedly.

Also, it was Victoria Principle that convinced him he may be straight and he went with it because he was able to get it hard for her and fuck her. He was attracted to her physically so she told him that makes him Straight.

He was such a great actor. I've been watching his old show Chillers on prime and its great.

I hope that movie about him and Tab gets nade.

Tab Hunter was a bore.

Hardly a secret R51

Victoria Principle convinced a bi man he is straight and got another addicted on drugs until he died. Quite the woman.

Nothing about that is a secret R51. Victoria Principal got his opposite-sex cherry.

Damn, it’s known she got him to fuck her?

Um...yeah. It's on his wikipedia for gods sake

[quote]I still think the most innovative thing was killing off the star less than half way through it.

And Hitch totally fooled us into thinking we would be watching how Marion was going to pull off her little embezzlement caper. Turned out to be a big ol' MacGuffin.

Why did drivers exit the car from the passenger's side?

R49 and R50 - Mirrors can represent a duplicitous person or are used for shock effect like the clichéd face appearing behind you in one.

What I read is that in the scene where Norman is peeping at Marion through the hole in the wall, Hitchcock wanted to make it clear that Norman was masturbating as he was watching her. But the censors of that time wouldn't allow it. I haven't seen the remake with Vince Vaughn, but I read that they did make it clear in that one that he was masturbating, so that is a small deviation from the original film.

[quote]She definitely wouldn't want to join him for sandwiches and chit chat in his parlor.

Marion was... well, shall we say, a woman of "loose morals?"

Yes r63 but not with short fat bald greasy homely men hitting 50.

Dressed to Kill did a similar thing with Angie Dickinson who was fresh off of her Police Woman fame, but besides that and Scream (and I'm not sure if that counts since Drew Barrymore was only in the first 10 minutes of the movie -though, it was still shocking), there are precious few films who have the guts to kill off their leading character halfway through the film, star or not. It goes against every rule of so-called "good" screenwriting where you're supposed to follow a character from start to finish. They might end up dying at the end or not achieving their goal, but they have to make it to some sort of finish line. This is why I've always found the film so brilliant. The trick seems to be leaving us with an equally interesting character to follow. In Psycho, we trade Marion for Norman and in Dressed to Kill, we trade Angie Dickinson's sex-starved housewife for Nancy Allen's sassy hooker.

R65, the only other high-quality film I can think of that does something similar is L'Avventura. But I think that film actually goes further by making the character just flat-out disappear altogether. We are never told where she went, if she survived,why she left, etc. It must have really perplexed the audiences of the early 60s.

[quote] Why did drivers exit the car from the passenger's side?

R60, which drivers?

In general, drivers used to get out of the passenger side often in order to avoid traffic on the driver's side or because it was easier than walking around the car.

In 1960, almost all cars had bench seats, and the upholstery was usually vinyl. A very fancy car would have leather or maybe cloth (certainly synthetic). Anyway, the point is that the upholstery was easy to slide on.

Velour upholstery (hard to slide on) and bucket seats eliminated the practice.

people still talk about "Psycho" and Hitchcock all the time, why do we have to revisit something that never disappeated

People never give enough credit to Martin Balsam, who was such a good character actor. He had a warmth about him, even a kind of sexiness--our sympathies easily transfer to him--HE'LL figure out what's going on! So when HE gets murdered--the screams in the theater!!!

How could we forget Balsam? That's true - he's very likable and you start to root for him. Once he dies, too, you really get a sense of dread for when Lila and Sam go up there, because you know that anyone who steps foot on that property is dead meat.

R69, I thought I was the only one who thought Martin Balsam was sort of sexy back in his Psycho/Twilight Zone days.

This thread is HILARIOUS. How come he wasn't nominated, etc.,etc., blah, blah, blah.

Because he didn't WRITE the part, and he barely acted in it, just like he barely registered in anything else.

Psycho is known for ONE thing, and that's the shocking (at it's time) stabbing of Leigh's character.

He was great but how well was he liked in Hollywood?

Angie Dickinson had a body double to do her frontal nude scenes in the shower, but she should have had a body double to do her rear scene, after her hookup, because her butt looked a bit saggy.

I would have gladly been a slut with him.

R74, give her a break, she was 50. In the 80s, 50 looked like how 65 does now. She looked great in Point Blank (a 60s movie).

I guess Angie couldn't use a butt double because that scene was done in one long take. I always assumed the body double was used as part of her character's fantasy during a few key moments in the film. It's like she's imagining herself as a young woman again instead of a lonely, bitter, repressed housewife.

I Think It's Time We Revisit the OP's BEST EVER Released psych meds before his pulse goes Straight Down the Shitter Seen as a Great Beauty in Her Day?

The acting in "Psycho" is top-drawer all around the cast. Same with the script, the camera work, the editing and of course the background score, which alternates between mournful and chilling. It all works together beautifully. Every time I come across it on TV I am drawn back into it all over again. People still watch "Psycho," while whoever watches "Elmer Gantry" any more?

Was Martin Balsam considered a great beauty in his day?

Vera Miles later complained that Hitchcock kept her in frumpy, unglamorous clothes to downplay her, while Janet Leigh was allowed to be sexy and glamorous. She thought he was trying to send her career "straight diwn the shitter" as DL puts it.

R81, it is said that Hitchcock was unhappy with Miles for getting pregnant, forcing her to back out of the lead role in "Vertigo," which Hitch had planned to showcase his new star. Rather than casting her in the lead in "Psycho," he punished her by giving her a secondary role and putting her in drab costumes.