The Fear of the Everyman

Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960) is an obvious benchmark in cinematic history, pushing the boundaries of how much violence or sexuality is allowed in film, and it is universally considered one of Hitchcock’s best works.  The story follows Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), who steals $40,000 and then leaves her town.  She stops at the Bates Motel, and meets the friendly yet eccentric owner Norman (Anthony Perkins), who lives with his mother.  Soon afterwards, Marion is murdered (supposedly by Norman’s mother) in the infamous “shower scene,” which was considered extremely controversial for the time but has become one of the most well known scenes in film history.  The rest of the film follows Marion’s boyfriend (John Gavin) and her sister (Vera Miles) as they try to figure out what happened to her, while exploring the fractured psyche of the mysterious Norman Bates.

            By today’s standards, much of the actual violence in Psycho is borderline comical, though Hitchcock’s ability to create suspense continues to resonate with modern audiences and keep them on the edge of the seat.  However, in his essay “Horror and the Idea of Everyday Life,” Philip Nickel discusses the value of horror and questions whether or not Psycho can even be considered a horror film.  Based on Noel Carroll’s arguments concerning horror, Psycho would not be a horror film because “it doesn’t have a monster in the true sense.” (24).  Nickel relates the enjoyment of horror to philosophical skepticism, and acknowledges the argument that films such as Psycho and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre do not depict a skeptical alternate reality because psychopaths are human beings, not monsters.  Horror films centered on psychopaths are dramatic interpretations of situations that are plausible in everyday reality, which would not parallel the arguments of philosophical skeptics. (25).

            However, Nickel responds to this argument by saying that the belief that these situations are plausible in everyday life is what makes them just as, if not more, frightening than monsters.  In Psycho, the name of the central character, Norman Bates, is “an ironic suggestion of normalcy” (25).  Hitchcock wants his audience to think of Norman as a normal guy, or an everyman.  Therefore, it is all the more shocking for the audience when Norman reveals his dark side and capitalizes on Marion’s vulnerability and dependence, symbolized by the shower.  Nickel’s believes that Marion’s misplaced trust in Norman was the reason why many viewers stated that Psycho was “the first horror movie which they could not forget, and felt frightened about it even within the apparent safety of their own homes.” (26).  Psycho depicts a scenario that is completely possible in the everyday world, and the shocking aspect of the shower scene makes the audience doubt the safety of places where they might feel the most secure.

            Nickel analyzes two of Hitchcock’s most well known thrillers, Psycho and The Birds, and makes the argument that both films utilize a paranoid scenario to capitalize on the everyday anxieties of the audience.  Returning back to philosophical skepticism, Nickel states that, “the crucial point is that the viewer is not in a position rationally to refuse the scenario of the film as impossible, and that the paranoid scenario thus threatens to annihilate the viewer.  This is the similarity with philosophical skepticism, which threatens to annihilate our knowledge.” (20).  One frightening part about the paranoid scenarios in film is that there is no reassurance that humans can ultimately win against the threat, evidenced by the end of Psycho.  The police have captured Norman, but the evil “mother” side of his personality is not dispelled, and Norman asserts that he/she is as strong as ever.

            While we were in class discussing which of our six individual films for this week would be the least frightening, Psycho was almost unanimously deemed “not scary at all.”  However, after thinking about Nickel’s paranoid scenario for the film, I find the fear present in Psycho just as potent as in any other horror film.  Nickel defines the scenario as, “consistent with what I can verify in my experience, it could be the case that the seemingly person I now rely upon in a moment of human vulnerability will murder me.” (27).  The violence in Psycho may be outdated and dramatic, but for me, the fear of misplaced trust lingers a lot longer than the fear of startling noises and monsters suddenly appearing.  I would definitely consider it a horror film, and as a massive Hitchcock fan, I would obviously recommend seeing it, if you haven’t.  It is one of his best, and I believe it is one of the most influential horror/suspense films in modern culture.