The Monster Among us in Psycho

        Psycho, by Alfred Hitchcock, is unquestionably one of the foundational movies in cinema, especially horror. The mystery and repulsion surrounding the character of Norman Bates has entertained for decades. The character of Norman Bates just spawned a completely separate television serious because of this fascination.

          The story in Psycho starts out with the character of Marion Crane, who steals thousands of dollars and runs of to be with her boyfriend. On her way to see him, it rains and she is forced to stop at the Bates Motel, where Norman is the manager. He acts extremely nice and seems very nervous and shy. At this point you like the Norman, he seems innocent and almost child-like. Marion then gets murdered in the hotel shower by what is later thought to be Norman’s mother. As the story progresses and Marion’s sister and boyfriend look for Marion they slowly discover more and more about Norman. In the end, Norman’s psychopathic nature is revealed. He exists in two personalities, himself and his dead mother, who he perceives as jealous and psychotic. The scariest scene is in the end as you finally see him acting out his mother’s personality, saying that she wouldn’t hurt a fly. 

        The scariest part of Psycho is not the violence but the character of Norman Bates. He seems so harmless on the outside, hiding the fact that he is actually deeply disturbed. At first you do not want to believe that he would be capable of that kind of violence since he does seem so innocent. And part of the disturbing part of Norman is that the harmless part of him does exist and is not just a mask. But sometimes his mother takes over and he no longer is harmless. 

        While Noel Carroll would argue that the film is not really horror because it does not have a monster in a true sense, we have already discusses how this definition limits horror to an undesirable degree. For as we talked about, the scariest monsters are not necessarily Bigfoot or Godzilla but the monsters among us. A traditional monster is scary because it is unknown and general powerful, we cannot reason with it or come to understand it. This indeed is scary and what Carroll would argues is the basis for horror. 

        Norman Bates is a monster, but not in the sense that we are used to. To us he is a scarier monster because we implicitly trusted him in the beginning with Marion and he betrayed that trust. He is simultaneously human and inhuman, relatable and repulsive. As he tries to talk to Marion we like him and appreciate him but later when he shows no emotion about the deaths of the people he has killed we are scared because someone who was understandable and normal has become someone who we do not understand. 

         Another factor about why Norman is so scary is that we know he is possible. Most people do not believe things such as Bigfoot or Godzilla really exist or are even possible. People like Norman Bates do exist and live in our society. We may not want to accept this fact or think about it very much, but Psycho forces us to consider it. The whole movie, while not likely, is a possible scenario events which frightens to our core. Most horror films, when we watch them, we may be scared but we do not really believe in their possibility. But this movie presents a completely possible set of events which in my opinion makes it all that much more frightening. 

         Psycho clearly is a horror movie, but a different type of horror. Extremely focused on suspense, the film scares us not because it is a idealistic monster but because Norman Bates is a possible, hidden monster. There is no question that Norman Bates is monstrous but he fools us because that is not all of who he is. The frightening thing is that people like Norman exist and could be disguised among us and this is why Psycho stays with you and scares you.

Psycho

For this week I watched Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho. This film is a classic and, in many ways, the cornerstone for horror films. Like most horror stories, it begins normally enough. The characters live normal lives and have normal troubles. As Nickel says in Horror and the Idea of Everyday Life the characters we see are motivated by universal motives: money and love, for example. Marion Crane is compelled to steal $40,000 and flee for these two reasons. The characters in the movie, while investigating Marion’s disappearance operate on the assumption that the same motives prompted her death or kidnapping. That the murder of Marion Crane had no such cause is the basis of what makes Psycho so unsettling a movie. Though deplorable, had Marion Crane’s murder been motivated by greed, it would have been comprehensible. Norman Bates does not bend to any of the obvious human motivators and it is in this way that it becomes evidenced to us that Bates is an incomprehensible character, and thus a monster.

Nickel says that Psycho is so important to horror because it “offer[s] no moral reassurance that humans can dispel or effectively fight against the threats [it] present[s]” (19-20). I want to focus on this statement because I think it is the crux of a good and successful horror story. I also think that it helps explain why, as Nickel says, Carroll’s notion of the monster is far too narrow. Carroll’s definition of a monster lies in its fictionality. For this reason, he dismisses Psycho as a horror film. There exists no monster; Norman Bates is human, albeit an insane and murderous one. 

Norman Bates is monster because he is separate from our notion of humanity. He cannot empathize with us. Because Norman is a psychopath he is characterized by a lack of empathy and a lack of remorse. He cannot be reasoned with or persuaded to feel guilt or sympathy. Bates’ disposition is very abnormal and falls outside the realm of our everyday encounters. We, as humans, expect and desire to connect with others on an emotional level. When that emotional plane is inaccessible, it is as if we are encountering someone inhuman. Thus, at least in terms of our discussion of horror, Norman Bates is a monster.

In fact, what makes Norman Bates such a terrifying character is his failure to fit neatly within Carroll’s idea of the monster. The most worrisome aspect of his character is his superficial humanity. When we first encounter his character with his gangly limbs and large ears, he strikes us as boyishly eager and definitively unthreatening and perhaps even sheepishly charming. Of course, the reality is that he is not anything he seems to be, and this is what makes him truly scary.

In encountering Carroll’s monsters we know we are dealing with something outside the realm of humanity. Monsters are terrifying because they are unknown to us. We have never encountered them and are not sure how to defend ourselves against them. Norman Bates is the same way. We could not hope to understand or reason with him; he is foreign to us. The defining difference here though is that while Carroll’s monsters appear foreign to us, Norman Bates does not.  At least in encountering the supernatural we know we do not and cannot understand them. Norman appears like us and we expect him to be like us. The fact that he is not makes him doubly removed from our understanding. Our very lack of knowledge is concealed from us.

This breakdown in appearance has populated a host of horror movies in the past decade or so. Movies where aliens or monsters appear to be human, and thus deceive and destroy humanity play on the same fear Alfred Hitchcock exploits in this movie.

The character of Norman Bates, who suffers the delusion of possessing two personalities, also raises questions pertaining to our first week’s topic, identity. The shrink who talks to ‘Norman’s mother’ claims that, “Norman Bates no longer exists.” It was however his body and his diseased mind that committed at least six murders. Who then is held culpable? Was Norman Bates acting of his own volition or does his insanity free him from responsibility. I think further of discussion of this movie will be extremely helpful in tying together our past weekly themes. 

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.        

The Infamous Shower Scene....

The mood is dark. It is storming outside, as Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) and Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) take to the parlor in the small Bates Motel. The parlor is not particularly well lit, but it seems inviting nonetheless. She enters without fear, until she notices the abrupt wall decorations; taxidermy birds hang from all angles. The decision to stay at this motel is solidified in this moment. She is unsuspecting, and because of this, she will lose her life…

            Psycho (1960) is the classic horror film by Alfred Hitchcock. In this horror film, Marion Crane decides to steal $40,000 that her boss had entrusted her to put in the bank. She plans to take the money and run to be with her boyfriend, Sam Loomis (John Galvin). The money, she hoped, would be enough for them to start a life together. While on her way she has to take a night at the Bates Motel, a small motel off the beaten path and secluded from the normal highway. This is where she meets Norman Bates who is introverted and controlled by his mother. It is in this hotel that Marion gets murdered in the famous shower scene. Eventually her sister, her boyfriend, and a private detective come looking for her, only to lead to more murder and a shocking discovery. (I don’t want to give away any spoilers…)

            This classic horror film both attracts and repulses the audience. In the glorified shower scene, I saw the blood swirling down the drain and I heard the screams of Marion as she was stabbed; yet I couldn’t stop watching. Maybe I am a twisted person? No, it was because of my curiosity that I could not turn away. That shower scene in the movie is a pinnacle point that draws the audience in because there are so many uncertainties that need to be answered. Why did the mother hate Marion? Obviously this has happened before with other women, how does she get away with it??

            As Noel Carroll describes, the objects of horror are fundamentally linked with cognitive interests, specifically curiosity. I feel like this is true for almost every horror movie I have watched. Will the girl get away? Who is the killer? Why is that house made of wax (don’t watch that movie… it is horrible and Paris Hilton cannot act)? Etc. etc. etc. The curiosity behind the plot and characters in horror movies seem to keep the audience watching.

            Carroll also explains the paradox of horror, which is the question of how people can be attractive to what is repulsive. The blood in the drain and the audible screams should have been something I wanted to turn off and run away from, but instead it hooked me, giving me the insatiable thirst of curiosity. Not only did it give me a sense of curiosity, but it also gave me a surge in adrenaline. Although Carroll does not talk about adrenaline caused by horror movies, I think it is a valuable point in figuring out why people receive pleasure from horror. I know that I like the feeling of anticipation and adrenaline as I watch a scary movie because it makes me tingle with excitement. Horror films seem to be the easiest films to cause adrenaline surges, which are of course caused by fear (I feel like thriller movies would be next in line). Do you think that another reason why people have pleasure in watching revolting horror films could be because they like the adrenaline and the excitement that follows with fear?

        Overall, I tend to enjoy horror movies, well at least while I watch them. I can honestly say that I think it is both a curiosity and adrenaline that keeps me watching more and more movies that scare me. Although, I really don’t like movies that mess with your mind even after you watch them (made it 5 minutes into The Omen on 6/6/06 and literally ran out of the theater). Psycho, however, is a pleasant scary movie if you are looking for a gently thrill in the horror genre. I highly suggest taking a few hours to watch this film because it is so significant in film history, much like many of Alfred Hitchcock’s are. However, if horror isn’t your cup of tea I would suggest Hitchcock’s Rear Window for an entertaining thriller.