FRANCHISE ME: PSYCHO

This first entry is bound to be the toughest, because so much has been written. I'll throw out some talking points:

This film came on the heels of Vertigo, a bomb (at the time) both critically and financially. Some were saying Hitch was washed up, shown up at his own game by Castle and films like Diabolique. He had something to prove and, to level the playing field, shot Psycho with the crew of his TV show.

The score: All strings! No brass, no percussion, no woodwinds.

Universal bought the movie from Paramount in 1964.

This is an excellent franchise choice. PSYCHO II is ripe for rediscovery.

Excited to see FRANCHISE ME tackle the PSYCHO tetralogy. For whatever reason, this and CRITTERS were THE horror series as far as I was concerned, back in the day. I made it my mission to track down all the various sequels, even though my parents were not too keen on the idea. I had a friend rent PSYCHO II for us at a sleepover, and my mom was FURIOUS when she found out, due to the "deception" and the R Rating. I've now seen 'em all, but have not revisited any in years, so I'm eager to dive back into the memories with my good friend CHUD

PS I own a BATES MOTEL glass, obtained when I visited UNIVERSAL STUDIOS with my dad when I was seven years old

The shitty Henry Thomas/Olivia Hussey one should be fun. Will the series cover the TV movie spinoff starring Bud Cort?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092622/

As stated in the article intro, yep.

Didn't see spin-off mentioned anywhere, and assumed the TV movie being mentioned was something else directly Norman Bates related that I had not heard of. But thanks so much.

I can dig it, nice article! But to say that the ending to Psycho doesn't work baffles me. Yes, the explanation is ridiculous and goes on way too long (although it's important, as it strengthens the movies themes to note that the reason Bates is crazy is because he has two warring personalities, which comments on the films two personalities, including its two protagonists, one female, Marion, one male, Norman), but Hitchcock himself pulls away from all that claptrap to give us possibly the best final shot in thriller history. Bates performance, possessed by Mrs.Bates, is absolutely chilling, and then with the superimposed fade-out of her skull over his face, linking them both to Marion's murder? How could you argue that doesn't work? No disrespect to Roger Corman, but I'd feel a bit cheated if the movie ended with Sam simply grabbing Norman (although the shot of the skull's eye sockets being lit on and off would be a fitting final image). 

I also don't think the women's voices are a "cheat." If he has two personalities, why wouldn't he be speaking in a feminine voice? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil 

This first entry is bound to be the toughest, because so much has been written. I'll throw out some talking points:

 

This film came on the heels of Vertigo, a bomb (at the time) both critically and financially. Some were saying Hitch was washed up, shown up at his own game by Castle and films like Diabolique. He had something to prove and, to level the playing field, shot Psycho with the crew of his TV show.

 

The score: All strings! No brass, no percussion, no woodwinds.

 

Universal bought the movie from Paramount in 1964.

Don't forget he rebounded with "North By Northwest" in between. Psycho was a contrast to that big budget, big star "Hollywood" production in it's own way.
 

But in terms of the showman/master of suspense/king of the gimmick, it's easy to see Psycho as being Hitchcock trying to prove something. I believe in his interview with Truffaut, he mentioned how he imagined what a William Castle film would be like, if it was actually good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil 

 

Universal bought the movie from Paramount in 1964.

Makes sense why the Bates house on the Universal lot was built for the sequels, not the original (as I read somewhere). Which seemed odd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker 

I can dig it, nice article! But to say that the ending to Psycho doesn't work baffles me. Yes, the explanation is ridiculous and goes on way too long (although it's important, as it strengthens the movies themes to note that the reason Bates is crazy is because he has two warring personalities, which comments on the films two personalities, including its two protagonists, one female, Marion, one male, Norman), but Hitchcock himself pulls away from all that claptrap to give us possibly the best final shot in thriller history. Bates performance, possessed by Mrs.Bates, is absolutely chilling, and then with the superimposed fade-out of her skull over his face, linking them both to Marion's murder? How could you argue that doesn't work? No disrespect to Roger Corman, but I'd feel a bit cheated if the movie ended with Sam simply grabbing Norman (although the shot of the skull's eye sockets being lit on and off would be a fitting final image). 

I also don't think the women's voices are a "cheat." If he has two personalities, why wouldn't he be speaking in a feminine voice? 

We needed something at the end, but not all that. You'll get no disagreement on the final shot of Norman, but everything with Dr. Richmond is hacky and stands out in an otherwise very edgy film.

The "cheat" is that it isn't him speaking in a feminine voice. But an actual female. And that was really just a nitpick anyway.

For anyone interested in Bloch's novel, it became its own franchise. And you can get a collection of all three PSYCHO books on Amazon for only $4 (used).

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Complete-Novels-Psycho-House/dp/0517093146/ref=pd_ybh_1?pf_rd_p=280800601&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=ybh&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1KQZT3RMJYDH8J1DS132

The Psycho II novel (which the film is not at all based on) is grisly as shit, but is kind of more of a sequel to the film than the book. And has its own crazy twist. Haven't read Psycho House yet.

And Joshua, almost positive the house was built on the Universal lot for the first one (where Hitchcock's Revue Studios were housed, as there was no room on the Paramount lot). For Psycho, the house only had two walls built:

They added a third wall for the film Invitation To A Gunfighter:

It turns up in a bunch of TV Westerns and such after that, as well as a couple episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents. A few theme park sites say the house stayed in one spot until 1981, then moved again between Psycho II and III.

Sounds like you know your stuff. Plus I don't even remember where I read that.

The Amazon retailers I ordered my Bloch PSYCHO trilogy from just canceled my order! Grrrr. Apparently the book was damaged. Must...murder...

I was a Psycho fanatic for many years! (This will kill an afternoon.) You analyze the movies and I'll regale you with nonsense.

Before home video, I would obsessively borrow this book from the library:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ALFRED-HITCHCOCKS-PSYCHO-Film-Classic-Library-1st-Ed-/110685520403

It's part of a series of books from the 70s that contained a transcript of the film, along with screengrabs of just about every shot in the movie.

For some great behind the scenes stuff you want Stephen Rebello's "Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho." Brisk and engaging read with a LOT of detail.

Deal.

And that paper model kit is both hilarious and fantastic!

The house also appears in one episode of Knight Rider.

Hold the fucking phone, Miller!

http://www.avclub.com/articles/we-all-go-a-little-mad-sometimes-ae-making-a-psych,67649/

Well well. Looks like there will be a future addendum to this particular series.

Ugh, I can see the marketing now: "Check in for a stay with...the original Hoarder..."

Delicious.