4/4
dir. Alfred Hitchcock
I don't think you can really judge something like Psycho. Obviously it's a classic. It's something that's kind of pointless to explain, you just have to see it. Explaining it at all would take away part of what makes it so creepy; the opening scenes about the stolen money have next to no significance to the rest of the movie. Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) is the most important factor to the movie. The movie could be run without any dialogue whatsoever, and it would still be just as creepy. From the way the movie is shot, you could probably get a good idea of the plot without any clues, though the musical score adds even more to the creepy factor. By the way, we all know Psycho's most famous scene - accompanied by it's most famous music. Personally, I agree with David Gilmour (The Film Club; it's a good memoir, you should check it out); the scenes leading up to the notorious one, the stalker shots, are much more terrifying.
What I think makes Psycho special is that it's even creepier the second time that you watch it. Most horror movies are so predictable that watching them at all is kind of pointless. A few horror movies have things left unsaid and unexplained that keep you wondering, and encourage you to watch them a couple of times. Donnie Darko, for example, is so creepy and confusing that it takes a couple of viewings before you're sure as to what's really going on.
After you've already seen Psycho once and know perfectly well what's going on, you will start noticing things you didn't know to look for the first time you watched it. Hearing everything that Norman says and connecting it to the movie's conclusion turn your view of Norman and his mother into something else entirely.
0 comments:
Post a Comment