Kids These Days Couldn't Find The Bates Motel On A Map
What keeps Psycho scary 64 years later?
(For readers who haven’t seen Psycho, this will make a little sense as the plot is explained throughout, but it is recommended that you watch it first.)
As this is the first post of this publication, we will begin at the beginning: Psycho.
Psycho isn’t just one of the most famous movies in the history of horror - it’s one of the most famous in the history of cinema. There have been countless homages to it in numerous other movies, and books, for that matter. And for good reason. Before Hitchcock made Psycho, no one had quite done anything like that before. The first audiences to see it walked into theater lobbies with prerecorded warnings about not spoiling the movie playing over speakers. Critics were not allowed private screenings, instead being forced to see it when everyone else did. Hitchcock wouldn’t even let interviews about Psycho air anywhere. Psycho revolutionized the horror genre, as well as filmmaking in general. It was the first movie that could truly be called a slasher, shocking audiences not just with its blood, but with its infamous twists. Unfortunately, when a movie is that revolutionizing, those twists become common knowledge very quickly.
I had the great luck of having my first time seeing Psycho be on the big screen. The Fargo Theatre, my local theater, has an ongoing classic film series, with one every month, and in March it was Psycho. The Fargo Theatre also has a beautiful old organ that is played before classic films and events, a monthly film club with a phenomenal group of people run by Sean Volk, their events coordinator, a yearly film festival, and a spectacular team of people keeping it all running. It’s also the building with the locally famous Fargo sign. I have no idea if the sign is famous anywhere else in the country. Anyway, I was fortunate enough to see Psycho for the first time there, and it was a great experience. I did, however, go in knowing both of the twists.
Going into watching Psycho, I was worried it wouldn’t hold up. Specifically, I was worried that it wouldn’t be scary, seeing as I’d seen more modern slashers, with better effects and gorier murders. This fear was incredibly unfounded.
As is evident, I’m someone who loves horror very much, and I also enjoy reading about horror and its history. As such, there was no chance of me watching Psycho for the first time completely cold. I’m very pleased to say that it was just as scary as I hoped, even with spoilers.
The first, and most famous, twist in Psycho is the shower scene. Before this scene, it could be believed that the movie might be something of a drama of a beautiful young woman gets herself in trouble with the law, but all in the name of love type. It begins to creep slightly away from that beginning with the introduction of Norman Bates, then even further with his and Marion’s conversation surrounded by taxidermied birds. (Small side note- when will movie protagonists learn that “stuffing things” is not generally a safe thing for someone to have as their only hobby? See also: Roald Dahl’s short story The Landlady.) Finally, Psycho goes from being a drama to being the first slasher film when our dear Marion Crane is murdered in the shower.
I am very glad to report that even though I did know this scene was coming, and had even seen a short clip of it, it was still incredibly terrifying. Although the atmosphere of the movie had been getting steadily creepier since Marion walked into the motel, her murder was still a massive tone shift, highlighted by the fact that the camera doesn’t really show what’s happening. You, as the viewer, aren’t shown Marion’s wound, or the face of her killer. What you do see is her scream, a knife coming down, the shower curtain falling, and her dark blood, stark against the light grays and whites of the rest of the scene. The blood and the way it stood out was the most disturbing thing in that scene for me. Something about it suggested finality, like the crime was being cleaned up and covered up even as it was happening, which was a horrifying thought. This scene is also spectacular in that it manages to feel like a cold and impersonal murder while giving the impression of a good amount of gore and almost personal intent. So, all in all, the shower scene is still a beautiful and scary moment in cinema, even if you know it’s coming. But what about the final reveal of “Mrs Bates”?
Not only am I a horror fan who likes to read about horror, I am a queer horror fan who likes to read about horror. Therefore, it was just as impossible that I would watch Psycho for the first time without knowing the final murderer’s reveal as it was that I do so not knowing about the shower scene. Thankfully, I am once again glad to report that it was still impactful, if not quite as shocking as it could’ve been.
Knowing the twist of who “Mrs. Bates” really was was honestly a very confusing lens to watch the movie through. I knew that it was Norman all along, but nothing else, not any of the things the doctor says at the end about split personality or possession. I thought it was Norman pretending to be his mother, not Norman having taken on his mother’s personality and having no idea what he was doing when she took over. Seeing Norman murder Marion as “Mrs. Bates” and then walk in later as himself and be devastated by what he saw was jarring, to say the least. His quick, almost methodical cleanup of the scene was even more so. Something about the way he collected her belongings and sunk the car suggested practice, like this was something that had happened before. Even knowing that all of the murders shown were being committed by Norman, it was still chilling to watch them happen. The final reveal of the dead Mrs. Bates, the real Mrs. Bates, followed by Norman running in in her dress was still shocking in its execution, though slightly undermined by the fact that almost everyone in the Theatre laughed.
The one thing I didn’t know about Psycho and its twists while watching it for the first time was the distinction made about Norman’s not being a transvestite. Again, as a queer horror fan, that was all I heard of it reading about it - that while Psycho is a phenomenal movie, that twist ending was not tasteful, and negatively impacted trans rights for a good while afterward. While most of that is true in that the reveal scene is rather unfortunate, and twists like this in movies can very easily be detrimental, none of these books or articles mentioned the explanation that followed the reveal. Namely, that that is not quite Norman Bates in a dress, but rather the personality of Mrs. Bates in Norman’s body. I was very worried about the reveal, because I was very determined to like Psycho, and didn’t want it to be as unfortunate as I’d heard it was. As such, I was surprised by the doctor’s adamance that Norman was not, in fact, a transvestite. While that scene was interpreted poorly by most audiences, I admire Hitchcock’s attempt at making it clear that Norman didn’t murder people because he was a man in a dress, he murdered people because he’d taken on his dead mother’s personality and didn’t realize what he was doing when it took over. Much simpler, honestly.
All in all, Psycho was one of the classic horror movies that I was most worried I wouldn’t like, and I am pleased to report that I liked it very much. All of it holds up to a modern-day teenager’s scrutiny, even with two of the least avoidable spoilers in history. The lighting continues to be chilling, the jumpscare on the landing popcorn-throwing levels of startling, and the characters realistic. Psycho isn’t just well-known because it was the first movie of its kind - it has proven itself by continuing to be well-known simply because it’s a very good movie.