Psycho

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

1960

“One of the most famous movies of all time, and quite possibly the most influential horror film in history, Psycho traded the supernatural beings of the genre’s past – vampires, werewolves, zombies, and the like – for an all-too-human monster. The film made “Norman Bates” a household name and guaranteed its director’s status as the master of suspense.” (374, Steven Jay Schneider, 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Psycho was one of those films that I grew up knowing about – I mean how could you not know about the now infamous shower scene? And there’s definitely been a time or two when we’ve all nervously throw the shower curtain back to check it’s clear thanks to this film and the many inspired by it. But it was one that until recently I had not ever watched all the way through. The biggest surprise for me was that the iconic scene takes place really rather early on in the film – I was kind of like right well what happens now then? “Never before had the central character of a commercial movie been killed off so brutally less than halfway through the film.” (374) As it turns out – a lot more unfortunate victims of the deranged Norman Bates – although for me none of them really stood out quite as much as Bates.

And speaking of Norman Bates what makes him so wonderfully scary is the fact that he is by every outward appearance a rather handsome and charming young man. The same cannot be said for his inner personality. Anthony Perkins is exquisite as the seemingly normal but really very disturbed leading man – which I would argue he certainly begins the film as, even if he doesn’t end up in that role as the film culminates. I found Janet Leigh to be slightly forgettable really with the exception of that scene – we all know which one I’m talking about right?! But then really she isn’t actually in the film for that long thanks to Hitchcock’s decision to time the murder when he did.

It was kind of strange watching the film as a whole because I had previously seen a number of clips of it, either in various programmes extolling the genius of Alfred Hitchcock (something I have to confess I am still sitting on the fence about I’m afraid to say!) or as part of my degree. You can of course see innumerable echoes of films that have followed Psycho in almost every single aspect from the soundtrack to the lighting, even to the creepy characters. While monster movies are great – don’t get me wrong I love a good vampire movie (and I do mean good – none of this sparkly Twilight crap!!) I have always found horror films where the ‘monster’ is a regular joe and could be the person standing next to you or living in your house to be far more terrifying. And the slew of excellent movies that scare the living daylights out of me thanks to their normal guy killer all stem from this film.

Not only did Hitchcock establish so many of the visual cues of the horror genre but he also capitalised on the power the soundtrack can have to the genre with that shrieking musical cue for the shower scene. Horror films are infinitely more terrifying when you have the soundtrack and in some ways the music added in post-production can make or break a scary movie. All the films that really left a mark on me after watching them have had some  very tense musical scores. The legacy of Hitchcock’s visual cues should not be sniffed at either as I have recently be watching Pretty Little Liars and they basically recreated one of the final scenes of Norman Bates in the police cell. It’s a simple thing and a very subtle nod towards the godfather of suspense that I’m not sure many people would actually catch. 

“Clearly this British-born filmmaker had found a way of tapping directly into America’s collective psyche: by making his monster so very normal, and by uniting sex, madness, and murder in one spooky and sordid tale, he effectively predicted the headlines of many of the coming decade’s top news stories.” (374)

Halloween

Director: John Carpenter

1978

I first encountered Michael Myers when I watched Halloween H2O: 20 Years Later (1998, Steve Miner) which is like the 7th film in the Halloween franchise. Yes it was scary when I watched it but having now watched the original I realize how much more terrifying the John Carpenter film is. Halloween H2O is a much more polished product than Halloween which I think is a bit of a hinderance to the scary nature of the story. There is something rawer and more dingy to Carpenter’s Halloween which I think makes the unhinged nature of his killer more pronounced.

“Throughout the film, someone is always watching, be it predator, or prey.” (642, Kathryn Bergeron, 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) As with all horror films there is a sense of voyeurism but with Halloween Carpenter immediately situates the viewer in that role by opening the film the way he does. As Bergeron says, “the film’s opening is itself a radiantly executed point-of-view take, peering through the eyes of the then-six-year-old killer.” (642) The age at which Michael first kills sets him apart from the other iconic serial killers established during the 1970s and 1980s. The only other character close to his age in this genre is Damien (The Omen, 1976, Richard Donner) and he isn’t so much a serial killer as the Antichrist. And then to add to the horror of watching a six-year-old’s first kill he has to be dressed as a clown which adds a whole other level of terror … everyone knows clowns are some of the scariest things around!

“The intensity of Carpenter and Debra Hill’s screenplay lies in situating the terror in the calm visage of suburbia, where one would (or at least used to) assume children were safe and sound.” (642) I did find for all that the title itself suggests Halloween, there is very little evidence to situate the narrative in an iconic holiday. Even the weather throws you off as nobody appears to need a jumper let alone a coat despite it being the very end of October. There’s a rather substantial lack of any Halloween decorations in this sleepy little area of suburbia as well as next to nobody out trick-or-treating. Now this wouldn’t have been all that out-of-place had it been in England as Halloween is a rather lack luster affair over here but it’s a pretty big deal over in the States.

“No director since Alfred Hitchcock has managed to capture the delicious voyeurism of horror as well as John Carpenter in Halloween, a film so entrenched with our primordial anxieties that it continues to define the genre several decades later.” (642) There are numerous nods towards the established grand-daddy of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock. None more so than casting Jamie Lee Curtis in the role of the lone virginal survivor, Laurie. Who better to be the star in a film that so obviously pays homage to the ‘master of suspense’ than the daughter of one of the most famous Hitchcock leading ladies, Janet Leigh?!

Jamie Lee Curtis is every bit the female horror protagonist. She’s flighty yet has a steely core of determination and the will to fight against a seemingly invincible foe. And of course it’s her virtue that is her saving grace, underscoring that common theme across the horror genre that being a virgin will ultimately save your life.

Nothing is really resolved by the climax of the film (as we know from the 7 subsequent films … plus the 2 remakes from Rob Zombie in 2007 and 2009) which adds to the terror of the overall story. As Bergeron says, “in the end, we are left to wonder uncomfortably about the thread of separation between fact and fiction.” (642) It is this sense of questioning our own eyes that for me makes the film all the more memorable – as does Myers disturbing mask (an extremely dodgy likeness, or rather attempt, of William Shatner)

Hitchcock

Director: Sacha Gervasi

Nominated: Makeup and Hair

I’m not sure if Hitchcock benefitted from having Anthony Hopkins play the eponymous director or if it suffered. You see I just couldn’t shake the image of Hannibal Lector while watching Hitchcock, and the whole film gained a creepy edge to it due to this. Don’t get me wrong Hopkins is excellent just a little creepy. He is extremely voyeuristic, always watching from the sidelines and peeping at his actresses. Mind you I suppose the very job of being a director takes on a voyeuristic quality as essentially they are watching everything through the means of a camera lens. I would be interested to know where Hopkins got his inspiration for Lector from because I could see a similarity in how he held his head as both Lector and Hitchcock. Physically he bears a strong resemblance to the infamous Master of Suspense thanks to the stellar work done by the hair and makeup teams.

They got the look of some of the more well-known actors spot on. James D’Arcy looks strikingly like Anthony Perkins also known as Norman Bates. And while Scarlett Johansson is still instantly recognizable as herself she has got the essence of Janet Leigh. The filming of the shower scene is really quite epic and I imagine must have been fairly daunting. They are taking on one of the most famous scenes in cinematic history, one that gave rise to a whole new way of approaching horror which is still clearly evident in the genre to this day.

I hadn’t realized that some of his most well-known films were not all that commercially successful at their time of release or that he had so much disinterest and skepticism from the studios when it came to pitching Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock, 1960) so I found those aspects of the story really interesting.

I enjoyed the relationship between Hitchcock and his wife, Alma Reville, played masterfully by Helen Mirren. He is clearly a complete nightmare to live with especially during a shoot when he becomes entirely immersed in his project and yet they have such a deep love and respect for each other. I love the fact that Alma is filmic in her own right – when Hitchcock takes ill she takes his place in the director’s chair on set and is shown to be extremely capable, at a time when women were only just beginning to gain more respect in the workplace.

Seeing both the audience’s reaction and Hitchcock’s reaction to theirs at the release of Psycho is rewarding considering all the obstacles he had to overcome in order to get the project off the ground in the first place. I found Hitchcock to be a charming little movie despite the creepy undertone, never more obvious in the asides where Hitchcock is conversing with Ed Gein (the real-life inspiration for Norman Bates) in his mind.