Vertigo and North by Northwest were before Psycho. He was at the top of his game throughout the 50s. Psycho didn't put him on the top. It actually was a gamble and an experiment. He used the TV crew for Psycho and shot it quickly and cheaply. It was a big hit.

The Arbogast falling down the stairs was filmed using rear projection. Footage of a dolly shot going down the stairs was projected behind Martin Balsam, who was sitting in a chair, in front of the screen, and flailing around as if he were off balance.

And the part where the psychologist explains thing is not only great, but necessary. Maybe if you had been around in 1960 you'd understand. The actor did a GREAT job.

When Norman goes up the stairs to get his mother, a camera crane follows him. When the camera is focused on the top of the door frame, another crane is coming over the top of the wall to the right. At this point, the camera is moved by hand from one crane to another. The first crane withdraws quickly down the stairs before the camera on the second crane lifts and focuses down from above! True genius!

Several years ago there was a serial killer in Dallas that would remove the victim's eyes. When he was a kid his hobby was taxidermy. His mother bought his supplies but because the glass eyeballs were too expensive she made him use buttons instead. That's as Norman Batish as can be haha.

The $40,000 that Marion stole in 1960 is equal to $415,000 today. In 1960 most homes in the US were under $15,000. A new Corvette cost $4,000. Minimum wage in 1960 was $1.00 an hour. Marion could’ve lived very well for a long time on that money had she not stayed at the Bates Motel.

You may be interested to know that ‘Tom Cassidy’ (the “creepy old man” whose $40K that was) was played by Frank Albertson, who was “Sam ‘Hee-Haw’ Wainright” in “It’s A Wonderful Life” (1946)

Anthony Perkins starred in some really great movies. Outside of Psycho, I think his best role is in Orson Welle's The Trial, which is a masterpiece. You guys should check it out if you haven't.

"That is the coppiest looking cop in the history of cops" - Major. I'm going to be using that line forever, thanks man! Best reaction to the shower scene I've ever seen; you actually TAUGHT me how an audience member would have reacted to it in 1960; every reaction I've seen for this movie, they know about the shower scene and don't have the same reaction, I've never seen someone actually jump from it, that was priceless!!!! Looking forward to HItch month! Rope is a great idea, would love to see Major's reaction to that one! Strangers On A Train also, that's my fave, what a movie. THANKS! Learned alot on this one!!

Hitchcock initially wanted the shower scene to be silent but Herrmann made him listen to the score he had written. Hitchcock was convinced and doubled the composer's fee.

His film career had not waned when he had the TV show. He did _Psycho_ at this same time.

I like how Marion is wearing white lingerie at the beginning of the film, but after she has taken the money and turned "bad" she has changed to black lingerie. The film is in black and white because it was cheaper than color film stock, and Hitchcock used his TV show crew for filming because he was financing the film himself.

I don't want to give Richard the 3rd degree for an off-hand comment, but Strangers on a Train (1951) is a great movie for any decade and superior to just about anything made today. I'm excited that you've moved onto Hitchcock, the best in my book. In addition to the usuals (Vertigo, N by NW, etc.,) I hope you also do one of his last films, Frenzy. It is probably his closest to Psycho and also has what I think is the funniest sub-plot in all of Hitchcock.

I liked the psychiatrist part, great actor who was in many Twilight Zone episodes.

hitchcock was called the "master of suspense" even before he came to the u.s. one of his last english films "the lady vanishes" (1938) is a perfect example of this. and then his 40s american films were all top notch. his first american film "rebecca," (1940) won best picture but best director went to john ford for "the grapes of wrath." hitchcock himself, though, never won an oscar. throughout the 40s he directed such classics as "suspicion" (1941), "shadow of a doubt" (1943), "lifeboat" (1944), "spellbound" (1945), "notorious" (1946) and "rope" (1948) were all every bit as good as the films he made in the 50s. and 2 of my favorite hitchcock 50s films are sadly overlooked. "the trouble with harry" (1955), his only true comedy has a very young jerry mathers (beaver cleaver) to boot and 1956's "the wrong man". its hard to find a bad hitchcock film and, for me, they're impossible to rank.

After seeing this film more than a few times, I literally only just noticed how similar (and intentional) Marion and Norman's smirks are when listening to parts of their inner monologue (Norman's being the famous final image as the movie ends)... ... definitely hits home the idea that 'We all go a little mad sometimes'. And showd how slow my brain works 😊 Re. Anthony Perkins' performance... I don't know about others' thoughts, but he absolutely gives me vibes of the heinous Ted Bundy (albeit an awkward version) despite his performance pre-dating the FBI introducing the world to the term 'serial killer', and the real-life psychopath not being filmed/interviewed until 15+ years later. Knowing real life monsters with similar 'people facing' facades exist in the real world makes the 'Norman' part of his performance all the more amazing - and absolutely terrifying - for me. Anyone else out there in the Commentorverse gets similar vibes at all?

Dial M For Murder is a good one as well. 1954. Ray Milland and Grace Kelly.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) Strangers On A Train (1951) Rear Window (1954) The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) Vertigo (1958) North By North West (1959) Psycho (1960) The Birds (!963) Marnie (1964)

FYI The closeup of Marian's eye after she was killed was NOT a still shot.

Even though the story seems to be disjointed, I think there is a consistent theme throughout the film. From the very beginning we are looking at female beauty in a lustful manner, and the way that men look at Marion continues this "male gaze" idea. It is posing the question about how men mentally handle the sight of female beauty,with their behavior in society and in their own minds. There is a similar idea in The Silence of the Lambs too.

They made the film in 1959, and bringing a mainstream audience up to speed on dissociative personality disorders was a steep hill to climb by itself. Hitchcock made the psychiatrist a smug know-it-all on purpose.

You mention how it seems like the movie is about the money at first. Hitchcock always called that the "MacGuffin." The MacGuffin was the plot device that the movie SEEMED to be about, but which was actually just a distraction from what the movie was REALLY about.

My mum watched this when she was just 17 on the rock of Gibralta (my father was sent there to do his national service. At the time Psycho was rated an X movie, almost like going to watch a porn movie at the time. My mum felt a bit guilty anyhow watch an X rated film that you had to be 21 to watch. Now Hitchcock had asked all movie theatres not to let anyone else in, once the movie had started. An announcement was made saying that the doors were now closed until the end of the movie. The combination of eveything, including killing off Janet Leigh off so early utterly petrified my mum. My mum is now 81 and has never watched it again.

First time watching your First Time Watching. It's nice to see a reviewer(s) actually watch and pay attention to the movie instead of just blathering on and missing important bits like some others do. I also like that you comment on film techniques (lighting, camera angles, composition, etc.) Those are what make these movies classic.

I believe this was intended to an Alfred Hitchcock Presents but made it into a feature. This is possibly a reason it was B&W. Color was actually more common by 1960. Budget usually dictated color or b&w.

Robert Bloch wrote the book Psycho. He also wrote Staitjht Jacket which was adapted to film starring Joan Crawford. The decapitation scene is one of the best i've seen, especially for that era.

Ok, Major, you cannot use the word "creepy" again in any reaction until 2024. To think of it, both of you! It was fun to watch this with someone who had no clues or spoilers about the plot- pretty rare, but you got the full impact like we did back in the day. (I saw this in the 70's as a teen- freaked me out). North by Northwest is my favorite Hitch movie, and probably in my top 3 of all time.

8:43 True; he looks like Clancy Brown in _Shawshank._

I think Notorious is the Hitchcock that is most ... not talked about ... that deserves to be talked about xxx

Black & white was so effective and Hitch uses it brilliantly. I grew up on B & w movies.

I always felt that the psychiatrist speech was meant to be tongue in cheek and darkly comic. Everything up until this point in the film was so hypnotic, dreamlike and complex and then to have this “professional” compartmentalize and describe Norman’s entire existence away in such cut-and-dried, clinical terms is like the film throwing cold water on the audience to bring them back to the “real world”- where everything must be rational and literal (almost the way many film critics tend to dissect and unfairly over-scrutinize horror films, Psycho being no exception upon its initial release). The scene serves to remind viewers how unique and specific the language of cinema is compared to other forms of storytelling. And its just so amusing how proud of himself the psychiatrist seems, and by following this up with Norman’s hauntingly seductive final expression as he looks in the camera, its almost as if he is letting us in on the joke and inviting us into his world.

looking forward to this

thanks for the info, I always thought those were later

Yes, it was an option to shoot in black and white. The story is that Hitchcock felt the gore of the shower scene would be too much in color. Okay, that may have been part of it, but when you see the night shots of the house and such, I think Hitch knew it would be creepier in black and white photography.

With Psycho, Hitchcock proves that he is the King of Suspense because he surprises and shocks the audience with a story that is telegraphed from the very beginning. I mean, the title is "Psycho," not "Office Thief." Yet everyone is shocked when the movie turns out to be about a psycho, and not a woman who stole money. Even before the you get anywhere near the actual movie, it's based on the 1959 novel Psycho, by Robert Bloch, which was a bestseller and had come out just a year before the film, so lots of people had read the book and knew the basic story, yet everyone was shocked by the big reveal in the movie. It's because nobody was or is better than Hitchcock at getting inside the audience's heads, riveting our attention, manipulating our perceptions and emotions in the moment. The bit with the psychiatrist at the end is annoying, I agree, but I think it's more jarring to a 21st century audience than it was in 1960. We are a lot better educated about serial killers and abusive family relationships than most people were then, so we don't need that explanation. Audiences back then kinda did.

_Spellbound_ with Ingrid Bergman and Gregory Peck. I wouldn't say the dream sequence is "hokey" now. Maybe you two should react to it.

Hitch actually didn’t want the psychiatrist explanation scene in the movie. He was pressured into its inclusion from the studio powers above. It was a reluctant inclusion.

My friend Dorothy's father composed the music for Psycho.

I really love North by Northwest and Rear Window, but Psycho is up there too. Bernard Herrmann was so very talented as a film composer. He wrote the music to many iconic films including one of my favorites "Jason and the Argonauts."

You guys deserve more attention.

Dude, Hitchcock's Rebecca won best picture in 1940! I'm pretty sure he was on the map 20 years before Psycho. Maybe even since The 39 Steps in 1935 (he was still in the UK, but it was a hit in the US). Still a great reaction, though--I enjoy the filmmaking insights. I hope you do more of his films. Nearly everything he did between 1940 and 1964 is gold--a few stinkers, but even the flawed ones (like Suspicion, Spellbound, Marnie) are still more interesting than your average thriller.

Most movies from that era featuring psychiatrists seem dated today - Spellbound, The Three Faces of Eve, Suddenly, Last Summer, etc.

Hitchcock chose b&w for cost since Paramount executives wouldn't provide his usual budget, so he personally financed the project.

_Alfred Hitchcock Presents_ was an anthology series--actually started before _The Twilight Zone,_ by the way.

My favorite Hitchcock films: 1 "Marnie" (1964) 2 Spellbound (1945) 3 "Family Plot" (1976)

Psycho was the film that set Hitchcock up financially for the rest of his life.

31:17 But necessary for the time, as mental illness was not fully understood.

Wasn’t from dusk til dawns setup a nod to psycho: first half a heist as the red herring and second half vampire flick.

Norman tells us early on that his mother is "as harmless as one of those stuffed birds."

Freddie Highmore played Peter in _Finding Neverland,_ I believe.

Going off of the whole black and white style, you have to do 13 Ghosts (1960) released the same year. My mum saw it in the theater at the age of 3 (can you imagine?) If you continue Hitchapalooza, gotta do Rear Window 1954

You should check out _The Last of Sheila,_ which was co-written by Anthony Perkins and Stephen Sondheim, who used to host scavenger hunt parties together.

Did you know that Hitch made a cameo in most of his movies, My favorite Hitchcock movie is The Trouble with Harry

You guys should watch Hitchcock. It's a movie about the making of Psycho. It answers all your questions about why he put in the scene at the end, and more. The book was controversial. And when Hitchcock announced he wanted to make a movie based on it, he ran into all kinds of pushback. One of the first complaints was Psycho was the first movie to show a toilet, as well as flush a toilet.

You say Psycho put Hitchcock on the map and then came all these other films like Birds, Vertigo, North By Northwest, Rear Window et cetera, but you're wrong as they all came long before Psycho and the choice to shoot Psycho in B&W has nothing to do with the year of release. My favourite Hitchcock flick will forever be Rope (1948) and it was Hitchcock's first (Techni)color film yet released a full 12 years before Psycho.

Marnie (1964) is a Hitchcock film that I saw in my teens and has an amazing story. Tippi Hedren and Louise Latham have a unique mother / daughter relationship and Sean Connery has a bizarre fixation on Marnie!

So how on earth someone MAJORING in film making has never seen Psycho before this? Or any of the other films. I don't get it. Please explain.

I love The Rear Window. They excavated the set to allow for the height of the building. Fabulous film. Also, Rope, was another one of his finest ❤

The work of Alfred Hitchcock's films have become a film school for all directors around the world. This film is also the precursor of a style, the slasher, but which doesn't really have one. But above all the first film which dared, at the time, to show... toilets.

Regarding the info dump at the end, Hitchcock sort of had to do that because of the times. The general public in 1960 had far, far less awareness and understanding of psychological trauma and personality disorders than nowadays. knowing hjow much of a believer in "show don't tell" Hitchcock was, he probably didn''t want to do it, but it was a (pardon the expression) necessary evil. Just having the nerve to make this movie in 1960 was gutsy. I think the last 30 seconds with the mothers' voice, the dissolve with the skull and dsicovery of the body are a brilliant ending. I enjoyed your video reaction to this all time classic. Can you imagine the audience seeing this in 1960? They thought it was about a 40,000 dollar robbery until the female lead dies early on!

Supposedly Hitchcock didn't want the exposition scene at the end and fought hard not to film it, but the studio insisted that it be included because audiences wouldn't be smart enough to understand without it. That's how I heard it anyway.

Alfred Hitchcock presents aired in 1955. Then was changed to The Alfred Hitchcock hour from 1962-1965. Presents aired during his height as a filmmaker. The television series also introduced us to his next Hitchcock blonde Vera Miles. Who ended up doing a total of three episodes of his television series and two movies. The Wrong Man and of course Psycho. She’s the only surviving cast member of Psycho among other films. And she’s the only one to appear in the trailer to psycho

I disagree with taking the point off for the explanation because point in time. This movie was ahead of it's time, like Maltese Falcon. It has been so copied and borrowed from that it is easy to say we don't need it. The audience was so different 64 years ago and this was so much a twist they needed the explanation. I do see this a lot with modern audiences reviewing the older films. The chuckle I get is when they say oh this reminds me . It gives me a bigger chuckle when they say this isn't that impressive because of it. Not realizing that your modern film probably took the idea from the original film you are watching.

I understood that the info dump at the end was at the insistence of the studio, as it was concerned that audiences wouldn't know what to make of the situation and would consider Norman a transvestite, hot-button anathema at the time. It does stick out like a sore thumb, narratively, for sure - and the ambiguity without it would've rocketed the creepy factor, much like the ending of The Birds.

Let me tell you again how refreshing it is to watch you two react to such classic films, not like so many reactors do, with just (sometimes badly acted) Ooh!/Aah!/OMG!/{any misuse of the Lord's Name}!, but with the words of people who know the trade and fully appreciate cinematographic genius; I learn a lot from your comments. So please carry on with the sessions on the couch, I'm all hears and unlike Psycho's shrink, I'll keep it shut!

First time I saw this movie, and she said her name was Crane - I started shouting at the screen, "Not a BIRD!! He STUFFS BIRDS! You're SURROUNDED by DEAD BIRDS!!" Yup, Dead.

Turn momma's picture to the wall. That's an expression.

Hitchcock did the film in black and white because of the blood. They used Hershey's syrup, by the way.

Note the police officer guarding the door to the room where Norman is is kept while the shrink explains how he became his mother. An uncredited Ted Knight in his first movie roll...

The reason for shooting in b&w that I'd heard somewhere, is that Hitch had some issues getting backing for the story, so went behind the studio's back and used the crew/setup from his TV show. I'm not entirely sure if that's right but I can imagine the studio being unimpressed with the story pitch after mainstream blockbusters like Vertigo and North By Northwest, so it sounds plausible.

I like candy corn, too.

The story you say this movie is based on, or the killer is, is in fact the story that "Silence of the Lambs" is based on.

Many thanks to Major & Richard! 🚿 I hope you'll react to PSYCHO II (1983), as well. It's pretty good as far as sequels go... there are nods to Hitchcock's directorial style... even gave his silhouette a cameo. Yes, there's a PSYCHO III and even a PSYCHO IV. Each have their moments, but they don't resonate as deeply for me as PSYCHO II does.

Alfred HItchcock presents started in the 50s. His career was definitely not on the wain. He actually directed several episodes.

I love how you guys keyed into all the misdirection in the movie. A magician friend, Dartagnan, taught magic online. He specifically used the trailer for PSYCHO as part of his class. The trailer for Psycho is unique. And it somehow doesn't let anyone know jack shit about the story. Black-and-white was a purposeful choice. The studio had zero faith in the project and did not provide much money. So Hitch relied on his TV crew to shoot the movie. The black-and-white and low budget allowed him to engage with the kind of drive-in movie tropes that were popular with kids, like those awesome Roger Corman movies. (I'm betting A Bucket of Blood was an influence, and the low-budget noir Detour years earlier.) Bernard Herrmann chose violins for the score - like black-and-white, they and one kind of tonality, but with a very wide range. After you see more Hitchcock films, check out the amazing book Hitchcock/Truffaut. The French New Wave director interviews Hitch about each of his theatrical films. It's a feast! The book Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho is a lot of fun, with loads of interesting history. But Hitchcock/Truffaut is one of the best books about film, full stop.

The genius of Hitchcock was the casting of Anthony Perkins. The film, plot wise, is a faithful adaptation of Robert Bloch's novel, except that Bloch's Norman is a more unattractive and unpleasant person, much more in keeping with what we picture scuzzy psychopaths to be. But by casting Perkins, he totally wrong foots the audience because you start to feel immediate sympathy for this softly spoken, "gentle", hen-pecked recluse. And I do agree that the psychiatrist scene is heavy-handed, but I've always questioned how audiences would have understood the ending without it (as Hitchcock originally planned).

Hitchcock was an amazing technical director, and I enjoy your reactions to his wizardry with the camera -- I suspect he pioneered many of these techniques. Concerning the *too pat* explanation of the psychologist at the end, we're *supposed* to find it off-putting and not entirely satisfying. Hitchcock had many themes in his work -- the innocent man wrongly accused, Freudian mother-son relationships, men viewing women as "birds," etc. -- but one of his hobby horses was skewering/satirizing authority figures, especially psychologists who act like they've fully sussed out all of human nature and have all the answers. The role of the psychologist in Psycho is to offer some plausible and relevant observations to further our understanding of Norman's psychosis and explain the story, but at the same time, he's *supposed* to come off as a pompous windbag. Picture Hannibal Lecter responding acerbically, "You think you can dissect me with this blunt little tool?" That was Hitchcock's point, as well.

Movie acting in the United States, until the late 1960s, was not naturalistic and audiences didn't expect it to be. Simon Oakland's delivery as the psychiatrist explaining what happened was typical of the time -- not at all remarkable and not thought to be corny. The Graduate (1967) was one of the first to seem natural in the European style of the period. (There were flashes of it in the movie Grand Prix the previous year. Also the previous year was The Group, somewhat more naturalistic. Candace Bergen's verbal duel with Larry Hagman near the movie's end is priceless.) By The French Connection (1971) the transformation was complete. You guys might be interested in The French Connection. It was made in an almost documentary style -- rough-edged, perfect for a police story.

Hitchcock made good films before he went to the US. Unfortunately his best known early film in the US is The Lady Vanishes which while well made just plays up to a cutesy image of England. Often the US remakes aren't as fresh. Saboteur isn't as great as the acclaimed The 39 Steps. And the 50s The Man Who Knew Too Much takes ages to get going. Sabotage is his most underrated film. Hitchcock started in the silent era and Blackmail shows his invention in silents/talkies as he changed his style for the new era. While Psycho and Vertigo are obvious classics I feel some of the US ones can be overrated while people neglect strong films without as much 'star power' or TV showings. I find North by Northwest clunky even if entertaining. Shadow of a Doubt has great acting and filmmaking in comparison. Strangers on a Train has an interesting idea but it doesn't fully work. I prefer Rope which is more constricted but works so well because of it. The Birds is well known in the US because of all the TV showings, but while unusual I find it clunky. The Wrong Man may cut too close to the bone for some but is so much more real and powerful for me. Budgets and 'star power' aren't everything.

this was the first american movie to show a toilet for use

Did you really think she was going to go to the bank?

It is ironic that this Hitchcock movie is called a classic, yet Michael Powell made a movie called Peeping Tom, that I think is as good as this, is almost forgotten and destroyed his career,

So Psycho (1960) made his name in Hollywood and he could do whatever he wanted and yet he had this TV show when he career was waning called Alfred Hitchcock Presents (1955)... You see what you've done there? Yeah, maybe talk to your clueless friend as if you're an expert but maybe don't show that part to those of us who are because you'll just look foolish. Hitchcock was huge before Psycho and that movie did not make him any bigger. And it was scary as fck at the time. You are used to gore and thus cannot see it.

Two film makers both well into your 40's and neither of you have ever seen 'Psycho'...?!!! Forgive me if a lack of respect seems to eminate from this comment... compelled by the ADR statement.... no, it wasnt.

Variety, 2023: 'Psycho best movie ever made."

Spoilers below. ************** The decision to use b/w was deliberate, especially since he had already made some gorgeous Technicolor films ( Rear Window, Dial M for Murder, To Catch a Thief and Vertigo.) 1. The producers were skeptical about the film due to its content and so they gave him a lower budget, which made b/w stock more affordable. 2. Hitchcock had chosen as cinematographer one of the best in the business for use of high-contrast, shadows and shades of gray. 3. The theme, tone and mood of the film were better suited for b/w, as it had similarities to Noir films. Many shots were going to be at night, so color would have been unnecessary. 4. The blood looked more real in b/w; chocolate syrup was used as it had the right consistency and was deep in tone. He didn’t want fake looking red blood to distract viewers. The mother also looked more believable and more shocking in b/w. 5. Small details enhanced the b/w choice; before the theft, Marion’s bra and slip were white but after the theft they were black.

It's too easy to criticize the scene with the psychiatrist for telling instead of showing. You could never get that information across any other plausible way. By the way, Simon Oakland did the role of the psychiatrist on the first take and Hitchcock just said, "Thank you, Mr. Oakland."

_Peeping Tom_ came out before this.

Studio though this movie was a loser and didn't want to fund it. Hitchcock wrote himself a check for 800k. Due to his low budget he decided on Black and White film stock because it was cheaper.

The shrink was explaining the movie as if he had written the script. That's the only flaw of this masterpiece.

Alfred Hitchcock’s movie career never waived. Do some homework before you post.

Do you make PVC thin film or plastic sheet film?