#alfred hitchcock director

[cinemacentral666]

Number Seventeen (1932)

Movie #1,134 • TGI-HITCHCOCK!

EVERY OTHER FRIDAY I’M REVIEWING THE COMPLETE WORKS OF ALFRED HITCHCOCK IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

This one is nearly unwatchable despite some cool visual work with light/shadows and fun miniatures. We’re dropped into an incomprehensible story and it’s unclear what, or whether any of this is supposed to be funny. Apparently, Hitchcock himself called the film a "disaster." I couldn’t even get through the full 64 (!) minute run-time. Sorry.

SCORE: ⭐️⭐️

[coolthingsguyslike]

[lascitasdelashoras]

Alfred Hitchcock

[poppingmary]

Alfred Hitchcock impersonating Ringo Starr - 1964

[artfilmaesthetics]

director trademarks:

alfred hitchcock // point-of-view shots

‘Young and Innocent’ (1937)

‘Vertigo’ (1958)

‘Rebecca’ (1940)

‘Rear Window’ (1954)

[onefootin1941]

[recherchestetique]

Alfred Hitchcock

[speakspeak]

Timeless Cool: Cary Grant & Alfred Hitchcock

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Lower your voice, do not use your hands, and look directly at Cary Grant in your scenes with him, look him straight in the eye.

- Alfred Hitchcock

Hitchcock gives simple instructions to Eve Marie Saint during filming for ‘North by Northwest’ (1959).

[contentabnormal]

Alfred Hitchcock

Watercolors on Paper, 8.5" x 11", 2024

By Josh Ryals

[cinemacentral666]

Mary (1931)

Movie #1,095 • TGI-HITCHCOCK!

EVERY OTHER FRIDAY I’M REVIEWING THE COMPLETE WORKS OF ALFRED HITCHCOCK IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

Well this is an interesting one:

Mary (1931) is a British-German thriller film, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, and is the German-language version of Hitchcock's Murder! (1930), shot simultaneously on the same sets with German-speaking actors.

Seeing as how I already watched Murder! I opted out of this one less than five minutes in. I'm. Just being honest. What a weird thing to do, though: shooting a movie simultaneously on the same sets for a different country. I wonder if there are other examples of this? (I don't feel like searching. HMU if you know.)

SCORE: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️½

[coolthingsguyslike]

[lascitasdelashoras]

James Stewart and Alfred Hitchcock in London for the filming of The Man Who Knew Too Much, 1956

[menandwomanofhistory]

Alfred Hitchcock

[allthedesiredusernamesaretaken]

Alfred Hitchcock on the set "I Confess" , Hollywood, 1950

📷 Ruth Orkin

[anonameisadditions]

Norm or Norma: PSYCHO, and how Hitchcock saved the film from studio interference

In the last 7 minutes of Psycho, the film shifts from psychokinetic thriller to dead-in-the-water procedural criminal theater. Gone are the inventive visuals informing the everyday life of Norman Bates- the clothes he wears, the spaces he occupies, the food he eats, the life he lives. He is completely absent from the scene, yet his vanishment from the film makes it feel impersonal, and archaic- Justice has been served, and the uneasy build of tension and insanity has been cut with a sharp razor prepped by Occam himself- “Norman is mad”, the sponsored therapist says, “But he’s not a “Transgender”, but rather, something altogether different.” 

The scene was an addition by the studio, last minute, who feared that audiences would be unable to understand the plot twist- Hitchcock himself thought it to be altogether unnecessary, a sentiment many critics have agreed to. But it is not just a poor scene- It’s a scene that showcases the complexities of identity in Psycho, all through the studio trying to wring it’s hands of controversy or confusion. It is the film stooping down on one knee, to look it’s patrons in the eyes and remind them that the bad man in the film is not real, and that all the horrible, empathic emotions you felt towards Norma and Norman Bates were just a trick of the mind- that bad people do bad things because other bad people did bad things to them- and, despite what Norman said, not all of us go a little mad sometimes.

Charming. But not true.

Hello, My Name’s ANoN. I’m a film school graduate who’s been writing, reading, and watching film all my life, with a particular love of horror, and in particular, exploitation horror. I’ve seen plenty of “cheap trash” in my lifetime, and I’m known among my peers for having an eye for detail when it comes to writing and storytelling. But all of that barely matters to you, the random person who clicked onto this blog post- what matters here is Norman- and explaining to you why the world needed to be told that Norman was mad.

Let’s talk about Norman Bates a little. 

He’s young- a bit odd looking, but handsome in a plain, affectionate way. He’s tall, neat, quiet, and he’s ran the Bates Motel for quite some time with his mother. He seems like a known figure in the local community in the area, for how the police chief’s wife reacts to his families name- but curiously, there’s no hint of suspicion or discomfort for most in his name. He’s definitely an odd duck, given his obsession with taxidermy, and his lack of emotional skills in navigating his feelings around women, and he has a vice- He peeps on women in their hotel rooms, and had a bad habit in his youth of “hanging around” whenever a woman guest would check in. Norman lacks an awareness of social skills, not picking up the discomfort that our runaway fraudster Marion hints at the entire time that he watches her have dinner- an interesting formality that Norman doesn’t seem to understand the purpose of- and he speaks about his life.

Marion is drawn in, shockingly- Norman ends up being unexpectedly charming, despite his clear issues- He’s affable, a bit lonely, the dutiful son who seems glad just to have company around again. He ends the night with a firm goodbye, only offended at the observation by Marion that, in his unhappiness, he should consider leaving his mother. In that moment, you can see something come out of Norman- the pain of his relationship with his mother, his sense of duty and expectation, and- most importantly- the terminal grip of his mother around his psyche. “A man’s best friend is his mother”, he asserts- a common phrase in the 1960s, that takes on a sinister air as we see the murderous behaviors of Norma Bates. 

As Norman tries desperately to cover up the attacks of Norma Bates (a death toll including 2 other women, Marion, and a private Investigator), Marion’s sister, and Marion’s fillandring lover is left to investigate the Bates manor. Marion creeps along it’s corridors and rooms- We see the daily life of Norman in the detritus and mess of the household- the clothes he wears, the places he’s slept, the way he lives on a day-to-day basis, and what we find is not the house of a madman, but of someone altogether familiar. There is no horrific effegy to a fallen god- There is no decapitated cats locked in a fridge- there is no nipple belt, no skin lampshade, no woman suit (as we’d relate to Ed Gein, the murderer that Norman was based on.) We find the tense ordinary- We keep expecting that this door, when opened, will find the proof in the pudding, the sign that would have let Marion know that Norman was nuts- and we keep coming up with dust in the windowsill and tar in the attic.

Except for one detail. We come to the basement, as Norman investigates the house- and discover the taxidermed, preserved body of Norma Bates- firing off the Chekov’s gun of the insane amount of Taxidermied birds in the Bates Household- and launch into, what was intended to be the chilling, final image of the film- Norma Bates, revealed- a man in a powdery wig and a woman’s size 10, knife held in hand. Here is your breakawy moment- the moment that the audience is to be left with, the strange, queer detail that is meant to make us see the latent madness in Norman. 

But strangely, It’s hollow. If you were to take this as the film’s original ending, it would still be a smash hit, do not misunderstand me. But we’ve spent a lot of time with Norman at this point- we’ve seen his inner demons, but even in this strange, messed-up basement, You can’t stop seeing Norman in Norma. Their identities are spiritually interlinked- They oscillate, back and forth, and in that complexity, the story feels altogether incomplete, in only the way that true, good suspense fiction can be. 

This is one of the most cunning tricks of the film- We cannot divine who was the one with the mental illness in the Bates household. The Psychatrist seems to think that Norman, driven mad by the highly controlling behaviors of his mother, is the one whose mind broke once she chose another man over him. However, Norman’s own perspective seems quite different- He seems to regard his mother as a madwoman, cooped up in her bedroom, who would spend her days insulting Norman and guilting him into a relationship of deadly emotional incest instead of giving him the ability to decide his own future. Even in death, Norma passes the buck to Norman, implying it to all be his responsibility, whilst demonstrating the same bloodthrist that Norman tries to repress, in her fly speech. 

They'll put him away now, as I should have years ago. He was always bad, and in the end he intended to tell them I killed those girls and that man... as if I could do anything but just sit and stare, like one of his stuffed birds. They know I can't move a finger, and I won't. I'll just sit here and be quiet, just in case they do... suspect me. They're probably watching me. Well, let them. Let them see what kind of a person I am. I'm not even going to swat that fly. I hope they are watching... they'll see. They'll see and they'll know, and they'll say, "Why, she wouldn't even harm a fly..."

Granted, this could just be projection on Norman’s part- He’s hardly a reliable source- but that’s why Psycho works. It’s creeping dread reaches beyond the film, and into your own mind. Can one safely blame their bad impulses on the way they were raised? We profess ourselves capable of being moral, aware of the consequences of our choices, unlike the bad people we know- but is Marion a bad person for stealing the money of a creep to elope with a man who’s in a demonstratively unfair marriage? The film recognizes Marion as a criminal, who is worn down by society to return to honesty- but before she can decide, a madman with a knife takes that from her. Similarly, the line of deviancy runs through Norman, with the implications of his odd behavior around women and his peeping being traits inherent to his fractured feelings about sexuality- but does peeping at women begit murderous intent? 

Who is Norman Bates- Is he his mother, or his own man? We spent a lot of time with him, and yet we come up with frustratingly few answers. We can sit here and psychoanalyze him all we want, but, we are unfortunately stuck with him, from the inside out. And can we really trust ourselves to know when we’ve gone a little mad, sometimes? Let me know what you think in the comments.

Yours Falsely,

AN0N