I suppose one could almost look at Hitchcock's entire career in the "contender" vein. If only Roger Thornhill had not have sent that telegram just as George Kaplan was being paged; if only Melanie Daniels had not met Mitch Brenner(a total stranger) in that pet shop; if only Lars Thorwald had not killed his wife when a usually travelling neighbor was housebound with a broken leg. There are a lot of if onlys in life, in fact one truism that "if" is a part of lIFe. But that's too fulsome...

If only Marion had been a product of the later 20th century she would have known better than to stay at that motel that was completely empty except for that awkward manager....

@jann said:

If only Marion had been a product of the later 20th century she would have known better than to stay at that motel that was completely empty except for that awkward manager....

She certainly should have after Norman's flying off the handle over dinner. That would have chilled me a bit, given that there was no reason for it. And even she recognized his irrationality. She just didn't realize the implications of it - perhaps the naivete of the times, as you suggest.

@Smitty1776 said:

She certainly should have after Norman's flying off the handle over dinner. That would have chilled me a bit, given that there was no reason for it. And even she recognized his irrationality. She just didn't realize the implications of it - perhaps the naivete of the times, as you suggest.

This is one (of many) reasons that the 1998 didn't work. In addition to the fact that it was late 90s and no woman would have been comfortable staying at a motel all alone with this weird guy, she was OBVIOUSLY rattled by his attitude - so much so that she lost her appetite and put down her cheese sandwich. Yet, she stayed anyway.

This is one (of many) reasons that the 1998 didn't work. In addition to the fact that it was late 90s and no woman would have been comfortable staying at a motel all alone with this weird guy, she was OBVIOUSLY rattled by his attitude - so much so that she lost her appetite and put down her cheese sandwich. Yet, she stayed anyway.

The 1998 version also demonstrates the importance of casting. Norman (1998) is played by a hulking Vince Vaughan whom I think most women would be a little wary of (let alone tiny Anne Heche). Norman (1960) by way of contrast is slender, genuinely cute Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh's Marion feels bigger than him - she's definitely older, very conventionally beautiful, much more confident, an alpha-female, etc.. Obviously Marion (1960) pays a terrible price for being so sure that she's in charge, but I don't think we are supposed to believe that she does anything outlandish by staying at the Bates Motel, or by assuming that she's the one in charge around Norman.

There's perhaps a retroactive historical message in Psycho about "America's trust in strangers."

Any number of American movies pre-Psycho had scenes with protagonists checking into motels and hotels -- It Happened One Night comes to mind. There was a matter of "trust" -- and Hitchcock nastily double-crossed the audience in that regard by casting Anthony Perkins(a "nice" actor) in a role as the nicest man Marion meets to that point in Psycho. Marion wasn't on guard and likely 1960 audiences were not, either. Indeed, "Hollywood" enters in here because Tony Perkins was the leading man and had always played heroes -- perhaps weak and nervous heroes, but heroes nonetheless.

So a 1960 audience seeing Psycho had to figure that even if a Psycho was in the offing -- this angry mother in the window whom Marion overheard yelling at Norman, perhaps? Tony Perkins would make things right and keep Janet Leigh safe.

Wrong.

I think maybe they were supposed to assume that Marion herself was the titular Psycho - for stealing the money and all.

But you're right. There wasn't really a concept of the psycho serial killer until this movie. Real life serial killers prior to 1960 mostly only got local coverage. I doubt that the average person in the U.S. had any idea who Ed Gein was, for instance. But the 60s was when serial killers, both fictional and non-fictional, started getting a lot of attention.

I think maybe they were supposed to assume that Marion herself was the titular Psycho - for stealing the money and all.

That's a great point. Perhaps 1960 audiences felt that as the movie went along, Marion was the psycho -- and might get worse!

Indeed, the credit music that opens Psycho plays exclusively over MARION'S story...when she is driving, and crazily so as she approaches the wrong turn to the Bates Motel. The Psycho credit music leaves the movie when Marion reaches the Bates Motel. In a way, this is "Marion's Theme."

@ecarle said:

Indeed, the credit music that opens Psycho plays exclusively over MARION'S story...when she is driving, and crazily so as she approaches the wrong turn to the Bates Motel. The Psycho credit music leaves the movie when Marion reaches the Bates Motel. In a way, this is "Marion's Theme."

And then the smirk when she's reflecting on stealing the money as she's driving. She does seem a bit - out of control.

It was so important to Hitch that nobody read the book before the movie came out. He supposedly bought up every copy of it he could possibly find to prevent people from knowing the real story in advance. The book of course, leaves no mystery to the fact that Norman Bates is the primary character and Marion (Mary) Crane is just a disposable victim.

And then the smirk when she's reflecting on stealing the money as she's driving. She does seem a bit - out of control.

As always in the best of Hitchcock (and as often in the less best of Hitchcock), there is an incredible preprecision to this shot...and yet it is ambiguous , too. Marion shifts from looks of worry and angst to...a grin of sorts. Indeed, a smirk. And with something mean to it. The voice cut over this is Cassidy's as he utters the horrific line "I'll replace that money with her fine, soft flesh." (Psycho has noprofanity or obscene language, but THAT line seems very obscene and violent to me.) The question: is Marion smiling because she "got" Cassidy? Or is she imaging HIS glee at taking such horrible revenge on her? (Wrote Robin Wood, "Marion's verdict on herself, hideously disproportionate to the crime, will find its hideous enactment.")

It was so important to Hitch that nobody read the book before the movie came out. He supposedly bought up every copy of it he could possibly find to prevent people from knowing the real story in advance.

---So they say. I GUESS it would be possible. Certainly from the bookstores in LA and New York, near the studio personnel who could make the buys.

The book of course, leaves no mystery to the fact that Norman Bates is the primary character and Marion (Mary) Crane is just a disposable victim.

Yes, Chapter One is with Norman and Mother(as if she is right there) at the house. Chapter 2 is about Mairon's drive. Chapter 3 is the parlor scene(except it is up at the house.) And Marion is dead at the end of Chapter 3. Hitchcock promised Janet Leigh that Marion would get more. And she did.

"Perhaps 1960 audiences felt that as the movie went along, Marion was the psycho -- and might get worse!"

The original audience probably thought that Marion ( with that cop after her) would get completely paranoid and go berserk -- just as James Stewart's character went berserk for a different reason in VERTIGO.