Talk:Psycho (1960 film)/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Screenplay Credit:Taylor-Made?

Someone keeps insisting on rewriting the information on Hitchcock's film to assert that Samuel Taylor did an uncredited screenplay rewrite. This is simply not true. Not a single biography of Hitchcock, nor any account of "Psycho" itself, makes such a statement. Interestingly enough, the same person or another chooses to deny the fact that the first "Psycho" script was written by James Allardice. That, unlike the Samuel Taylor assertion, is a matter of verifiable studio record with dates, screenplay drafts, contracts and check requistions.


[edit] Shower Scene

The shower scene seems to me to be the most famous part of the film, yet the article never mentions WHY it's become so iconic. Having not seen the film I'm in no position to comment on it, but could somebody who has, add why it's become so famous? 18:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Added a little something. I wasn't around then, but it's mostly speculation from when I saw the movie. I encourage further comments--Will2k 19:24, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
I understand that there have been many people who swore that this scene was in color, that there are many shots of the knife entering her body, etc. The scene goes far beyond anything that had gone before in mainstream cinema in its graphic depiction of violence and murder. Those factors, combined with the technical editing/montage aspects, and combined with the typical Hitchcockian outbreak of chaos into a tranquil, orderly everyday experience like taking a shower, have made the scene the touchstone it has become. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I watched a dvd version and in the special features it mentions that another girl doubled for leigh's body for everything bellow the shoulders. It also suggests that while a mannequin and a knife were made up for some blood sputing effect hitchcock decided not to use it. The article suggests that a mannequin was used which seems to be wrong. Does anyone else know more about this and where to find a source for this?

I recall reading a book recounting Leigh's experiences. Despite having hired a double for any nude shots, Leigh claims for practical reasons it is her body for nearly all the shower shots. The double (who was nude) is the person laid out on the curtain, wrapped, and carried out. It is not a mannequin in the curtain but the body double. Sorry haven't got the reference info of that book. Asa01 06:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] George Reeves & Psycho

I've done a little searching in regards to the George Reeves/Psycho controversy: Googling shows all Reeves/Psycho references to appear to have originated from Wikipedia. Just to be sure, I checked several books on Hitchcock, including Stephen Rebello's Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho. No mention of George Reeves was found in any of them. Unless someone can find a source that shows evidence to the contrary, this appears to me to be the worst kind of vandalism, intentionally using Wikipedia to spread disinformation. That this hoax seems to be spreading beyond Wikipedia makes it all the worse. Rizzleboffin 23:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, it's mentioned on IMDB. Is that confirmation? Skrooball 01:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No-- Not of YOU put it there, Skrooball-- an apt name to hide behind, I must say. Such a busy little troll, planting this idiocy everywhere, then cross-referencing your own fantasies... then, when someone uses Wikipedia or IMDb as a source and picks up YOUR misinformation, you cheer and say it's real. See! It must be true, it says it in the Washington Post! Well, yeah-- because they checked IMDb-- where YOU planted phony information. Is this how you get your kicks? PSYCHO was filmed between 30 November 1959 to 1 Feb 1960. George Reeves had been dead for 5 months. He was never considered for the role. (See Stephen Rubello's authorative book on the making of PSYCHO. Unlike you, he actually knows how movies are made-- especially this one.)

Martin Balsam wasn't "filming a mini-series about Sacco and Vanzetti nearby"-- he starred in a two-part LIVE drama on NBC's "Sunday Showcase," in New York the first two weeks of June, 1959; he was finished on 10 June. Reeves died 6 days later, June 16th, 1959. News Flash-- New York is nowhere near Hollywood. His "off-time from the mini-series"? You boob-- a one-hour live show is scarcely a "mini-series," and in any case, that would not have delayed production of a movie which had not even been written yet.

Psycho wasn't "the first film to be shot out of order... because George Reeves died." Jeez, is there no end to your ignorance? Films have been shot out of continuity since the 1910s. And since the detective character doesn't appear until 3/4ths of the way through the story, how could this film have been "shot in order" in the first place, unless they'd started in April? If you're going to lie, at least get your lies consistent.

So, "Reeves actually filmed a few of his scenes with the rest of the cast"-- funny, how none of the rest of the cast were even contracted to be in the film until October of 1959, four months after Reeves' death. And since the screenplay had not even been turned in "the week before Reeves died," what exactly did he do? Make up his dialogue? Did Hitchcock just improvise?

All these tidbits of information are so utterly, amateurishly wrong, it's astounding-- and really, you waste everyone's time. http://www.talkingpix.co.uk/Books_psycho.htmlTed Newsom

I agree. My dad's a big film buff, and we've got three biographies of Hitchcock, (including a big section on the making of Psycho), as well as one big one of George Reeves. In addition, we have the 45th anniversary DVD, not a mention of Reeves. The books never showed a hint of truth to it at all; it's obvious that somebody has spun an urban legend, fraud albeit amusing. All the same, it's still fictional. --Jonathan.Bruce 11:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Ted Newsom, I'm not even an IMDB user. I don't know who put that up; possibly you. It wasn't me. George "Skrooball" Reeves 02:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 02:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, Ted, I don't like being accused of trolling. It makes me feel like a n00b, you know? *Not* a good feeling. George "Skrooball" Reeves 02:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character Basis: Ed Gein

While thumbing through Stephen Rebello's Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho for a mention of-- ahem-- George Reeves, I noticed that he says the character of Norman only in the book is partly based on Ed Gein. The Hitchcock film, he claims, actually took several of the more Gein-like characteristics away from Norman and added different characteristics unique to the film. Would it be nit-picky to say the Gein reference should be taken out of the film article and put into the article on the book? Rizzleboffin 23:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC) I'd say it's silly to be redundant if it's in the Bloch book section. A mention in passing and the existing link to the page should suffice. Ted Newsom 23:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Ted NewsomTed Newsom 23:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remake link

Does anyone else think that the remake link should link to the Psycho (1998 film) page, not the Remake (definition) page? Just a thought, it would make it a bit cleaner if the (See Psycho (1998 film)) was removed and replaced in the Remake text. D43M0N 07:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automated Peer Review

Let's get this collab rolling! In addition to the todo list above, I thought it would be helpful if everyone could see what the automated peer review tool generates for this article.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 15 miles, use 15 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 15 miles.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word 'The'. For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • it is claimed
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Supernumerary 05:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The section "Effect on popular perceptions of mental illness" seems to me to be very POV and needs to be either sourced or removed. The section "Importance in Film History" is also very POV as it now stands. Both need to be reworded and sourced, or removed.--Supernumerary 06:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the "Effect on popular ...," but I think the "Importance in Film History" is necessary, but with a lot of fat that can be trimmed (or at least cited). --GHcool 01:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh I agree the importance section is needed. But statements like: "Psycho is often seen as a turning point in film history, representing the shift from Classical to the more experimental "Post-Classical" film. Psycho's unconventional storytelling and stylized photography and editing show the influence of the French New Wave and the European art films that Hitchcock admired." and "The most original and influential moment in the film is the "shower scene,. . ." sound very POV. That's why I tagged the former with {{fact}}; if it's often seen like that surely a source can be found. The second begs the question of how we can objectively state what is "most original and influential" since those qualities are not readily quantifiable in my experience. I'd be fine if that was quoted from someone though.--Supernumerary 02:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Effect on popular perceptions of mental illness

I've removed this section from the main article. I agree with the editor's sidebar note. This claim could use evidence to support the premise that "psycho" was not a derogatory term before this film and that the film affected its connotation--Hondo 03:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC):

<--This section needs work. People with mental illnesses were considered bizarre and dangerous for centuries before 1960. Citations to actual evidence would be a good idea:-->

Upon the release of this film, the word "psycho" became a derogatory synonym for a person with mental illness. The diagnoses most often associated with Norman Bates are schizophrenia and dissociative personality disorder, although Norman Bates's behavior bore little resemblance to typical behavior displayed by people who are diagnosed with the disorders. Psycho's influence is evident today in the portrayals of people with mental illnesses as bizarre and dangerous.

[edit] Sources

This article needs sources. There must be a whole stack of books on this film and all we currently have are some measly links. I also do not think that the IMDB trivia page can be cited as a source. Anyone agree?--Supernumerary 06:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The IMDB trivia section is definitely not a valid source, as it is created by anon users, just like Wikipedia. Do you have access to a well-stocked library, Supernumerary? The books are certainly out there. Cop 633 14:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I happen to have Francois Truffaut's book-length interview with Hitchcock on my shelf, which should provide a wealth of information as all of it is coming from Hitchcock's own mouth. Green451 19:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the local library I now have Behind the Scenes of Psycho by Janet Leigh and Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho by Stephen Rebello. This ought to help turn those citation neededs into refs.--Supernumerary 22:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently re-working the production section over in my Sandbox. Expect something in a few days.--Supernumerary 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Would someone please tell me if I am overly citing things? I'm erring on the side of too-much rather than too-little, figuring that if we don't need a citation we can always delete it, but we're up to 41 refs I haven't even finished fixing all the citation-needed tags (or adding what I have notes on, not to mention I haven't even opened the other book that is entirely devoted to the production). Also is there a way to just list the page numbers for the book? Like: "Ibid. pgs. 67-72" or something? Just so it isn't so repetitive.--Supernumerary 00:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Just write <ref>Leigh, 62-72</ref>. --GHcool 00:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that, but what I'm more concerned with is whether I am citing too much. Any opinion on that?--Supernumerary 01:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
My feeling is that there's no such thing as citing too much. Maybe others might disagree, but in my experience, if I come across a endnote while reading a text that I'm not interested in, I just won't bother looking at the back of the book to see the source. This occurs for at least 90% of the endnotes I have ever came across in my studies, but in the less than 10% of the times I am interested in what the source was, I am glad that the endnote is there. --GHcool 03:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fulfilled (Closed?) Requests

[edit] Pop Culture Recurrences

For most culturally significant films etc on wikipedia there seems to be a influences on pop culture section. Psycho is practically everywhere, spoofed in movies and cartoons, the music used in various places. I think there should be a section for this here - its why I looked it up so I was surprised when it wasn't there. Does anyone know enough about this to star such a list?

A rather large section now exists listing the various ways in which Psycho (and especially the shower scene) are referenced in pop culture. An introduction to and cleanup of this list would be an excellent contribution to this article. Hondo 04:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Done.Hondo 22:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Spoiler Alert' IS Necessary

"Yes, mother."

Eh, does anyone currently alive in the English-speaking world *not* know what Psycho's main twist is? It's become a cliche. Not saying we should remove the spoiler tags, just saying...

In a word, yes. There are people who don't know what the twist is, and some of them take classes on Hitchcock. Koyaanis Qatsi
Absolutely. I've been studying Hitch for nearly 20 years, and there's no need to ruin a first viewing for a new student. 66.108.4.183 05:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

[edit] "See Also: Schizophrenia"

While not being an expert on mental disorder by any stretch of the imagination, I think this gives the wrong impressiong of schizophrenia, which is often misinterpreted as someone who has multiple personalities. I know that Bates can be considered to have some of the symptoms of schizophrenia, but wouldn't a "SEE ALSO" to, say, multiple personality disorder (or something similar) be more appropriate? Malrase 17:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Si, fly. Skrooball 21:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia Section Reduction

I wonder if it would be acceptable or feasible simply to include a link here to the IMDB trivia page rather than listing all these things here? Is there a policy covering that kind of thing? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have done my best to reduce the trivia section by reworking these notes into the body of the article. Hondo 04:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Bra Movie Claim

Under the Trivia section, it used to say this movie was the first to depict a woman in a bra. This is false, as Janet Leigh could be seen in a bra in Touch of Evil, 1958, and on the documentry on the Psycho DVD, it mentions that Janet Leigh's bras were to be what women actualy wore, as opposed to the unrealistic bras most actresses wore.Xijjix 18:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This note no longer exists in the trivia section or otherwise. Hondo 04:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psycho Psequels

The film has had three sequels also starring Perkins:

A TV Movie(actualy a pilot to a never produced TV series):

  • Bates Motel - 1987

A color remake:

Though, naturaly, none of them had the original's success or significance, should they be mentioned here? User: Dimadick

Sure, why not? also, if you're logged in, you can sign three tildes (~ ~ ~ but without the spaces) and the software will replace it to a link to your userpage. A fourth tilde adds a timestamp. Koyaanis Qatsi
For clairty, how about a seperate page for the sequels. This page is becoming quite clustered, with the novel, Hitchcock, Van Sant... I think the 1960 film is of significant importance to merit its own page (shared with Bloch's novel). Any thoughts? The JPS 02:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
First of all, great pun in the title here. Secondly, is there enough information on each of the films to make them into articles, or just stubs? D43M0N 07:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book/Movie Split?

Anyone think there should be a separate article for the book apart from the movie, aside from just one article encompassing both? TheCoffee 11:57, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes definately, that's what I thought as soon as I got there. They clearly need seperate articles.
That might be good. Bloch wrote sequels to his novel as well, Psycho II and Psycho House, which could be discussed on such a page since they are unrelated to the film sequels. He also was credited as an editor for the short story anthology Robert Bloch's Psychos, although this was published posthumously and is unrelated to the novels and films. Schizombie 23:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Brief" and "Detailed" plot summaries

Why are their two plot summaries? Isn't the "Brief" plot summary good enough? Even the brief summary is actually more detailed than many plot summaries for other articles about great movies. I propose we delete the "Detailed" plot summary from the article. --GHcool 01:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree except instead of a flat out delete I'd rather merge the two.--Supernumerary 02:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the brief summary working solely off of the original. I would prefer to combine the two, but out of respect for the original author and in the interest of making the plot summary better during its position as the CCotW, I left the original article so that s/he and other editors might choose what omissions and summarizations were, perhaps, too much on my part.--Hondo 02:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Be bold! Mercilessly edit and damn the author!--Supernumerary 02:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Previous Detailed Synopsis

The movie's first scene takes place in a cheap hotel room in Phoenix and shows Marion Crane (Leigh) and her boyfriend Sam Loomis (Gavin) in their undergarments after a Friday afternoon tryst. Marion is clearly unhappy, torn between her desire to be with Sam and her shame at these discreet meetings. But Sam explains that between his father's unpaid debts and alimony payments to his ex-wife, he is forced to live in the back room of a store. Until his finances improve, they cannot marry. Marion returns to find that her boss has just sold a house to the rich Tom Cassidy (Frank Albertson) for $40,000. Cassidy flirts with Marion, asking if she is "unhappy." "You know what I do about unhappiness," he tells her, "I buy it off." He then plops down $40,000 in cash, explaining that his daughter has never had an unhappy day in her life and this house is to be her wedding present. Marion's boss is uncomfortable with that amount of cash in the office and asks Marion to deposit it at the bank for the weekend, explaining that he'll get Tom to write a check the next week. Instead of going to the bank, Marion impulsively packs and leaves town with the money, which she sees as the ticket to her and Sam's happiness.

Marion becomes paranoid, convinced people know of her crime, trading her car for another in California because she believes she is being followed. Driving at night in the pouring rain, Marion realizes she can go no further and turns off at the sign for the Bates Motel. The place seems deserted, but she notices the figure of a woman in the window of the house around back. Honking her horn for service, Marion encounters Norman Bates (Perkins), the young owner who runs down from the house and helps her into the office.

The motel, Norman explains, receives few visitors, as a newer freeway has bypassed the road she was following. Only those who are lost or take the wrong turn ever come here, but Norman keeps it open to give him some relief from taking care of his ailing mother. Despite knowingly being 15 miles from Fairvale and Sam, Marion decides to stay the night. Norman cheerfully offers to share his dinner with her rather than force her back out into the storm. While settling into her room, Marion overhears a fight between Norman and his mother through the open window. The mother refuses to allow Marion to come up to the house, accusing Norman of having a "cheap erotic mind" that "disgusts" her, and lacking the "guts" to send Marion away. Norman sheepishly brings some food down to the motel, inviting Marion to dine in the office's parlor, which is gaudily decorated with examples of Norman's hobby of taxidermy. As she eats, Marion discovers that Norman's mother is not only ill, but also overly controlling of her son. He evidently wants to free himself and leave her alone, but he can't bring himself to do it, because she's ill. Norman becomes enraged when Marion suggests that he should commit Mother "someplace," such as a mental institution. He insists that you don't do that to someone you love, reiterates that "Mother" is harmless, and mentions "We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?" Marion comes to realize that Norman's position is much worse than her own, and she comes to the conclusion that she must return to Phoenix and make amends "before it's too late."


Unfortunately for Marion, Norman has completely understated his mother's madness. As Marion showers in her motel room, Mother runs in and stabs her to death in the now-infamous "shower scene" (with its trademark score by Bernard Herrmann, featuring screeching violins). When he runs to the room, Norman is horrified to find the bloody corpse, but he quickly cleans everything up as if he is accustomed to doing so. Marion's body, her car, her belongings and the money are sunk in a swamp behind the Bates' property, in an attempt to hide any evidence that she was here and to "protect" Mother.

The rest of the film deals with the search for Marion. Marion's sister Lila (Miles) drives to Fairvale to confront Sam, unable to believe that her sister took the money. As they talk, another individual arrives, a private detective, Milton Arbogast (Balsam), sent by Tom Cassidy to recover his money. An intrigued Arbogast explains that he was following Lila in hopes that she would lead him to Marion. It soon becomes clear, however, that Sam is unaware of either Marion's whereabouts or the theft. Arbogast is then able to trace her to the Bates Motel, calling Lila and Sam to let them know. While making the call, he becomes intrigued to see a female figure crossing in front of a window. Believing it to be Norman's mother, he tells Lila and Sam about it, then hangs up to return to the motel. But the detective's curiosity soon proves fatal when, upon returning, he climbs up to the old house to talk with Mother, oblivious of her dark side. As he reaches her room, she leaps out and slashes his face, causing him to lose his balance and fall bodily down the stairs. While he is laying on the ground, she runs down and stabs him to death.

When Arbogast fails to report back, Sam and Lila become convinced that he must have discovered something important, possibly from Norman's mother, and decide it is time to involve the law. But the local sheriff is skeptical of their story and does not see how Norman's mother could have any important information. Norman, he explains, lives alone at the Bates Motel, his mother having died 8 years earlier in a particularly gruesome murder/suicide. They are left confused at the fact that "if Bates' mother is up there, who's that woman buried out in the cemetery?" It seems evident that Mrs. Bates faked her death, and she might have had a hand with Norman in both Marion's and the money's disappearance. Lila and Sam realize that they must go to the motel themselves to see what Arbogast had discovered. They arrive shortly after Bates finishes hiding the detective's corpse in the swamp. Upon checking in the same room Marion was in, they find one of her earrings and a paper with the sum of $40,000 on it. Then, they theorize that Bates disposed of her to keep the money for himself.

While Sam distracts Norman at the office, Lila goes up to the house to talk with his mother. Sam tries to pressure Norman into admitting that he stole Marion's money so he could leave the motel and start fresh, but the heated argument quickly escalates into violence, and Norman is able to knock Sam unconscious and flee up to the house. Hearing Norman enter, Lila slips down to the basement only to find the semi-preserved corpse of Norman's mother. At that moment, the killer is revealed to be Norman himself (cross-dressed in his mother's clothing, complete with wig). Sam also appears from behind at this moment, and he is able to wrestle the butcher's knife away from Norman.

At the end of the film, a forensic psychiatrist (Oakland) explains to Lila, Sam and the police that Bates' mother, though dead, lives on in Norman's psyche. Norman was so dominated by his mother while she was alive, and so guilt-ridden over having murdered her 8 years earlier as a teenager, when it appeared she was about to remarry, that he tried to "erase" the crime from his mind by bringing his mother back. Physically, this was done by exhuming her corpse and preserving it with his taxidermy skills, but mentally this was accomplished by allocating half his mind to the persona of his mother. He acts as he believes she would, talks as she did, even dresses as her in an attempt to erase her absence and the guilt. And because Norman was so very jealous of his mother, he assumes she will also be jealous of any woman to whom he might be attracted. The Norman persona is convinced that his mother is not dead, and he has no knowledge of "her" crimes. The last scene shows Norman Bates in a cell, his mind now completely dominated by the persona of his "mother." "She" blames Norman for the crimes, and plans on demonstrating to the authorities that she is utterly harmless - that "she wouldn't harm a fly" - so that she may be soon released.

As the scene blurs out to a brief epilogue shows Marion's car being towed from its watery grave, presumably to collect her body and the $40,000, Hitchcock briefly overlaps the image of Norman Bates' mother's skull onto his face.

Spoilers end here.

[edit] Hitchcock's cameo

I do not think Hitchcock's cameo merits its own section. By doing so it is put on equal footing with: the plot, the production, the cast, the reception, and all the other headers. It is clearly not that important. I would be amenable to moving to the trivia section and doing something like this:

  • Hitchcock's Cameo: Alfred Hitchcock makes his cameo wearing a Stetson hat and standing outside the office window when Janet Leigh returns from her lunch break.--Supernumerary 17:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. --GHcool 18:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

i disagree. This is a feature that runs throughout his film career. It continues to be a subjec of discussion about Hitchcock. Websites are set up dedicated to the cameos. This gives an easy way for those who want to locate the cameo an easy way to avoid weeding through a wealth of information on the website. If placed at the bottom it does not intrude into the "meatier" aspects of the WP page. Philbertgray 18:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally Wikipedia guidelines addresses the use of a trivia section, specifically limiting its use, especially as a "catch all" for information that may be better served to be in the body of page. Philbertgray 18:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This gives an easy way for those who want to locate the cameo an easy way to avoid weeding through a wealth of information on the website. Or they can just use find and search for cameo, or they can scroll down and see bold text stating cameo, or they can go to one of those websites you mention. But seriously a cameo is not as important as the whole production or plot. Agreed it is interesting, but it is certainly not a critical piece of information.
It might also be a good idea to wait and see how this resolves before running about and editing every other Hitchcock film, which I notice you have started. I also note that the cameo is sometimes mentioned in the plot, sometimes in the trivia, or left unmentioned indicating that your opinion of its importance is exceptional. Also if you do not like the trivia section, we can move it to the plot (although that is tagged with spoiler).--Supernumerary 18:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Super's proposal. Section headings should only be used for a portion of information that directly pertains to the film. For example, did the cameo have any influence on the film's style or success? What makes it as notable as a description of why the film is so well remembered? I personally believe that the cameos, although a constant in most of Hitchcock's body of work, qualify as trivia and are not notable enough to merit their own major section.
In addition, WP:GTL states; "Just as for paragraphs, sections and subsections that are very short will make the article look cluttered and inhibit the flow. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading, and in these circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points."
I'm listing this at WP:RFC for comments. It's nothing personal Philbert, just an attempt to improve the quality of the Hitchcock articles, and make them fit the Manual of Style. Green451 21:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The cameo is not noteworthy as an element of the film. Should not get its own header. Goldfritha 23:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Not taken as personal - since the general consensus is that an individual heading is not appropriate I will relocate this along with the others added to Hitchcock films to the trivia section sections. - after all i don't want the Wikipedia police at my door for non compliance  :-) Philbertgray 13:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue I have is with the clunky way it's worded. This is also true for other Hitch cameo bits in other articles (I admit I have only checked a couple but the structure seems pretty consistent). As it stands (Alfred Hitchcock cameo: A signature occurrence in almost all of Hitchcock's films, he can be seen...), it includes a gigantic dangling modifier: "he" is not an "occurrence". I can't think of a quick way to fix it without making the sentence much longer and somewhat more convoluted, but maybe someone else has an idea for making it better English. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I reworded the cameo to (hopefully) eliminate those pesky dangling modifiers and make the info less clunky. :-) Philbertgray 11:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responding to RfC

I saw this dispute mentioned in the RfC. I agree that the Hitchcock's momentary cameo is not significant enough to warrant a section of its own. He appeared in all of his later films, and there was nothing notable about this appearance to make it stand out from the others.--Mantanmoreland 19:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitchcock Cameo section removed

Thanks for the input on having a separate secticon for AH's cameos. None of the remarks were taken as personal. Since the general consensus is that an individual heading is not appropriate I relocating this along with the others added to other Hitchcock films to the trivia section sections. - after all i don't want the Wikipedia police at my door for non compliance. I did take the liberty of bolding Alfred Hitchcock cameo at the beginning of the trivia entry, just to make it easier to spot  :-) Philbertgray 13:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In the current version it appears as a separate section.--Mantanmoreland 22:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there was a refresh error when you made this change or Al's making ghost edits from beyond in favor of the cameo section, but for whatever reason the aforementioned edit didn't take. Please check to be sure I remedied this in a suitable way. Hondo 22:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hondo - I could swear I changed it, but maybe only looked at the preview. I actually like your phrasing better! Philbertgray 22:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Personally, I think we need a picture of the Bates Motel and House, as well as a still or photo that has the main cast in it (or at least Leigh and Perkins), such as a publicity photo (Similar to the cast photo in the Sunset Boulevard article). The picture of the shadowy mother could work, but I think an additional image to have would be the final shot of the shower scene, with Leigh on the floor. It's been a while since I've seen the movie, but I believe that that would kill three birds with one stone:

  1. It would illustrate the difficulty of getting that shot, which is mentioned.
  2. It would illustrate Hitchcock's need to shoot in black-and-white to avoid showing red blood.
  3. It would illustrate the use of chocolate syrup as blood.

You guys are doing great on the article, and I wish I could contribute more than comments and small fixes, but I lack most of the sources or knowledge of the film to contribute in a large way. Keep up the good work, Green451 01:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note, I don't have the DVD, so I can't take screenshots of the movie. Is it possible for someone who has the DVD to take a screenshot of the Bates motel and house, preferably in the same shot? I think it would contribute immensly to the article. And as one more note, what does anyone think about using the famous still of Hitchcock holding the clapper board on the set of the film? I'm just throwing ideas around. Comments please... Green451 04:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we need some image for the production section. Both the books I have are filled with photos and stills, but alas I lack the means to upload them. So yeah, add it or others if you can.--Supernumerary 01:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I went and removed all the superfluous full-fleged references to Janet Leigh's book and changed them to the shorter ones. As well, I streamlined a few others. Green451 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbogast footage contradiction

According to Hitchcock, a series of shots of Arbogast going up the stairs in the Bates house before he is stabbed were shot by the crew solely using Bass' drawings when Hitchcock was incapiacitated due to a running a "temperature". However, upon viewing the dailies of the shots, Hitchcock was forced to scrap them they were "no good".[46] Hitchcock later regretted cutting the shots, as he believed that due to the sequence being cut, "it wasn't an innocent person but a sinister man who was going up those stairs. Those cuts would have been perfectly all right if they were showing a killer, but they were in conflict with the whole spirit of the scene."[46]

My Leigh book says that Hilton Green directed those shots with "Hitchcock's explicit storyboards". Green shot "just Martin Balsam coming in the front door, looking around, and starting up the stairs prior to Mother's entrance." When Hitch saw the dailies, he said "You've got the thing reversed. What we want to see is a man in peril going upstairs, where we think death might await him. What you've shot [looks like] a murderer going upstairs, about to kill someone." It then details what Hitch means and goes on to say that some of the shots did end up in the film. This seems to contradict the interview's last statement. Have another look at your book and see if you also see a contradiction, if you do I'll try to find it in my other book (which I've just started because it goes into an excessive amount of detail).--Supernumerary 05:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it took me a bit to get back to you, but I had to dig up a few things in the Truffaut book. Here is the complete, unexpurgiated excerpt:
Francois Truffaut: ...I understand that in addition to the main titles, Saul Bass also did some sketches for the picture.
Alfred Hitchcock: He did only one scene, but I didn't use his montage. He was supposed to do the titles, but since he was interested in the picture, I let him lay out the sequence of the detective going up the stairs just before he is stabbed. One day during the shooting I came down with a temperature, and since I couldn't come to the studio, I told the cameraman and my assistant that they could use Saul Bass's drawinngs. Only the part showing him going up the stairs, before the killing. There was a shot of his hand on the rail, and of feet seen in profile, going up through the bars of the balustrade. When I looked at the rushes of the scene, I found it was no good, and that was an interesting revelation for me, because as that sequence was cut, it wasn't an innocent person but a sinister man who was going up those stairs. Those cuts would have been perfectly all right if they were showing a killer, but they were in conflict with the whole spirit of the scene.
I typed that very fast, so there may be a few spelling errors there. The last part of Hitchcock's response seemed a bit confusing to be, so after a bit of thought, I came to the following interpretation:
When Hitchcock saw the rushes of the scene, the shots-
Wait, hold the phone! I just had a major revelation! When Hitchcock says "as that sequence was cut", I took it to mean "as that sequence was removed". But he could be saying cut as in "as that sequence was edited"! Which would make sense considering what Green said in Leigh's book.
Okay, so that needs to be fixed, but I think the (correct) version would make an interesting tidbit which should be kept in the article, if that's all right with you. Green451 00:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What else?

Are there any glaring omissions from this article? I've still got 5 4 more big things to add: the difficulty of shooting the discovery of mother, the typecasting Leigh and Perkins suffered from, interpretation of scenes and motifs by Leigh, and the merchandising and TV( and that Hitchcock never viewed the dailies or looked through the camera). Really any suggestions at all are welcome.--Supernumerary 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What about having something about the difficulty getting the shot in the shower scene where the camera looks directly up at the water coming out of the shower? If I remember correctly from reading it somewhere (it was a while back), the camera had to be placed very precisely and shot with a long lens. I could be completely wrong about that, though. Green451 04:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Leigh's book had nothing about the shot (except that everyone copied off of it). Rebello's book goes into much more depth so I'll have a look there.--Supernumerary 04:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Found it. It's been added to the article.--Supernumerary 23:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OR from the innovations section

I'm removing the OR until a source can be found. It sounds like it came from some film studies book, so perhaps someone can check a film studies book. (I'll look in my film history text.) This also removes the only uncited facts from the article, which makes the whole thing look better. The text is reproduced below so that it might be re-added later.--Supernumerary 23:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Psycho is often seen as a turning point in film history, representing the shift from Classical to the more experimental "Post-Classical" film.[citation needed] Psycho's unconventional storytelling and stylized photography and editing show the influence of the French New Wave and the European art films that Hitchcock admired.[citation needed]

Yeah, good call. It sounds like bullshit anyway.  ;) --GHcool 01:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interpretation?

Should I add an interpretation section? It would mostly be Leigh's interpretation of the film. She talks about how the shower is a baptism, the use of shadows, windows, and mirrors, how the cop scene shows Hitchcock's phobia of cops, and other things (like her bra's color changing to reflect her theft).--Supernumerary 01:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds interesting, relevant, valuable and non-original research since it's largely from Leigh herself. I'd say go for it. MeekSaffron 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No one will be admitted after the start

Some nice bits of information could be reprocessed from Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho: A Look at its Impact on the Film Industry especially if someone is monitoring the email address mentionned at its end to provide the bibliography.

I especially think the "No one will be admitted" poster is striking and fair use in the innovations in film section, though we'd need concrete source information aside from the paper. Opinions? MeekSaffron 13:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. This is just a well-written term paper for a film studies class, so it isn't really valuable by itself, but if someone can get a list of her bibliography and trace down some of her more applicable quotes, that would be great. And yes, "No one will be admitted" is a good image. --GHcool 15:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I've emailed the address at the bottom. I'll post with the results, positive or negative. MeekSaffron 17:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
So far, there has been no reply. MeekSaffron 03:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/s/y/Talk%7EPsycho_%281960_film%29_Archive1_bca9.html"