[Prof. Masiello]

The movie versions of the Psycho story and the main characters are iconic.

Considering how Norman Bates is described and behaves in Robert Bloch’s novel,
why do you think Hitchcock (and screenwriter Joseph Stefano) changed him so drastically?

Was the film’s Norman a better character?

Which Norman do you prefer?

Why?

[,]

I liked the film norman better, he was portrayed as someone who was nice and caring and you would never expect the actions from a guy like that, or suspect him. I think Hitchcock made changes to throw the viewer off and its effective.

[Prof. Masiello]

Yes, Zeest,

Hitchcock made a wonderful choice in actor Anthony Perkins. Audiences may have even liked this Norman because he was polite, shy, handsome, vulnerable. Even when we found out he was “psycho” at the end, that very last scene when he thinks about the fly is creepy but fun.

If the director chose someone as repulsive as the Norman in the book, there would not be the same empathy.

[Anderson Uribe]

There are a few reasons for the change in Norman’s character. Given the many psychological complexities of Norman in the novel, it would have been easier for the audience to appreciate him as a young, good-looking, yet somewhat quirky character. Also, the cross-dressing issue would have been more palatable for a 1960 audience that could get scared with a few splashes of chocolate syrup. Finally, Norman and Mary had a bit of sexual tension between them, since he liked her. He also spied on her when she was going to enter the shower. The topic of sex for the 1960s audience would not have been as well received had Norman been a non-attractive, thinning hair, middle-aged man. After all, this is the film that created much controversy because Janet Leigh was shown in underwear and partially nude in the shower.

Although the Norman in the film succeeded in his role, there is no comparison to Norman in the novel for me. As I mentioned, there were many psychological concerns involving the character that did not come to light in the film. These issues were very interesting to me and made the character more nuanced. I could begin to understand Norman and picture how such a person came to be. In the film, I never did. It is very sad to me that none of Norman’s inner monologue made it to the film.

[Prof. Masiello]

Hello, Anderson,

What you said about Norman Bates makes good sense. Nevertheless, the film’s Norman is iconic while the book’s is obscure. When you tell others Psycho is based on a book, most people say, “There’s a book!?”

I do think one day someone may choose to film a movie entitled Robert Bloch’s Psycho. The only problem is most people know the surprise ending.

As for Norman’s inner monologue, at least we get the very memorable mental voice-over at the end: “Why she wouldn’t even harm a fly.”

As my students come to learn about me, I am often quite surprised that many prefer the literary source material over the motion pictures.

I have a feeling that will change for the two short stories currently assigned, “It’s a Wonderful Life” and “The Sentinel” (2001: A Space Odyssey).

[Anderson Uribe]

Response for Reply #69666

Oh! good point, prof. Masiello. The line of not harming a fly is rather iconic, yet went over my head. Although… that was Norma! Or was it? It is an interesting topic for discussion to consider whether Norman is himself regardless of whether his alternate persona(s) takes over. The novel and film wants us to believe he is not himself anymore. I do not know the philosophy or psychology behind dissociative identity disorder; there might be a definite answer for this.

I am one of those who did not know there was a book of the film. I also had not watched it until this course, but I knew of its existence.

[Prof. Masiello]

I am pleased to introduce my students to great films! Literature is great. So can be films.

• This reply was modified 4 years ago by Prof. Masiello.
• This reply was modified 4 years ago by Prof. Masiello.

[Jennifer Apuango]

I think Hitchcock changed Norman to not throw the audience off, by in the novel, Norman was described as a chubby middle aged man which makes the audience already sound creepy and suspicious. Whereas in the film he looked young, tall, and attractive which the viewer would have never expected for Norman to act the way he did. It made the audience hard to believe that Norman who was a kind person was a psychopath after all. The film Norman was a better character by Hitchcock made him far more likable and empathetic whom Norman breaks the confines of the typical, undesirable “mama boy” and becomes something more complex and sinister rather than just simply dangerous.

[Virginia Sanchez]

Instead of having Norman appear fat or bald, like in the novel, he is shown skinny with nice hair and features. I believe this decision was to make the ending more shocking. Most, especially during this time, cared deeply about their appearance and the appearance of others. The idea of an overweight balding individual being a murderer would seem more believable than a “proper” individual becoming one. By changing Norman to appear typically “normal” it shows the audience anyone could commit the terrible acts in the film. Personally, I liked the novel Norman as I feel he had more depth but the film Norman shocked the audience more.

[afrina nishat]

I liked the Norman as a gentleman who was so caring about his clients. Norman’s character is very strange because no one can not understand in the first 1 and half hour what is in his mind. Yes it was the Norman’s better character because it keeps audiences to see the last of the movie. So I prefer the Norman’s first look where he was very much gentle and caring.

[Christopher Lobato]

I agree with what some of my classmates said; the film version of Norman Bates is more attractive, so he is more likable, so when we see his awkward demeanor, it makes us root for him. We do not feel as disgusted by his spying on Marion Crane while with maybe a Norman like the one described in the novel we might have. Another reason likely for the change in appearance was to maximize impact for the big reveal because if a 40-year-old large man came running down the stairs, it would have been more comical than surprising or horrid. The smaller figure also allows for Mother’s identity to stay hidden because if we saw a larger figure during Marion Crane and Arbogast’s murder, we would have instantly known who the killer was. Additionally, another change worth mentioning is Norman’s slight change in his hobby. In the novel, he has a stuffed squirrel, but in the film, he has a specific fixation for stuffing predatory birds. Marion points out that his strange hobby to which Norman responds by saying that he would prefer to use birds rather than beasts like foxes, cats, or dogs, which can suggest that he is kind, but it also does draw a connection between him and the birds. As a result, we begin to believe that perhaps Norman is like the stuffed birds, beautiful and passive but predatory.

Nonetheless, both the film and the novel use Norman Bates’ appearance as a reason for the characters not to suspect him. Both works make us feel sympathy for him, but the novel’s portrayal makes him seem pitiful and pathetic due to his appearance and demeanor. While on the other hand, the film gives Norman a less pitying appearance, so we feel bad initially because he has to deal with his mother, and the sympathy we feel is like that which we would feel for a stray dog. In general, I prefer Norman Bates from the film much more because he is so awkward, uncanny, and pleasant at the same time! I especially like the way Hitchcock uses the stuffed birds in his shots. For example, when Marion questions Norman about his mother, we can initially see Norman and a stuffed crow in the shot, but then it switches to another shot where now the stuffed owl is a part of it. This shot is cool because the change from the less menacing yet morbid bird to the more intimidating bird suggests that the Mother part of Norman is now defensive.

• This reply was modified 4 years ago by Christopher Lobato.

[Jimcya]

In Hitchcock’s film, the character is young, handsome, tall and with a mysterious but fascinating look, however, in the book, Norman is a mature and pathetic overweight man, but the conversation they have in the novel is deeper and more meaningful. which allows us to see Bates’ sick personality broadly.

[Ajay]

Considering how Norman Bates is described and behaves in Robert Bloch’s novel,
why do you think Hitchcock (and screenwriter Joseph Stefano) changed him so drastically?

I think Hitchcock and screenwriter Joseph Stefano changed him so drastically because when you first became involved with the project and read Robert Bloch’s novel Psycho, you clearly disliked the fictional Norman Bates. He was an unpleasant, obese, and balding drunk not to mention his other problems. If you felt it was crucial to make him more sympathetic in the movie. You also felt the same way about the Mary character, later renamed Marion. It changed him absolutely because my take on how to adapt this book into a movie, which I explained to Hitch in our first meeting, was that it should be about a girl who’s in a dead-end love affair with a man who has serious financial problems. She loves him, but she doesn’t want things to continue as they are shacking up in cheap hotel rooms over her lunch hour whenever he can get to town. So, I described to Hitch what this woman was going through in her shameful life when a wealthy, smooth man unexpectedly walks into her office at the bank and hands her $60,000 in cash to deposit. The temptation is just too much for Marion as she later realizes in the parlor scene with Norman. As she says to Norman, we all dig our own little traps, and when she made the decision not to deposit the money, she sealed her chance. It’s a true moment of impulsive madness, but quite different from Norman Bates’s craziness. Norman’s stupidity is a “convenient” mental illness which works to keep him out of trouble, and which also works to prevent him from confronting his ghosts. Marion’s delusion is more like one of those moments when somebody bumps into you on an elevator and you go temporarily foolishness.

Was the film’s Norman a better character? The film’s Norman was a better character because his psychological affliction and responsibility for the murder is not revealed until the end of the film, but the viewer’s ultimate knowledge of it does not diminish Hitchcock’s intention: to make the viewer complicit in the murder and ultimately sympathize with Norman Bates. In his book interview with Hitchcock, Francois Truffaut states that in Psycho “there isn’t a single character with whom a viewer might identify,” but he is incorrect. We identify with Norman Bates, not because we are given special insight into his mind and motivations, but because Hitchcock manipulates us into identifying with him an extremist move considering he is the film’s villain.

Which Norman do you prefer? The Norman that I prefer was the film’s version.

Why? Because through his relationship with the other characters of the film, primarily Marion Crane, Norman Bates becomes the film’s protagonist. Through his relationship with his mother, he is made touching and the object of the viewer’s sympathy and affection. By Hitchcock’s careful manipulation of the audience through film and narrative techniques, the viewer is made to identify with Norman, whether the viewer wishes to or not. Psycho is a film where the director intentionally and obviously manipulates the audience. In fact, Alfred Hitchcock took pride in his manipulation of the viewing audience, remarking in an interview, “You might say I was playing them, like an organ,”. Hitchcock’s main intention in manipulating the audience throughout the film is to make us complicit in the actions of Norman Bates.

[Salina Shrestha]

I believe It was an effective change that Hitchcock changed the look and character of Norman Bates. This helped the audiences trust him and not suspect that he was the actual killer, whereas in the novel he makes us uncomfortable right in the beginning where he is introduced. I find that the Norman in the film was a better character because he was made to seem like he was normal. Just by his personality too, he was less obvious and seemed to be well put together. Bloch’s version of Norman was an alcoholic and more openly creepy. In the end i liked, Hitchcock’s version of Norman better. He seemed more apologetic about his mother’s condition and that made him seem like a caring character that we could show sympathy for.