Films from Literature ENG 2400

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #69338

    Prof. Masiello
    Participant

    Afrina,

    Once you saw the movie, I hope you found the novel interesting since the author was able to use just his words to create an illusion of two separate people.

    #69342

    Prof. Masiello
    Participant

    Virginia,

    The woman victim in the book does seem to get killed rather soon. The movie script changed the focus, so rather than alternate between her story and Norman’s in the novel, we see Marion in every single scene until she unexpectedly dies. Janet Leigh was a major film star and she dominates the posters for the film, so audiences were completely shocked that someone we were so invested in died before the movie was half over. Compare that memorable death to the pile up of dead people in the typical franchise horror movie wherein we typically just want to see how creatively the victims will die, each one differently and we do not regret their deaths because we are not wrapped up in their lives. Imagine a favorite actor now whom you think is the star of the movie, who is prominent in the posters, who is in every single scene suddenly being killed. People in 1960 had never seen such a thing.

    #69416

    Prof. Masiello
    Participant

    I am happy to learn that after 60 years, the big reveal was not spoiled at least for some people like you, Jabir!

    #69735

    Jimcya
    Participant

    1)Yes, I was surprised by the big reveal near the end, even though I sometimes think there was something Norman was hiding.
    2) When Marion returns to her room and during a shower we see how the silhouette of an old woman approaches the curtain, opening it with force, stabbing Marion without mercy and fleeing quickly.

    #69787

    Ajay
    Participant

    1) Were you surprised by the big reveal near the end?

    I was not surprised by the big reveal near the end because to assume that this scene is the “one true shock” of Psycho is to misread Hitchcock’s film and misinterpret his plans. The true beauty of Psycho is that it has an entire review of twists, and some, like the foreboding spookiness of the Bates Motel, are meant to be correctly guessed. Hitchcock, though, made sure audiences thought they could predict what was coming. Psycho makes its audience think that the murders are not being committed by the obvious suspect: Norman Bates, the shy and awkward owner of the Bates Motel. He wrote that in this period “the suspense of Psycho is enduring engraved in the mind of the audience. But for those in today’s world who do have the luxury of ignorance, experiencing the remainder of its twists even just the revelation that Norman Bates is the murder in real time, experiencing a dash where you expected a punch remains an electrifying experience. It is also an experience that is more accessible to 21st century viewers than you might expect. It’s a twist that remains just as effective as it did in 1960. After I finished the movie, I walked upstairs, but I couldn’t sleep because the full movie had such a powerful effect on me. I walked downstairs and found that my brother couldn’t sleep either.

    2) If you were becoming suspicious, what scenes made you start wondering about what was what. or should I say who was who?

    The main reason, I asked you to watch the film before reading the book was to give you the maximum effect. Alfred Hitchcock made visual history by insisting that people would not be seated once the film began. Back in 1960, people would just wander into a movie at any point often seeing from the middle, and then the next showing would come very soon after so they could catch up with what they missed. If this sounds foreign to you, ask your grandparents if that is how they saw movies. This was before the movie house, and even after 1960 people would just go in when it was convenient. Furthermore, Mr. Hitchcock did everything he could to have his assistants buy up as many copies of the Robert Bloch novel as possible so few if any would have read the story before seeing it.

    #69964

    Salina Shrestha
    Participant

    1) Were you surprised by the big reveal near the end? If I hadn’t watched Bates Motel, which was based on Psycho, I would’ve been surprised. No one would really suspect a charming man with boyish looks to be a psycho unlike in the novel where he had a not so attractive description and already seemed creepy from the start.

    2) If you were becoming suspicious, what scenes made you start wondering about what was what. or should I say who was who?
    i became suspicious the moment Norman was spying on Marion through the peep hole. It made me realize he was not as innocent as I thought he was when we first were introduced to him. Another part was the famous shower scene, we never actually see who the killer was . Knowing how movies are these days, it would have been too safe to assume that Norman’s mother was behind it all so early on.

    #69976

    Ajay
    Participant

    If this was the first time you have seen Psycho, please post answers to the following:

    1) Were you surprised by the big reveal near the end?

    I was not surprised by the big reveal near the end because to assume that this scene is the “one true shock” of Psycho is to misread Hitchcock’s film and misinterpret his plans. The true beauty of Psycho is that it has an entire review of twists, and some, like the foreboding spookiness of the Bates Motel, are meant to be correctly guessed. Hitchcock, though, made sure audiences thought they could predict what was coming. Psycho makes its audience think that the murders are not being committed by the obvious suspect: Norman Bates, the shy and awkward owner of the Bates Motel. He wrote that in this period “the suspense of Psycho is enduring engraved in the mind of the audience. But for those in today’s world who do have the luxury of ignorance, experiencing the remainder of its twists even just the revelation that Norman Bates is the murder in real time, experiencing a dash where you expected a punch remains an electrifying experience. It is also an experience that is more accessible to 21st century viewers than you might expect. It’s a twist that remains just as effective as it did in 1960. After I finished the movie, I walked upstairs, but I couldn’t sleep because the full movie had such a powerful effect on me. I walked downstairs and found that my brother couldn’t sleep either.

    2) If you were becoming suspicious, what scenes made you start wondering about what was what. or should I say who was who?

    The main reason, I asked you to watch the film before reading the book was to give you the maximum effect. Alfred Hitchcock made visual history by insisting that people would not be seated once the film began. Back in 1960, people would just wander into a movie at any point often seeing from the middle, and then the next showing would come very soon after so they could catch up with what they missed. If this sounds foreign to you, ask your grandparents if that is how they saw movies. This was before the movie house, and even after 1960 people would just go in when it was convenient. Furthermore, Mr. Hitchcock did everything he could to have his assistants buy up as many copies of the Robert Bloch novel as possible so few if any would have read the story before seeing it.

Viewing 7 posts - 16 through 22 (of 22 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.