PSYCHO - 1960
The movie I chose to watch as my film article was that of Hitchcock’s Psycho. I chose this movie on the reviews of others. Although the movie (in my opinion) took awhile to get to the suspense, I thought the shower scene and the climate at the end were packed with thrill and excitement as the plot unravels with the explanation in the end. The struggle that I had was whether or not (according to Carroll) Norman Bates legitimately fits the mold of a monster as well as Psycho being a horror film
Hitchcock’s movie Psycho, in my opinion is as real if not as more real in being a legitimate horror film. Some horror critics would classify Psycho as a horror film as well as others (like Carroll) would not. Carroll does give recognition to the atmosphere, sound effects, lighting, as creating suspense and tension in the film. But for Carroll the reason why Hitchcock’s movie is not counted as a horror film is because for Carroll, Norman Bates is not a monster. A monster has to be repulsive/disgusting and it must be feared. For Carroll a monster has to be a fictional being. It is this premise in that I disagree with him.
A “Monster” is “Any being not believed to exist now according to contemporary science” (Taken from notes). Bates is not a monster because science/psychology could classify him into a certain psychosis category. How is this possible? I could agree with Carroll that Bates may not be a monster in regards to “Art-horror,” but in reality I am more afraid of a Norman Bates in the world than a Frankenstein or a Dracula. He isn’t normal, “neither man nor woman but both. His is son and mother. He is of the living and the dead. He is both victim and victimizer. He is two persons in one” (pg 39, Carroll). However, Carroll says that this is a function of psychology rather than biology. My question would be what if the discipline of psychology couldn’t obtain a “scientific” explanation of Norman Bates condition? Would that make him a monster?...Science couldn’t explain it. He is a monster. There is something terribly wrong with his mind, a sort of impure, terrifying human as we know he is not normal. Carroll says, “We place ourselves in a position to explain what it is about figures like Norman Bates that tempts people to classify him as horrific.” I would say the reason why he is horrific is because I would not want to have a tea party at Bates’ house alone. That is what makes him a monster. Throw out science, there is still evil, fear, and disgust in such a man.
In conclusion, I would say that Psycho as well as many of other movies could best be classified as a horror film but following the “art-dread” category and not “art-horror.” In my opinion, the art dread category is more realistic and best suits the “Thought theory” in creating suspense and fear. I say this because there is a level of “this can happen” in the minds of the audiences which makes it more terrifying. I concur that Psycho’s Norman Bates is feared and disgusting (though not at first). Though Psycho doesn’t have a monster like a Frankenstein or a Dracula, it still has a villain that at the “thought” of it is terrifying in and of itself. This is what makes it a monster.
The movie I chose to watch as my film article was that of Hitchcock’s Psycho. I chose this movie on the reviews of others. Although the movie (in my opinion) took awhile to get to the suspense, I thought the shower scene and the climate at the end were packed with thrill and excitement as the plot unravels with the explanation in the end. The struggle that I had was whether or not (according to Carroll) Norman Bates legitimately fits the mold of a monster as well as Psycho being a horror film
Hitchcock’s movie Psycho, in my opinion is as real if not as more real in being a legitimate horror film. Some horror critics would classify Psycho as a horror film as well as others (like Carroll) would not. Carroll does give recognition to the atmosphere, sound effects, lighting, as creating suspense and tension in the film. But for Carroll the reason why Hitchcock’s movie is not counted as a horror film is because for Carroll, Norman Bates is not a monster. A monster has to be repulsive/disgusting and it must be feared. For Carroll a monster has to be a fictional being. It is this premise in that I disagree with him.
A “Monster” is “Any being not believed to exist now according to contemporary science” (Taken from notes). Bates is not a monster because science/psychology could classify him into a certain psychosis category. How is this possible? I could agree with Carroll that Bates may not be a monster in regards to “Art-horror,” but in reality I am more afraid of a Norman Bates in the world than a Frankenstein or a Dracula. He isn’t normal, “neither man nor woman but both. His is son and mother. He is of the living and the dead. He is both victim and victimizer. He is two persons in one” (pg 39, Carroll). However, Carroll says that this is a function of psychology rather than biology. My question would be what if the discipline of psychology couldn’t obtain a “scientific” explanation of Norman Bates condition? Would that make him a monster?...Science couldn’t explain it. He is a monster. There is something terribly wrong with his mind, a sort of impure, terrifying human as we know he is not normal. Carroll says, “We place ourselves in a position to explain what it is about figures like Norman Bates that tempts people to classify him as horrific.” I would say the reason why he is horrific is because I would not want to have a tea party at Bates’ house alone. That is what makes him a monster. Throw out science, there is still evil, fear, and disgust in such a man.
In conclusion, I would say that Psycho as well as many of other movies could best be classified as a horror film but following the “art-dread” category and not “art-horror.” In my opinion, the art dread category is more realistic and best suits the “Thought theory” in creating suspense and fear. I say this because there is a level of “this can happen” in the minds of the audiences which makes it more terrifying. I concur that Psycho’s Norman Bates is feared and disgusting (though not at first). Though Psycho doesn’t have a monster like a Frankenstein or a Dracula, it still has a villain that at the “thought” of it is terrifying in and of itself. This is what makes it a monster.
No comments:
Post a Comment