criterionforum.org

Film Club threads are not spoiler free. There is no need to use spoiler tags for the film under discussion.

Finch wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:45 am The entire first half and our identification with Marion and then Norman is so strong that when the film invariably has to focus on her sister and boyfriend, it sags a little, and I was long bothered by

Spoiler

the shrink's tidy explanation

that closes the film until I thought, perhaps that is the entire point? It is so blatantly unsatisfactory that I now feel silly for thinking that we are meant to take it seriously. Does anyone else feel the same way? In any event, the scene in the cell and that final superimposition are so bone chilling that it takes away any sour taste the preceding sequence has (I seem to recall reading somewhere that the scriptwriter Stefano had issues with the actor playing the psychiatrist and I'd agree, the performance doesn't help).

Going back once again to my first viewing and my utter shock at the climax, I appreciated the explanation at the end as it gave me a bit of time to come to terms with what I had just seen. Over the years, I've actually grown to love that explanation scene, and part of the reason why is because Simon Oakland's character is such a smarmy asshole. He seems to relish in stringing his audience along, making cryptic statements like, "I got the story...from his mother..." and then quickly changing the subject before clarifying that statement. Oakland is over the top, but it works for me in making this scene perversely funny. I wonder if there's a bit of a winking nod at the way Hitchcock liked to toy with his own audience here. Poor Vera Miles and John Gavin are often criticized for not showing any emotion as they discover the truth about Marion, but what can you do when faced with Oakland's smugness except just stare incredulously?

I actually read the novel before I saw the film (libraries wouldn't let 11 year old me take out the video, but their hands were tied as far as books went!)

Some interesting information on a possible inspiration for Norman Bates - http://www.bmonster.com/horror29.html

Re: the psych professional's 'explanation' - usually these scenes either bother me, or I accept them as dated ideas, or I see them as not didactic as much as serving a purpose in the film's intent, which as long as it's not harmful messaging can be a strong tool. This functions as the latter two for me, because at this point in time nobody knew what gave people "split personalities" (which has been renamed many times, and very recently has been on its way to being debunked as a diagnosis in general) yet the purpose was to insert this wild psychological idea and drop it on you as the audience, supporting the thematic horror that people are unpredictable and painting this new integration of psychology itself into our culture in the late 50s as terrifyingly nebulous. This wouldn't work today, though many films have tried and failed, because psychology is more studied and understood; but to watch Norman looking and acting crazed in the straightjacket at the end long after any acute incident, I'm always shaken by how this sustained behavior doesn't fit with his previous (apparent) ability to turn the personality on and off, to function as "normal" outside of triggering moments, to behave logically to cover up the crime, interact with people calmly, etc. That he is still in this mentally unhinged state breaks the loose rules that were set up throughout the film and hits home the idea that another human being's mysterious psychology is the greatest horror for us. I think this still works today when done right, but I can't imagine how impactful that ending was back then... at a time when there was so much distrust and fear around the uncovering of this new science.

therewillbeblus wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 2:08 pm
While Wait Until Dark may have popularized the 'jump scare' we get today, Psycho likely was the first mainstream American film to really redefine this jolting of audiences out of their seats with the infamous stairs scene. I remember seeing that as a child and being absolutely terrified at the unexpected timing of it from the objective birds-eye-view angle.

I believe Cat People got there nearly a couple of decades earlier with its "Lewton bus"

therewillbeblus wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 2:18 pm Re: the psych professional's 'explanation' - usually these scenes either bother me, or I accept them as dated ideas, or I see them as not didactic as much as serving a purpose in the film's intent, which as long as it's not harmful messaging can be a strong tool. This functions as the latter two for me, because at this point in time nobody knew what gave people "split personalities" (which has been renamed many times, and very recently has been on its way to being debunked as a diagnosis in general) yet the purpose was to insert this wild psychological idea and drop it on you as the audience, supporting the thematic horror that people are unpredictable and painting this new integration of psychology itself into our culture in the late 50s as terrifyingly nebulous. This wouldn't work today, though many films have tried and failed, because psychology is more studied and understood; but to watch Norman looking and acting crazed in the straightjacket at the end long after any acute incident, I'm always shaken by how this sustained behavior doesn't fit with his previous (apparent) ability to turn the personality on and off, to function as "normal" outside of triggering moments, to behave logically to cover up the crime, interact with people calmly, etc. That he is still in this mentally unhinged state breaks the loose rules that were set up throughout the film and hits home the idea that another human being's mysterious psychology is the greatest horror for us. I think this still works today when done right, but I can't imagine how impactful that ending was back then... at a time when there was so much distrust and fear around the uncovering of this new science.

I don't remember Norman acting crazed, but I do wonder if so if he is triggered as he is now enveloped in this world which all his behaviour was keeping at bay/away - maybe he thinks his normal is normal. I may be going too far but I'm not sure how active I see him in turning on and off, maybe compelled internally. Psychology though is not a science, it's a pseudo science as Wittgenstein pointed out, not that it stops them acting as a science a lot of the time. And the people seem to accept it. But I think it explains a lot. sorry I'm drifting.

The Curious Sofa wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 2:31 pm

therewillbeblus wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2020 2:08 pm
While Wait Until Dark may have popularized the 'jump scare' we get today, Psycho likely was the first mainstream American film to really redefine this jolting of audiences out of their seats with the infamous stairs scene. I remember seeing that as a child and being absolutely terrified at the unexpected timing of it from the objective birds-eye-view angle.

I believe Cat People got there nearly a couple of decades earlier with its "Lewton bus"

I guess I think that helped define the jump scare while these later actual violent moments redefined them but it's all just a loose declaration of how intrusive scares have evolved through film history.

Kat wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 2:38 pm I don't remember Norman acting crazed, but I do wonder if so if he is triggered as he is now enveloped in this world which all his behaviour was keeping at bay/away - maybe he thinks his normal is normal. I may be going too far but I'm not sure how active I see him in turning on and off, maybe compelled internally. Psychology though is not a science, it's a pseudo science as Wittgenstein pointed out, not that it stops them acting as a science a lot of the time. And the people seem to accept it. But I think it explains a lot. sorry I'm drifting.

Well, that certainly is an opinion, though going by the perspective of a philosopher who died 70 years ago at a time when we barely knew anything about psychology compared to what we do today should deafen any value in that proclamation, not that he wasn't influential, but when he formed that opinion eugenics was still considered a science. I'm not saying psychology is always defined by its empiricism, but throwing around pseudoscience as a definitive signifier is harmful; plus he actually called it a "young science" to my understanding and was humble enough to admit that we had a lot more to learn about it at the time of his assessment... which we have.

Anyways, regardless of your thoughts on psychology itself, my point is that in your loose theorizing about how Norman's behavior could possibly make sense at the end, that idea of fearful unpredictability of psychology at the time is only solidified. We need to grasp at straws to wonder about how his behavior can make sense given an internal logic that we are not offered. That scrambling for a concrete analysis coupled with the jarring reveal only heightens the power of the film.

I honestly can't remember if I knew about the strings when I first saw the film, and maybe my (over?)familiarity with the cue colours my preference for the shower sequence without the music but the score, as screeching as it is, also reminds us we're watching a film. Even violent music reminds us that this is just a film (therefore becoming reassuring in a way), so the murder without music accompaniment has a matter of fact quality to it that makes the scene more disturbing to me, in a way that reminds me of Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer. But clearly Hitch felt that the music added something, and who knows how many people would have found the scene as impactful had it premiered without the strings.

therewillbeblus wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:41 pm
Well, that certainly is an opinion, though going by the perspective of a philosopher who died 70 years ago at a time when we barely knew anything about psychology compared to what we do today should deafen any value in that proclamation, not that he wasn't influential, but when he formed that opinion eugenics was still considered a science. I'm not saying psychology is always defined by its empiricism, but throwing around pseudoscience as a definitive signifier is harmful; plus he actually called it a "young science" to my understanding and was humble enough to admit that we had a lot more to learn about it at the time of his assessment... which we have.

Anyways, regardless of your thoughts on psychology itself, my point is that in your loose theorizing about how Norman's behavior could possibly make sense at the end, that idea of fearful unpredictability of psychology at the time is only solidified. We need to grasp at straws to wonder about how his behavior can make sense given an internal logic that we are not offered. That scrambling for a concrete analysis coupled with the jarring reveal only heightens the power of the film.

Pseudoscience stems from a lack of falsifiability which is a hallmark of something like psychoanalysis. This is why Freud, at least at some level got dropped rather hard by the scientific establishment. Part of the the battle that psychology and neuroscience faces is that the brain is so complex we're constantly reassessing certain things based on new evidence. I'll remind people that until being gay was classified as mental disorder until 1977 and wasn't endorsed by the WHO until 1990. And yet even with these declarations being made homophobia is still rampant all over the world! I would certainly hope that no one here would argue against these findings/declarations or argue that they're pseudoscience.

There's likely no one specific reason as to why Norman is the way he is but it's likely a complex combination of things that created the man. Most certainly his mother didn't help and if you look into the history of serial killers you'll note that domineering and abusive parents are more common than they are not (Ted Bundy seems to be an exception but please correct me if I'm wrong.) and when you combine that with certain other things (Such as impaired empathy) it can create real problems down the road. I think one of the biggest issues psychology faces is that there isn't just one specific thing going on but an obscenely complex series of things that result in a very unsdesirable outcome. This is a deeply unsatisfying answer to some people who want to know with absolute certainty why something is the way it is. This is why I wager it's nigh impossible to convince some people that things like mental illness and addiction can't just be overcome by "toughening up". There just isn't any certainty.

Following a fairly tepid reaction to the first screening of the edited film with no score, Hitchcock was seriously worried that he’d made a flop - and since he financed the film himself, this was a much bigger deal than usual. The addition of the Herrmann score for the second screening changed everything.

Especially, I imagine, in the run-up to Marion’s arrival at the motel, where Herrmann is doing the bulk of the psychological heavy lifting.

therewillbeblus wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:41 pm

Well, that certainly is an opinion, though going by the perspective of a philosopher who died 70 years ago at a time when we barely knew anything about psychology compared to what we do today should deafen any value in that proclamation, not that he wasn't influential, but when he formed that opinion eugenics was still considered a science. I'm not saying psychology is always defined by its empiricism, but throwing around pseudoscience as a definitive signifier is harmful; plus he actually called it a "young science" to my understanding and was humble enough to admit that we had a lot more to learn about it at the time of his assessment... which we have.

Anyways, regardless of your thoughts on psychology itself, my point is that in your loose theorizing about how Norman's behavior could possibly make sense at the end, that idea of fearful unpredictability of psychology at the time is only solidified. We need to grasp at straws to wonder about how his behavior can make sense given an internal logic that we are not offered. That scrambling for a concrete analysis coupled with the jarring reveal only heightens the power of the film.

Well a lotta philosophers' opinions last a lot longer than seventy years.

But, wait, are you telling me off?

Wittgenstein's points are not invalidated by data. They are kind of important and go to the claim on knowledge. I am no expert but neither am I just being loose. I don't know how its not more discussed - and how it is that its taxonomy gets used in technological ways as though it was certain and a science.

I'm not a Wittgenstein expert. But I don't think I'm incorrect on this.

I'm sorry you found me to be loosely theorising too. I didn't mean to theorise much at all. My psychology is in the humanist 3rd wave camp - and an art. My point may really just be an empathic observation, maybe Norman is just a tad scared, probably not wrong in picking up distrust/dislike and objectification of himself, and may also be picking up his view of the world may be somewhat disputed.
But when I offered that opinion it was not in challenge to you or anyone, but a bid to be constructive. Peace and love -- and i mean it. I know I'm speculating and I know I haven't seen it in ages.

I feel Hitchcock suggests internal logics quite thoroughly but indirectly, I don't think we have no idea at all. I wonder how a diagnosis in modern terms as that doctor was happy to offer would still look in the film's context now.

eugenics is an interesting discussion in light of earlier psychology.

I've not said anything about lgbt, does that rest in psychology's power? I am pro LGBTQI+ and find myself very much in favour.

Just to be clear I wasn't advocating that the film shouldn't have had any music at all, I myself would have found the film less compelling without the score; I merely find it fascinating to ponder how the film would play if the only scene that wasn't scored was the shower sequence. It's the most shocking scene in the film and I find that with just the diegetic sound it underscores Leigh's loneliness in death and makes it even more disturbing. But I realise it's moving away from discussing the film as is so I'll leave it at that.

Someone replaced the Herrmann strings with the Halloween synthesizer.

Not bad but I think highlights how effective in the original cut the silence is once Leigh drops to the ground.

Big Ben wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:14 pm

therewillbeblus wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:41 pm
Well, that certainly is an opinion, though going by the perspective of a philosopher who died 70 years ago at a time when we barely knew anything about psychology compared to what we do today should deafen any value in that proclamation, not that he wasn't influential, but when he formed that opinion eugenics was still considered a science. I'm not saying psychology is always defined by its empiricism, but throwing around pseudoscience as a definitive signifier is harmful; plus he actually called it a "young science" to my understanding and was humble enough to admit that we had a lot more to learn about it at the time of his assessment... which we have.

Anyways, regardless of your thoughts on psychology itself, my point is that in your loose theorizing about how Norman's behavior could possibly make sense at the end, that idea of fearful unpredictability of psychology at the time is only solidified. We need to grasp at straws to wonder about how his behavior can make sense given an internal logic that we are not offered. That scrambling for a concrete analysis coupled with the jarring reveal only heightens the power of the film.

Pseudoscience stems from a lack of falsifiability which is a hallmark of something like psychoanalysis. This is why Freud, at least at some level got dropped rather hard by the scientific establishment. Part of the the battle that psychology and neuroscience faces is that the brain is so complex we're constantly reassessing certain things based on new evidence. I'll remind people that until being gay was classified as mental disorder until 1977 and wasn't endorsed by the WHO until 1990. And yet even with these declarations being made homophobia is still rampant all over the world! I would certainly hope that no one here would argue against these findings/declarations or argue that they're pseudoscience.

There's likely no one specific reason as to why Norman is the way he is but it's likely a complex combination of things that created the man. Most certainly his mother didn't help and if you look into the history of serial killers you'll note that domineering and abusive parents are more common than they are not (Ted Bundy seems to be an exception but please correct me if I'm wrong.) and when you combine that with certain other things (Such as impaired empathy) it can create real problems down the road. I think one of the biggest issues psychology faces is that there isn't just one specific thing going on but an obscenely complex series of things that result in a very unsdesirable outcome. This is a deeply unsatisfying answer to some people who want to know with absolute certainty why something is the way it is. This is why I wager it's nigh impossible to convince some people that things like mental illness and addiction can't just be overcome by "toughening up". There just isn't any certainty.

I just want to say thank you for this insightful post that is right on the money (and homosexuality stayed in the DSM until 1987!) - I think it's important to make that distinction between psychoanalysis as foundational to psychology but deeply flawed, and psychology today, as well as understand the just because knowledge evolves doesn't mean something is a pseudoscience (this occurs medically too). Following the "thoughening up" or will power argument postures at the moral model of evaluation, which is alarming; though in general I tend to operate under the philosophy that if you don't understand another person's condition, best not formulate a strong opinion on the matter from your own blind vantage point.

Kat wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:37 pm Well a lotta philosophers' opinions last a lot longer than seventy years.

But, wait, are you telling me off?

Wittgenstein's points are not invalidated by data. They are kind of important and go to the claim on knowledge. I am no expert but neither am I just being loose. I don't know how its not more discussed - and how it is that its taxonomy gets used in technological ways as though it was certain and a science.

I'm not a Wittgenstein expert. But I don't think I'm incorrect on this.

I don't have a problem with Wittgenstein, and I live by a lot of principles that were formulated by philosophers way older than him, but my problem lies in comparing psychology as an entire broad practice to the claims of a philosopher who is evaluating, as Big Ben said, Freud's work and before we had empirical evidence for psychology to be a more grounded science. It just didn't seem like a fair or logical comment to make, when practices evolve so much over time. For example, we only started using client-centered therapy pretty recently after finding evidence that people are more motivated to change from their own words and ideas, and only in the last few decades did we start considering that nature had just as much to play in mental health as nurture! My problem isn't that there are problems or pseudoscience histories with parts of psychological frameworks, but that the entire domain is a sham is quite a statement, especially when basing this off of dated material pre-empirical work. To use Big Ben's comment, it would be like someone today saying that homosexuality is a mental health issue and a choice because of this being written as into the diagnostic manual a few decades ago despite more recent evidence proving otherwise. (I don't think you're doing this, I'm using an analogy to highlight how times change and old ways of thinking don't reflect a definitive truth on the entirety of an evolving scientific practice).

Kat wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:37 pm I'm sorry you found me to be loosely theorising too. I didn't mean to theorise much at all. My psychology is in the humanist 3rd wave camp - and an art. My point may really just be an empathic observation, maybe Norman is just a tad scared, probably not wrong in picking up distrust/dislike and objectification of himself, and may also be picking up his view of the world may be somewhat disputed.
But when I offered that opinion it was not in challenge to you or anyone, but a bid to be constructive. Peace and love -- and i mean it. I know I'm speculating and I know I haven't seen it in ages.

I think you misunderstood my point here, you have nothing to apologize for, quite the opposite - I was trying to say that theorizing about what Norman may be feeling at the end is indicative that we are trying to make logical sense of Norman's behavior, which is of course a gut-instinct we do to keep ourselves feeling secure with expected, predictable evaluative methods at analyzing human behavior. I was doing the same thing earlier, as were other posters, and audiences back then I'm sure. I think you raise very interesting points about an empathic eye to Norman that I haven't heard discussed yet. Either way, I think that we've collectively spent so much time wondering what he's thinking, why he's presenting as he does, etc. that this presents his case as impenetrable across our expected methods and thus threatening to the normalcy of 1960s America, which along with the loose comprehension, or murky publicity, of psychology at the time, only made this scarier for audiences back then.

The score in the shower scene is too iconic to ever be considered apart from the action, even as an exercise. It’s like, sure, maybe the approach of the shark in Jaws would have felt different without the infamous “dunh-nuh”s, but you can’t ever forget they were there even if someone took them out for some reason

I've not used the word sham, I hope.
I'm biased as I have experience of bad practice and yet have trained in another branch. How I use the word may also be biased by uk understanding of it (which I do keep forgetting).

I think what you are saying fits with my point of Hitchcock and narratives and suggesting how they don't tell the whole story further back. I didn't know I'd apologised, but did explain.

I do think Hitchcock has got it, and if he has others may - I don't see it as impenetrable wholly, I think the point is it is less so to Hitchcock's method than it is to that doctors.

Knowing the story that the film was partly spurred by B pictures and AIP and such, the closing psychiatric explanation actually feels a little cheeky since it’s very much something that would’ve been tacked onto the end of a drive-in horror pic, overly stuffy performance and all. No idea if that was intentional at all but the last few times I’ve watched I’ve kind of enjoyed it on that basis.

Kat wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 6:06 pm I've not used the word sham, I hope.
I'm biased as I have experience of bad practice and yet have trained in another branch. How I use the word may also be biased by uk understanding of it (which I do keep forgetting).

I think what you are saying fits with my point of Hitchcock and narratives and suggesting how they don't tell the whole story further back. I didn't know I'd apologised, but did explain.

I do think Hitchcock has got it, and if he has others may - I don't see it as impenetrable wholly, I think the point is it is less so to Hitchcock's method than it is to that doctors.

Declaring psychology as a pseudoscience to me invalidates the scientific aspects of it that have been clearly documented countless times since that philosopher died in 1951, and indicates that it is a sham, so apologies if our definitions are different. Still, your own personal experience shouldn't define the entire practice of psychology, but that still doesn't make any sense linked to your initial point that a philosopher's ideas about the early stages of evolving science is cemented in place while the world continues to grow and change outside of that moment in time. At this point we're talking in circles, and best to just leave it there.

You're right you didn't apologize, but I interpreted your comment as saying sorry that you didn't express your point clearly, and I felt that you did at least in that last post. Regarding the film itself, I think you're right that he's being propelled internally in complex ways and that there is a foggy impenetrability to accessing this. My point is that the audience not being able to access it with predictability triggers the fears of abnormal psychology at the time, and this upended the safe, secure superficial bubble many were living in where people trusted one another far more than they do today. I just think we're coming at this from different angles: you seem to be more interested in how Norman is feeling and how he understands his condition while I'm talking about the homogeneous sociological views that this annihilated for the audience. Though watching Norman's own inability to make sense of himself surely contributes to that fear, especially in an era where the idea of identity-fluidity was not treated with curiosity as much as fear.

dustybooks wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 6:33 pm Knowing the story that the film was partly spurred by B pictures and AIP and such, the closing psychiatric explanation actually feels a little cheeky since it’s very much something that would’ve been tacked onto the end of a drive-in horror pic, overly stuffy performance and all. No idea if that was intentional at all but the last few times I’ve watched I’ve kind of enjoyed it on that basis.

I can't really think of any drive-in horror pics that end that way. It's more in the tradition of gothic old-dark-house mysteries like The Cat and the Canary or The Hound of the Baskervilles.

therewillbeblus wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 6:48 pm

Declaring psychology as a pseudoscience to me invalidates the scientific aspects of it that have been clearly documented countless times since that philosopher died in 1951, and indicates that it is a sham, so apologies if our definitions are different. Still, your own personal experience shouldn't define the entire practice of psychology, but that still doesn't make any sense linked to your initial point that a philosopher's ideas about the early stages of evolving science is cemented in place while the world continues to grow and change outside of that moment in time. At this point we're talking in circles, and best to just leave it there.

You're right you didn't apologize, but I interpreted your comment as saying sorry that you didn't express your point clearly, and I felt that you did at least in that last post. Regarding the film itself, I think you're right that he's being propelled internally in complex ways and that there is a foggy impenetrability to accessing this. My point is that the audience not being able to access it with predictability triggers the fears of abnormal psychology at the time, and this upended the safe, secure superficial bubble many were living in where people trusted one another far more than they do today. I just think we're coming at this from different angles: you seem to be more interested in how Norman is feeling and how he understands his condition while I'm talking about the homogeneous sociological views that this annihilated for the audience. Though watching Norman's own inability to make sense of himself surely contributes to that fear, especially in an era where the idea of identity-fluidity was not treated with curiosity as much as fear.

I think you'd get the point if you knew Wittgenstein's remarks. I'd not begin to think I could overturn that whole academy, though its members are able to overturn me. I will not point you in the direction of people I know that compare some of mental health (in my country) to an Inquisition. But if you knew what Wittgenstein said you'd see what I am trying to point out. I'd see it as framing debate and scientific claims (which i may gain from too) more correctly.

I think we are saying much the same thing. I am interested in Norman's experience -- but also in my own and the audiences, and Hitchcock's point of view -- I think we've been offered safe narratives and the breaking of them throughout and that leaves that doctor high and dry in our experience after what we've seen. I think Hitchcock has left us with something that may lead us, those who want to, to examine our hearts. I'm not sure I believe in 'homogenous sociological views', but I think you're saying something similar. I'm not from the USA. Maybe he was fighting their further development, especially in cinema.

Norman's inability is what i find difficult, he speaks with a sort of clarity (again in my memory) but he really doesn't get it, even when he's right is what I remember.

I just caught up on the rest of the thread before the film club discussion.

Good to see the final scenes discussed. I think they are important though and work with what the film does, maybe 'sly punchline', and of a piece with the film, to me. So I don't agree with simple dismissal of this inclusion by Hitchcock the master.

I was thinking about the voyeur aspect - definitely there of course as we know something in HItchcock's work. In this film it occurred to me not just from its positive sense of pleasure from watching (though that is part) as something resorted to by lack of connection with others, frustration at not getting what you need with others, being distant from them, judging them and acting according to how they seem. Marion gives up on getting what she needs conventionally, Norman enough said with his experience of stating and meeting his needs fundamentally flawed - but then the norms of society also seem to be keeping connection at a distance, including the 'analysis' -- and ultimately I think this may also speak to us, who have seen there is more and consistently how it is contained inadequately but are trapped or can be in interactions that don't have full feeling/understanding but get by as we tend to this more in some part of life (do we / don't we?)- but the film may be a glimpse of how not connecting / staying true to loving connection can go and so is a request to connect -- straightforward summaries and distancing from it therein (me too?) are almost steps to the offences / part of how they happen? That may be comedic - we see the reality of the film but how will we speak of it? In ways that distance us from sharedness with any of it?

I've not rewatched it yet but have bought it to stream, so this is a step i my thinking. I saw that October 1984 screening.

What brought me back to think about it was thinking from Marion's poit of view. ebert rightly speaks of her loss of innocence. It occurred to me a Jungian view might see her animus as involved, and/or some miserly figure, perhaps sometimes portrayed as an old hag. Then it struck me she is killed by a man as old hag. It almost feels wrong of me to see this from a linear point of view. But in some ways have those aspects of her herself killed more innocent Marion? Then been part of summoning what happens? The reality suddenly takes on a sort of gothic fairy story view.

So I tried to think of Norman in such ways - apparently mild mannered, unable to say boo to a goose, not communicating, explodes in the way he does -- and faces a sort of mild mannered distant/non-understanding (non connection) that from my position in uk wondered if could explode into angry treatment even execution (though of course there are sequels I've not seen). (is it funnier if he isn't executed? (I am a non believer in capital punishment - the way it would be funnier is only if no one understands the problem and everything goes on, partially understood/not).

And this links then to ask about society, how is that judged for treating him in this distant mild mannered non-understanding the whole of what the audience has seen -- and then of course how might the audience be judged in how we try to speak of this thing that is so beyond words - can we commit to try to avoid traps / that hide how we might understand it better than language short cuts and diagnosis may lead?

But then I wonder if others see this, if my language has captured this sense of it I have and whether it'll not just annoy the hell out of some, in which case apologies. I will re-view it in the next few days.

By the way - I thought of the late scenes when I saw Vengeance is Mine (d. Inamura) and also Shoplifters and thought both films likely influenced by this and also not dismissing those late scenes.

Edit - in fact to seriously correct myself, the most serious non comedic thing, breaking the chain, is not to execute him, but best not hiding or forgetting understanding?

Cool. Glad to get a cheap copy of the uncut version without all the lame collectable swag