An "accidental" masterpiece ... and the greatest suspense movie ever ...

Rating: 9/10 (21 March 2011)

Imagine if Hitchcock retired before the 60's, after all, his filmography was impressive enough to place him among the all-time greatest film-makers. But the Master had a little surprise for those who thought they've been scared enough and could never be surprised again
And how wrong they were  It's admirably surprising that such a great film came so lately in a career when most of the directors generally start losing their touch. But this is only one of the numerous unexpected and fascinating aspects that make this simple film, an "accidental" masterpiece. And I use this word as a compliment since the greatest masterpieces like "Casablanca" or "The Godfather" were unintentional too.
The elements that make "Psycho" a masterpiece could have been taken as cinematic tricks deliberately inserted to create a feeling of originality, but then, such tricks would have sublimated the film, making it even more glorious and 'cinematic', which is not the case here. And I think I loved "Psycho", for the same reasons I disliked "North by Northwest"  In the former, Hitch used up all the style until it became a caricature: a too contrived plot, a too heroic ordinary hero, a dull love interest, a grandiose climactic scene  "Psycho" doesn't have this pretentious elegance and almost looks like a TV or a B-movie  it's the less Hitchcokian stylishly, but ironically, the most defining of his films.
"Psycho" starts with probably the most thrilling score ever, the linear design combined with the shrill violins' sounds are the perfect illustration of how a music can embody the main feeling of a film, as if Bernard Herrman is already warning us about a horrifying surprise that'll make our hearts pound as fast as this melody  its contribution to the film's emotional impact is indisputable. The next shot transports us to Marion Crane's apartment where we she lies in bed with her lover, undressed and intimate like in a campy soap opera  a lousy apartment with two people without the 'Grant and Kelly' romantic appeal audience got used to. An already classic and politically incorrect start. They're lovers, who probably just had sex, but this is no voyeurism, this is intimacy, a necessary intimacy to feel for Marion, to understand her, to understand her motives for stealing the money in the following scene.
Indeed, the way, Janet Leigh portrays Marion Crane, and Hitchcock's intimate directing, creates an incredible feeling of empathy leading to paranoia. When Marion leaves the town, we don't know where she goes exactly, but we're following her totally hooked, like hostages of her fate. When she accidentally meets her boss, we're shocked  and feel her slow descent to paranoia, from the discussion with the police offer, to the car rental service where every hint of nervousness acts like an accusation. That's the brilliance of Hitchcock's script, at that point: there's just the robbery, and Marion's troubles. We fear that she might get caught, totally unaware that this option would have saved her life.
The rest is legendary; she meets Norman Bates, a young, easy-going and soft-spoken Motel manager, with nothing suspicious in his approach. He's a bit shy and awkward but this only highlights his 'boy-next-door' attitude. Of course, there's this strident voice that shouts at him every time, those stuffed birds, but when you live alone in such a little and boring place, one must find hobbies. Marion is too exhausted anyway to get suspicious and Anthony Perkins's great acting doesn't suggest the idea, even for us, that he's trying to seduce her, although, they're like forming a cute couple, and we almost expect something happening between them, until Bates reveals to be a voyeur, which shocked me as if I was so close to Marion, I felt like Bates spying on me.
We all know the rest of the story, what else can be said? The shower scene is probably the most audacious and shocking plot twist ever committed on screen. It's extraordinary that the character that was driving the film was killed so early. Marion Crane wasn't a supporting character, she was the lead of the first part of the film, and the transfer from Crane to Bates as the new lead of the film is masterfully done. Especially that at this point, Norman Bates is not the official villain of the film, it's like we feel some sympathy for him as he tries to protect his evil mother. We need to feel empathy anyway.
But Hitchcock had to surprise us. The film doesn't have one twist but in fact two twists including the classic, shocking revelation of the mother's identity, a shock starting with the sudden appearance of the skull, even scarier than the shadowy figure behind the curtains. This conclusion is the pay-off of a rather normal part between Marion's murder and the climax, saved by a scene-stealing performance by Martin Balsam as Detective Arbogast, a supporting but pivotal character whose annoying perseverance will indirectly solve Marion Crane's disappearance mystery. The film could have disappointed after Marion's death, the shocking revelation places it among the greatest classics.
And one thing prevented the film from being perfect, and I can't understand how a director like Hitchcock let himself tolerate such amateurish writing. I'm talking of the shrink scene where during 5 minutes, the characters and the audience make one and quietly listen to Bates' biography, as a text, the screenwriter probably wrote before starting the script. It's like Hitchcock underestimated his audience's intelligence. Didn't we have enough hints? Wasn't the last scene meaningful enough to understand that he suffered from a personality disorder?
Thankfully, "Psycho" overcame many flaws and managed to be the greatest suspense movie ever, thanks to a constant paranoid feeling, two shocking twists, a memorable villain, and an unforgettable score. "Psycho" is an accidental masterpiece, but it's still a masterpiece