The All-Time Scariest Movie Ever Made (Probably)

What can I possibly say about "Psycho" that hasn't been said before? Is it the scariest movie ever? Probably. (And anyone who says that "The Blair Witch Project" was scarier need read no further - that is, assuming you can read in the first place!) Is it Hitchcock's best? Again, yes, though there's a virtual army out there who'll disagree with that. What "Psycho" is, is a brilliant manipulation of an audience by a film master who lulls that audience into a feeling of complacency, then scares the wits out of them with a totally unexpected murder of the film's protagonist, and then "surprises" everyone with an ending that, at least, most people never expected.

All of this is done with brilliant photography, Bernard Herrmann's outstanding all-string musical score, as little dialog as possible and a reliance on visuals that only Hitchcock could do. It was the story telling with visuals that made Hitchcock the genius he was. Other than, "Mother! Blood! Blood!" and Marion Crane's screaming, there isn't a single word of dialog shortly before, and during the shower murder, and the (for me) equally gory and upsetting cleanup afterwards.

There's no need to go into the film's plot - I strongly suspect that anyone reading this review has seen "Psycho" at least a dozen times, and doesn't need reminding. What is interesting though is a fact or two that's not widely known about the film.

For starters, in 1960, the Catholic Church had its dreaded "Legion of Decency" giving films ratings based on the moral values of those members of that organization. Church members annually stood up and pledged not to see any film given the Legion's dreaded "C", or "Condemned" rating, and were strongly advised to avoid any films given a "B" rating, for "Morally Objectionable in Part For All." "Psycho" was rated "B."

It didn't receive that rating due to the grisly murders, but for the "generally low moral character" of the film's two stars - Janet Leigh, and John Gavin. The Legion was more offended by Leigh appearing in a bra at the start of the film, than by her naked body-double during the famous shower scene.

I remember reading an article in "The Long Island Catholic" newspaper written by one of those who gave "Psycho" its "B" rating, who saw fit to reveal the film's "surprise" ending. As I recall (and please don't forget, this was over 40 years ago) the writer said, "Anyone not half paralized with fear can clearly see that the figure behind the shower curtain is a woman." Hitchcock should have sued!!

Alas, but Justice is Sweet! The figure behind the shower curtain WAS a woman! She was the same actress whose voice is heard at the very end of the film while Norman is speaking as "his mother." Isn't THAT a nice tidbit to know.

Also, in the 50's and 60's, movie goers' habits were decidedly different from today's. For one, most attractions were double features, with the main film as the draw, and usually some crummy dud tagging along as the second feature. Audiences routinely walked in at any time during the showing of either film, watched it to the end, watched the other movie, and than sat through the first one again until the point at which they entered the theatre. "This is where we came in," was a commonly heard expression in movie theatres of the day.

Hitchcock changed that forever with "Psycho." "NO ONE Admitted After the Movie Starts!" was plastered all over the film's ads in newspapers, and on the walls of the theatres showing it. And indeed, no one was admitted after it started. (Fortunately, it wasn't accompanied by a second feature.) Imagine if you will, what it would have been like to walk in on "Psycho" after the first murder, see the second and then the "surprise" ending, only to watch the film from the beginning all over again. The suspense that builds and builds from the very start is gone completely, and Hitchcock deserves to be recognized as the one individual who changed those bad habits forever.

No review of the 1960 film today is complete without a comment about the Gus Van Sant remake. Was it really as bad as people said it was? Actually, no it wasn't, but it certainly wasn't very good either.

Filming a remake of something word for word, and frame by frame certainly made the second "Psycho" interesting, but that's as far as it goes. The failure of the remake was largely in casting, and by deliberate choice, not changing the somewhat ridiculous ending, even by 1960's standards, of the original. The psychobabble about Norman as his Mother was hard to swallow then, and enough to gag on in the remake, despite Robert Forster's best efforts.

Janet Leigh was drop-dead gorgeous, and really, really sexy too. Ann Heche is neither, and her portrayal of Marion Crane was genuinely awful. Though Hitchcock thought John Gavin was a terrible actor, he did an infinitely better job than Viggo Mortensen did in the remake. Mortensen's character was aggressive and pushy, and not at all likeable. One almost felt better siding with Norman Bates in their confrontation scene!

William H. Macy, a genuinely fine character actor, just didn't work as the P.I., Arbogast, and seemed almost comical in his portrayal. Fortunately, Julianne Moore did a good job as Marion's sister, and was at least the equal of Vera Miles in the original.

And of course, there's Vincent Vaughn's portrayal of Norman Bates. I suspect he was actually OK, but Anthony Perkins will ALWAYS be Norman Bates, and no one else ever will. To his credit, Vaughn did his own "bit," without ever copying Perkins' twitches and nervous peculiarites.

When I saw the remake, I took a business acquaintance, some 20 years younger than myself, to see it. To my surprise, he had never seen the original, and was genuinely scared when Marion Crane's sister descended the stairs to the fruit cellar to question good 'ol Mother Bates. When Norman Bates/Vince Vaugh appeared, my associate proclaimed, "It's HIM! HE did it all along!" So, I guess, for those who never saw the original, the remake had some value.

Chocolate syrup instead of blood, and a knife that never actually penetrates anyone notwithstanding, "Psycho" is a horror classic that will never be duplicated (despite Van Sant's attempt), and likely will never be surpassed. Today's audiences are so accustomed to slashings, severed body parts and guts and gore, that a film that dares to "suggest" stabbings and bloodshed may not receive the accolades it deserves. Insofar as "Psycho" is concerned, that's really a pity.