Talk:Psycho (1960 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Screenplay Credit:Taylor-Made?

Someone keeps insisting on rewriting the information on Hitchcock's film to assert that Samuel Taylor did an uncredited screenplay rewrite. This is simply not true. Not a single biography of Hitchcock, nor any account of "Psycho" itself, makes such a statement. Interestingly enough, the same person or another chooses to deny the fact that the first "Psycho" script was written by James Allardice. That, unlike the Samuel Taylor assertion, is a matter of verifiable studio record with dates, screenplay drafts, contracts and check requistions.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtchbrennr (talk • contribs) 06:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Shower Scene

The shower scene seems to me to be the most famous part of the film, yet the article never mentions WHY it's become so iconic. Having not seen the film I'm in no position to comment on it, but could somebody who has, add why it's become so famous? 18:43, 19 April 2005 (UTC)

Added a little something. I wasn't around then, but it's mostly speculation from when I saw the movie. I encourage further comments--Will2k 19:24, 19 April 2005 (UTC)

I understand that there have been many people who swore that this scene was in color, that there are many shots of the knife entering her body, etc. The scene goes far beyond anything that had gone before in mainstream cinema in its graphic depiction of violence and murder. Those factors, combined with the technical editing/montage aspects, and combined with the typical Hitchcockian outbreak of chaos into a tranquil, orderly everyday experience like taking a shower, have made the scene the touchstone it has become. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I watched a dvd version and in the special features it mentions that another girl doubled for leigh's body for everything bellow the shoulders. It also suggests that while a mannequin and a knife were made up for some blood sputing effect hitchcock decided not to use it. The article suggests that a mannequin was used which seems to be wrong. Does anyone else know more about this and where to find a source for this? 202.6.138.33 (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I recall reading a book recounting Leigh's experiences. Despite having hired a double for any nude shots, Leigh claims for practical reasons it is her body for nearly all the shower shots. The double (who was nude) is the person laid out on the curtain, wrapped, and carried out. It is not a mannequin in the curtain but the body double. Sorry haven't got the reference info of that book. Asa01 06:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

George Reeves & Psycho

I've done a little searching in regards to the George Reeves/Psycho controversy: Googling shows all Reeves/Psycho references to appear to have originated from Wikipedia. Just to be sure, I checked several books on Hitchcock, including Stephen Rebello's Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho. No mention of George Reeves was found in any of them. Unless someone can find a source that shows evidence to the contrary, this appears to me to be the worst kind of vandalism, intentionally using Wikipedia to spread disinformation. That this hoax seems to be spreading beyond Wikipedia makes it all the worse. Rizzleboffin 23:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, it's mentioned on IMDB. Is that confirmation? Skrooball 01:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No-- Not of YOU put it there, Skrooball-- an apt name to hide behind, I must say. Such a busy little troll, planting this idiocy everywhere, then cross-referencing your own fantasies... then, when someone uses Wikipedia or IMDb as a source and picks up YOUR misinformation, you cheer and say it's real. See! It must be true, it says it in the Washington Post! Well, yeah-- because they checked IMDb-- where YOU planted phony information. Is this how you get your kicks? PSYCHO was filmed between 30 November 1959 to 1 Feb 1960. George Reeves had been dead for 5 months. He was never considered for the role. (See Stephen Rubello's authorative book on the making of PSYCHO. Unlike you, he actually knows how movies are made-- especially this one.)

Martin Balsam wasn't "filming a mini-series about Sacco and Vanzetti nearby"-- he starred in a two-part LIVE drama on NBC's "Sunday Showcase," in New York the first two weeks of June, 1959; he was finished on 10 June. Reeves died 6 days later, June 16th, 1959. News Flash-- New York is nowhere near Hollywood. His "off-time from the mini-series"? You boob-- a one-hour live show is scarcely a "mini-series," and in any case, that would not have delayed production of a movie which had not even been written yet.

Psycho wasn't "the first film to be shot out of order... because George Reeves died." Jeez, is there no end to your ignorance? Films have been shot out of continuity since the 1910s. And since the detective character doesn't appear until 3/4ths of the way through the story, how could this film have been "shot in order" in the first place, unless they'd started in April? If you're going to lie, at least get your lies consistent.

So, "Reeves actually filmed a few of his scenes with the rest of the cast"-- funny, how none of the rest of the cast were even contracted to be in the film until October of 1959, four months after Reeves' death. And since the screenplay had not even been turned in "the week before Reeves died," what exactly did he do? Make up his dialogue? Did Hitchcock just improvise?

All these tidbits of information are so utterly, amateurishly wrong, it's astounding-- and really, you waste everyone's time. http://www.talkingpix.co.uk/Books_psycho.htmlTed Newsom 06:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. My dad's a big film buff, and we've got three biographies of Hitchcock, (including a big section on the making of Psycho), as well as one big one of George Reeves. In addition, we have the 45th anniversary DVD, not a mention of Reeves. The books never showed a hint of truth to it at all; it's obvious that somebody has spun an urban legend, fraud albeit amusing. All the same, it's still fictional. --Jonathan.Bruce 11:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Ted Newsom, I'm not even an IMDB user. I don't know who put that up; possibly you. It wasn't me. George "Skrooball" Reeves 02:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 02:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, Ted, I don't like being accused of trolling. It makes me feel like a n00b, you know? *Not* a good feeling. George "Skrooball" Reeves 02:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Character Basis: Ed Gein

While thumbing through Stephen Rebello's Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho for a mention of-- ahem-- George Reeves, I noticed that he says the character of Norman only in the book is partly based on Ed Gein. The Hitchcock film, he claims, actually took several of the more Gein-like characteristics away from Norman and added different characteristics unique to the film. Would it be nit-picky to say the Gein reference should be taken out of the film article and put into the article on the book? Rizzleboffin 23:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC) I'd say it's silly to be redundant if it's in the Bloch book section. A mention in passing and the existing link to the page should suffice. Ted Newsom 23:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Ted NewsomTed Newsom 23:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Remake link

Does anyone else think that the remake link should link to the Psycho (1998 film) page, not the Remake (definition) page? Just a thought, it would make it a bit cleaner if the (See Psycho (1998 film)) was removed and replaced in the Remake text. D43M0N 07:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review

Let's get this collab rolling! In addition to the todo list above, I thought it would be helpful if everyone could see what the automated peer review tool generates for this article.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 15 miles, use 15 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 15 miles.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.
• When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word 'The'. For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
• Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • it is claimed
  • apparently
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Supernumerary 05:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

POV

The section "Effect on popular perceptions of mental illness" seems to me to be very POV and needs to be either sourced or removed. The section "Importance in Film History" is also very POV as it now stands. Both need to be reworded and sourced, or removed.--Supernumerary 06:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the "Effect on popular ...," but I think the "Importance in Film History" is necessary, but with a lot of fat that can be trimmed (or at least cited). --GHcool 01:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh I agree the importance section is needed. But statements like: "Psycho is often seen as a turning point in film history, representing the shift from Classical to the more experimental "Post-Classical" film. Psycho's unconventional storytelling and stylized photography and editing show the influence of the French New Wave and the European art films that Hitchcock admired." and "The most original and influential moment in the film is the "shower scene,. . ." sound very POV. That's why I tagged the former with {{fact}}; if it's often seen like that surely a source can be found. The second begs the question of how we can objectively state what is "most original and influential" since those qualities are not readily quantifiable in my experience. I'd be fine if that was quoted from someone though.--Supernumerary 02:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Effect on popular perceptions of mental illness

I've removed this section from the main article. I agree with the editor's sidebar note. This claim could use evidence to support the premise that "psycho" was not a derogatory term before this film and that the film affected its connotation--Hondo 03:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC):

<--This section needs work. People with mental illnesses were considered bizarre and dangerous for centuries before 1960. Citations to actual evidence would be a good idea:-->

Upon the release of this film, the word "psycho" became a derogatory synonym for a person with mental illness. The diagnoses most often associated with Norman Bates are schizophrenia and dissociative personality disorder, although Norman Bates's behavior bore little resemblance to typical behavior displayed by people who are diagnosed with the disorders. Psycho's influence is evident today in the portrayals of people with mental illnesses as bizarre and dangerous.

Sources

This article needs sources. There must be a whole stack of books on this film and all we currently have are some measly links. I also do not think that the IMDB trivia page can be cited as a source. Anyone agree?--Supernumerary 06:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The IMDB trivia section is definitely not a valid source, as it is created by anon users, just like Wikipedia. Do you have access to a well-stocked library, Supernumerary? The books are certainly out there. Cop 633 14:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I happen to have Francois Truffaut's book-length interview with Hitchcock on my shelf, which should provide a wealth of information as all of it is coming from Hitchcock's own mouth. Green451 19:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the local library I now have Behind the Scenes of Psycho by Janet Leigh and Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho by Stephen Rebello. This ought to help turn those citation neededs into refs.--Supernumerary 22:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently re-working the production section over in my Sandbox. Expect something in a few days.--Supernumerary 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Would someone please tell me if I am overly citing things? I'm erring on the side of too-much rather than too-little, figuring that if we don't need a citation we can always delete it, but we're up to 41 refs I haven't even finished fixing all the citation-needed tags (or adding what I have notes on, not to mention I haven't even opened the other book that is entirely devoted to the production). Also is there a way to just list the page numbers for the book? Like: "Ibid. pgs. 67-72" or something? Just so it isn't so repetitive.--Supernumerary 00:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Just write <ref>Leigh, 62-72</ref>. --GHcool 00:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but what I'm more concerned with is whether I am citing too much. Any opinion on that?--Supernumerary 01:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that there's no such thing as citing too much. Maybe others might disagree, but in my experience, if I come across a endnote while reading a text that I'm not interested in, I just won't bother looking at the back of the book to see the source. This occurs for at least 90% of the endnotes I have ever came across in my studies, but in the less than 10% of the times I am interested in what the source was, I am glad that the endnote is there. --GHcool 03:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fulfilled (Closed?) Requests

Pop Culture Recurrences

For most culturally significant films etc on wikipedia there seems to be a influences on pop culture section. Psycho is practically everywhere, spoofed in movies and cartoons, the music used in various places. I think there should be a section for this here - its why I looked it up so I was surprised when it wasn't there. Does anyone know enough about this to star such a list? 202.6.138.33 (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A rather large section now exists listing the various ways in which Psycho (and especially the shower scene) are referenced in pop culture. An introduction to and cleanup of this list would be an excellent contribution to this article. Hondo 04:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Done.Hondo 22:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

'Spoiler Alert' IS Necessary

"Yes, mother."

Eh, does anyone currently alive in the English-speaking world *not* know what Psycho's main twist is? It's become a cliche. Not saying we should remove the spoiler tags, just saying... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derleth2 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 24 April 2003 (UTC)

In a word, yes. There are people who don't know what the twist is, and some of them take classes on Hitchcock. Koyaanis Qatsi 13:22, 24 April 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've been studying Hitch for nearly 20 years, and there's no need to ruin a first viewing for a new student. 66.108.4.183 05:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

"See Also: Schizophrenia"

While not being an expert on mental disorder by any stretch of the imagination, I think this gives the wrong impressiong of schizophrenia, which is often misinterpreted as someone who has multiple personalities. I know that Bates can be considered to have some of the symptoms of schizophrenia, but wouldn't a "SEE ALSO" to, say, multiple personality disorder (or something similar) be more appropriate? Malrase 17:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Si, fly. Skrooball 21:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Section Reduction

I wonder if it would be acceptable or feasible simply to include a link here to the IMDB trivia page rather than listing all these things here? Is there a policy covering that kind of thing? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have done my best to reduce the trivia section by reworking these notes into the body of the article. Hondo 04:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

First Bra Movie Claim

Under the Trivia section, it used to say this movie was the first to depict a woman in a bra. This is false, as Janet Leigh could be seen in a bra in Touch of Evil, 1958, and on the documentry on the Psycho DVD, it mentions that Janet Leigh's bras were to be what women actualy wore, as opposed to the unrealistic bras most actresses wore.Xijjix 18:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This note no longer exists in the trivia section or otherwise. Hondo 04:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Psycho Psequels

The film has had three sequels also starring Perkins:

• Psycho II - 1983
• Psycho III - 1986
• Psycho IV - 1990

A TV Movie(actualy a pilot to a never produced TV series):

• Bates Motel - 1987

A color remake:

• Psycho - 1998.

Though, naturaly, none of them had the original's success or significance, should they be mentioned here? User: Dimadick 06:34, 16 May 2003 (UTC)

Sure, why not? also, if you're logged in, you can sign three tildes (~ ~ ~ but without the spaces) and the software will replace it to a link to your userpage. A fourth tilde adds a timestamp. Koyaanis Qatsi 07:32, 16 May 2003 (UTC)

For clairty, how about a seperate page for the sequels. This page is becoming quite clustered, with the novel, Hitchcock, Van Sant... I think the 1960 film is of significant importance to merit its own page (shared with Bloch's novel). Any thoughts? The JPS 02:08, 29 January 2005 (UTC)

First of all, great pun in the title here. Secondly, is there enough information on each of the films to make them into articles, or just stubs? D43M0N 07:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Book/Movie Split?

Anyone think there should be a separate article for the book apart from the movie, aside from just one article encompassing both? TheCoffee 11:57, 27 February 2005 (UTC)

Yes definately, that's what I thought as soon as I got there. They clearly need seperate articles. 202.6.138.34 (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That might be good. Bloch wrote sequels to his novel as well, Psycho II and Psycho House, which could be discussed on such a page since they are unrelated to the film sequels. He also was credited as an editor for the short story anthology Robert Bloch's Psychos, although this was published posthumously and is unrelated to the novels and films. Schizombie 23:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Brief" and "Detailed" plot summaries

Why are their two plot summaries? Isn't the "Brief" plot summary good enough? Even the brief summary is actually more detailed than many plot summaries for other articles about great movies. I propose we delete the "Detailed" plot summary from the article. --GHcool 01:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree except instead of a flat out delete I'd rather merge the two.--Supernumerary 02:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the brief summary working solely off of the original. I would prefer to combine the two, but out of respect for the original author and in the interest of making the plot summary better during its position as the CCotW, I left the original article so that s/he and other editors might choose what omissions and summarizations were, perhaps, too much on my part.--Hondo 02:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Be bold! Mercilessly edit and damn the author!--Supernumerary 02:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Previous Detailed Synopsis

The movie's first scene takes place in a cheap hotel room in Phoenix and shows Marion Crane (Leigh) and her boyfriend Sam Loomis (Gavin) in their undergarments after a Friday afternoon tryst. Marion is clearly unhappy, torn between her desire to be with Sam and her shame at these discreet meetings. But Sam explains that between his father's unpaid debts and alimony payments to his ex-wife, he is forced to live in the back room of a store. Until his finances improve, they cannot marry. Marion returns to find that her boss has just sold a house to the rich Tom Cassidy (Frank Albertson) for $40,000. Cassidy flirts with Marion, asking if she is "unhappy." "You know what I do about unhappiness," he tells her, "I buy it off." He then plops down $40,000 in cash, explaining that his daughter has never had an unhappy day in her life and this house is to be her wedding present. Marion's boss is uncomfortable with that amount of cash in the office and asks Marion to deposit it at the bank for the weekend, explaining that he'll get Tom to write a check the next week. Instead of going to the bank, Marion impulsively packs and leaves town with the money, which she sees as the ticket to her and Sam's happiness.

Marion becomes paranoid, convinced people know of her crime, trading her car for another in California because she believes she is being followed. Driving at night in the pouring rain, Marion realizes she can go no further and turns off at the sign for the Bates Motel. The place seems deserted, but she notices the figure of a woman in the window of the house around back. Honking her horn for service, Marion encounters Norman Bates (Perkins), the young owner who runs down from the house and helps her into the office.

The motel, Norman explains, receives few visitors, as a newer freeway has bypassed the road she was following. Only those who are lost or take the wrong turn ever come here, but Norman keeps it open to give him some relief from taking care of his ailing mother. Despite knowingly being 15 miles from Fairvale and Sam, Marion decides to stay the night. Norman cheerfully offers to share his dinner with her rather than force her back out into the storm. While settling into her room, Marion overhears a fight between Norman and his mother through the open window. The mother refuses to allow Marion to come up to the house, accusing Norman of having a "cheap erotic mind" that "disgusts" her, and lacking the "guts" to send Marion away. Norman sheepishly brings some food down to the motel, inviting Marion to dine in the office's parlor, which is gaudily decorated with examples of Norman's hobby of taxidermy. As she eats, Marion discovers that Norman's mother is not only ill, but also overly controlling of her son. He evidently wants to free himself and leave her alone, but he can't bring himself to do it, because she's ill. Norman becomes enraged when Marion suggests that he should commit Mother "someplace," such as a mental institution. He insists that you don't do that to someone you love, reiterates that "Mother" is harmless, and mentions "We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?" Marion comes to realize that Norman's position is much worse than her own, and she comes to the conclusion that she must return to Phoenix and make amends "before it's too late."

Unfortunately for Marion, Norman has completely understated his mother's madness. As Marion showers in her motel room, Mother runs in and stabs her to death in the now-infamous "shower scene" (with its trademark score by Bernard Herrmann, featuring screeching violins). When he runs to the room, Norman is horrified to find the bloody corpse, but he quickly cleans everything up as if he is accustomed to doing so. Marion's body, her car, her belongings and the money are sunk in a swamp behind the Bates' property, in an attempt to hide any evidence that she was here and to "protect" Mother.

The rest of the film deals with the search for Marion. Marion's sister Lila (Miles) drives to Fairvale to confront Sam, unable to believe that her sister took the money. As they talk, another individual arrives, a private detective, Milton Arbogast (Balsam), sent by Tom Cassidy to recover his money. An intrigued Arbogast explains that he was following Lila in hopes that she would lead him to Marion. It soon becomes clear, however, that Sam is unaware of either Marion's whereabouts or the theft. Arbogast is then able to trace her to the Bates Motel, calling Lila and Sam to let them know. While making the call, he becomes intrigued to see a female figure crossing in front of a window. Believing it to be Norman's mother, he tells Lila and Sam about it, then hangs up to return to the motel. But the detective's curiosity soon proves fatal when, upon returning, he climbs up to the old house to talk with Mother, oblivious of her dark side. As he reaches her room, she leaps out and slashes his face, causing him to lose his balance and fall bodily down the stairs. While he is laying on the ground, she runs down and stabs him to death.

When Arbogast fails to report back, Sam and Lila become convinced that he must have discovered something important, possibly from Norman's mother, and decide it is time to involve the law. But the local sheriff is skeptical of their story and does not see how Norman's mother could have any important information. Norman, he explains, lives alone at the Bates Motel, his mother having died 8 years earlier in a particularly gruesome murder/suicide. They are left confused at the fact that "if Bates' mother is up there, who's that woman buried out in the cemetery?" It seems evident that Mrs. Bates faked her death, and she might have had a hand with Norman in both Marion's and the money's disappearance. Lila and Sam realize that they must go to the motel themselves to see what Arbogast had discovered. They arrive shortly after Bates finishes hiding the detective's corpse in the swamp. Upon checking in the same room Marion was in, they find one of her earrings and a paper with the sum of $40,000 on it. Then, they theorize that Bates disposed of her to keep the money for himself.

While Sam distracts Norman at the office, Lila goes up to the house to talk with his mother. Sam tries to pressure Norman into admitting that he stole Marion's money so he could leave the motel and start fresh, but the heated argument quickly escalates into violence, and Norman is able to knock Sam unconscious and flee up to the house. Hearing Norman enter, Lila slips down to the basement only to find the semi-preserved corpse of Norman's mother. At that moment, the killer is revealed to be Norman himself (cross-dressed in his mother's clothing, complete with wig). Sam also appears from behind at this moment, and he is able to wrestle the butcher's knife away from Norman.

At the end of the film, a forensic psychiatrist (Oakland) explains to Lila, Sam and the police that Bates' mother, though dead, lives on in Norman's psyche. Norman was so dominated by his mother while she was alive, and so guilt-ridden over having murdered her 8 years earlier as a teenager, when it appeared she was about to remarry, that he tried to "erase" the crime from his mind by bringing his mother back. Physically, this was done by exhuming her corpse and preserving it with his taxidermy skills, but mentally this was accomplished by allocating half his mind to the persona of his mother. He acts as he believes she would, talks as she did, even dresses as her in an attempt to erase her absence and the guilt. And because Norman was so very jealous of his mother, he assumes she will also be jealous of any woman to whom he might be attracted. The Norman persona is convinced that his mother is not dead, and he has no knowledge of "her" crimes. The last scene shows Norman Bates in a cell, his mind now completely dominated by the persona of his "mother." "She" blames Norman for the crimes, and plans on demonstrating to the authorities that she is utterly harmless - that "she wouldn't harm a fly" - so that she may be soon released.

As the scene blurs out to a brief epilogue shows Marion's car being towed from its watery grave, presumably to collect her body and the $40,000, Hitchcock briefly overlaps the image of Norman Bates' mother's skull onto his face. {{endspoiler}}

Hitchcock's cameo

I do not think Hitchcock's cameo merits its own section. By doing so it is put on equal footing with: the plot, the production, the cast, the reception, and all the other headers. It is clearly not that important. I would be amenable to moving to the trivia section and doing something like this:

• Hitchcock's Cameo: Alfred Hitchcock makes his cameo wearing a Stetson hat and standing outside the office window when Janet Leigh returns from her lunch break.--Supernumerary 17:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --GHcool 18:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

i disagree. This is a feature that runs throughout his film career. It continues to be a subjec of discussion about Hitchcock. Websites are set up dedicated to the cameos. This gives an easy way for those who want to locate the cameo an easy way to avoid weeding through a wealth of information on the website. If placed at the bottom it does not intrude into the "meatier" aspects of the WP page. Philbertgray 18:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally Wikipedia guidelines addresses the use of a trivia section, specifically limiting its use, especially as a "catch all" for information that may be better served to be in the body of page. Philbertgray 18:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This gives an easy way for those who want to locate the cameo an easy way to avoid weeding through a wealth of information on the website. Or they can just use find and search for cameo, or they can scroll down and see bold text stating cameo, or they can go to one of those websites you mention. But seriously a cameo is not as important as the whole production or plot. Agreed it is interesting, but it is certainly not a critical piece of information.

It might also be a good idea to wait and see how this resolves before running about and editing every other Hitchcock film, which I notice you have started. I also note that the cameo is sometimes mentioned in the plot, sometimes in the trivia, or left unmentioned indicating that your opinion of its importance is exceptional. Also if you do not like the trivia section, we can move it to the plot (although that is tagged with spoiler).--Supernumerary 18:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Super's proposal. Section headings should only be used for a portion of information that directly pertains to the film. For example, did the cameo have any influence on the film's style or success? What makes it as notable as a description of why the film is so well remembered? I personally believe that the cameos, although a constant in most of Hitchcock's body of work, qualify as trivia and are not notable enough to merit their own major section.

In addition, WP:GTL states; "Just as for paragraphs, sections and subsections that are very short will make the article look cluttered and inhibit the flow. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading, and in these circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points."

I'm listing this at WP:RFC for comments. It's nothing personal Philbert, just an attempt to improve the quality of the Hitchcock articles, and make them fit the Manual of Style. Green451 21:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The cameo is not noteworthy as an element of the film. Should not get its own header. Goldfritha 23:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Not taken as personal - since the general consensus is that an individual heading is not appropriate I will relocate this along with the others added to Hitchcock films to the trivia section sections. - after all i don't want the Wikipedia police at my door for non compliance  :-) Philbertgray 13:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue I have is with the clunky way it's worded. This is also true for other Hitch cameo bits in other articles (I admit I have only checked a couple but the structure seems pretty consistent). As it stands (Alfred Hitchcock cameo: A signature occurrence in almost all of Hitchcock's films, he can be seen...), it includes a gigantic dangling modifier: "he" is not an "occurrence". I can't think of a quick way to fix it without making the sentence much longer and somewhat more convoluted, but maybe someone else has an idea for making it better English. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I reworded the cameo to (hopefully) eliminate those pesky dangling modifiers and make the info less clunky. :-) Philbertgray 11:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Responding to RfC

I saw this dispute mentioned in the RfC. I agree that the Hitchcock's momentary cameo is not significant enough to warrant a section of its own. He appeared in all of his later films, and there was nothing notable about this appearance to make it stand out from the others.--Mantanmoreland 19:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hitchcock Cameo section removed

Thanks for the input on having a separate secticon for AH's cameos. None of the remarks were taken as personal. Since the general consensus is that an individual heading is not appropriate I relocating this along with the others added to other Hitchcock films to the trivia section sections. - after all i don't want the Wikipedia police at my door for non compliance. I did take the liberty of bolding Alfred Hitchcock cameo at the beginning of the trivia entry, just to make it easier to spot  :-) Philbertgray 13:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In the current version it appears as a separate section.--Mantanmoreland 22:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there was a refresh error when you made this change or Al's making ghost edits from beyond in favor of the cameo section, but for whatever reason the aforementioned edit didn't take. Please check to be sure I remedied this in a suitable way. Hondo 22:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hondo - I could swear I changed it, but maybe only looked at the preview. I actually like your phrasing better! Philbertgray 22:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Personally, I think we need a picture of the Bates Motel and House, as well as a still or photo that has the main cast in it (or at least Leigh and Perkins), such as a publicity photo (Similar to the cast photo in the Sunset Boulevard article). The picture of the shadowy mother could work, but I think an additional image to have would be the final shot of the shower scene, with Leigh on the floor. It's been a while since I've seen the movie, but I believe that that would kill three birds with one stone:

1. It would illustrate the difficulty of getting that shot, which is mentioned.
2. It would illustrate Hitchcock's need to shoot in black-and-white to avoid showing red blood.
3. It would illustrate the use of chocolate syrup as blood.

You guys are doing great on the article, and I wish I could contribute more than comments and small fixes, but I lack most of the sources or knowledge of the film to contribute in a large way. Keep up the good work, Green451 01:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note, I don't have the DVD, so I can't take screenshots of the movie. Is it possible for someone who has the DVD to take a screenshot of the Bates motel and house, preferably in the same shot? I think it would contribute immensly to the article. And as one more note, what does anyone think about using the famous still of Hitchcock holding the clapper board on the set of the film? I'm just throwing ideas around. Comments please... Green451 04:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need some image for the production section. Both the books I have are filled with photos and stills, but alas I lack the means to upload them. So yeah, add it or others if you can.--Supernumerary 01:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

References

I went and removed all the superfluous full-fleged references to Janet Leigh's book and changed them to the shorter ones. As well, I streamlined a few others. Green451 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbogast footage contradiction

According to Hitchcock, a series of shots of Arbogast going up the stairs in the Bates house before he is stabbed were shot by the crew solely using Bass' drawings when Hitchcock was incapiacitated due to a running a "temperature". However, upon viewing the dailies of the shots, Hitchcock was forced to scrap them they were "no good".[46] Hitchcock later regretted cutting the shots, as he believed that due to the sequence being cut, "it wasn't an innocent person but a sinister man who was going up those stairs. Those cuts would have been perfectly all right if they were showing a killer, but they were in conflict with the whole spirit of the scene."[46]

My Leigh book says that Hilton Green directed those shots with "Hitchcock's explicit storyboards". Green shot "just Martin Balsam coming in the front door, looking around, and starting up the stairs prior to Mother's entrance." When Hitch saw the dailies, he said "You've got the thing reversed. What we want to see is a man in peril going upstairs, where we think death might await him. What you've shot [looks like] a murderer going upstairs, about to kill someone." It then details what Hitch means and goes on to say that some of the shots did end up in the film. This seems to contradict the interview's last statement. Have another look at your book and see if you also see a contradiction, if you do I'll try to find it in my other book (which I've just started because it goes into an excessive amount of detail).--Supernumerary 05:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it took me a bit to get back to you, but I had to dig up a few things in the Truffaut book. Here is the complete, unexpurgiated excerpt:

Francois Truffaut: ...I understand that in addition to the main titles, Saul Bass also did some sketches for the picture.

Alfred Hitchcock: He did only one scene, but I didn't use his montage. He was supposed to do the titles, but since he was interested in the picture, I let him lay out the sequence of the detective going up the stairs just before he is stabbed. One day during the shooting I came down with a temperature, and since I couldn't come to the studio, I told the cameraman and my assistant that they could use Saul Bass's drawinngs. Only the part showing him going up the stairs, before the killing. There was a shot of his hand on the rail, and of feet seen in profile, going up through the bars of the balustrade. When I looked at the rushes of the scene, I found it was no good, and that was an interesting revelation for me, because as that sequence was cut, it wasn't an innocent person but a sinister man who was going up those stairs. Those cuts would have been perfectly all right if they were showing a killer, but they were in conflict with the whole spirit of the scene.

I typed that very fast, so there may be a few spelling errors there. The last part of Hitchcock's response seemed a bit confusing to be, so after a bit of thought, I came to the following interpretation:

When Hitchcock saw the rushes of the scene, the shots-

Wait, hold the phone! I just had a major revelation! When Hitchcock says "as that sequence was cut", I took it to mean "as that sequence was removed". But he could be saying cut as in "as that sequence was edited"! Which would make sense considering what Green said in Leigh's book.

Okay, so that needs to be fixed, but I think the (correct) version would make an interesting tidbit which should be kept in the article, if that's all right with you. Green451 00:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What else?

Are there any glaring omissions from this article? I've still got 5 4 more big things to add: the difficulty of shooting the discovery of mother, the typecasting Leigh and Perkins suffered from, interpretation of scenes and motifs by Leigh, and the merchandising and TV( and that Hitchcock never viewed the dailies or looked through the camera). Really any suggestions at all are welcome.--Supernumerary 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What about having something about the difficulty getting the shot in the shower scene where the camera looks directly up at the water coming out of the shower? If I remember correctly from reading it somewhere (it was a while back), the camera had to be placed very precisely and shot with a long lens. I could be completely wrong about that, though. Green451 04:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Leigh's book had nothing about the shot (except that everyone copied off of it). Rebello's book goes into much more depth so I'll have a look there.--Supernumerary 04:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Found it. It's been added to the article.--Supernumerary 23:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OR from the innovations section

I'm removing the OR until a source can be found. It sounds like it came from some film studies book, so perhaps someone can check a film studies book. (I'll look in my film history text.) This also removes the only uncited facts from the article, which makes the whole thing look better. The text is reproduced below so that it might be re-added later.--Supernumerary 23:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Psycho is often seen as a turning point in film history, representing the shift from Classical to the more experimental "Post-Classical" film. Psycho's unconventional storytelling and stylized photography and editing show the influence of the French New Wave and the European art films that Hitchcock admired.

Yeah, good call. It sounds like bullshit anyway.  ;) --GHcool 01:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation?

Should I add an interpretation section? It would mostly be Leigh's interpretation of the film. She talks about how the shower is a baptism, the use of shadows, windows, and mirrors, how the cop scene shows Hitchcock's phobia of cops, and other things (like her bra's color changing to reflect her theft).--Supernumerary 01:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds interesting, relevant, valuable and non-original research since it's largely from Leigh herself. I'd say go for it. MeekSaffron 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No one will be admitted after the start

Some nice bits of information could be reprocessed from Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho: A Look at its Impact on the Film Industry especially if someone is monitoring the email address mentionned at its end to provide the bibliography.

I especially think the "No one will be admitted" poster is striking and fair use in the innovations in film section, though we'd need concrete source information aside from the paper. Opinions? MeekSaffron 13:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. This is just a well-written term paper for a film studies class, so it isn't really valuable by itself, but if someone can get a list of her bibliography and trace down some of her more applicable quotes, that would be great. And yes, "No one will be admitted" is a good image. --GHcool 15:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've emailed the address at the bottom. I'll post with the results, positive or negative. MeekSaffron 17:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So far, there has been no reply. MeekSaffron 03:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Opening statement

The opening statement duplicates several items in the individual sections (Ed Gein info - shower scene - critics reviews). I don't think it would hurt to remove the duplications since they are discussed later on. Just a thought. Philbertgray 16:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A good opening summarizes/highlights the main ideas in the article. Do you feel it highlights relatively unimportant points or goes into too much detail? MeekSaffron 17:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it goes into too much detail since some of the information is either repeated or expanded on within the article. A few examples -

• • This line appears in the opening summary "One key scene, commonly referred to as "The Shower Scene," is studied, discussed, and referenced countless times in books, articles, and film courses with debate focusing on why it is so terrifying and how it was produced, including how it passed the censors and who directed it." Since there is an extensive summary later on it seems it would be just as effective to say something to the effect that The infamous shower scene is one of the most discussed and analyzed in film history".
  • The statement "which was in turn based on the crimes of Wisconsin serial killer Ed Gein.[1] " is almost identical to the wording in the beginning of the production section. It seems this can be eliminated from the opening statement and the note reference added to the production statement opening. This information appears again in the trivia section with an additional reference to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. That could be removed from trivia and also added to the production statement.
  • The film spawned several sequels and a remake, which are generally seen as works of lesser quality" doesn't seem necessary or important enough to the opening summary since there is a section devoted to the sequels as well. Philbertgray 18:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with shortening the shower scene statement, and removing the Ed Gein note. Regarding Gein, I think it being based on real crimes is rather cool as a hook of interest, but the pre-production repeat of the info does not elaborate, and the related trivia point should be merged into it. A section of the book and of course Ed Gein goes into more detail.

I disagree, not strongly, but I think the sequels note in the lead should remain. The sequels and remake seems natural for a lead about the first movie in a series, albeit a not too successful one. Jaws (film) is a similar example of a classic film with less successful sequels. It mentions those sequels in the lead, with a slightly expanded section later. MeekSaffron 18:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually take the reverse stance of MeekSaffron on some points:

I believe that the mention of the shower scene should be kept as is. As Meek said, a good lead summarizes the points that will be made in the article, and the current description sums it up nicely without telling too much.

I agree with Meek that the Ed Gein note is a very cool "hook of interest", and because of that, I think it should be kept.

You don't really believe an article on Psycho would need a "hook" do you????? Philbertgray 19:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I believe that we should take out the mention of the sequels in the league, as Psycho is in a different league than those pictures. I look at Psycho not as a "horror movie" or a "slasher movie", but as a Hitchcock movie", and those are in a league of their own. Mentioning the sequels in the lead does not do anything towards summarizing the topic of the article, which is Psycho, not the sequels. Psycho, in my opinion is not the start of a "series". In my view, it was intended as a stand-alone movie, and some Universal studio executives got greedy after Hitchcock died. Just my two cents. Green451 00:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Coincidence with Woman Customer in Hardware Store

After Norman disposes of Marion's body, the scene shifts to Lila and Sam in the hardware store. There is a woman customer present who is talking to the clerk about a pesticide:: "They tell you what its ingredients are and how it's guaranteed to exterminate any insect in the world, but they do not tell you whether or not it's painless. And I say insect or man, death should always be painless."

At the end of the movie, Norman's mother is speaking and saying how "I wouldn't even harm a fly."

What appears as more than coincidental is that the voices of the Norman's mother and the Woman Customer sound the same. It makes me wonder if Hitchcock did this with purpose (foreshadowing maybe?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.125.183.135 (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Psycho is considered a Gore film

Article claims this: Psycho, considered to be the first "gore film," was criticized for making other filmmakers more willing to show gore, providing a reference from Leigh for the statement. Has anyone got this book to check what she really said. I find it hard to believe she stated that this film has been considered to be a gore film. Asa01 02:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OH! You're right. I misread the book, Bloodfeast is the first gore film. I'll go change that right now.--Supernumerary 02:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked up Blood Feast on the imdb and it is listed as 1963--three years after Psycho. Personally, I think The Horror of Dracula from 1958 qualifies as a gore film, and for all I know there may be earlier examples. marbeh raglaim 22:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

CCOTW End

Wow! Congratulations everyone! I am amazed at how much this article has been improved. My applause goes to Hondo and Supernumerary, who were the main editors that improved this article to the incredible status it is in now. I can see that from here, the path is a general peer review, then GA, then FA (with any luck). I'm going to nominate it for a general peer review soon. Great job people! Green451 22:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

ELAC notice

Hi, with aims to improve Wikipedia, your page has been submitted to the Extra-Long Article Committee for page division. It is strongly suggested that the regular users here divide the article up into separate pages. Click here for suggestions on how to divide a long page. If this does not occur in the coming weeks, this page will then be scheduled for committee involvement. Please comment at ELAC talk with concerns. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 14:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

After all the great contributions and care with which everyone has referenced their material, I would hate to see that work go to waste or be counted against us according to this committee. Please, before anyone starts trimming the article, wait until the ELAC reviews the case. As we might expect this to be a problem for COTW in the future, I urge you to visit ELAC talk to learn more about their cause and how they work. Both careful referencing and the ELAC work to improve Wikipedia, but it's unfortunate if they work against each other as I suspect they are in this case. I've begun a discussion with User:Sadi Carnot to make sure that the references aren't being held against Psycho's kb count. Hondo 17:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hondo, thanks for your comments. There are other long pages that are coded such that the reference files link to a side page. We are still digging around in this area to see how this works. Please comment with more suggestions or comments here. Talk soon: --Sadi Carnot 17:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Tab method

Hi, the ELAC team is presently trying out new test methods on how to facilitate the use and growth of long articles. Admin Gurch suggests that “tabs” might be a useful tool in the growth of large articles. Unless there are any major objections, over the next day or two, I am going to format this page with tabs. This will only be a test run. According to Gurch, it has never been done before with articles. Thus, I will implement the changes (which can be reverted in the weeks to follow if need be) and then we can all debate the pros and cons of the new format method. Please leave comment as to suggestive tab names (four in total) or if you have major objections to this move. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 23:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This sounds cool. I would love to see an article that I worked on possibly break new ground on Wikipedia. Green451 02:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC) I have stricken my support of tabs per discussion on the ELAC talk page. Green451 03:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My suggestions for tab names are:

1. Overview/Story (would contain the lead, plot synopsis, and cast list)
2. Production (would contain Production, Pre-Production, Filming, and The Shower Scene)
3. Release (would contain Censorship, Promotion, Reception)
4. Legacy (would contain Innovations in Film, Interpretation, Sequels and Remakes, Popular-culture references, shower scene parodies, and Trivia)

What does anyone else think about the above names? Green451 02:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

They look good except that trivia does not really fit under "Legacy", but then again trivia does not really fit anywhere. So yeah, I'm fine with the division.--Supernumerary 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem especially long to me, or like one or more of its sections could be helpfully split into additional articles (also, additional articles are I believe not counted when most review FA candidates; I'm not sure if it's the same for GA), but I'll look with an open mind on the tab implementation idea.

Since I prefer scrolling to clicking, would it be possible to have a Wikipedia setting or workaround for such tabbed articles to be presented all on one page if a user prefers? I know there's a workaround to have the show/hide templates be permanently shown if one prefers, for instance. MeekSaffron 04:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it will not be possible for there to be a preference. Each tab will be a separate page and you'll have no choice but to click. This will actually be a step backward in usability for those on slow connections. Right now, the rest of the page is already downloading while the user reads the lead; in most cases, the actual waiting time should not be much greater than for a shorter article. With tabs, the user will have to wait for the first page worth of text to load after clicking each tab, increasing the total waiting time.

This would also interact badly with Wikipedia's "watch" interface: the visual design suggests that all four tabs are part of the same page, yet clicking "watch" will only watch one of them. With the currently favored <ref> method of creating footnotes there will have to be four separate Notes sections, so that when notes refer to other notes or to a bibliography, the user has to click around to figure out what is being cited.

In short I think this is a very poor way of dealing with overlong articles, far inferior to the summary style method we already have. If it *must* be tried, why not create a version of the page in user or project space somewhere, and allow people to review that and comment?

I would also suggest picking a truly long article for the experiment. This article is only about 40KB of actual text; splitting it into four 10KB chunks is overkill. —Celithemis 09:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

38KB by my calculations - not long enough to worry about, not warranting a tag, and not warranting tabs by any means. For a truly long film article, see The Wizard of Oz (1939 film); it has 81KB overall, but because it has NO referencing, all of that is in prose, with a whopping 72KB prose. It would be a better candidate for this committee to expermiment with tabs and such. I removed the extra long tag from the article, but it has been reinstated: the ELAC Project members have indicated they plan to aggressively pursue anyone removing their tags. At any rate, the tag on *this* article isn't warranted, IMO. WP:LENGTH specifically states that, "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose," and this article is well within that range. Sandy (Talk) 09:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This really troubles me. A cleanup tag implies a clear consensus that something is bad -- usually a violation of policy or a well-settled guideline. I don't read Wikipedia:Article size as indicating a consensus that an article with 38KB or even 48KB of readable text should always be split, and I don't believe any such consensus exists. Yet the wording of the tag is quite stern, even threatening. It suggests that the authors of the page have committed wrongdoing and that an official body of some kind is taking notice. I'm particularly troubled by the use of the word "committee", which, intentionally or not, implies this Wikiproject has some special official status that it doesn't appear to have.

Now we're being asked to go to a page in the project's space, to make a "request" for the tag to be removed. On what authority, exactly, is this demand being made? The subject of whether and how this article should be split should be discussed on its talk page, and in the absence of consensus here the tag should not be replaced.

I strongly oppose this tag being placed on this article. With the current wording I oppose its being *anywhere* but TFD. —Celithemis 13:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Join the crowd: the discussion has moved here, where you might want to register that. (ALoan just changed the template, per consensus on its talk page.) Sandy (Talk) 13:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Size

The overall size on this article is 53KB, but because it is well-cited (with almost 100 footnotes), the actual prose size is only 38KB. The size limitations were put in place long ago, and technical limitations have changed. Further, inline citations are now required on featured articles, and they add to the overall size. It is very rare to see an FA under 50 or 60KB these days, because they are extensively cited, and that alone often chunks up about 15KB. It doesn't appear that this committee is taking time to calculate the prose size before tagging an article: in fact, I found no discussion of how to do that on the project. I removed the tag, because the article isn't extra long, and becuase there are many FAs (or recently removed FAs, for reasons other than size) with prose size over 70KB, and overall size over 110KB, such as History of Russia, Che Guevara, Polish-Soviet War, and Hugo Chávez. I hope the ELAC will focus on problem articles, rather than well-cited articles, or the results will be a decline in verifiability and comprehensiveness necessary for FA. Further, tagging the article page of FAs will not be good for Wiki, and most FAs qualify as what they are calling extra long: I suggest they place the tags on talk pages, not article pages. Sandy (Talk) 07:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Critical re-review

According to the article, after the movie became popular with the public, the critics changed their minds about the movie. Does anyone else think it's strange? Critics seem to be more strong minded today. Me3000 19:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I never heard of this phenomenon happening with reference to Psycho before reading this wikipedia article, I would not doubt it. Similar "reevaluations" occured for 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, Fantasia, Metropolis, and Its a Wonderful Life. The Wizard of Oz was a popular film during its first release, but not considered anything close to the iconic classic that it became after it was aired on television. --GHcool 19:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that the movies you mentioned were considered good several years after their initial release date. With this movie, the re-review occured in only a few weeks or so later. Me3001 21:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the DVD documentary, the critics were annoyed that Hitchcock denied them a pre-release screening. marbeh raglaim 23:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

GA review

1. There's a bullet point in the Production that could do with prosifying. Try intergrating it.
2. The trivia section can be merged: the Hitchcock cameo in the cast and Leigh's double somewhere else. Maybe in the Reaction/Legacy sections.
3. One cite lacks a page number.

Good luck. Wiki-newbie 16:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made the changes. Take another look please.--Supernumerary 17:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's still got a trivia section, which a mature article shouldn't. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section is gone.--Supernumerary 19:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I added some material...

I took the liberty of editing a few of the first paragraphs after the Introduction. I added a few details that help explain 'place', such as the fact that the film opens in Phoenix, then moves to California. I noted the scene in which Marion trades cars, when her strange behavior is witnessed by the highway patrolman. I also expanded the item about the money - the fact that Bates doesn't see the money before he sinks her car in the swamp. I love the way the film opens with Marion as the central figure, then suddenly shifts the focus entirely onto Norman Bates. The technique has been copied frequently since. I've seen this film many times, and I count it in my personal Top 25, so I'd like to help work on this article. Hurrmic 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Lots of edits, but no discussion

I like the way this article has shaped up since I did some work on it a few weeks ago. My effort lacked style - I just went from memory and filled in the plot a little. I was going to come back to it sooner, but hey, there's been plenty of talent working on it in the meantime. Nice going, everybody! I'm just surprised there's no current discussion going on. I suppose it's better to write the article than to talk about doing it. Hurrmic 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Source 28

The website source with number 28 ( with animals.com/The_100_Scariest_Movie_Moments//index.shtml 100 Scariest Movie Moment) links to "www.sex", can anybody replace it with the right site? Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.118.145.163 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 22 April 2007.

Fixed. That was a very old piece of vandalism. I'm surprised that nobody caught it earlier. Green451 02:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

References in popular culture

This section should be reworked from a list into a proper section and citations should be added in order to get the article closer to FA status. I suggest taking a look at what was done with a similar section on another article. (Ibaranoff24 04:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

I agree. I've turned the first part of the list into prose, and removed some of the less notable entries. We only really need examples of homages, not a comprehensive list. Prose should also deter people from adding to the list. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Better, but some of the references lack citations. I also think that the article's lead needs some work before it can be ready for FAC. (Ibaranoff24 20:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

Yeah. The Dicks (filmsite) ref I've just added is quite a neat catch-(nearly)all ref for the shower scene paragraph. The interpretation section, I notice, is limited, considering what has been written about it. I have some books sitting behind me at the moment by notable academics: I'll try to do something with them. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added to the 'references from popular culture' section a new reference- to a collaborative humorous remake of the famous shower scene (made in the wiki-like site "kaltura"). I think it's relevant since the collaborative creation in the internet (like wikipedia) is the new popular culture, and that user genereted content applications more and more takes plalce as an alternative to TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oriti (talk • contribs)

And I removed it. Stop spamming. IrishGuy ^talk 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not spam. it's totaly relevant. I don't understand why you deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oriti (talk • contribs) 21:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It is 100% spam. Your only edits have been adding links to this website. Stop spamming. IrishGuy ^talk 21:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not spam. I've added 2 links to collaborative videos from one site, that are relevant to the subject. it has nothing to do with the specific site, it's a wiki-like site and the important thing is the videos I refered to. did you even see those? Oriti

So your edit here just happens to be to the same link with almost identical wording as this edit added by another user who stopped spamming the same day your account was created. Gotta love coincidence. IrishGuy ^talk 22:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I bet you didn't even saw the link, otherwise you would know that I wsn't spamming. Oriti —Preceding comment was added at 22:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I take it by your silence you admit to being the previous spammer as well? IrishGuy ^talk 22:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

of course not. I take it by your silence you admit you didn't even check the link before earesing everything I wrote? Oriti —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.210.41 (talk • contribs)

I have seen the link everytime you add it under your various names. It isn't worth adding. IrishGuy ^talk 18:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

On another note, I saw Eminem was mentioned. I think another one of his songs refrences Norman Bates, I'm not sure exactly which one, but I think it's 'Kill You' in which he says "A Blood stain is orange after you wash it a few times, but that normal ain't it Norman?" . I realize that it might not be Bates, but, I thought it might merit at least a moment of thought, if not inclusion. I suppose Verifiablility would be a problem though.. 71.98.12.254 (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have marked the section as trivia. Yes, its important to note that there are a lot of parodies/references, but this is not the place to attempt to enumerate them all. We should trim the section WAY down to a paragraph or two that describes the phenomenon rather than an amusing/interesting list that everyone can put in their favorite but does not belong. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq Leigh, Janet. Psycho : Behind the Scenes of the Classic Thriller. Harmony Press, 1995. ISBN 051770112X.

Book sources need page numbers: an example of how to set them up can be seen at Smells Like Teen Spirit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There were page numbers, but they got removed at some point, because someone said something about there being too many individual references. Someone's going to have to try and put them back in... Green451 00:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope that wasn't a misunderstanding of something I may have said long ago — who said there were too many individual refs? That can be solved with named refs. As an example, I went back to this version, which does not have "too many refs". But, the way to solve the "too many references" problem is by making good use of page ranges combined with named refs. For example, I often see:

• Author, p. 12
• Author, pp. 12–13
• Author, p. 13

Those can all be combined in one named ref, to

• Author, pp. 12–13

So three lines of Notes are reduced to one.

Honestly, readers can look through two or three pages, and doing this significantly reduces the number of refs listed in the notes section. At any rate, the page nos should be put back in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the edit that removed page numbers from a carefully sourced article, and the last link for restoring that data. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Bates Motel

I was just thinking that the somewhat Gothic Bates Motel should get more attention in this article. In the film and later legend it's portrayed as THE iconic house of horror. Colin4C 18:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

this is the Bates' house and not the motel, which is nondescript. Mezigue (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Colorized shower scene picture

Wouldn't the original black and white image from the movie be more appropriate? --GHcool 07:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Saul Bass rumors

I'm new to this Wikipedia thing, so please forgive me if I'm not doing it quite right. Under the shower scene section on this entry, Leigh claims that Bass didn't direct any part of the shower scene. I see no need to dispute that, but then there's a quote from Hilton Green saying that Bass didn't direct any part of Psycho. According to Hitchcock's landmark interview with Francois Truffaut, though, Bass did direct one day when Hitch was out sick. He directed part of the scene just before Arbogast is murdered, as he enters the house and walks up the steps. Hitch didn't like the rushes, so he discarded them and re-shot (p. 273 in the revised edition of Truffaut's book). This is a very minor addition to the rumor conversation, but at least it indicates that there are differing accounts.

Kmaness 22:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I remember in the book, Hitchcock says that Hilton Green directed the scene with Bass's storyboards as a reference. It's already in this article, with page 273 cited in citation 11. Green451 00:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's backed up by Janet Leigh's book on Psycho -- Hitchcock didn't like Bass's original storyboard for the scene of Arbogast going up the stairs, as they implied something was about to happen by building up the suspense, so he had Bass redo them. When Green was instructed by Hitch (who was at home in bed with flu) to shoot the scene using Bass's storyboards, for whatever reason, he used the original ones (presumably he wasn't aware that Bass has done a new set?). After storyboarding the shower scene, Bass did shoot some test footage (using Leigh's body double, Marli Renfro, and a small handheld newsreel camera) to check how effective some of the angles would be on camera. My own personal opinion is that Bass thought that his storyboard for the shower sequence pretty much matched what appeared in the film and that Hitchcock never gave him enough credit for that. Davepattern (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Body exhumed?

Doesnt the doctor that talks to Bates at the end of the film say that Norman stole the body (Mrs. Bates) and a weighted coffin was buried? so that would mean he stole the body before being buried and she was replaced with weights? can someone else either prove me wrong, but the version that I've always seen says that he stole her body. so could someone make the changes or prove me wrong? (still new to wikipedia) --Liquidfire3240 22:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right! I remembered that Norman had exhumed her corpse, but I remembered wrong. I just checked my copy of Collector's Edition DVD (copyright 1998) right now. The psychologist says, "He stole the corpse. A weighted coffin was burried." I suppose I always imagined that Norman exhumed the corpse and put a weight in the coffin to take her place, but that doesn't make a hole lot of sense. Thanks for clearing that up! --GHcool 05:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

shower sequence

Although Leigh said that the body double only appeared in the sequence where Norman wraps the body in plastic and that she herself was never nude in the showever sequence (a flesh coloured moleskin was used to cover her breasts and groin), the body double certainly appears in the segment where Marion's hand reaches out to grab the shower curtain. Although the eyes are naturally drawn to the hand (which is sharp focus), a pair of out-of-focus bare breasts are clearly discernable in the background (view image). Hitchcock did well to slip that segment by the censors!

The short segment where the knife appears to enter the flesh (as illustrated with the 3 frames) was achieved by holding the knife against the stomach (so that it pressed against the flesh) and then pulling it quickly away from the body. When the footage is played in reverse (as in the film), the knife appears to be moving towards the body. Davepattern 22:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As a slight follow on from the above -- I've just watched the HDNet broadcast version of Psycho and spotted a couple of things. Firstly, in one of the overhead shots of the attack, a bare left breast and nipple are visible for a couple of frames (which must mean it's not Janet Leigh in the that particular shot, as she was emphatic about the fact she didn't go nude or topless). Secondly, thanks to the extra clarity of a high definition transfer, it clear that Leigh's body double (Marli Renfro) is wearing panties in the sequence where Perkings drags her onto the shower curtain. Davepattern (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the segment dedicated to the shower scene claims that Janet Leigh was in the shower the entire time the scene was filmed, and that the body double was only used in the scene where Norman wraps Marions' body in the shower curtain. However, the 'censorship' segment states that Hitchcock had to remove a shot that showed the buttocks of Leigh's stand-in. Hence, the stand-in was indeed in the shower. VertigoXpress (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It was Janet Leigh who always claimed that it was her in every shot of the shower sequence (see her book about "Psycho"). However, Hitchcock shot a full days' worth of footage with her body double (Marli Renfro) on the day after Leigh completed her shots (see Rebello's book on the making of the film). When I corresponded recently with Renfro, she claimed that several of the shots in the sequence are of her. In particular, one of the overhead shots during the attack is extremely likely to be Renfro, as the shot is carefully framed as to not show Marion's head and a bare breast is briefly visible. Also, having watched the short segment where a knife appears to penetrate flesh in the HD transfer, I'm certain that it doesn't -- the darkness visible at the tip of the knife is due to the side lighting and it's a shadow on the blade. Careful viewing of the HD transfer also confirms that the segment is reversed footage, as the flow of water from the shower is upwards. Davepattern (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

contradiction

From the article: "This myth also started the myth that Leigh would not take a shower without someone guarding the bathroom door for quite some time after the scene was completed."

Later: "Leigh herself was so affected by this scene when she saw it, that she no longer took showers unless she absolutely had to. Then she would lock all the doors and windows and would leave the bathroom and shower door open.[5]"

Both of these cannot be true. One says it's a myth, and the other asserts its truth. aeonite (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is from Janet Leigh's book "Psycho: Behind the Scenes of the Classic Thriller" (published UK 1995, Pavillion, chapter 7, page 131): "It's true that I don't take showers. If there is no other way to bathe, then I make sure all of the doors and windows in the house are locked, and I leave the bathroom door open and the shower curtain or stall door open so I have a perfect, clear view. I face the door no matter where the showerhead is. The room, I might add, gets very wet. Prior to Psycho I was a relatively normal bather, but after was a different story. It wasn't the shooting of the scene that caused the damage, it was seeing the film in its entirety later." Davepattern (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not to move --Lox (t,c) 15:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

---

• Psycho (1960 film)/Archive 1 → Psycho (film) — I think that this film should be brought in align with many other cinema classics that have had lesser-known remakes such as The Italian Job, M, Get Carter, The Ladykillers, etc. — Reginmund (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support - as nominator. Reginmund (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose There is more than 1 film named Psycho. Just because a few other movie articles don't follow the correct naming conventions doesn't mean this one shouldn't. TJ Spyke 02:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per TJ Spyke. --GHcool (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Monkeyzpop (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Less confusing with year listing. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Since these have already been dabed, why change? Is something broken? The fact that others have not been dabed is not a reason to reverse the current arrangement here. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's more than one film of this name. If "Psycho" were available as a location, the best known film could go there. Since it isn't, it had to be disambiguated; not having "1960" in the title is not a badge of honour it's just sloppy disambiguation. --kingboyk (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Keep in mind the reason for the move is to keep in line with the better known films that have had lesser known remakes. this is not against naming conventions. Reginmund (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• The better way, which I've been bold and just implemented, is to redirect Psycho (film) here, and add a dab header to the top of this article. I'll also fix all incoming links from mainspace to Psycho (film) to point direct to the correct target. --kingboyk (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That's alright because then we can still use [1] to see what might need dabbing. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hitchcock's suggestions for placement of music

I've just added a reference link to a transcript of Hitchcock's "suggestions for placement of music". As the link is to a site that I admin, please feel free to remove it if you feel my adding it was against Wikipedia policy. Davepattern (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It was illegal to film nudity back in 1959 - 1960 (belongs in show scene) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.149.226 (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Pass

It's good and very informative. Keep copyediting for FA. Wiki-newbie 21:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! A 22:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hooray! Now let's try to do the same for A Trip to the Moon (film)‎! :) --GHcool 22:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Spoofs

• In an epsiode of Goof Troop a crook trapped in Goofy's bathtub burgler trap literally goes down the drain while dragging the shower curtin behind him-also with the infamous violin music!
• In an episode of Jimmy neutron Neutron robotic mother forces Jimmy and his father to shower-the scene shows screaming from behind the bathroom door with the infamous violin music going on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.127 (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It has to be sourced a _talk 22:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Inspriration for the Bates house?

I've heard several different stories over the years as to what the source of inspiration for the Bates house design was. Edward Hopper's painting "House by the Railroad" gets cited a lot, but I also remember reading that a building on a California university campus is nearly indentical to it and was the actual source. I forget which college. I may have read that in Janet Leigh's book "Psycho: Behind The Scenes of the Classic Thriller". Anybody know? --208.65.188.23 (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Perkins and Leigh "jump-start?"

The "Cast" section includes a mention of PSYCHO "jump-starting the careers of Perkins and Leigh." This may be a matter of opinion rather that fact, considering prominent pre-1960 film work by Perkins (FRIENDLY PERSUASION, FEAR STRIKES OUT, GREEN MANSIONS) and Leigh (HOUDINI, TOUCH OF EVIL, THE VIKINGS). It's also contradicted in the "Pre-production" section, where it's stated that "[b]oth stars were experienced and proven box-office draws." The News Hound 19:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The News Hound (talk • contribs)

Popular Culture References and Sources

Although I am fully aware that Psycho has been referenced in multiple Simpsons episodes, it seems the sources do not verify this fact. First off, source 5 is just a link to answers.com, which is pretty much a copy of the wikipedia page. Even there, the source listed for The Simpsons is the same as source 40 here. In turn, source 40 (http://www.filmsite.org/psyc.html) provides adequate sources for movies listed in the article that reference Psycho (Halloween, High Anxiety, etc.) but nothing to do with The Simpsons. Also, source 40 and 42 are the same, not sure if that matters, since they are at different dates (although once again, source 40 does not really talk about what it's supposed to be a source of).

So, basically, two things. First, should another source be found for the Simpsons (perhaps http://www.hitchcockwiki.com/wiki/Category:Hitchcock_references_in_The_Simpsons:_Psycho)? Second, can source 5 (answers.com) really be used as a source? 96.233.177.143 (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)