Showing posts with label Psycho. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Psycho. Show all posts

Monday, October 26, 2020

Psycho's Shower Scene

I'm on a roll with creepy movies this month, and one of the scariest is Psycho. The infamous shower scene is one of the most frightening around. After seeing it, many people didn't take a shower for months, or even years! 

I mentioned last week that I don't like blood and gore slasher movies. But even though there's lots of slashing in this particular scene, and even some blood, it's more implied than visual, which makes the scene so masterful!

Psycho was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and starred Janet Leigh, who usually played a good girl, but in this film was cast as wayward secretary Marion Crane. In a surprising twist, she's killed off in the first 45 minutes of the film. Her murderer is cross-dressing, psychotic hotel manager Norman Bates played by Anthony Perkins. Where is Marion killed? In the shower, of course.  The scene took a week to film and I found some fascinating facts about it at History.com. Take a look at some of them below:

Psycho became Hitchcock’s most successful film at the time—its box-office take, $32 million, was the second best of 1960, after Spartacus. But it was made despite much resistance. Paramount, the studio that had produced several of the director’s 1950s successes, refused to bankroll it. So Hitchcock financed its budget himself, against the advice of his own producers. The film also rattled the censors who executed Hollywood’s slackening Motion Picture Production Code, also known as the Hays Code, which was in effect from 1934 to 1968.

The censors balked at what they perceived as nudity in the shower sequence. Leigh wore moleskin patches to hide sensitive areas, as did her body double, pin-up model and future Playboy cover star Marli Renfro, who took over for more exposed moments. But there also was the opening scene, in which Leigh’s Marion wears only a bra and slip, sharing a hotel room with her divorced lover. The censors wanted that changed, too, but the savvy director tricked them. He sent back a copy of the shower scene that was unchanged, confusing the censors as to whether they had seen something or not. He also invited them to the set where he would reshoot the offending opening scene, but none of the censors showed up.


Much of the scene, which was storyboarded in consultation with the legendary designer Saul Bass (and took a week to film), was shot in extreme close-ups, with swift edits, so that the nudity and violence is implied—felt—but never actually seen. The shower set was constructed so that any of its walls could be removed, allowing the camera to get in close from every angle. And Hitchcock employed a fast-motion reverse shot to make it look like the blade actually pierced Marion’s abdomen.

The shrieking strings of composer Bernard Herrmann’s score ratchet up the tension.(It was a novel use of violins, which had usually been employed in film soundtracks to enhance a sense of romance or pathos.) Hitchcock at first resisted them, planning to use no soundtrack at all for the scene. To make the experience even more palpable, the sound of Marion’s flesh yielding to the knife was created by stabbing a casaba melon. Hitchcock had his crew audition multiple varieties of melon until they found the right kind.

Audiences have had six decades to adjust to such visual frenzy, but in 1960, the same year when wholesome, traditional films like 
Swiss Family Robinson and Please Don’t Eat the Daisies also dominated the box office, watching it might have induced panic.

For the complete article, click here, and to watch the shower scene, click here! Have you ever seen Psycho? Thanks for visiting and have a great week!

Monday, August 3, 2015

Movie Re-Makes: Worth it or Not?

I saw the new RoboCop released in 2014 and enjoyed it a lot. Rotten Tomatoes said, "While over-the-top and gory...is also a surprisingly smart sci-fi flick that uses ultraviolence to disguise its satire of American culture." I've seen the 1987 version, which I also enjoyed, but the FX technology in the re-make is, of course, far superior.
RoboCop, 1987
Sometimes movie re-makes can be an improvement over the original film, like The Maltese Falcon.  In the 1931 version, sound was relatively new in movies, and sometimes actors delivered lines with their backs to the camera.  In addition, there was no mood music.

The Maltese Falcon, 1941
The 1941 re-make has become a classic, thanks to a charismatic cast that includes Humphrey Bogart, Peter Lorre, Sidney Greenstreet and Mary Astor. The musical score and dramatic cinematography place this film head and shoulders above its earlier counterpart.

Psycho, 1960
Although some re-makes surpass their predecessors, that's not always the case.  Take Psycho, for instance. The 1960 version was directed by Alfred Hitchcock.  Hitchcock--need I say more? Then along came the 1998 version, a shot by shot remake.  Why?

Do you have a favorite movie re-make and a not so favorite one?

Thanks for visiting and have a great week!

Reprinted from 1/13/14

Monday, April 7, 2014

The Scariest Shower Ever


Over the weekend I saw the movie Hitchcock, starring Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren. If you love film history, I highly recommend it! Alfred Hitchcock's life is explored after he has been a well known and supremely accomplished director for over three decades.

Now in his sixties, should he consider retirement, or stick around and find a project that excites him? You guessed it--and Psycho (1960) is that project! I won't disclose anymore about Hitchcock the movie, however, I will share some fun facts from Tuner Classic Movies regarding the famous shower scene from Psycho:

The shower scene in Psycho required 78 shot set-ups and took seven days to film. The set was built so that any of the walls could be removed, allowing the camera to get in close from every angle. Although other scenes were shot with more than one camera, this one used only one cameraman.
Janet Leigh in Psycho
The shower scene was originally written to see only the knife-wielding hand of the murderer. Hitchcock suggested to Saul Bass, who was storyboarding the sequence, a number of angles that would capture screenwriter Joseph Stefano's description of "an impression of a knife slashing, as if tearing at the very screen, ripping the film."

Janet Leigh wore thin moleskin to cover the most intimate parts of her body in the shower. Hitchcock kept a closed set during the shooting of the murder. Even so, Leigh later noted, "Security was a constant source of trouble. Even though I wore the moleskin, I was still pretty much 'on display,' so to speak. I didn't want strangers lurking around, hoping to get a peek in case of any accidental mishap."

Marli Renfro was paid $400 as Leigh's body double for some shots (according to some reports, she was only used for the scene of Marion's body being wrapped in the shower curtain). Although Leigh said for many years that there was never anyone actually naked in the shower, she admitted late in her life that Renfro did some shots nude. She also mentioned in her autobiography that she was nude in some scenes as the flesh-colored moleskin was washed away from her breasts. "What to do? ...To spoil the so-far successful shot and be modest? Or get it over with and be immodest. I opted for immodesty."

Reportedly, a fast-motion reverse shot was used to give the impression that the knife actually enters Marion's abdomen.


To achieve the effect of the water coming out of the shower head and streaming down past the camera on all sides, Hitchcock had a huge shower head made to order and shot with his camera very close to it.
Mr. Hitchcock
Hitchcock has said that one reason he shot Psycho in black-and-white was because he thought the bloody murder might be too much for audiences. He used chocolate syrup as the blood swirling down the drain. Nevertheless, some audience members swore the scene was in color and that they saw red blood.

Here's a link to the actual shower scene, plus one of Janet Leigh discussing it.

Have you ever seen Psycho?  Thanks for visiting and have a great week!

Monday, January 13, 2014

Movie Re-Makes: Worth it or Not?

I'm looking forward to seeing the new RoboCop, which according to Rotten Tomatoes, "While over-the-top and gory...is also a surprisingly smart sci-fi flick that uses ultraviolence to disguise its satire of American culture." I've seen the 1987 version and can't wait to see the technological improvements in the re-make.
RoboCop, 1987
Sometimes movie re-makes can be an improvement over the original film, like The Maltese Falcon.  In the 1931 version, sound was relatively new in movies, and sometimes actors delivered lines with their backs to the camera.  In addition, there was no mood music.

The Maltese Falcon, 1941
The 1941 re-make has become a classic, thanks to a charismatic cast that includes Humphrey Bogart, Peter Lorre, Sidney Greenstreet and Mary Astor. The musical score and dramatic cinematography place this film head and shoulders above its earlier counterpart.

Psycho, 1960
Although some re-makes surpass their predecessors, that's not always the case.  Take Psycho, for instance. The 1960 version was directed by Alfred Hitchcock.  Hitchcock--need I say more? Then along came the 1998 version, a shot by shot remake.  Why?

Do you have a favorite movie re-make and a not so favorite one?

Thanks for visiting and have a great week!