Even at that age, I found it simultaneously derivative and nonsensical. I haven't seen it since, so take with grain of salt.
No, I'm pretty sure the film isn't any good. I'm just not sure if that's reason enough to stop me from seeing it, or if there are some things even Anthony Perkins and Roddy McDowall can't save.
The film gets its fame more from some storytelling choices that were shocking at the time, though have been much imitated since.
For reasons I don't entirely understand, I can't remember not knowing the plot of Psycho. My best guess is that I read about it sometime in elementary school, because I'm quite sure that I got it out of a book rather than pop culture, but that's based on the fact that I got a lot of things out of books at a very early age. I've still probably read about more movies than I've seen.
I do think it remains a *good* film in its own right, but its *greatness* in the historical canon only makes sense in historical context.
Have you seen Michael Powell's Peeping Tom (1960)? I only ever wrote about it obliquely, but it's brilliant and for years the only reason I wanted to see Psycho was to determine why one of these two high-profile serial killer movies was a star-maker and the other one of the most reviled films produced in Britain. (It was rehabilitated some decades later, which in a change from the usual narrative its director was still around to appreciate, but seriously: couldn't we have skipped all the ad hominem reviews and the drought in between?) I expect to prefer Peeping Tom after I've seen both, but I am still curious.
no subject
No, I'm pretty sure the film isn't any good. I'm just not sure if that's reason enough to stop me from seeing it, or if there are some things even Anthony Perkins and Roddy McDowall can't save.
The film gets its fame more from some storytelling choices that were shocking at the time, though have been much imitated since.
For reasons I don't entirely understand, I can't remember not knowing the plot of Psycho. My best guess is that I read about it sometime in elementary school, because I'm quite sure that I got it out of a book rather than pop culture, but that's based on the fact that I got a lot of things out of books at a very early age. I've still probably read about more movies than I've seen.
I do think it remains a *good* film in its own right, but its *greatness* in the historical canon only makes sense in historical context.
Have you seen Michael Powell's Peeping Tom (1960)? I only ever wrote about it obliquely, but it's brilliant and for years the only reason I wanted to see Psycho was to determine why one of these two high-profile serial killer movies was a star-maker and the other one of the most reviled films produced in Britain. (It was rehabilitated some decades later, which in a change from the usual narrative its director was still around to appreciate, but seriously: couldn't we have skipped all the ad hominem reviews and the drought in between?) I expect to prefer Peeping Tom after I've seen both, but I am still curious.