I have seen the film many times-and apart from the shock value (and sex angle) the murder of the female thief is a minor part of the story. Basically, the psycho alternates between his normal self, and one in which he thinks he is his mother (who is dead). The mother sees the woman victim as a corrupting influence-so “she” kills the girl in the brutal bloody way. Did Hitchcock ever write about why he spent so much effort on the murder?
From what I understand, that type of graphic detail had never been shown in a major Hollywood movie before. Murders and death were glossed over with no (or little) blood and always quickly with the eyes closed.
Psycho was the first film to take it to the next level: the shadow behind the shower curtain getting closer, and closer, the knife, the violent attack, the screams, the blood flowing down the drain, and finally a closeup of the corpse with eyes wide open.
This scene was purposely graphic and shocking and it terrified a lot of people, especially women. My own mum told me she could never shower alone in the house again after seeing that movie.
The lead up to the murder makes the viewer believe that the girl being murdered is the main character. This is why the murder is so shocking the first time. It makes it seem like for the rest of the movie, anything can happen to anyone at anytime. This is what gives the movie its sense of tension and suspense. It does not allow you to relax for the rest of the movie.
Yes. So very true.
I think it was meant to shock people into realizing they’re watching a whole 'nother movie than the one they think they’re watching. Until the moment you see the door open in the background, you probably think you’re watching “Janet Leigh on the Lam: Will She or Won’t She Come to Her Senses?” All of a sudden, you’re jerked into a world of sheer terror, and it starts to click why Norman and the Bates Motel are so creepy.
Holy crap! :eek: Janet Leigh isn’t even the main character in this movie! She was just used to set up the *real *story! And you’re not in Kansas anymore! Enjoy the blood running down the drain as Janet slowly fades out; the most HORRENDOUS is yet to come!
EDIT: Like puddleglum says! 
That’s exactly it. Hitchcock also wanted that shock – he insisted on a policy where no one would be seated after the first half hour (audiences tended to show up all during the first showing of a film, and caught up on the earlier events in the second showing*). It was a great publicity gimmick, but it had a reason – he didn’t want people to come in late and wonder where Janet Leigh was. It was a major shock at the time.
*That’s how we used to do it when we were kids. If a move started at 7:00, we’d get there at 7:30. Helped me develop my story sense.
Look, have you ever murdered anyone?
It always takes longer than you think.
And all that money! Surely he’s going to find it and, oh wait, no, there it goes into the swamp…
DUDE! Spoiiler alerts, please!
Oh, all right…
Ever wonder how many cars he’d already dumped in there? How many could that freakin’ swamp hold? :dubious: :eek:
But never the knife touching the body. Shock without gore.
Back in the '80s I briefly had a girlfriend who, let us say, “had issues.” (It turned out she was batshit crazy!) All she had to hear to thoroughly creep her out was the “Whee, whee, whee, whee!” sound effect from Psycho. :eek:
IIRC there was some mention at the end of [spoiler]two other missing people. Although I don’t know why I’m spoilering this.
Also at the end, the authorities drag the car out again.[/spoiler]
I spoilered my post merely to comply with kunilou’s request. No big deal.
I honestly don’t know if I want leaffan to elaborate on this or not.
I’m pretty sure if that was tongue in cheek. After all, if one is clicking on a thread title of a 55 year old movie, one should reasonably expect open discussion about the movie. If one hasn’t seen the movie, the thread title alone should keep them from clicking. This isn’t a case of random spoilers for decades old movies in an unrelated thread -
Rosebud is his sled. Darth Vader is Luke’s father. It was Barzini all along.
- this is specific to the movie mentioned in the title.
What’s to elaborate? It was a shockingly scary movie at the time, and my dad had to see it. So, naturally he took my then pregnant mother (with my older sister, not me) with him. It scared her so much that decades later she said she still couldn’t shower alone in the house. True story.
But very distinct Foley sounds of the knife slicing into flesh! When I first saw it as a kid on TV in the mid-seventies I remember that noise grossing me out.
I think he may have misinterpreted, and thought your mother could never be alone in a shower again, not alone in the house and shower.
“Who’s turn is it to shower with mom, again?” 
Now, THAT was funny!