Alfred Hitchcock's 'Psycho' is a classic piece of cinema. It has become one of the defining iconic pieces of film that is heralded as a holy grail. What I admire about it is it's simplicity and the audacity it has to create a bizarre character like Norman Bates. I can only imagine what audiences must have thought going into that film because the implications of such a character for an audience coming out of the conservative fifties must have been truly unsettling. What makes Norman such a great character is how clear the divide is between Mother and Norman. Norman is a likable guy. Anthony Perkins does not scream psychopath, he could just as easily be your friend or neighbor. There is a large chunk of Psycho were we even are encouraged to identify with Norman and I imagine that is what made the film so endearing to 60's audiences.
Flash forward twenty years to 'Psycho II'. Norman's secret is out of the bag and you don't even need to see 'Psycho' to know it. 'Psycho II' was released in the sea of Freddy Krueger wanna be's and going into 'Psycho II' I expected something along those lines. I put off seeing it as sort of an exercise in film snobbery as I thought the attempt to do a sequel should be shunned. I feared Norman Bates would be turned into a Freddy Krueger. That isn't to say I don't like Freddy Krueger I just saw 'Psycho' as above it. This may have been my great mistake in looking at the film. Hitchcock probably wasn't setting out to make a Holy Grail with 'Psycho' and Robert Bloch's initial novel was nothing more than a dime story scandal novel. It makes perfect sense taking Norman Bates and putting him in the culture he created. I expected Norman to wield a knife with no motive other than shock value and going in with little knowledge of the film I was pleasantly surprised to see that the film does not take this approach, in fact it violently rejects it as it's main arc.
Norman Bates wants to be cured and turn over a new leaf and surprisingly the audience wants him to too. Norman is our hero here. Anthony Perkins gives an absolutely wonderful performance as Norman Bates. The character is multi-dimensional and has grown since the last film. Perkins plays up all of Norman's good qualities, he is a polite and kind man with a horrible alter ego. We see that the last thing Norman wants in the world is to become Mother again. In a way 'Psycho II' is kind of a tragic film. With Norman we see an addict whose addiction completely dominated his life. In 'Psycho II' he starts off clean and sober but slowly he begins to relapse and we can't help but feel sorry for him. Perkins brings Norman to low points. He becomes absolutely pathetic and powerless by the climax of the film and we feel for him because Perkins shows that Norman has genuinely tried to overcome the demons in his closet.
There are grisly killings in 'Psycho II' and I expected them. 'Psycho II' feels like an 80's slasher when the bodies start littering the screen. Frankly, this is the least interesting aspect of the film. 'Psycho II' is a character study and the murders merely serve to mess with Norman's sanity. It doesn't matter who the killer really ends up being in 'Psycho II' because we know it is not Norman. One thing that really strikes me about the original 'Psycho' and indeed any good horror film is that it is not the monster that we fear but the presence around the monster. 'Psycho II' is all about presence. 'Mother' is an entity. I would be perfectly fine with 'Psycho II' if all the killings took place in Norman's imagination because the weight of the violence is so strong. Stylistically, the killings have more in common with a Friday the 13th film than Hitchcock but what matters is this isn't a film with a body count for the sake of having one.
The film isn't really completely about Norman however. 'Psycho II' does a very good job in showing how the community and Norman's victims were affected by what he did. The plot involved Lila Loomis and her daughter Mary is pitch perfect. Bringing back Vera Miles was a wonderful choice as her character has become just as disturbed as Norman. And really what reaction does someone have to such grisly events? No one has any faith in Norman to come back from the depths of insanity and it really is symbolical of 'Psycho' and it's slasher clones. By the end of 'Psycho II' Norman is back for good and it is satisfying to see the cost it has on the character and the fruitless battle he put up to save himself from this fate.
Flash forward twenty years to 'Psycho II'. Norman's secret is out of the bag and you don't even need to see 'Psycho' to know it. 'Psycho II' was released in the sea of Freddy Krueger wanna be's and going into 'Psycho II' I expected something along those lines. I put off seeing it as sort of an exercise in film snobbery as I thought the attempt to do a sequel should be shunned. I feared Norman Bates would be turned into a Freddy Krueger. That isn't to say I don't like Freddy Krueger I just saw 'Psycho' as above it. This may have been my great mistake in looking at the film. Hitchcock probably wasn't setting out to make a Holy Grail with 'Psycho' and Robert Bloch's initial novel was nothing more than a dime story scandal novel. It makes perfect sense taking Norman Bates and putting him in the culture he created. I expected Norman to wield a knife with no motive other than shock value and going in with little knowledge of the film I was pleasantly surprised to see that the film does not take this approach, in fact it violently rejects it as it's main arc.
Norman Bates wants to be cured and turn over a new leaf and surprisingly the audience wants him to too. Norman is our hero here. Anthony Perkins gives an absolutely wonderful performance as Norman Bates. The character is multi-dimensional and has grown since the last film. Perkins plays up all of Norman's good qualities, he is a polite and kind man with a horrible alter ego. We see that the last thing Norman wants in the world is to become Mother again. In a way 'Psycho II' is kind of a tragic film. With Norman we see an addict whose addiction completely dominated his life. In 'Psycho II' he starts off clean and sober but slowly he begins to relapse and we can't help but feel sorry for him. Perkins brings Norman to low points. He becomes absolutely pathetic and powerless by the climax of the film and we feel for him because Perkins shows that Norman has genuinely tried to overcome the demons in his closet.
There are grisly killings in 'Psycho II' and I expected them. 'Psycho II' feels like an 80's slasher when the bodies start littering the screen. Frankly, this is the least interesting aspect of the film. 'Psycho II' is a character study and the murders merely serve to mess with Norman's sanity. It doesn't matter who the killer really ends up being in 'Psycho II' because we know it is not Norman. One thing that really strikes me about the original 'Psycho' and indeed any good horror film is that it is not the monster that we fear but the presence around the monster. 'Psycho II' is all about presence. 'Mother' is an entity. I would be perfectly fine with 'Psycho II' if all the killings took place in Norman's imagination because the weight of the violence is so strong. Stylistically, the killings have more in common with a Friday the 13th film than Hitchcock but what matters is this isn't a film with a body count for the sake of having one.
The film isn't really completely about Norman however. 'Psycho II' does a very good job in showing how the community and Norman's victims were affected by what he did. The plot involved Lila Loomis and her daughter Mary is pitch perfect. Bringing back Vera Miles was a wonderful choice as her character has become just as disturbed as Norman. And really what reaction does someone have to such grisly events? No one has any faith in Norman to come back from the depths of insanity and it really is symbolical of 'Psycho' and it's slasher clones. By the end of 'Psycho II' Norman is back for good and it is satisfying to see the cost it has on the character and the fruitless battle he put up to save himself from this fate.