Yes, an all time classic. One of those that have become synonymous with Hitchcocks image of "suspense" and a favorite of "auteur" filmmakers. But in my view this is much more than a "suspense for the sake of suspense"and alsoit is not horror, because we are not dealing with the "supernatural". We are instead dealing with the subconscious and psychological aspects of human "nature", that up until then, had not been very well expressed on film, not even by Hitchcock himself (afaik) at least not in the "all in" fashion Hitchcock uses here.
The plot is pretty basic, except for at sudden and rather unexpected turn of events after the first act. A young lady ends up in a remote motel, run by a young man. On the surface he seems nice but when you poke a little to him, you discover that a great many emotions that have gathered since childhood, is boiling and threatens to explode in rage anytime.
There are obvious sexual references, from the first scene and later when the girl meets Bates, the motel owner. He peeks at her naked body as she undresses in the adjacent apartment and we are invited by Hitchcock to participate in the voyeurism and also planning how to cover up the stolen money. Hitchcock is brilliant at this engagement of the viewer, he works so effortlessly on the subconscious level.
The sudden change in the plot is the unexpected turn to focus on Bates instead of the obvious pretty blond "heroine" that is supposed to be saved by a male protagonist. Not this time, no. She is killed as soon as Bates can get at her in the bath. And what a scene this is. It is with good and deserved reason, that it has become possibly the most famous scene in all of cinema.
In 1960, this was absolutely unheard of in mainstream cinema. Nudity, knife stabbing accompanied with chopping meat sounds. Blood flowing down the drain and a dead woman falling limb dead to the cold floor staring out at the audience. Psychopathic behavior thrown directly at you like never before, or since I might add.
The scene is a study in expressionist techniques taken to moderne times. Extremely well timed cutting, exemplary work with shadows and movement. Very creative framing and angles. Jaw-droppingly good and mesmerizing cinematography. An absolute gem of cinematic genius, that must have left many an ambitious director dumbfounded back then (think Truffaut)
The problem with Hitchcock is that the level is not even through out. The third act is basically a boring chase of the "killer" and except for a small climax at the end when they catch Bates, does let out a lot of the "suspense" built over the first half of the movie. Still there are a few brilliant shots that we can appreciate. The tilted head shot of Bates when the detective asks about the book. The way Bates stands in the doorway to the bathroom, with bucket and broom, before he enters. A direct nudge at Murnau´s expressionist masterpiece Nosferatu I am sure.
A real acknowledgement has to go to Anthony Perkins who does a fantastic job as Bates. The small but sudden changes in his eyes and facial expressions fits the psychopathic nature of him so extremely well. We sense the disturbed mind while the female protagonist, is untouched by the signals. It is also a subconscious sexual predator and prey psychology that is at work and very understated to perfection, during their small conversations.
There are symbolic messages as the stuffed birds in the room where they small-talk. Bates even references birds by saying they do not eat like "birds", contrary to belief. This is a nice reference to his stuffed, and demanding mother. The unassuming female (in mother-figure) that actually demands a lot, but is good at hiding it.
As much as I would love to give this one top marks I cannot help the sinking feeling of the third part. Particularly the psychologists explanation of how Bates thinks is a let down to me. All these things are better left unsaid and too bad if the viewer is unable to get there on his own accord. I often sit with the feeling that Hitch longed for certain parts of the movie, which he would master so brilliantly, while the rest was just fillings to get from A to B ... It is not as bad here as in other movies, but still detracting.
But the first two acts are simply brilliant and worth it all. It is all the small details that brings it up there for me, not the story or the plot all that much. But I am a sucker for the expressionist bits, you know that :-).
Rating: 9/10
