“Oh, mother! Blood…blood!”
Moviegoers and TV viewers can’t get enough of the red stuff. Bates Motel debuted to 4.6 million viewers, the most for a drama premiere in A&E history, showing what a powerful chokehold Psycho, and the slasher film subgenre it spawned, continues to have on our cultural psyche. The modern day-set prequel to Alfred Hitchcock’s legendary film is a show that the Master of Suspense himself might have liked: most notably because it identifies so strongly (and empathetically) with the central mother-son duo of Norma and Norman Bates. That distinguishes Bates Motel from much of slasher storytelling these days, movies that are so deliberately anti-humanistic that they’re not actually scary. Or that get so bogged down in elaborating every last bit of backstory, that they take all the mystery out of a slasher scenario…and aren’t scary. Or they go the way of a spoof…and aren’t scary. So what happened to the scare factor of slasher storytelling? On the occasion of Bates Motel’s killer debut, let’s retrace the genre’s bloody breadcrumbs to find out why, starting with the movie that kicked off the whole thing.
Alfred Hitchcock Releases Psycho in 1960, and the Slasher Film is Born
It’s hard to overvalue the impact the Master of Suspense’s film made upon its first theatrical run and the influence it’s had on 53 years of cinema since. Everything about it was unique. Its marketing campaign, including a trailer in which Hitchcock took us on a tour of the Bates House and Motel, was an elaborate bit of misdirection, indicating nothing of the out-of-blue terror that awaited its audience. With gimmicks like a nationwide ban on movie theater employees allowing patrons to enter Psycho after it began, it was pretty much the beginning of hype culture and spoiler culture. Except that it really delivered the goods.
‘Bates Motel’: Why Hitchcock Would Approve
Psycho rewrote the rules of horror filmmaking. For decades, Hollywood had mined fear in monsters, the supernatural, aliens, mutants from nuclear blasts, but rarely from anything like serial killers. There are a few exceptions of course. John Brahms’ 1945 version of The Lodger is a clear predecessor to Psycho in its uniquely Freudian take on the Jack the Ripper story, featuring Laird Cregar, in a towering performance, as the infamous London killer. Cregar’s Ripper was obviously suffering from a hard case of incestuous homoeroticism—he’d fallen in love with his brother—and had to vent his hatred against all womankind with a knife after a woman drove his brother to commit suicide.
Like The Lodger, and unlike all the monster movies that preceded it, Psycho drew deeply upon modern psychology in its portrait of Norman Bates. As inhabited by Anthony Perkins, here was a guy with a guilt complex related to his mother so severe that he basically adopts her personality and violently suppresses his male sexual urges by slashing to death the objects of his fancy: beautiful young women like Janet Leigh’s Marion Crane. But the really interesting thing about Psycho is that, for as much time as it spends having a psychologist character explain all of this Freudian stuff at the end, the movie—and Hitchcock—also seems profoundly skeptical of that psychological reading. How can headshrinking possibly explain all the crazy things that people do in this world? The psychologist who pops up at the end seems to give a rote explanation for Norman and his crimes, but Hitchcock doesn’t give the shrink the last word: he gives that to Norman, staring directly into the camera, as “Mother” talks about how she would “never hurt a fly.” And then suddenly, Hitch cuts to the closing shot of the movie, of a car being pulled out of a swamp. It’s like he’s saying that some mysteries can’t be explained. They’re as murky as that swamp and our attempts to make sense of them are inherently wrongheaded. The real truth is that crazy s*** that has no explanation can happen in this world, and can happen a lot, in fact. And that crazy s*** can have life-altering (or -ending) consequences. You can be going along, driving north to be with your boyfriend after having stolen some money from your company and thinking that crime alone will alter your life forever. Then, something completely out of left field, totally unrelated to your hopes, dreams, and fears, can enter your life and derail it. Psycho is fundamentally about the uncertainty of life, its precariousness, its randomness, and, above all, how the story continues after you’re gone.
‘Bates Motel’ At SXSW
Post-Psycho Slasher Cinema Found Its Terror in Outsiders
This was the first step to making slasher movies less thought-provoking, and it arrived as the next great wave of horror flicks after Psycho. We’re talking about ‘70s horror, particularly The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween. In Psycho, Norman Bates actively tried to appear “normal,” even if his attempts to do so made him especially abnormal. But on the surface he did pretty much seem to be like your typically awkward twentysomething—aside from the taxidermy hobby, his tendency to walk everywhere with both hands in his pockets, and a neverending hunger for candy corn. He was the boy next door. Except that this boy next door was also a serial killer. With The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, arguably the next great slasher flick after Psycho, the abnormal wasn’t located under a veneer of normalcy. It was just abnormal, no matter how you looked at it. There was a family of creepy, incestuous hillbillies, led by a chainsaw-wielder wearing a mask of leather, who lived up to their creepiness by killing young people who stray onto their farm. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is basically just Psycho meets Deliverance. Rather than the unnatural and the horrific being a part of everyday life, as Hitchcock had implied, director Tobe Hooper marginalized horror. It was to be found outside of civilized life, where people operate by different rules. That’s also the underlying premise of John Carpenter’s Halloween, where robot killer Michael Myers is just a mental hospital escapee. He’s a crazy guy! And crazy guys do crazy things like kill people.
Slasher Cinema Became Increasingly Puritanical, Making It Less Scary
Though The Texas Chainsaw Massacre featured hillbillies killing teenagers or twentysomethings, you didn’t get the sense that any of the young folks were being punished for there transgressions. That would not be the case in Black Christmas, Halloween, and Friday the 13th, all of which imply that teenagers who have sex or otherwise stray outside the confines of traditional morality are fair game for punishment at the dagger tip of a maniac. In essence, they get what’s coming to them. And only the virgin can be the “Last Girl Standing.”
Carlton Cuse Says Making ‘Bates Motel’ a ‘Psycho’ Homage ‘Isn’t Engaging’
This is the first time that the actual scariness of the genre began to be undermined. If you don’t identify with the characters who are getting killed, if you think that on some level they’re getting what they deserve by being stabbed to death, how can you genuinely be frightened for them? In order to feel fright on behalf of a movie character, you’ve got to have empathy for that character. In fact, you could argue that horror in its purest form—horror movies that elicit genuine fright—have to be humanistic by their nature. If you want to see the people onscreen get slaughtered, then you’re not going to be scared. You can’t have suspense if you’re not invested in the survival of the characters, only shock. The killings, then, become the equivalent of money shots in porn—context-free arousals of momentary sensation.
Why Today’s Moviegoers Can’t Accept Characters Breaking Into Song
Again, Hitchcock’s unique perversity stands in contrast to the more puritanical streaks you’ll find in the Halloween and Friday the 13th franchises. Rather than Marion Crane being slashed to death inside Cabin No. 1’s shower at the Bates Motel because she stole that money and had sex with her boyfriend out of wedlock, she is only killed after she has resolved to return the money and make good. She takes the shower to symbolize her purification, that she’s redeemed herself. She wears a white bra instead of a black bra. And then she’s killed. Hitchcock gives us the exact opposite of what would come later—he kills the good girl.
NEXT: A Nightmare on Elm Street is one step forward for the genre. Scream is two steps back. Plus, the rise of torture porn and the "origin story."
Though some of its sexual politics are no more progressive than what you’d find in Halloween or Friday the 13th, Wes Craven’s A Nightmare on Elm Street does represent a different, more provocative punishment narrative. Rather than the young people being idiots who need to be killed, the teenagers in Nightmare are suffering because of the sins of their parents, and they need to redeem their parents’ sins in order to save themselves. Years before, the parents of a bunch of high-school kids had committed an act of vigilante justice: they cornered a known sex offender, Fred Krueger, in a warehouse and burned it down, with him in it. His body died, but he lived on in spirit form to menace their children in their dreams. The implication is that the parents didn’t obtain justice correctly—they did so in a way that was vengeful rather than noble—so Krueger's evil was never properly exorcised. The kids, led by Nancy (Heather Langenkamp), have to reclaim their lives from the horrible consequences of their parents’ mistake. Here, the young people are the heroes, and the old, “wise” folks are not so wise.
Scream(s)…of Laughter? The Slash Spoof is Born
Craven himself would help put the nail in the coffin of slasher cinema. By turning it into a joke. His Scream movies diced up the genre’s conventions and revealed how staid they had become. The only way to make slasher movies fresh was to make fun of their very existence, until the spoofs themselves become even more uninspired than the movies they’re making fun of (see: Scream 3 and 4).
That’s why Drew Goddard’s The Cabin In the Woods was such a revelation. More a legitimate satire than a spoof, it showed real affection for the genre, created a truly lovable group of college kids to root for, then came up with a hilariously mythic explanation for why they’d have to die—and even beyond that, why we’re filled with bloodlust to want to see them die. It’s the one and only entry in this entire genre that locates the mentality of wanting to see people slaughtered onscreen in the same part of the human psyche that used to find human sacrifices, gladiatorial matches, and public executions to be forms of entertainment.
Other than The Cabin In the Woods, the slasher spoofs have discouraged emotional investment beyond the level of light chuckles. In a sense, they’re not that far afield from the torture porn sub-subgenre, where fear of death (the essential ingredient for true horror) totally evaporates and is replaced by a longing for it. The audiences who go to see Saw or Hostel and get off on people being mutilated in increasingly Baroque ways are no longer afraid of Michael Myers and Freddy Krueger. They themselves have become Michael Myers and Freddy Krueger, even if they confine their bloodlust to the images they vicariously receive onscreen. These movies don’t encourage identification with the victims, they only identify with the killers. That’s the complete reversal of a true horror movie setup.
Getting back to Psycho, if we accept that part of what made it so great was its view that psychology couldn’t explain what happened, by extension, then, examining the biographical details of Norman Bates’ life shouldn’t be any more revelatory. Hence, the inherent (possibly damning) flaw of Bates Motel. Doesn’t an origin story by its very nature seek to dispel any mystery about its subject? And isn’t the presence of mystery an important part of horror? In the long run, that could be a major issue for A&E’s show. So far, though, I don’t think so, because Norman hasn’t shown any sign of being a psycho himself just yet, and also because the show seems to empathize so strongly with both him and his mother.
That said, the “high concept” mindset of Hollywood that demands that each little crevice of every major franchise be explored and explained in detail has meant the return of shallow pop psychology to a whole bunch of horror projects. There are almost as many horror franchise origin stories as there are superhero origin stories these days: Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning; Rob Zombie’s Halloween, which showed Michael Myers’ early days; The Exorcist got not one but two prequels; and now Bates Motel. It used to be that horror flicks were turned into franchises by getting sequelized. Now, if there are too many sequels, make a prequel, with all the details that the original filmmakers didn’t think were necessary to include in their first film.
So, yeah, slasher films—and really, horror movies in general—have all but creatively expired, even if they're still making box office ticket-takers happy. Compared to almost all of its copycats and successors, it seems that Psycho is the film equivalent of the Last Girl Standing: fierce, untainted, and as strong as ever.
Follow Christian Blauvelt on Twitter @Ctblauvelt
[Photo Credit: A&E; Lionsgate; Compass International Pictures; Paramount Pictures; Dimenion Films]
You Might Also Like:15 Oscar-Winning Nude ScenesYoung Jack Black Is Totally Unrecognizable
The images, which were taken by Joseph Jasgur in 1946 when the screen icon was still known by her married name Norma Jeane Dougherty, were the "highlight" of the Icons & Idols collection.
Jasgur's photos along with their copyrights went under the hammer at Julien's Auctions in Beverly Hills on Sunday (04Dec11) to settle the photographer's debts.
Other items auctioned off in the sale included a Lady Gaga dress that went for $31,250 (£19,531), as well as a prop gun used in the singer's Born This Way video for $7,680 (£4,800).
A caricature late Beatles star John Lennon drew of himself and wife Yoko Ono in 1969 was sold for $90,000 (£56,250).
Easy A a teen sex comedy with no actual sex aims rather conspicuously to plumb the best bits of Diablo Cody and Alexander Payne in its upside-down self-consciously campy take on Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter. In the role of its high-school Hester Prynne is Emma Stone the sly husky heroine of last year’s surprise hit Zombieland. Tested by a film that is far less clever than its director Will Gluck or screenwriter Bert Royal would have us believe (and they desperately want us to believe) she passes with flying colors delivering a performance that should elevate her into the upper echelon of actresses possessing brains and beauty in equal measure.
Stone plays Olive the kind of quick-witted hyper-literate teen that our educational system produces in ever-diminishing numbers. (If it ever produced them to begin with.) More knowing and sophisticated than others her age she is nonetheless not immune to the pressure of peers and the dread of being labeled a loser. Under duress by a prying friend (Aly Michalka) to dish the details of her birthday weekend a rather mundane affair mainly spent jumping on her bed to the tune of Natasha Bedingfield’s pop monstrosity “Pocket Full of Sunshine ” she feels compelled to embellish a bit and concocts an entirely fictional account of losing her virginity (dubbed the “V-Card” by Royal trying too hard) to a boy from a junior college across town.
Word of Olive’s deflowering spreads with startling speed aided by the incessant rumor-mongering of a catty Evangelical eavesdropper (Amanda Bynes). Suddenly branded a tramp on account of a seemingly harmless little lie Olive opts to embrace her newly tarnished reputation and put it to good use. In a viciously stratified social environment where even the most awkward acne-plagued pariah can earn respect and even admiration from members of the upper castes for having gone All the Way Olive anoints herself the Mother Theresa of (fake) sluts bestowing her blessing upon downtrodden gents in need of a reputation boost. And she resolves to look the part too traipsing around in scandalous bustiers and affixing the letter “A” to her chest.
There are limits to Easy A’s Scarlet Letter conceit overly Glee-ful tone forced repartee and pop-culture references (John Hughes is invoked so many times he should get a producer credit). Which is why director Gluck must be grateful to have found Stone who handles the verbal calisthenics of Royal’s script with charm and verve and a certain effortless appeal that keeps us engaged even as the film wallows in contrived irony and heavy-handedness. Keep your eye on her.
Shedding many of those trappings that make a James Bond movie well a James Bond movie Quantum of Solace is really the first sequel ever in the long-running series. While it’s always exciting something gets seriously shaken and stirred in the translation. Picking up exactly where the brilliant Casino Royale left off we see Bond (Daniel Craig) trying to get to the bottom of why his love Vesper Lynd had to die jumping right into the first of many MANY chases as he traverses six countries. Still on rogue patrol Bond then inadvertently meets the crafty and gorgeous Camille (Olga Kurylenko) who introduces Bond to the evil Dominic Green (Mathieu Amalric) the head of an eco-phony stealth operation angling for some prime desert land while financing a crooked Bolivian general’s planned coup. With the ever resourceful M (Judi Dench) trying to keep him in line at all times Bond must put his revenge plans on hold as he crosses paths not only with Greene and his fake pro-environment front but also the intriguing and mysterious group known as Quantum. In this outing Daniel Craig -- leaner and meaner than any previous Bond -- really becomes a man of single-minded determination and grit. He’s less like the James Bond we know and love and more a humorless killing machine like Jason Bourne (those two should really get together). Still Craig is such a compelling actor that we are with him all the way even if he doesn’t go for the suave Bond moves. Olga Kurylenko is a great foil but not totally in the tradition of a Bond girl. A later encounter with Gemma Arterton as a British agent in Bolivia does however briefly recall the heyday of Goldfinger. Judi Dench has taken the perfunctory role of M and turned it into a full-blown supporting role. Her dry wit and take-no-prisoners attitude is welcomed every time she shows up on screen. French star Mathieu Amalric (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) doesn’t really pull off his villainous alter-ego ecologist while Jeffrey Wright is pretty much wasted as U.S. agent Felix Leiter. At least Giancarlo Giannini returns for some nice moments with his Craig. Although they usually leave the challenging job of steering the Bond ship to an English director oddly this time the baton was handed to Marc Forster known more for his intimate dramas such as Finding Neverland and Monster's Ball. His grip on the action sequences is secure but he never really seems to have a handle on what distinguishes this legendary movie spy from everyone else. There’s a reason Bond has survived as a screen icon for almost half a century but the sort of workman-like filmmaking Forster displays here does not represent 007’s finest hour. It’s almost like the producers had a checklist: car chase on winding roads; boat chase; airplane chase; rooftop chase -- all check. Quantum of Solace is definitely worth checking out however. I mean it IS Bond and we wait for these movies on bated breath. Just maybe next time a little less Bourne please.
Once respected NYPD detective Jack Mosley (Bruce Willis) is now pretty much on his last legs literally and figuratively. He drinks is relegated to a desk job and walks with a limp. One morning after a long shift he’s corralled into transporting a petty criminal Eddie Bunker (Mos Def) to the courthouse 16 blocks away so he can testify by 10:00 a.m. What Jack doesn’t know is that Eddie is one of the key witnesses in a case against crooked cops--that is until the two start getting shot at. Then it becomes crystal clear. The main bad guy Jack’s former partner Frank (David Morse) basically lets Jack know Eddie will never testify to just go ahead and hand him over but Frank underestimates Jack’s desire to finally do something good. So Jack and Eddie fight their way to the courthouse block by gut-wrenching block. Oh no there’s nothing formulaic about 16 Blocks not at all. In a film as predictable as this the only thing that’ll make it stand out is the performances. 16 Blocks nearly succeeds--but not quite. It would seem Willis is playing a character he’s played a hundred times before--the misunderstood and slightly unorthodox cop with a heart of gold. But as Jack the actor does a nice job trying out some new things namely playing fat bald and grizzled. You can almost smell how bad Jack’s breath has to be. Rapper/actor Mos Def who usually brightens any film he’s in also tries his hand at something different but his choices aren’t as smart. As the talkative and affable Eddie Mos comes up with one of the more annoying nasally accents ever recorded. After about five minutes of screen time you desperately want him to stop and say “Just kidding! I don’t really talk like this.” But he doesn’t. It’s too bad something like an accent can ruin an otherwise decent performance. Old-school director Richard Donner best known for his Lethal Weapons is a consummate professional when it comes to making these kind of movies. In other words he pretty much paints by numbers. We watch Jack and Eddie get out of one tight situation after another as the gaggle of bad cops try to gun them down. I mean 16 blocks doesn’t seem that far to go so they better throw in as many highly implausible obstacles as they can. Chinese laundries alleyways rooftops subways. And yes even a city bus which the pair--who have by now bonded big time--has to hijack. Donner also employs a popular but nonetheless annoying technique of zooming in when the action heats up so you can’t really see what’s going on. Even if you’re addicted to action movies--a Bruce Willis action movie no less--16 Blocks just doesn’t deliver the goods.