Film review Hitchcock’s Psycho

1. Hitchcock’s Psycho was a groundbreaking film for several reasons, not the least of which was the way he developed the film’s narrative. How does the film’s narrative deviate from the traditional three-act structure? How might this deviation contribute to the spectator’s experience of suspense in watching the film? In answering this question you might simply consider what you think the film is going to be about in the beginning, and how it turns out in the end.
Here’s the link again to a succinct definition of the three-act structure in case you might need it: http://www.elementsofcinema.com/screenwriting/three-act-structure/
2.    As we discussed with regard to Rear Window, Alfred Hitchcock’s genius as the “master of suspense” was his ability to manipulate the viewer’s voyeuristic pleasure in watching people who do not know they are being watched and to incorporate that theme into the film. For instance, by making Jefferies a surrogate for the spectator, Hitchcock effectively presents an image of our own experiences watching films, implicitly commenting on why we do it and what that says about us. With this in mind, how do you think Hitchcock plays upon the viewer’s voyeuristic pleasure in Psycho? How might that contribute to the experience of the suspense and shock of the film? Would you consider? Is there anything in the film that suggests that he is judging this desire in some way, perhaps if we consider the possibility that Norman Bates is a surrogate for the viewer in the way Jefferies is in Rear Window?

3. Many consider the psychiatrist’s explanation of Norman’s behavior at the end unnecessary and distracting, an artistic failure in an otherwise impeccably composed film. Others are quite satisfied with the ending, as it explained the motivations of someone whose behavior was otherwise inscrutable, if not downright creepy. What do you think?