1. Title
2. Credits
3. Story
4. Plot
5. Performances (acting)
6. Art direction
7. Editing
8. Cinematography (photography, camera)
9. Costumes
10. Music score
11. Direction
12. Theme
13. Symbolism
14. Genre
15. Response
16. Evaluation
Special Checklist
1. Word, "psycho"
2. Design of title sequence
3. Sum up story
4. How is story used in movie (plot)
5. Anthony Perkins as mom and son; Janet Leigh's star role in first part of movie; other cast (actors), esp. detective
6. Spooky house; exterior/interior; rooms; Set Direction (props); mirrors; children's toys (stuffed); stuffed birds
7. Editing: esp. shower sequence. Intercutting at end, when Sam and Norman argue and Lila searches house
8. Camera movement at beginning, crane (overhead) shot when detective (Arbogast) is murdered. Black and white.
9. Anything to write about regarding costumes? Change from white slip to black slip.
10. Great score, unusual effects (only string instruments used); string instruments used percussively (hitting the strings); high strings.
11. Alfred Hitchcock, world famous; probably the most famous director in movie history. Famous for suspense movies; but Psycho is horror.
12. What theme to this movie? How can I organize above to explain (illustrate) it?
13. What symbols, if any? What about props, camera movement, costumes, location, setting?
14. Genre, Horror. vs. Suspense (Hitch is famous for)
15. Response: I was shocked, esp. the shower sequence and Lila's visit to the house.
16. Great film! Four stars! Highly recommended for all viewers, except maybe children.
Now, using my checklist, including some questions to myself, I'll draft an essay, as short as possible, but including all important ideas. I'll pretend I'm "innocent," viewing the movie for the first time:
I heard a lot about Psycho, a film directed by Alfred Hitchcock in 1960. But I never saw it until last week.
Hitchcock, of course, is one of the most famous directors in the world. I've seen several of his movies, and they're full of suspense. But Psycho, although it has its share of suspense, is more of a horror movie.
In fact, it uses most of the props familiar in horror movies. It has a haunted house. All right, it's haunted in a different way, but with the same effect. It also has a mummy in the house and terrible things happen to people in the house. But that's all I'm going to say about the topic, so as not to spoil the film for those few who still have not seen it.
The story is simple enough. A young woman named Marion Crane, played by Janet Leigh (Jennifer Jason Leigh's mom), gets the itch to steal money from her boss. Her goal seems to be to visit her lover, Sam Loomis, played by a young and handsome John Gavin. She never gets there. She gets to the Bates Motel instead. And that's where the trouble starts.
The Bates Motel is run by a young man named Norman Bates. He lives there alone, with his mom (Norman says). We never get to meet his mom until the shocking end of the film.
But there are plenty of shocks in between. Like that famous shower scene, which I had heard about but never seen before. Now I know why they say it's so shocking. I'm not going to spoil the fun for viewers who haven't seen the film. But the scene is made up of many shots (almost a hundred) of only a few seconds long each. Must have kept the film editor busy! That scene was worth the price of admission.
Young viewers will be surprised to see that the film was made in black-and-white, even though most films of the time were being made in color. Hitchcock chose black-and-white to suit the subject of his film. The haunted house looks better buried in black clouds, as in some scenes. In general, horror has no place for color. Besides, b&w keeps our minds on the thoughts and feelings of the characters, which seems to be Hitchcock's idea.
"Hitch" gets help from his cast. Janet Leigh is especially good in the long beginning to the film, where she is on screen most of the time. Remember, she has just stolen money and has to act like it. She's very convincing at looking like someone who's afraid of everyone, thinking they all know she's a thief.
Norman Bates is also good at playing Norman Bates, the awkward young man afraid of his mom. He earns our sympathy early in the film, since he's so pleasant and friendly. This only adds to the shock at the end.
Martin Balsam plays the detective, Arbogast, who looks for Marion after she is reported missing by her boss. He plays his part well, making us feel he's in control and that he's about to solve the problem of the missing woman soon. "I'll find her," he says! So we expect he will, like in a normal suspense film.
But like I said, this is not an ordinary suspense film. In fact, nothing is ordinary in the film. Take Bernard Herrmann's music score, for example. It's a creepy score, with no real themes like we expect. It's mostly made up of little musical figures, like in the long car scenes when Marion is escaping to her lover. In the hotel room, when Marion starts packing, we hear another short figure, repeated throughout the scene, helping us feel as trapped as Marion feels.
Which brings me to the point of all this. Feeling trapped seems to be the theme of the movie. Most of the characters feel trapped in some way. Sam is trapped by his ex-wife, to whom he pays alimony. Norman feels trapped by his mother. Marion is trapped in a hopeless relationship with her lover, whom she must meet in hotels insead of in a proper bedroom! Finally, the stuffed birds, which Norman keeps in his motel, are trapped, unable to move, like the other characters in the film.
But I don't want to get too serious! The movie not only makes a point, but is great entertainment. Director Hitchcock fully understood the genre of movie he was making and used all his talent to present it as well as, if not better, than other directors. This is a great film, unless you're really turned off by horror or you're too young. Otherwise, I highly recommend it.
I wrote this quickly. First, I found a tone of voice, like I was a young person talking to other young viewers.
Second, I had a purpose in mind, to convince (mostly) young viewers.
Third, I went down my checklist to get ideas. Some items I ignored, since they didn't fit a short review. I didn't discuss the word/title, "psycho," for example, which I had planned to at the beginning. I didn't discuss camera movement, which I had planned to. I mostly ignored props (except a brief mention of the stuffed birds). In a deeper, more serious analysis, I would have discussed the set direction (props) in Norman's attic (stuffed animal) or his mother's house.
I briefly discussed the haunted house, but ignored other elements of art direction, like the fruit cellar, the motel, etc.
I made several choices in style from the beginning. I chose to use a first-person ("I") point of view, instead of an impersonal point of view. This helped me think of my audience (other "young viewers," since my "I" was made up from the point of view of a young person). Vocabulary naturally followed (one uses different words depending on one's audience). Also, the amount of knowledge I expected changed (compared to, for example, if I were writing as if to scholars).
Note that although I don't get too technical or sophisticated, I do describe well enough at the level I'm writing (I mention the haunted house buried in black clouds, for example). The fact is, colorful (vivid) details change depending on one's voice (tone, point-of-view), purpose, and audience. If I were writing for a cinematography magazine, of course, I'd have to use far more technical words and go more deeply into cinematographic effects.
Regarding the actors, I selectively referred to only 3 of them. But in a current review I would have to mention all the stars (Vera Miles, as Lila Crane, for example). Readers would feel cheated if one star was omitted! But few readers today know these stars in the same way, if at all, so I could be selective in mentioning them. I chose the 3 actors who have most film time.
Note that I omitted most of the story, because it would reveal too much of the surprise and the main idea (a woman steals money) seemed to me most important. However, when I mentioned the detective, Arbogast, I almost forgot to explain his role in the film, so I had to briefly refer to his searching for the missing Marion. When you're a beginning writer, it may take days before you see what's missing. But as you become more skilled, you see "problems" in your writing almost immediately, as you're writing. The main goal is to always be both writer and reader at the same time. There is no such thing as a good writer. There's only a good writer/reader. Remember that always. If you're not two persons when you're writing you're nobody (not a good writer)!
I'll quickly go over what I wrote for better understanding:
1. I needed a good opening and think I found it, from a personal point of view.
2. I used the reference to Hitchcock in the first paragraph to develop my essay in the second paragraph. I used the opposition of suspense and horror to develop my ideas further. Remember "definition." Then definition allowed me to flow easily into the next paragraph, dividing "horror" into its parts.
3. This is where I divide horror into its parts, keeping a smooth flow between paragraphs. Then I use a clevera transition, linking props and plot to tell the reader I'm not going to reveal too much of the plot, leading to a summary of the story in the next paragraph.
4. In my first-part summary, I use the Bates motel as a break in the paragraph, leading to the next part summary, based on the name, Bates. Remember that "reference" can always link one paragraph with the next, sometimes simply using pronoun reference, as when we mention "bees" in one sentence, or paragraph, and continue using "They" (linking "they" and "bees" coherently).
5. I do the same thing with the word "shocking" leading to another form of the word (noun form) "shocks," to establish coherence in the next paragraph, where I write of shocks.
6. The word "shocks" naturally led me to the shower scene. That in turn was a good transition to discussing the cinematography in b&w, which I do in the next paragraph. (The reason why it's a good transition is because the shower scene was the main reason Hitch filmed in b&w instead of color, since the film would have looked too bloody in color.
7. Note how I establish a clever transition from cinematography to acting by mentioning the "thoughts" of the characters, leading me to an excuse to discuss acting. Always work on your transitions. A good writer, like a good composer, should be able to move from any idea (or any key, in music) to another, effortlessly. We practiced this in class, trying to link arbitrary ideas in a coherent way.
8. I devote on par. to each of the characters. Then I use another clever transition device. >>From talking about the detective Arbograst, I use the word "ordinary" and that becomes a transition in talking about the musical score in the next paragraph.
9. The next transition device ("Which brings me to the point of all this") would not be successful in another type of essay. But I clearly established a personal tone of voice from the beginning, like a casual essay from friend to friend, so such a device works in terms of style. But be careful, because in another style (say, a scholarly essay) a crude device like that ("Now let me get to the end of the plot") would not work.
10. I use another crude transition device beginning the final paragraph ("But I don't want to get too serious") nicely linking two entirely different paragraphs. Again, my tone of voice allows such a crude transitional phrase, which otherwise might sound awkward and unprofessional. So a tone of voice, or point of view, allows possibilities as it eliminates (takes away) possibilities. For example, it allows these obvious transition devices; at the same time, I cannot use bigger words in such a review so must choose my words more carefully to suit my (supposedly young and uneducated or not too educated) readers. Also remember, having to use simple words is sometimes more difficult than being allowed to use longer words. Saying something more simply is always more difficult than saying something less simply, despite what graduate students all over the world like to believe! There's a wonderful letter that Lord Chesterfield wrote to his son, going something like this: "I'm sorry my letter is so long, but I didn't have time to write a shorter letter." You see, it takes more time to write a short letter than a long one! In the same way, it takes more skill and time to write in simple words than in longer ones!
Note that this "review" may by no means be final. It depends on the assignment (whether from teacher or news editor). I may have to make it longer; I may have to edit it down, depending on the assignment. Changes will always be selective, not random. I may have to condense the story further; or may have to refer to actors only briefly. I may have to sum up Bernard Herrmann's score in a phrase and find the right words to do so. (Remember, fewer words [if they're the right ones!] take more time than many words!)
No comments:
Post a Comment