There are so many actually frightening things to form community around and find cohesion.
Reading about Reagan's Contra war on Nicaragua -- who needs Hitchcock? -- I decided to get a pen-pal there. The experiences described were so horrifying that in 1985 I decided to raise $2000 and go down with a tour group of Lutherans (not as scary as they sound).
Came back with 700 slides and a thousand facts and did a dozen community presentations, and because so many others were doing the same thing the misinformation tide changed.
Scary movies are kind of last on my list, so I vicariously enjoy them through Noah's reviews....
Couldn’t agree more that Reagan was not only a tool but an active participant in mindless cruelty and indifference to horrendous action, despite the achievement of the Soviet Union’s dissolution as a hallmark of his otherwise morally deficient administration.
And speaking of morally deficient: Alfred Hitchcock.
However he was projecting not only his but the clearly misogynistic attitude society as a whole had at that time (and apparently still has though more closeted).
Janet Leigh’s character was literally slaughtered, after all, on the altar of male outrage at what another woman had done to her murderer.
That said, I’ve seen the film. I may have covered my eyes at the scene, but as I once told my niece, it’s part of the Canon. Like the Bible is after all.
Mostly I just see it as one of the enduring defining features of the film noir genre... and double indemnity simply as Wilder working in that genre. He was already working with a set of clichés that had already been thoroughly baked into that genre. In 'witness for the prosecution' He actually uses that misogynistic trope to point out the misogyny. We are made to believe that Marlene Dietrich is that fenme fatale . The same kind of fatale that Barbara Stanwick played double indemnity. But we find that she was actually playing the part to protect her murderous husband and she immediately becomes a sympathetic character. Given when Wilders movies were made, I get the feeling that his treatment of women is particularly sympathetic relative to those times. I'm thinking particularly of Avanti Avanti and Kiss Me Stupid
I adore Kiss Me Stupid, and yes, Wilder is I think less consistently misogynist than Hitchcock by a good deal. Double Indemnity is working with very misogynist source material, is probably part of the issue.
Billy Wilder also made "The Apartment", he was capable of casting women in all kinds of roles. But interesting that Fred McMurray is also the bad guy in that one, though not in a deadly
Apparently he was loath to play that character because he had been so reliably cast as as the good guy. And seriously with that mug, can you blame him? Henry Fonda was dubious at his own casting in the movie once upon a Time in the west for the same reason.
Alfred Hitchcock's misogyny and desire to show rape on-camera was known even in his lifetime. He wanted to include a scene where Audrey Hepburn dresses up like a prostitute(!) and is almost raped(!!!) in his unmade film NO BAIL FOR THE JUDGE, based on Henry Cecil's comedy crime novel of the same name. It was completely out of place to the book's overall tone and only added at Hitchcock's insistence—and after Hepburn left the project to due her pregnancy (and possibly distaste at doing a rape scene!), he lost interest in the project.
Marion Crane may have smirked at one point, but she pays for it in blood—not by the person/institution she robbed or by her boyfriend's greed, but by some insane killer who would've penetrated her with his knife (yes, another rape metaphor, until Hitchcock could finally show the real thing in FRENZY) if she'd been coming from a nunnery to let her family know right before taking her final vows. She's more acted upon than acting, and Norman's only motivations are his attraction to the pretty lady who stopped at his motel, his channeling of his mother, and dressing up like her to commit his crime. He doesn't care about the money—he doesn't even know it exists.
While Phyllis Dietrichson is driven by greed and the desire to rid herself of her husband, Billy Wilder (and Raymond Chandler working closely with Wilder, based on James M. Cain's novel) at least makes her an active antagonist who, in true Production Code fashion, pays directly for her crimes by being killed by her sap of a lover. I think she has far more character depth than Janet Leigh's Marion Crane, both in the writing, the direction, and in Barbara Stanwyck's performance.
I think Marion's a pretty interesting character—given depth in part by the quotation of the Double Indemnity scene, suggesting she does have agency, and even enjoys her crime.
I don't, because Marion changes her mind—she decides to go back and turn herself in before Norman kills her. That's why she stops at the Bates Motel, IIRC....
I mean, for both, I think it's important that they change their mind *before they're killed.* The filmmakers demand that they acknowledge the power/rightness of patriarchy and confess themselves before they're killed. see also the inquisition...
I have avoided watching psycho all my life, and don’t intend to start now, but this analysis is incredibly helpful for knowing how to think about it.
Thanks a gazillion!
It’s a frightening little film.
All the more reason to skip it.
There are so many actually frightening things to form community around and find cohesion.
Reading about Reagan's Contra war on Nicaragua -- who needs Hitchcock? -- I decided to get a pen-pal there. The experiences described were so horrifying that in 1985 I decided to raise $2000 and go down with a tour group of Lutherans (not as scary as they sound).
Came back with 700 slides and a thousand facts and did a dozen community presentations, and because so many others were doing the same thing the misinformation tide changed.
Scary movies are kind of last on my list, so I vicariously enjoy them through Noah's reviews....
Couldn’t agree more that Reagan was not only a tool but an active participant in mindless cruelty and indifference to horrendous action, despite the achievement of the Soviet Union’s dissolution as a hallmark of his otherwise morally deficient administration.
And speaking of morally deficient: Alfred Hitchcock.
However he was projecting not only his but the clearly misogynistic attitude society as a whole had at that time (and apparently still has though more closeted).
Janet Leigh’s character was literally slaughtered, after all, on the altar of male outrage at what another woman had done to her murderer.
That said, I’ve seen the film. I may have covered my eyes at the scene, but as I once told my niece, it’s part of the Canon. Like the Bible is after all.
Psycho and bible…..well done!!
Don’t get me started…
Mostly I just see it as one of the enduring defining features of the film noir genre... and double indemnity simply as Wilder working in that genre. He was already working with a set of clichés that had already been thoroughly baked into that genre. In 'witness for the prosecution' He actually uses that misogynistic trope to point out the misogyny. We are made to believe that Marlene Dietrich is that fenme fatale . The same kind of fatale that Barbara Stanwick played double indemnity. But we find that she was actually playing the part to protect her murderous husband and she immediately becomes a sympathetic character. Given when Wilders movies were made, I get the feeling that his treatment of women is particularly sympathetic relative to those times. I'm thinking particularly of Avanti Avanti and Kiss Me Stupid
I adore Kiss Me Stupid, and yes, Wilder is I think less consistently misogynist than Hitchcock by a good deal. Double Indemnity is working with very misogynist source material, is probably part of the issue.
Yeah, Hitchcock DEFINITELY had issues...
And ain't Kiss me Stupid just lovely! Kim Novak is SO good in that
Billy Wilder also made "The Apartment", he was capable of casting women in all kinds of roles. But interesting that Fred McMurray is also the bad guy in that one, though not in a deadly
The apartment is problematic in hindsight because of the implied lack of agency of Shirley MacLaine's character. She's kind of the McGuffin
Apparently he was loath to play that character because he had been so reliably cast as as the good guy. And seriously with that mug, can you blame him? Henry Fonda was dubious at his own casting in the movie once upon a Time in the west for the same reason.
Alfred Hitchcock's misogyny and desire to show rape on-camera was known even in his lifetime. He wanted to include a scene where Audrey Hepburn dresses up like a prostitute(!) and is almost raped(!!!) in his unmade film NO BAIL FOR THE JUDGE, based on Henry Cecil's comedy crime novel of the same name. It was completely out of place to the book's overall tone and only added at Hitchcock's insistence—and after Hepburn left the project to due her pregnancy (and possibly distaste at doing a rape scene!), he lost interest in the project.
Marion Crane may have smirked at one point, but she pays for it in blood—not by the person/institution she robbed or by her boyfriend's greed, but by some insane killer who would've penetrated her with his knife (yes, another rape metaphor, until Hitchcock could finally show the real thing in FRENZY) if she'd been coming from a nunnery to let her family know right before taking her final vows. She's more acted upon than acting, and Norman's only motivations are his attraction to the pretty lady who stopped at his motel, his channeling of his mother, and dressing up like her to commit his crime. He doesn't care about the money—he doesn't even know it exists.
While Phyllis Dietrichson is driven by greed and the desire to rid herself of her husband, Billy Wilder (and Raymond Chandler working closely with Wilder, based on James M. Cain's novel) at least makes her an active antagonist who, in true Production Code fashion, pays directly for her crimes by being killed by her sap of a lover. I think she has far more character depth than Janet Leigh's Marion Crane, both in the writing, the direction, and in Barbara Stanwyck's performance.
I think Marion's a pretty interesting character—given depth in part by the quotation of the Double Indemnity scene, suggesting she does have agency, and even enjoys her crime.
I don't, because Marion changes her mind—she decides to go back and turn herself in before Norman kills her. That's why she stops at the Bates Motel, IIRC....
Self hate is critical to Hitchcock’s female villains.
well, people don't lose agency or depth because they change their minds! Even Phyllis changes her mind!
I mean, for both, I think it's important that they change their mind *before they're killed.* The filmmakers demand that they acknowledge the power/rightness of patriarchy and confess themselves before they're killed. see also the inquisition...