John Carpenter on "Psycho."
George Shelps
Here is a comment by John Carpenter on a relationship between "Psycho"
"Halloween" and "slasher films." (He refers to Debra Hill, who
co-authored the script of "Halloween.")
The quote is from a 1996 AOL interview:
AOL QUESTION
What led you to put Jamie Lee Curtis in
"Halloween?"
CARPENTER
That was a casting idea of Debra Hill.
I think it was because she was Janet
Leigh's daughter and Janet Leigh
starred in the ultimate slasher movie,
"Psycho."
George Shelps
George Shelps
Regarding the Carpenter quote...it simply demonstrates that Hill and
Carpenter who wrote the script had "Psycho" in mind, and that Carpenter
acknowledges the influence of "Psycho."
You had written:
>I have seen most of the "slasher"
>movies and doubt VERY VERY much
>that Hitchcock had very much influence
>on them--and that includes Carpenter.
My reading of the Carpenter quote indicates that there *was* indeed this
influence.
But Carpenter is wrong to regard "Psycho" as a "slasher" film. It
simply shows that he, like many of the other film school grads of that
period, drew from Hitchcock a cheapened, coarsened model of commercial
success, which was Gene Stavis' point earlier on.
But, following on what Amber wrote, I think we have to acknowledge a
subtext in Hitchcock, even as we see how he transcended it.
George Shelps
BillyBond
>You say Psycho didn't start the genre.You say Halloween started the
>genre. You see no influence of Psycho on Halloween.
>The director of halloween calls Psycho the ulimate film of the genre you
>said it didn't start.
>You say: 'Okay, and....?'
I am saying, and I firmly believe, that PSYCHO >did not< start the slasher
genre. I have yet to see anyone give any evidence here (or anywhere else)
that it did.
Bill Warren
BillyBond
>You're right about that. 'Gave rise' is not true.
>
Then we're in accord; someone else here said that PSYCHO did give rise to
the slasher genre. I said that I didn't think it did.
Bill Warren
BillyBond
the original comment here said that PSYCHO gave rise to the slasher
genre. I do not feel it did. That's the bottom line.
Certainly it influenced a film here and there, but I honestly do not
feel that it >gave rise< to the slasher genre.
Bill Warren
FilmGene
<<That is indeed wishful thinking. Do you mean that every (or most) films
made before Psycho were imbued with "style, characterization...etc."?>>
Er...I think you missed my point. I think that "Psycho" was the first time
a major studio had released any film which treated in a clinical way the
kind of killer Norman Bates was. It "opened the door" to lesser filmmakers
who took advantage of the fact that Hitchcock had "gotten away with something".
We should not lose sight of the fact that this was the very time when the
Production Code had suffered some serious blows including Preminger's "The
Moon is Blue", "The Man with the Golden Arm" and the importation of some
very risque foreign films. "Psycho" is clearly not the prime cause in the
rise of "slasher" films, but I think it certainly played a part.
In that sense, I say that "Psycho" (which is a legitimately terrific film)
has a lot to answer for.
Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
Joe Bowden
In article <19970905020...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
film...@aol.com (FilmGene) wrote:
> <<Certainly it influenced a film here and there, but I honestly do
> > not
> > feel that it >gave rise< to the slasher genre.>
> >
>
> Well, how about this? The fact that a director with the stature of Alfred
> Hitchcock made a mainstream feature film (and one that was prodigiously
> profitable) opened the door to lesser films with similar themes. Lesser in
> style, characterization and virtually every other category. Without
> "Psycho" the opening of that door might have been significantly delayed or
> eliminated.
That is indeed wishful thinking. Do you mean that every (or most) films
made before Psycho were imbued with "style, characterization...etc."?
--
To respond via email, remove the numerals from my address.
BillyBond
>The fact that a director with the stature of Alfred
>Hitchcock made a mainstream feature film (and one that was prodigiously
>profitable) opened the door to lesser films with similar themes.
That's right. It certainly did -- imitations of PSYCHO like HOMICIDAL,
for example. But there's still a 15-year gap between PSYCHO and the
slasher genre.
Bill Warren
BillyBond
> I think that "Psycho" was the first time
>a major studio had released any film which treated in a clinical way the
>kind of killer Norman Bates was.
That is, if you don't count NIGHT MUST FALL (the original), THE BAD SEED
and a few others...
Bill Warren
George Shelps
Bill, with respect to the 15 year gap, you correctly point to, you
should remember
that John Carpenter was a new breed of film school trained film-maker.
who consciously studied the great directors of the past in order to
extract useful technical and box office models to guide them on the road
to fame and fortune in the movie business.
The film school directors were unusual in that they had a notion of the
history of their chosen medium, and could study the cutting technique of
the Odessa Steps sequence...not to create a new form of American film
expression (as one would have hoped) but to figure how they could
convert "montage" to commercial use.
Hitchcock was a role model. He had both critical and box office
acclaim, and a very carefully worked out technique. For the film school
generation, he was the perfect example, and "Psycho" with its technical
virtuosity. avoidance of nuanced
characterization, and box office cojones
was the chef d'oeuvre.
George Shelps
BillyBond
The question is not whether John Carpenter liked PSYCHO and Hitchcock,
since there are a couple of references to PSYCHO in HALLOWEEN.
The question is this: did PSYCHO give rise to the slasher movie genre?
And I feel, very strongly, that it did not.
Bill Warren
FilmGene
<<That's right. It certainly did -- imitations of PSYCHO like HOMICIDAL,
for example. But there's still a 15-year gap between PSYCHO and the
slasher genre.>>
But that's all we've been saying.
You have a way of backing away from an ill-conceived position that is
intended to convey the sense that you agreed all along.
FilmGene
You are conveniently ignoring the fact that both of the films you
mentioned did not describe the violence clinically and graphically. In
fact, they are both models of reserve.
Note that I did not say that "Psycho" was the first instance of murder in
films, but of a clinical preoccupation with the act -- the mechanics of the
act. That is the operative description.
tomlinson
FilmGene (film...@aol.com) wrote:
: Note that I did not say that "Psycho" was the first instance of murder in
: films, but of a clinical preoccupation with the act -- the mechanics of the
: act. That is the operative description.
Er, perhaps it's not my place to intrude here, but does not the honor
of "first film concerned with the mechanics of murder" belong to
another Hitchcock film, _Rope_?
-et
--
Ernest S. Tomlinson | http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~et
-------------------------------------------------------
"I thought it was high time that someone did for Bach what Copland did
for Lincoln, what Beethoven did for Wellington, what Tchaikovsky did
for Little Russians, and what Richard Strauss did for himself."
FilmGene
<<Er, perhaps it's not my place to intrude here, but does not the honor
of "first film concerned with the mechanics of murder" belong to
another Hitchcock film, _Rope_?>>
I don't think so. "Rope" is a drawing room film. The body, much less the
grisly act, is never shown. That is the difference with "Psycho".
And welcome to the fray!
Martin Koolhoven
tomlinson wrote:
> FilmGene (film...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> : Note that I did not say that "Psycho" was the first instance of
> murder in
> : films, but of a clinical preoccupation with the act -- the mechanics
> of the
> : act. That is the operative description.
>
> Er, perhaps it's not my place to intrude here, but does not the honor
> of "first film concerned with the mechanics of murder" belong to
> another Hitchcock film, _Rope_?
>
He said a clinical preoccupation, otherwise Scarlet Street would come to
mind (and probably a lot of earlier films, right Gene?
Martin
FilmGene
<<He said a clinical preoccupation, otherwise Scarlet Street would come to
mind (and probably a lot of earlier films, right Gene?>>
How about "The Great Train Robbery" (1903)? Right you are, Martin.
tomlinson
FilmGene (film...@aol.com) wrote:
: I don't think so. "Rope" is a drawing room film. The body, much less the
: grisly act, is never shown. That is the difference with "Psycho".
Hm...here's what prompted my comment about _Rope_: we don't quite
see the murder, but Hitchcock comes as close as possible. The
murder itself occurs off-screen (the scream of the victim telling
us what happened), but Hitchcock cuts _immediately_ afterward to
the scene of the crime, and Farley Granger twisting a rope around
a dead man's neck. Enough emphasis is placed on the aftermath of
the murder (little details: hiding the body, disposing of the rope,
and so forth) to suggest, for me anyway, a foreshadowing of _Psycho_.
-et
: And welcome to the fray!
Thank you! Cheers,
FilmGene
<<Enough emphasis is placed on the aftermath of
the murder (little details: hiding the body, disposing of the rope,
and so forth) to suggest, for me anyway, a foreshadowing of _Psycho_.>>
Yes, but many other films previously had this level of violence and more.
They didn't open the floodgates as "Psycho" did. "Rope" is too polite.