5. The Moment of Psycho by David Thomson

Category: 50 Books

we “ran out” of internet here last week. that’s what i told people, anyway. we really just changed providers, but it sounded much more hiilarious to say that we ran out of internet. i couldn’t update the blog without at least half a bushel of ‘net, which means i did some fancy book readin’ instead.

the actual title of this book was: The Moment of Psycho: How ALFRED HITCHCOCK Taught AMERICA to LOVE MURDER. That’s how it was written on the cover and title page. I’m not sure if that was on purpose? To visually “hack up” a title all: Italics! CAPS LOCK! Italics again! YELL! I mean, this is a book about Psycho.

You can tell the author really knows his stuff about movies and popculture. But this book didn’t quite gel right for me. At the beginning of the book the author seems to really like Hitchcock’s work and Psycho in particular. He knows a lot about both. And I do love that he puts together the idea of Psycho being the first mainstream slasher flick and that after that it seems America was open to that genre.

In fact, that whole idea inspired a conversation I had with Mr. Finlayson about things being the first in a genre. And we thought that would make an interesting class of some sort.

The first half of the book the author talks about Psycho and Hitchcock and America At That Time, and that’s all great. But then the book sort of changes. And it seems like Mr. Thomson changes gears and seems to blame Psycho on all the bad movies that come after it. And he seems kind of sneery about it. And I couldn’t tell if he likes or dislikes Psycho and Hitchcock. I kept thinking, “Wait. Weren’t you just saying how great Hitch was for pushing the censor envelope? And now you wanna be all, “Way to go, Hitch. Texas Cahinsaw Massacre is all your fault.” I’m not sure you get to have it both ways.”

On one hand I get it, Hitch started something and then others picked it up and made it even more violent and gross and to what benefit? But on the other hand, isn’t this the point of the book?

I did like the part where he talks about the movies that came after, and gives a brief synopsis and what parts they “borrow” from Psycho. However, he gets a bit too clever in some, and while I’m a sucker for clever, there is a line, and that line is: don’t be a show off. He does come off as a know-it-all, and he probably does know it all, but I found it kind of annoying that at one point he’s all, “And yeah, Tarantino probably saw all of Hitchcock’s films, but when’s he going to grow up anyway?” (i’m paraphrasing, i don’t have the book in front of me. but he did ask when Tarantino was going to “grow up”. This book came out in 2009.)

Really? You’re going to pick on Tarantino? I would like to point out that Tarantino writes AND directs his films. And? I’m willing to bet that he ALSO carefully sets up his shots, perhaps just as if not more than Hitchcock.

I was really miffed about that, partly because I really like Tarantino films, but also because it seemed really pointless to talk about a movie as important or groundbreaking, and then put down films that came after it. Or if not put down, then to treat them like they’re sophomoric.

But that’s just me.

Like I say, he gets too clever towards the end and at one point he even calls Norman Bates a diva.

I know, right?!

Now, while it’s implied that Norman Bates is a homosexual (and perhaps well-known that Anthony Perkins was homosexual-ish.), I don’t think anyone could really call Bates a diva. Yes, he’s in drag, but he’s not singing a Diana Ross song as he slash and hacks.

I love snarkiness, but the diva line just doesn’t work. Probably because it’s wrong.

Mr. Thomas ends the book talking about how he’s driven the desert road in California, and that while the motels could be seen as creepy now that Norman Bates is in our minds… that really they are very nice places and you shouldn’t be afraid. This last bit doesn’t fit at all. If it was going to fit (or, I should say, if it could fit) then the book should have started off with a personal bit about driving the roads blah blah blah creepy whatever, while easing the book into YOUR POINT. then tell about the Psycho bit, (then cram in The Birds bit you put in, for what, i don’t know, but it’s there, THEN talk about the slasher flicks to follow Psycho (although you don’t have to make it sound like a bad thing. [He actually criticizes The Silence of the Lambs. THIS IS WHAT I’M SAYIN’.] homages aren’t all bad, plus I happen to like visual quotes.) THEN end it on the last bit of your road trip advice bullshit.

Or just leave the road trip out.

This book had an interesting idea, I just don’t think it was executed very well.

Tags: , ,

No Comments