Psycho and the Hermeneutic Enigma

In the beginning of Psycho, Hitchcock shows us two lovers, Marion and Sam, after what seems to be a mid-day rendezvous at a motel in Phoenix, Arizona. Sam is obviously not from the city and it is clear that he has to travel to see her. Judging by the body language of the two characters, they are both infatuated with each other, yet due to financial obstacles, they both realize they can never make their love “legitimate” through marriage. In an attempt to get what she wants, Marion flees Phoenix with money stolen from her employer. This sequence of events is what establishes the enigma of the entire film; if your life is unsatisfactory, is it better to run away or to stay put and confront it? As Marion makes her way to California, Hitchcock shows her growing paranoia and the inner conflicts she is beginning to have by making her thoughts audible in the diegesis. Not only does Hitchcock add growing suspense by playing sharp shrieking music in the background, but he often shows Marion's point of view looking back in the rear view mirror which signifies that Marion is more than likely the focus of the film's narrative. However, after Marion arrives at Bates Motel we realize this is not the case. After a long discussion with the hotel's manager, Norman Bates, Marion realizes that she must confront her problems, unlike Norman who is passive to the demands of his mother. This is where Hitchcock uses a blocking delay to prolong providing an answer to the enigma while increasing its suspense. The famous shower scene not only detaches the audience from Marion's character, but also prolongs the answer of whether it is better to fight or flee. Because Marion dies, we will never know how her story may have unfolded. Furthermore, the use of Norman's point of view through the peephole also makes us focus on Norman, a man trapped by the oppression of his mother, for the answer to our question.

I believe Psycho could in no way be considered a readerly text. The way Hitchcock kills off the central character half way into the narrative is something that creates a lot more questions than answers, leaving the film in sort of an ambiguous state. Instead of the movie being about whether or not Marion returns the money, it becomes a mystery film about the the whereabouts of a girl trying to “run away.” The focus shifts toward Norman and leaves much up for interpretation, specifically the condition of his psyche, his mother's intentions in killing Marion, and if Marion's death will ever be discovered. However, the enigma of fight or flight is still present, and there is no real answer to the question of which is better. The movie obviously has a writerly text because the fleeing Marion was killed before her conflict could ever be resolved, and Norman Bates was incarcerated after staying put and dealing with his problems...in his special way, thus leaving no disclosure about whether either of their choices were right.  

Richard Corliss on Full Metal Jacket

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,964819-1,00.html

In a 1987 Time Magazine review of Full Metal Jacket, Richard Corliss breaks down Stanley Kubrick's film on multiple levels, providing a superb analysis of the movie as a whole.  Corliss covers the plot as well as camera work, cinematography, diegetic, and non-diegetic elements of the movie.  He speaks about Full Metal Jacket in a way that makes me want to watch the movie again just to be able to appreciate how Kubrick has taken every aspect of a film, perfected each piece, and then wrapped them all into one great movie.

If doing a review for Time was not enough evidence that Richard Corliss knows a thing or two about movies, the way he starts his review certainly does the job.

“Act I: As the country crooner sings 'Goodbye, sweetheart, hello, Viet Nam,' 17 Marine recruits get their heads shaved. The long, defiant hair of the late 1960s falls to the floor; the young men look sullen or stern. Do they know that this is a pre-op for a lobotomy?”

Not only does Corliss show that he understands how Kubrick has broken the film into three acts, but he also analyzes a short scene of no more than a few minutes into a dark foreshadowing of future events to come in both the first act and the rest of the movie. He particularly notes specific shots in the scene as well as the song playing in the non-diegetic background.

Further elaborating on Kubrick's use of a removed “God's-eye view” camera perspective, Corliss explains how “Kubrick's majestic camera tracks across the barracks, it ascends obstacle courses, it glides past the soldiers, then abruptly cuts to close-ups, to study their pain head on.” Clearly Corliss understands how directors use the camera and scene transitions in order to create a certain effect for the viewer.

Richard Corliss does an outstanding job of reviewing Full Metal Jacket. He shows an understanding of both the narrative of the film and is well versed in analyzing the work put into every frame of the movie. It is no wonder he considered the film “a technical knockout.”