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.
In many aspects, I agree with your analysis of the movie and what the director was attempting to display through the development of the story. I think the director was successful in creating an atmosphere of suspense through the shrieking music that would always play right before something happened or when Marion was being persecuted. It was almost a warning to the audience that something was about to occur; for this reason I believe it is non-diegetic. The characters could not hear this music within “their world.” On the other hand, I disagree with you when it comes to the notion that her thoughts were a sign of paranoia. Maybe I am wrong, but I do not recall Marion having any audible thoughts. When she is in the car, the voices we hear are conversations that are occurring between other characters at different locations. I think the author does this in order to further explain the situation and what is occurring without having to invest more money into actual image shots. I agree with you in that there is a significant delay in the story when she arrives at the motel; in fact, there is a complete change in the focus of the story. At this point, in my opinion, we lose sight for a split second of the point of the movie because the main character has just been killed. There is a change in the enigma from “is she going to be able to escape with the money?” to “why was she killed? Who did it?” I think this is important to note because there are obviously two parts to this story; creating two different enigmas. I also agree with you in that this is definitely a writerly text. There is too much information that is open to interpretation. There are too many questions still left unanswered. Overall, I think you did a good job at explaining why this is not a readerly text. I also understood your idea of the prolongation of the resolution of the enigma through the change of focus on the main character.
ReplyDelete