Ufr angellier close-up on alfred hitchcock

4.An Open Ending

The conventions of classical Hollywood cinema

Hollywood spectators were used to films with a closure. In her book, Amanda Wells lists the basic conventions of classical Hollywood narrative cinema as follows: 1) equilibrium, disruption and re-equilibrium, 2) closure, 3) cause and effect, and 4) the protagonist²⁶ (the spectators were used to following the protagonist from the beginning until the end of the film). In Psycho, this pattern is not really followed. We can consider that the equilibrium corresponds to the beginning of the film, and then Marion decides to steal the money and the phase of disruption starts. There is obviously a closure but it is not quite complete. Indeed, even if Marion’s murderer is found, the spectators do not know what will happen next. Has Norman committed other crimes? Is he going to be imprisoned? Is he going to be sent to an asylum? Will he be freed after some time? All these questions remain unanswered; this is why we cannot really speak of a closure.

Moreover, most of the time, the spectators identify with the protagonist. Here, the main character, Marion Crane, dies rather rapidly. As a result, the pattern of the basic conventions of classical Hollywood narrative cinema is totally shattered.

Comparison with Rear Window

The open end of Psycho can be compared to the end of another famous film directed by Hitchcock in 1954: Rear Window. The murder mystery is solved but we are left with a lot of questions concerning the protagonists’ future.

The main character, L.B. « Jeff » Jeffries (played by James Stewart), is a photographer who has to stay at home because of a broken leg. He has nothing to do but look at his neighbours. Voyeurism is one of the main themes of the film. Jeff cannot help but watch his neighbours. Besides, when he looks at them, subjective shots are used, just like in Psycho when we share the POV of a character. So, the audience identifies with Jeff, which reinforces the fact that the spectators are voyeurs themselves. Moreover, Jeff looks at his neighbours through their windows which are rectangular just like a screen or the stage of a theatre. The window shots are obviously really meaningful: blinds are rolled up at the beginning of the film and they are rolled down at the end. It thus conveys a sense of show within the show.

One could think that Jeff’s need to spy on his neighbours is due to the fact that he is a photographer. Yet, it is even more than that. Jeff is obsessed by his neighbours and, as soon as he is convinced that one of them has killed his wife, he has the strong need to investigate. In this film, Hitchcock shows that being a voyeur is part of human nature. At the beginning, Stella, Jeffrey’s nurse, reproaches him for peeping at his neighbours. And yet, when he starts explaining his theories about the murder, she becomes more and more interested and wants to help him. The same situation happens with Lisa Fremont (Grace Kelly), Jeffries’ girlfriend. It is even more striking with her because she is presented as a wealthy woman who is almost exclusively interested in fashion. All this shows that the need to watch other people is inherent to human nature.

Jeffries is a voyeur during the whole film and once he has convinced Lisa and Stella that his neighbour has killed his wife, they become peeping toms as well. At first they disliked his habit of gazing at his neighbours but, rapidly, they started doing the same.

At the end of the film, when the killer enters Jeffries’ room, there’s a reversal of situation. A high-angle close-up on Jeffries shows that he is the one who is now being watched. Also, the use of the high angle highlights his inferiority. He is not in control of the situation anymore; he is being threatened.

At the very end, when the killer is arrested, everything is back to normal. The neighbours start their usual activities again and Lisa and Jeffries presumably live together. Jeffries has just fallen asleep while Lisa was reading. She must be reading an adventure book that belongs to him. Once she is convinced that Jeffries is fully asleep, she takes up a fashion magazine instead; it seems that human nature cannot be changed. Likewise, in Psycho, Norman will always be struggling with his two personalities. Besides, even if the two characters in Rear Window are shown together, the spectators do not know what kind of relationship they have. Will they be able to live together despite their differences? A lot of questions remain unanswered in this film, just like in Psycho, which emphasises the active role of the spectator. Indeed, we have to “fill in the gaps” and to imagine what is to follow.

PART III: THE VIEWERS OF PSYCHO

1. A Film That Demands the Participation of the Audience

As already stated, Hitchcock insisted on the fact that he took pleasure in directing his audience. Even though he tricked them a lot in Psycho, he directed his film in such a way that the spectators were part of it. Here are some types of shots that involve the spectators, sometimes misleading them.

Shots that mislead the spectators

The use of “privileged POV shots”

We could define a “privileged point of view” as follows: “The 'objective point of view' involves treating the viewer as an observer. A major example is the 'privileged point of view' which involves watching from omniscient vantage points²⁷.”

At the very beginning of the film, when Marion is in her bedroom, a privileged POV is used to show us the envelope, containing the money that she has stolen, lying on her bed [10:49]. We first have a tracking shot, which is followed by a close-up (as it is shown in Fig. 27 and 28). There is a second privileged POV shot, in Marion’s cabin that Norman is cleaning after her death, when we see the newspaper. These are emphatic shots, as if the director were telling the audience: “Look at this”.

Fig. 27: Beginning of the tracking shot… Fig. 28: … followed by a close-up

As was already mentioned, when Norman cleans the room after the murder, the spectators can see the newspaper in which the money is hidden [56:51]. We think he is going to forget it and that it will probably help the people who will investigate to discover the truth about Marion’s murder. Yet, through an obtrusive tracking shot, the spectator is shown the newspaper once again before Norman throws it out in the boot of Marion’s car. It is a cut-away which can be seen as a reminder, as if Hitchcock were asking: “And what about the money?”

1

2

3

Fig. 29: The use of a cut-away (#2) as a reminder

The use of a semi-subjective shot

We have seen that semi-subjective shots show both the character and what he or she is looking at. A good example is when we can see Norman taking the key of Marion’s cabin [28:45] (Fig. 30). Indeed, he is hesitating and then he chooses the key of cabin one. If we had not seen this shot, we would not have had any suspicion about Norman. We are made to wonder about the character’s motivation.

Fig. 30: Semi-subjective shot of Norman hesitating

A tracking shot used to create dramatic irony

When Marion is having her shower, we see her murderer entering the bathroom whereas she does not, which tremendously heightens the suspense [47:09]. This is reinforced by the tracking shot which makes us focus on the intruder. We believe the murderer to be a woman.

Fig. 31: Beginning of the tracking shot Fig. 32: End of the tracking shot

The two overhead shots

Two other interesting shots are the overhead shots used before Arbogast’s murder and when Norman holds his mother. The camera angle is so unusual that we perfectly know that we do not witness the scene through the eyes of a character. The question is: who sees? These two shots are misleading because we have the false impression that we see better. We think that Arbogast’s killer is Mrs Bates and we do not suspect that the latter is dead when she is in Norman’s arms.

Fig. 33: The use of overhead shots to trick the audience

A zero focalisation that makes the audience part of the action

The spectators are witnesses when Lila is hiding behind the stairs while Norman is looking for her [1:39:58]. We have an “objective POV”; a semi-long shot shows the two characters. There is an omniscient camera. We have the feeling that we are part of the action. Indeed, the way the camera is placed makes us believe that we are a third character in the plot.

Fig. 34: A zero focalisation

To sum up, the use of a privileged POV is a clever device to involve the spectators in the story. Indeed, we feel that we are part of the plot and we want to know what is to follow. However, we do not necessarily need a privileged POV to be involved in the story. Indeed, semi-subjective shots, unusual camera angles (such as the overhead shots) and also the use of zero focalisation make us part of the story.

As we have already seen, one of the most important questions is: who sees? Film theoretican Christian Metz has answered this question and he talks about “plans subjectifs sans sujet”. These shots are to be found for instance in Peeping Tom (1960). At the beginning of the film, the protagonist, who is a serial killer like Norman, is hiding a movie camera under his jacket. He has planned to kill a prostitute and to shoot the scene. The shots that are used to depict this opening sequence are really interesting since the spectators do not see through the eyes of the main character; we see through the grid of the camera viewfinder. Once again, the audience is directly involved in the plot; there is nobody behind the viewfinder except the spectator himself.

The psychiatrist’s explanation of Norman’s schizophrenia

At the end of the film, the psychiatrist gives a rational explanation of what has happened. He explains that Norman has a split personality and that half of his mind is controlled by him while the other half is controlled by his mother. He also states that “Norman Bates no longer exists” because his mother has taken control. It is clearly shown in the following scene in which the spectators watch Norman but can hear Mrs Bates’ thoughts. David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson discuss the fact that we enter Norman’s mind thanks to the camera techniques that are used:

The next-to-last shot of the film shows Norman sitting against a blank white wall, while we hear his internal monologue. The camera again moves forward into a close-up of his face. This shot is the climax of the forward movement initiated at the start of the film; the film has traced a movement into Norman’s mind²⁸.

The superimposition of Mrs Bates’ skull over Norman’s face reinforces this point. However, can it be said that the film has a real ending? The last shot shows Marion’s car being dragged from the muddy water. This is a metaphor which shows that the truth has not been totally revealed, there is more to discover. Since it is the end of the film, the spectators have to imagine what may follow. We are active once again.

1

2

Fig. 35: A case not entirely solved

A reversal of situation

As Jacques Lacan explains in Les Quatre concepts fondamentaux de la psychanalyse, there is always someone who gazes and someone (or something) who (or which) is being gazed at. In the scopic drive (voyeurism), the voyeur cannot exist without the exhibitionist. Lacan writes: « ...voir et être vu [...]. Freud nous présente comme acquis que nulle part du parcours de la pulsion ne peut être séparée de son aller et retour, de sa réversion fondamentale, de son caractère circulaire. » ²⁹ The two complementary series of shots below allow us to understand the mechanics of voyeurism and they exemplify the condition of the voyeur linked to his window.

1 1

2 2

3 3

Fig. 36: Norman peeping at Lila Fig. 37: Norman being peeped at by Lila

In Psycho, Norman is the one who watches most of the time. Yet, when Lila sees him arriving in the house (Fig. 37) and also when we watch Norman in the mental home, the peeping tom is being peeped at. Norman thus fully becomes the object of the spectator’s gaze. We could almost speak of his “to-be-looked-at-ness”, a term forged by Laura Mulvey to describe the status of women in Hollywood films who are the objects of both the (male) characters’ and the (male) spectators’ gaze:

In a world ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female. The determining male gaze projects its phantasy on to the female figure which is styled accordingly. In their traditional exhibitionist role, women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-be-looked-at-ness.³⁰. 

The end remains rather ambiguous because, even if the truth has been revealed, Norman/Mother is watching the audience as if he/she was aware of being watched. Thus he/she still has some sort of control. Amanda Wells explains that this scene tells us a lot about Hitchcock:

The closing shot of Psycho, of Norman/Mother staring out directly at the audience, acknowledging that he/she is being watched by the policemen and psychiatrist and by the audience thus makes sense within the thematic schemata of the film and within a wider understanding of Alfred Hitchcock’s œuvre as director/auteur [...] Hitchcock, however, wants the spectator to be aware of their role as ‘watchers’ of the film, and in so doing he also draws attention to his role as the manipulative author and enunciator of the text, signifying his own authorial presence.³¹

This sequence makes the audience reflect on the human condition. Indeed, thanks to the different POVs we adopt, we have different wishes. For instance, we want Lila to get out of the frightening house but at the same time we want her to discover what is in the cellar. Donald Spoto explains this when he says: “Even more important is the fact that the viewer of the picture is of two minds, and this Hitchcock establishes with a relentless exploitation of audience identification through point of view³².”

Most of the time, when spectators go to the cinema or watch a film, they are the voyeurs even though they are not necessarily aware of it. Indeed, they penetrate into the intimacy of the characters and see through the eyes of some protagonists. For instance, in Dans la Maison (François Ozon, 2012), Claude, a teenager, interferes into one of his friends’ life. He spends a lot of time at his friend’s place and cannot help but watch his mother. It can be said that he is a peeping tom. Moreover, just like in the film Peeping Tom, the main character needs to watch other people, women as it happens. These elements tell us that watching other people is, to a certain extent, a need; it is a scopic drive.

Going to the cinema or to the theatre can be associated with the notion of catharsis. Indeed, the spectators can see the tragic fates of people who have yielded to their impulses. Since they live these tragic fates by proxy, the spectators are supposed to resent the impulses that led the characters to their tragic destiny. According to Amanda Wells:

What the narrative of Psycho is really about is the mechanics and politics of watching – which is at the heart of the cinematic experience. With the horrific murder scene in the shower at the very centre of the film, perhaps Alfred Hitchcock was really challenging the spectators to see just how far they would go with their own voyeuristic behaviour.³³

Indeed, the audience has mixed feelings. We do not want Marion to be murdered but, at the same time, we want to know what is going to happen. We cannot help but watch. This is why the end of the film is so unsettling: Norman is watching us as if he wanted to remind us that we have been peeping toms during the whole film.