Review of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho

                I would have to say the most prominent enigma in Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho would have to be the relationship between the antagonist Norman Bates, his mother, and the murders.  The reason that an enigma is even created is due to the subtle cues that Bates gives off before the murder is committed, most notably the scene where he looks through the peep-hole and spies on Marion.  Also the entire conversation between Marion and Bates, his taxidermy, and his reaction to her thoughts that he should leave don’t exactly paint him in a very non-murderous light.  But his reaction to the murder where he cries out to his mother, as well as the womanly looking assailant contrast our first impressions of this man, or at least makes us question them.  A delay comes in the scene where Norman takes his mother and brings her down to the basement while talking to her could be seen as a fraud.  In the scene Norman is seen carrying his mother down the stairs, which for the time being, allays questions of her existence and also places the blame for the murders on her. The way in which Norman discusses the murders so candidly with his mother leads us to believe that she is the one who caused them and possibly that Norman has just simply been trying to protect his mother who he had referred to as ill before.  This will obviously not prove to be the case, but for the time being it provides the answers that we are looking for to the enigma.

                This movie to me is pretty obviously a writerly text.   A lot of things contribute to the plurality of the movie, but none more so than the two narratives told that are conjoined by the murder.  Had the syuzhet ended with Marion doing whatever she wanted to with the money, or began with Norman’s first murder it would have been pretty readerly, but the fact that the two are together leaves a lot up to the viewer to flesh out for themselves.  Is that what Marion gets for stealing the money?  Is Norman some weird symbol of cosmic justice? Or just some incredibly disturbed individual?  I don’t think any real definitive answer could come to explain the connection between these two characters and their stories, which makes it writerly in my book.  Even though both stories separately did seem to resolve themselves rather simply, in that Marion was most likely going to return the money, and that the psychologist explained Norman’s behavior to the viewer, with little left up to the imagination, I think that there is still the heavy task of connecting the two that really makes this a writerly piece.