The Moment of Psycho: How Alfred Hitchcock Taught America to Love Murder

by David Thomson

It killed off its star after forty minutes. There was no happy ending. And it offered the most violent scene to date in American film. Punctuated by shrieking strings that seared the national consciousness, nothing like Psycho had existed before. It was the biggest hit of Alfred Hitchcock's career, and propelled him to new levels of international fame - never before had audiences been so aware of the role of the director in film-making. The movie industry - even America itself - would never be the same.

In The Moment of Psycho, film critic David Thomson situates Psycho in Alfred Hitchcock's career, recreating the mood and time when the seminal film erupted onto film screens worldwide. Drawing on his encyclopaedic knowledge of Hollywood, Thomson shows how in 1959, Hitchcock, then sixty years old, made Psycho as an attempt to break personally with the dullness of his own settled domesticity - a struggle which mirrored the sexual, creative, and political ferment that soon overtook the nation.

Psycho was not just a sensation in film: it altered the very nature of our desires. Sex, violence, and horror took on new life. Psycho, all of a sudden, represented all America wanted from a film - and, as The Moment of Psycho brilliantly demonstrates, still does.

Genres: Film, Nonfiction, History, Media Tie In, Criticism, Cultural, Biography

192 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

David Thomson, renowned as one of the great living authorities on the movies, is the author of The New Biographical Dictionary of Film, now in its fifth edition. His books include a biography of Nicole Kidman and The Whole Equation: A History of Hollywood. Thomson is also the author of the acclaimed "Have You Seen . . . ?": A Personal Introduction to 1,000 Films. Born in London in 1941, he now lives in San Francisco.

Reviews

[Trudi · Rating 1 out of 5]

"It's not like my mother is a maniac or a raving thing. She just goes a little mad sometimes. We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?" ~Norman Bates, Psycho (1960)

***Note: the following review contains spoilers for the films Psycho, Carrie, and Friday the 13th.

I've had this slim volume by film critic David Thomson on my currently reading shelf for months and it was high time to finish it, or abandon it. I finished it...barely.

Psycho is one of my favorite movies for a thousand reasons, including all of the fascinating stories that surround the mythology of how it was shot, Hitchcock's battle with Hollywood censors, his genius marketing plan, and the film's subsequent shell-shocking and titillation of 1960 movie audiences. So when a book like this promises to show me the moment of Psycho and how its director taught America to love murder, I'm there. The only thing that rivals talking about the movie itself for me, is talking about the cultural Zeitgeist in which it was made and received.

Thomson's thesis in an ambitious and exciting one. His book, on the other hand, is a wishy-washy example of intellectual masturbation that goes nowhere and proves nothing. Dare I say he comes off as an idiot quite frankly, full of sound and fury, in a treatise absent of any real meaning or value. He has added zero new to the debate on Hitchcock's films, or Psycho in particular.

This slim volume is less than 200 pages long and reads more like a series of short essays for somebody's film blog rather than a serious book by a world-renowned film critic. The first fifty pages are literally almost a scene-by-scene recitation of the entire movie with no analysis or context. What is the point of this exercise??? It strikes me as so self-indulgent in a short work that has a big thesis to prove.

Thomson is also very obsessed with the first 40 minutes of the film - right up to the infamous shower scene. Post Marion's murder, for him the movie unravels and pales in comparison to the first half. For me, Psycho works as an organic whole, a symphony of screeching violins and Hitchcock's masterful sleight of hand. Hitchcock wants us positioned just so on the rug for maximum effect when he pulls it out from underneath us. This requires the effort of the entire movie, not merely the first 40 minutes, no matter how well set up.

In fact, one of my favorite moments in the film comes after the shower scene, when Norman performs his frantic, largely silent clean-up that features the slow sinking of Marion's car into the dark swamp. I love that moment when the car pauses and stops sinking. We're surprised to discover that we want Norman to succeed in the cover-up. We feel bad for him, with his lonely life and his crazy mother. Now with Marion out of the picture, he has become the character who we identify with the most. We are being manipulated for the big reveal. It's crucial the audience feels something for Norman, and while the first 40 minutes are critical, to assess the rest of the film as weak and untethered is unimaginable to me.

One of the most interesting aspects of Psycho is how it was marketed. Hitchcock's lengthy teaser trailer was unheard of at the time, as was his explicit directive that no audience member be allowed into the movie once it had begun. Studio exec Lew Wasserman argued for big simultaneous openings in LA and New York, quickly followed by the widest possible release, also unheard of at the time. It's interesting to note that it would be Wasserman, some 15 years later, who would finally succeed in his bid for nationwide release with Jaws, the first ever summer blockbuster that opened simultaneously in 400 theaters. None of this interests Thomson however, and his discussion of these matters takes up a measly, utterly disappointing five pages.

The chapter I was most keen to read is entitled, "Other Bodies in the Swamp" (great title!) Here, Thomson's thesis is to examine "the spreading influence [Psycho] exerted on other films, especially in the treatment of sex and violence." It's territory that's been trampled to death, for if you look hard enough you can see the long reach of Hitchcock just about everywhere in film. But here is a seasoned film critic who specifically wants to single out Psycho and measure its long shadow over contemporary movie-making. I can get on board with that.

This is the weakest and most pathetic chapter (second only to the weirdly included, Kerouacian chapter on driving America's highways and stopping at small motels along the way). Thomson's analyses of the films he selects are ridiculously superficial not to mention rife with spoilers, which should always come with a warning. He includes John Carpenter's Halloween (1978) when Sean S. Cunningham's Friday the 13th (1980) is Psycho in reverse - it's not the son who is doing all the killing, it's the mom!!! He also tries to make a case for Kubrick's The Shining (1980) when anyone with a lick of sense knows it's DePalma's Carrie (1976) that has Psycho all over it, from the opening shower scene, the cheekily named Bates High School, the crazy, overbearing mother, and Psycho's four note violin theme making repeated appearances.

Where we really see Hitchcock's influence on DePalma's film-making style at work is in the treatment of voyeurism. Hitchcock was all about voyeurism, not just for his characters, but for his audience. What are you doing when you go to a movie? You are engaging in the ultimate act of voyeurism. In Psycho, we spy on Norman spying on Marion through a hole in the wall. In Carrie, we spy on Chris and Billy as they hide under the stage and wait for the perfect moment to drop the bucket of pig's blood. We watch Sue Snell's expression as she traces the rope to its final destination. Her eyes become our eyes, just as our eyes became Norman's during his spying of Marion. It's a shifting of guilt and a kind of audience culpability that Hitchcock mastered.

This is such a lame excuse for a book that I'm embarrassed for it. I cannot speak for the author's other works. I'm sure his sizable reputation in the field contributed to this "grocery list" being published in the first place. It should not have been. It is a waste of paper and the reader's time. It doesn't even come close to proving that Alfred Hitchcock taught America to love murder, nor does it even try to. Save your time and your money. Watch the movie instead. You and your friends will come up with way more interesting things to say about it than this guy does here.

[Peyton · Rating 1 out of 5]

Psycho is an excellent movie, and David Thomson has watched it too many times. He reads into the film with all the frantic desperation of an nontenured English professor trying to say something new about Hamlet. This bloated, smug book pretends to be an examination of a great film, but is really an excuse for Thomson to exude pseudo-intellectual snark. I don't think I'm a dumb reader, but several of Thomson's one-liners left me questioning my own understanding. For example, on Hitchcock's (un)popularity in England: "He was excluded from gravity by such things as nuns in high-heeled shoes, the wicked use of national monuments, and that old sneaking habit of dainty murder--dainty in that the violence was offset by the meringue of style." What?

I was expecting a clever, concise history of one of my favorite films; I found a debauched, detached muttering by someone whose Freudian eccentricities would make Norman Bates blush.

[Mauoijenn · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an interesting read.
How times where when the Psycho movie came out and how they changed Americans view on horror movies. I do agree with a lot in this book. Love old Alfred Hitchcock movies. I especially like to look for his profile shadow in all his movies. Psycho and The Birds are my two favorite ones.

[Ben Loory · Rating 3 out of 5]

it's like being on the phone with someone who's watching a movie and having them tell you the whole movie as it happens in real time. only that person is one of the greatest film historians in the world... and at the end he gives you this weird rambling speech about roads.

still, though, a good, quick, fun read... as long as you really love psycho. (which thomson doesn't, really, i should add... he thinks it takes a nose-dive after the shower scene.)

it also features some really nice imaginative flights... like the following (he's a poetic writer):

Imagine this Psycho: Marion is in the shower. Norman arrives, with his frenzy of stabbing motions. But she is not touched, let alone pierced. The whole thing is like a mating ritual. But she faints, and when she wakes up, there she is, in Mother's bed, with Norman watching her and smiling. Because he has won her.

i also really enjoyed his thought experiment where he replaces the character of Lila, Marion's sister and the lead in the second half of the movie, with the character of Marion's mother, fulfilling the same searching role... Marion's mother going to meet Sam Loomis, Marion's mother going to question Norman Bates at the hotel... it's a funny idea (and i think would've been horrible), but it sure makes for something to think about...

one last bit:

The idea of community is hollow. That is why the interior of the Bates house and its tomblike bedrooms feel removed from any other world. What makes Norman so eloquent in that nighttime talk with Marion is the instinct that he may never have another chance to speak naturally to anyone. That's what the film is about: not just that madmen lurk in houses on country roads but that loneliness can drive you mad.

word.

[Megan Whitworth · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was excited to read this because I had just finished reading Psycho and watching the film in my Law and Literature course. Unfortunately, this book was highly disappointing.

First of all, it’s glaringly sexist. Within the first 50 pages the author has already referred to Janet Leigh as a hooker and tried to guess her bra size in a crude, pointless sentence that added nothing to his argument and made me feel sick. He also repeatedly mentions the audience’s desire to “have her stripped” and “see what’s under that dress.” Yes, Psycho represented sex in cinema in a way that pushed the limits and shocked audiences. However, pointing out the sexual nature of the film could be done without objectifying Marion constantly. Thankfully, these off-color comments ended in the second half of the book as the focus was less on the characters and actors in the film and more on Hitchcock.

I found the organization and focus of this book confusing as well. The first half analyzes each scene of the film in depth and provides tidbits of background information regarding shots, audience reactions, and Hitchcock’s vision. However, up to a certain point the author abandons his analysis and rushes through the second half of the film (arguably the more exciting half) so that we get little insight into the climax and conclusion. The book then shifts to discuss Hitchcock himself and his influence on cinema, but he never really explains “HOW Alfred Hitchcock taught America to love murder,” the subtitle of the book. I expected this book to chronicle Psycho’s influence on American culture and film and meticulously trace America’s fascination with murder. Instead, this book was a mess that didn’t know whether it wanted to be a film analysis or a biography of Hitchcock.

[Matthew W · Rating 4 out of 5]

A reasonably pleasurable (and sometimes semi-personalized) quasi-tribute to the (somewhat dubious) legacy of Hitchcock's arguable magnum opus PSYCHO. Like with his classic film resource tome THE NEW BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF FILM, David Thomson does not fuck around when it comes to giving his uniquely unsentimental view of cinema and a film/filmmaker's place in history.

[Melissa · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was difficult at times to believe that this was written by a grown man and not a teenager. Thomson talked about Janet Leigh's bra way too much for my tastes among other things that seemed bad taste such as guessing the size of her breasts and using the word "laid" in reference to her character. Another complaint that I have is that he calls "Psycho" a "period piece" as a explanation for why Marion Crane didn't use a cell phone to call her boyfriend/lover. I wanted to shout "Duh" (sorry-lapsing into juvenile-speak because I was so frustrated).

[Jim Coughenour · Rating 3 out of 5]

A satisfying short piece of film criticism that will have you reliving the first time you saw Janet Leigh shimmering in the shower and jumped in your skin to Bernard Herrmann's stabbing score. (For me that would be a dark night in the desert of Kingman, Arizona in the mid-60s.) While the book is probably too slight for Serious Students, it was motivating enough for me to pop up some popcorn and stream the film from Netflix. Thomson helped me see things I hadn't seen before, and confirmed my sense that the scariest moment in the whole movie was Anthony Perkins being kind.

[Cambra · Rating 2 out of 5]

Weirdly written, rambling, insular little old man of a book. It reads like Thompson just handed over a stack of cocktail napkins with all his notes to his editor and was like, "Do whatever." It does make some interesting points, but leaves them hanging. Overall I basically felt like Thompson doesn't really invite the reader into his thought process or adequately explain the context of some of his arguments.

[Clare Lund · Rating 2 out of 5]

A very disappointing read for a Hitchcock fan like myself. Some of the film theory and references to subsequent horror films influenced by Psycho were mildly interesting, but the author’s misogynistic writing style rankled me from the start. Don’t waste your time on this one.

[Hank Stuever · Rating 5 out of 5]

The master of the thinky film book. I also recommend "Nicole Kidman" and "The Whole Equation." For more of my thoughts on "The Moment of Psycho," visit my web site and search for One-Man Book Club.

[boofykins · Rating 2 out of 5]

Oof. This book is... something. David Thomson seems to be a well respected film critic by all accounts of a simple Google search. Professional film criticism has never held much water in my opinion, and I never heard of David Thomson before I read this book. I picked it up because I wanted to read a book about one of the most influential and notorious films ever made, not because of the supposed merit of the writer.

First, let me start off with the good aspects of this book. It is a quick read at only 167 pages and Thomson's writing is, for the most part, flowing in prose, aside from a few (maybe several) odd sentences that I couldn't quite glean his meaning. Later chapters in the book, after Thomson had pretty much finished going over the film Psycho itself, were quite interesting, as he finally started providing some actual film analysis and contextual references that show he actually does have more film knowledge than he lets on throughout the majority of the book.

Now let me move on to the bad aspects. Thomson meticulously describes every scene from the film ad nauseam. It's like listening to someone describe one of their dreams in too great of detail. I doubt anyone would read this book if they hadn't seen the film before. This would be forgivable if Thomson would provide ample contextual analysis in conjunction, but he does not. Instead, he comments entirely too much on the looks of the female leads.

The film obviously is presented with the male gaze, as are pretty much any film from that era. Thomson isn't so much commenting on that though, rather commenting in a way that makes me think he had to take a few breaks to pleasure himself while writing the book. He constantly references Janet Leigh's black bra, which could be written about in a relevant way, but instead he chooses to quip over what her bra size is. Later, he complains about Vera Miles not being sexy enough. Thomson seems to take after Hitchcock in his weird voyeuristic observances of the female leads. It's kind of disturbing.

Thomson also spends too much ink in fantasy booking either a remake of the film or how he would have done scenes differently. None of his ideas are interesting.

Much like Gus Van Sant's 1998 shot-for-shot remake, the majority of this book is redundant and unnecessary. There is even a blurb about the remake in this book that almost sounds like Thomson is aware of this redundancy and trying to justify his own writings in earlier chapters. If you extract the meticulous scene descriptions and the sexism from this book, you'll find probably about twenty pages of worthwhile reading. I'm sure there are better books on the subject out there somewhere.

[Cheryl Walsh · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really enjoyed how Thomson situated Psycho in the context of Hitchcock's career, and (for the most part) in the context of American culture and cinema history. However, his criticism of the film itself, while having some interesting and valid points, veered out of control and was full of straw men and internal inconsistencies while at the same time begging the question at several points. (Quite a feat--begging the question while also being internally inconsistent!) He wanted Hitchcock to make a different movie. That's fine, but he pretends that his taste has the force of a moral imperative. (There's a moral argument to be made, but Thomson didn't succeed in making it.) His glib and familiar tone (for example, he keeps referring to Hitchcock as "Hitch") was irritating, as was his assumption that the reader identified as male. This obviously was not meant to be an academic work, but the argument he was trying to make was largely academic. I just wasn't buying it, and he ended up annoying me.

[Joe Noir · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was enjoying this book until about the last third. Mr. Thomson's analysis of the film Psycho is, in my opinion, spot on. When you read this book you will want to see the film again immediately. The problem for me began in a discussion of the film The Birds in which Mr. Thomson writes Melanie Daniels met Mitch Brenner and his sister at the pet shop in San Francisco. As anyone who has seen the film knows Melanie did not meet Cathy Brenner until after she arrived at Bodega Bay with the love birds. What does this have to do with Psycho? You'll have to read the book, but this is where things start to go astray. Mr. Thomson writes about the impact of Psycho, and some of his ideas I disagree with completely. He presents a list of films influenced by Psycho, and in a few cases I could not see the conclusion he was drawing. Caveat emptor.

[B. · Rating 5 out of 5]

I absolutely loved everything about this book. Thomson linked Psycho's influence on the motion picture industry to the changes in how we view movies today. He highlighted the different films that were influenced by Psycho and those that Psycho was influenced by. The changes, from a societal perspective, were wholly relevant, and I got a list of several movies out of it that hadn't previously been on my radar. This book was more than I hoped it would be.
Favorite quote: "The heart is where the knife fits" p. 128

[Jason Schmidt · Rating 2 out of 5]

Honestly, I have to wonder if the internet and the numerous books on Hitchcock have spoiled me: I didn’t feel like there was anything “new” or overly insightful offered in Thomson’s book. Some of it comes off as tawdry (the reference to Hitchcock masturbating, for instance), and much of the “analysis” at times feels superficial and at other times like forced, projected sexually tinged psychoanalysis. I love the work of Hitchcock, and I really felt like my view and knowledge hadn’t shifted or grown at all after reading this.

[Mick Meyers · Rating 3 out of 5]

An easy introduction into the film,some i didnt know that moments.there are more comprehensive guides to the film to be read but this one does not make things more than they are.a good film made on a shoestring budget,i sometimes wonder if Hitchcock did as a bit of a dare to himself to see how far he could push the envelope regarding censorship,i we probably read more into it than was actually meant.

[Valerie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very disappointing. I don't disagree that the first half of the film is masterfully setting up a resolution that falters in the second half's obsession with technical perfection over plausible storytelling, but there's so much Freudian shit in here, so many ideas that are overstated, and a completely unnecessary and pointless final chapter that it really brings the book down. I'll bet somewhere out there someone has written a better version of this book, and I hope I find it.

[Theremin Poisoning · Rating 2 out of 5]

So disappointed. I did NOT imagine that this would be the ramblings of a fanboy so enamoured of Janet Leigh that he would Mary Sue himself into a reimagined Psycho where he is Norman Bates, only Norman Bates is a cop who pulls over Marion Crane's car and ends up engaged in a backseat tryst... I wish I was joking. Still scratching my head.

[Isabel · Rating 3 out of 5]

i mean... i guess there’s a lot of interesting stuff i learned here, just going by the facts, and thomson definitely has a wonderfully sophisticated style of writing. i’m not really sure i Like it, though.

probably hate myself for saying this in 10 years or even tomorrow, but can we actually overthink a movie so much that it makes us stupider?

[Bouchra · Rating 2 out of 5]

David Thomson vede sesso ovunque. Per lui ogni dinamica di potere rimanda a un qualche tipo di tensione erotica.
A volte funziona… e a volte sembra che stia forzando il materiale per confermare la sua ossessione.
Ho inoltre scoperto che Hitchcock ha una strana ossessione per “donne che subiscono punizioni da uomini”, vabbèee.
Mi è piaciuto il film ma l’analisi è inesistente in questo libro.

[Bill FromPA · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Get ready for the future: it is murder” – Leonard Cohen
Thomson has a breezy conversational style (“Films were shown continually, and many people came in during the picture and then left when the story became familiar again. I know that sounds awful, yet the condition prevailed…”). He packs multiple references tightly together, almost always implying more than he actually says. I really enjoyed reading this book, but in the end was not sure exactly what the point of it was.
His first chapter looks at “the moment” in 1960 when Psycho was released. He describes America on the cusp of a change in eras, from eight years of Eisenhower to the Kennedy or Nixon era to come, the decline of moviegoing as more Americans owned television sets, and the end of Hitchcock’s own decade of many critical and popular triumphs and a few misses with critics and audience.
Thomson holds up Psycho as a groundbreaking film with violence and sexuality more explicit than had been shown in any mainstream film up to that point, as well as in its focus on murder in a non-urban setting. He concedes two predecessors, the commercially unsuccessful “The Night of the Hunter” and “A Touch of Evil”, a particular influence, Thomson feels, for sharing some crew members as well as Janet Leigh and including a performance by Dennis Weaver as a motel clerk which is almost a study for Norman Bates. The low budget exploitation formula of Roger Corman is also cited as an influence on the economics and marketing of the film. In describing Marion Crane’s drive to her death in the first half of Psycho, Thomson dwells on its uniqueness, but he does not mention that throughout the 50s, characters in films (never stars, it is true) had been driving along rural highways to hideous fates. This occurred in such films as “It Came from Outer Space”, “Tarantula”, and “The Monolith Monsters” (all released by Universal where Psycho was being filmed) as well as such no-budget quickies as “The Giant Gila Monster”. In ignoring these types of films as well as early Hammer productions which were showing more graphic violence and doing it in color, I think Thomson tends to overstate the novelty of some of Psycho’s scenes.
One thing I was amused by was a quote from Robert Bloch describing his Norman Bates as “the Rod Steiger type”, as that is exactly the casting I imagined when I first read the novel last year. Thomson rightly emphasizes the brilliance of casting of Tony Perkins in the role; it is probably the single most important decision in the making of the film, with the exception of the shower scene. Ah yes, the shower scene – Thomson gives a three chapter summary / commentary on Psycho: the scenes leading up to the shower (“Continuity”), the shower scene itself (“Room Service”), and the scenes after the shower (“Housekeeping”). That scene marks for Thomson not just a breaking point in the film, but in the history of film and in American culture itself. His analysis of the last half of the film shows a marked cooling in the enthusiasm evident in his description of the first half; he suggests re-writes which he thinks would be more interesting, expresses dissatisfaction with the Norman Bates / Mother plot point, and in general finds a lack of engagement in the working out of the story.
The fifth chapter starts with a discussion of the marketing of the film, Thomson’s own first viewing during the initial release, the critical reception and the failure to garner any significant Oscar nominations. The chapter then meanders on into what seems a draft for pages from a Hitchcock biography, talking about, “The Birds”, the hope to bring Grace Kelly out of retirement, “Marnie”, and Hitch’s failed seduction of Tippi Hedrin.
The next chapter is a scattershot selection of films Thomson sees as the legacy of Psycho. These range from the expected Brian de Palma vehicles, “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and “Silence of the Lambs” to the James Bond franchise, “Blow Up”, “Bonnie and Clyde”, and Jerry Lewis’ “The Nutty Professor”. The author does not always make a persuasive case for his choices, but he has interesting things to say about each of the films listed.
The final three chapters just seem to be unstructured riffs on themes inspired by Psycho and Hitchcock films in general. As with the rest of the book, these include some terrific writing (“Marion has heard the voice of Mother – it has its own PA system, a weak old woman crystal clear at fifty yards!”); they are entertaining for the most part, but do not really leave the reader with a deeper understanding of Hitchcock or his films.
Thomson is at his best when he concentrates on 1960, the “moment” of the title; he provides a very good recreation of the state of film and of America at that point in time. He mentions in passing Michael Powell’s “Peeping Tom”, released in England a few months before Psycho, but I would like to have read some thoughts about why, at that “moment” two such boundary-pushing films, similar to each other, but dissimilar to almost everything that preceded them, would have been made by two filmmakers a half world apart, but linked by a common nationality.

[Deborah Herrera · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting

Interesting take on the movie and Hitchcock. Wish it contained more about the film and less about his other works.

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

The final chapter, in which Thomson reflects on how Psycho both reflected and created modern American society, is worth the read. (Everything else is pretty good too.)

[Scott Shaw]

Ok

[Jonah Barrett · Rating 2 out of 5]

A lot of rambling!

[Moth · Rating 2 out of 5]

The wild speculations the author makes about Psycho undercuts his original message and makes the book almost impossible to enjoy.

[Daniel He · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read for research paper, pretty interesting

[Francesco Rossi · Rating 3 out of 5]

First reading for my university, I'd say it's quite decent, got some very interesting points while I think unfortunately sometimes it loses the compass in the middle.

[Sean Wicks · Rating 3 out of 5]

Film Critic and Author David Thomson takes on PSYCHO and breaks it down in terms of where it stands in Hitchcock's career, and more importantly how the movie was instrumental in changing the essence of American Cinema as the grisly shower murder scene was nothing anyone had ever seen before. He spends a lot of time on the fact that its the first movie to feature a flushing toilet, something that censors thought was unacceptable (I believe it was Louis B. Mayer who once made the argument that he never wanted to see a bathroom in any of his studio's movies as it took away the glamour of the cinema. Why make these larger than life figures mere mortals by showing that they once in a while had to go to the bathroom?)

The book continues Thomson's idea that the movie-going audience is made up of a group of lonely people, individually connecting with the screen and watching things that they would normally not be caught dead doing like sex and in this case, murder. It makes the case convincingly at that.

Thomson is very obvious about his positive impressions with the first half of the film which he feels is the strongest than he is in the second. He starts off by making the case that PSYCHO is actually 2 separate films split up - the first being Marion's story, the second the investigation into her "disappearance". PSYCHO is of course the movie that famously killed off its biggest start within the first 40 minutes of the picture, something that was unheard of (and still is). His breakdown of Marion Cranes crime and fleeing to the arms of her loving Sam is extremely detailed, and opens up a new perspective on the film and Hitchcock's work as a whole. He makes the case that the second half of the movie lacks a strong leading character, but also details how some of the supporting characters work into Hitchcock's theme and make it stronger than is obvious. The latter section of the book feels like it is a bit padded out to fill space, especially the last chapter that extols the wonders of America's freeway system and that it is safe to stay at roadside motels because the upkeep of them would be more than one psychopathic murderer could handle. It has the effect of ending the book on a weak note rather than some of the other stronger sections which are fascinating.

Starting off strong, the book fades a bit by the end but is still worth the read - especially if you study film - and Thomson expertly proves that PSYCHO is an influential and important piece of Cinema history.

Note: If this site allowed for 1/2 stars I would have given this book 3 1/2.