Hitchcock's vision of "Psycho"

[Loud Orange Cat]

All,

This is a post that honestly dosen't belong ANYWHERE in my opinion, but I feel needs to be told.

When my parents were first married in 1960, they saw Hitchcock's Psycho in the theatre. Besides the fact that my father wouldn't shower with the door closed afterward, they both told me something that floored me.

At the end of the shower scene in which blood is flowing down the tub drain, that was (in the theatrical version only) the only scene in color! The blood was bright red.

After attempting to contact Universal Pictures directly to find out why all current prints of the film (35MM, Video, DVD, etc...) did not have this color scene, I kept getting the run around and even got hung up on after getting laughed at.

As a filmmaker myself, I'm appalled (but not at all surprised) that a director's vision is put aside in the name of the almighty buck. There was a restoration of the film years ago, so why wasn't there a restoration of the original color scene?

I think it's time we gang up on Universal Studios, create a big stink and even get the media involved here. With publicity, we might get Universal to restore Hitchcock's original vision of Psycho -- the way he wanted us to see it.

Apologies if this seems like a rant, but as filmmakers, I believe you understand my point of view.

 

[Zensteve]

I think it highly unlikely the "blood" was originally red... it was chocolate syrup.

(Viewfinder forum good for this type of stuff, btw)

 

[Loud Orange Cat]

I think it highly unlikely the "blood" was originally red... it was chocolate syrup.

Nope, in this one scene, it was bright red.

 

[indietalk]

I have read that many people remeber it as red, but it was filmed in black and white, and the blood was Bosco.

 

[Zensteve]

That's how good Hitchcock was.

And, think about this -- Psycho was filmed in 1960, well after the onset of Technicolor. He chose to make this movie in glorious black and white. Why? Because there are shadows in the monochrome world, sure. But, on a greater level, there was no need for color. Hitchcock used chocolate sauce in that wonderfully eerie shot of blood swirling down the drain. People swear they see red blood in that tub. The movie is totally black and white, but I know people who swear the famous close-up of Janet Leigh's eye clearly shows a blue-tinted iris. It's gray, folks. Our minds paint in that blue stare, that red blood, that Technicolor horror.

The famous "shower scene" has a few interesting facts. Many people vividly recall the "red blood" swirling down the drain, but this is impossible since it was filmed in black and white. A possible explanation for this is the fact that news shows were filmed in black and white at the time, perhaps making it seem more "real" to people. As well, 70 different camera angles and 90 different takes were used to film this scene, and it only lasts 45 seconds!

Despite the fact that the entire film is in black and white, several viewers vividly (and specifically) recall the "red" blood as it swirled down the shower drain. Obviously, this could not be true, not just for the fact of the black and white film, but the "blood" was actually chocolate syrup. Although feature films were produced in color at the time, newsreels were shown in black and white. Filming the movie in black and white might have made it seem less gory (see other trivia), but it also might have seemed more "real" to viewers at the time who were used to seeing the news in black and white.

The impact of Hitchcock's filmmaking is so strong for fans of Psycho that they will insist they can see red blood in the shower scene, or the knife penetrating Leigh's naked body. Most can even tell you the exact set of circumstances surrounding the first time they saw the film. Yet Leigh insists they couldn't have seen what they think they saw; it's simply much scarier and much sexier because of the power Hitchcock instilled in their (the audience's) imagination. "That's what the power of imagination can do for you. Because there were the censors, and you couldn't show blood, and you couldn't show nudity, and you couldn't show penetration of a weapon. It was against, well, against the movie law. It was the power that he instilled in the imagination.

 

[lux]

waiting on a reply.....

 

[Zensteve]

I certainly don't doubt the sincerity of the parents' recollection, good Lux.

Any web-search engine can verify in seconds that many people have experienced this memory. It is a very interesting phenomenon, and not just limited to movie details.

I need to do more research on this. The generalised topic might make for a good story

_______

Btw... back in 1977 I saw this one flick. I saw it again many years later. I could have sworn that Han shot first... turns out I was wrong.

 

[clive]

This is fascinating stuff. When I used to teach film making the first thing I used to talk about was the difference between a camera and a person looking at something. The reason that most people's holiday photos are so bad is because their brains automatically edit out any information in the frame their not interested in, but the camera shoots the whole image. Teaching people to watch the whole frame is photography 101, but strangly enough it's often overlooked.

I've always believed that an understanding of human perception is vital to a director.

 

[lux]

That's an interesting point about the holiday photo thing. I guess people don't realise their photos are that bad either because when they look at them they only look at the parts they are interested in and ignore the dodgy parts.

btw MY 100th POST!!! get out the bubbly!

 

[bird]

This is what makes 'Last year at Marienbad' (and similiar works) such an interesting exercise.

 

[King Goldfish]

This is fascinating stuff. When I used to teach film making the first thing I used to talk about was the difference between a camera and a person looking at something. The reason that most people's holiday photos are so bad is because their brains automatically edit out any information in the frame their not interested in, but the camera shoots the whole image. Teaching people to watch the whole frame is photography 101, but strangly enough it's often overlooked.

I've always believed that an understanding of human perception is vital to a director.

I know this may or maynot be connected, but in photography class (I know its not considered the same as film making), they teach you the same basic thing. That the camera is your eye and not an external part.

then they go on with all these silly rules like Don't take photos of subjects centered unless its only the subject itself (like a building or a closeup of a person) or people in front of others.

I kind of hate posed photos myself.

What are the rules in film making? Should the camera always keep the person centered if he is alone (Unless of course he is operating something)? The film camera is different from a regular camera, because its as if You are hovering all over the room. Like when there is a dialog and the camera cuts back and forth from people speaking then it shows them both in the same scene talking. That doesnt seem "Natural" to me.