Psycho vs. Psychologist

Psycho was a revolutionary movie for its time. Under-appreciated when it was first released, Psycho received poor reviews. The movie was suspenseful and one of the first horror/slasher films of its kind. With the film concentrating heavily on the works of Sigmund Freud, most notably the Oedipus complex, its not too surprising that they might want to make the audience aware of it. At the end of the movie a psychologist explains to both the cast and the audience why Norman Bates acted the way he did. But was it necessary?

There are two main answers that can be given. Yes, it was necessary to explain in detail the underlying themes that were occurring as the movie played out. At the time it was not Sigmund Freud’s ideas where not commonly known, so it’s not unreasonable to want to clue the audience into the big idea.

While that all may be true it does detract from the movie’s tension and over-arching feelings. In that sense it was not necessary. Imagine, the ending without the soliloquy by the psychologist, cutting directly from the sheriff's office to someone passing by Bates’ cell. The effect of Bates talking to himself, as his mother, would have been riveting and creepy. While the Oedipus complex would not have been so apparent the effect of the movie would have been that much greater. Frankly, the Freudian ideas at the end come off as trying to put pearl on a pig. Meaning, the rest of the film has an action packed energy but the end appears more like what one might expect from a Sherlock homes film; with everyone gathered around the psychologist as if he has the answer to a great mystery, which in a way he does.

Perhaps there is a medium between the two ideas. If Alfred Hitchcock, the director of the film, felt it was necessary to explain the situation, which presumably he did, he could have done it in a way that didn’t feel out of character. The film abruptly ends with the capture of Norman Bates and begins again with the psychologist explaining everything. Going from high energy to a rather dull scene makes the film seem segmented. The music stops as well, killing the energy. One way Hitchcock could have gone from one scene to the next was to show the aftermath from the capture, leaving time for all the built up tension to be slowly released. If Hitchcock desired for whatever reason to go immediately to the psychologist’s explanation he could have changed the setting. If the cast was looking into Bates’ cell the tension would remain, even if Bates could not be heard. The very idea the he is still present would allow the tension to continue to exist.

While the psychological wrap up of Psycho was arguably necessary it wasn’t well done. The ending detracted from the films emotional effect and leaves the viewer a bit unsatisfied. The best way that Hitchcock could have rectified the issue would be to either give the audience a chance to acclimate to the new speed, or change the setting to retain the wealth of emotions drawn up by Norman Bates’ capture. As a suspense film it doesn’t seem necessary, but if it was well done a brief psychoanalysis before the closing could be interesting.