Psycho and the self-seriousness of criticism.

Psycho promotional material

            1960’s Psycho is, along with Veritgo, widely considered Alfred Hitchcock’s masterpiece among critics. The film, a low budget horror/dark comedy, is credited with being one of the earliest influences on slasher film cycle of the late 70’s and 80’s. The only common criticism against the film is the final sequence, which has a psychologist explaining the motivation of Norman Bates.

            In his review for the New York Times, Bosley Crowther wrote that, “There is not an abundance of subtlety or the lately familiar Hitchcock bent toward significant and colorful scenery in this obviously low-budget job…The consequence is his denouement falls quite flat for us.” Roger Ebert also condemns the scene in his essay, stating that, “For thoughtful viewers, however, an equal surprise is still waiting. That is the mystery of why Hitchcock marred the ending of a masterpiece with a sequence that is grotesquely out of place.”

            Critics accused the scene of being unnecessary exposition that was better found in a lesser “B” movie. What these critics seem to miss is that Hitchcock set out to make a “B” movie. Rather than use his usual film crew, he shot the film with the crew from his television series, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, in order to give the film a cheap look that would match its budget. Hitchcock envisioned the film as a comedy, a film that serves at a joyride for the audience, and little more.

Simon Oakland as Dr. Fred Richmond in Psycho (1960)

            The fact that Hitchcock would produce an exploitation film was unfathomable to the critical community and when a trope of these lower films appeared, they choose to condemn it. The rest of the film is rightly regarded as the masterpiece that it is, especially the heralded shower scene, perhaps the most written about scene in film history.

            It is possible, however, to be both a perfect film and a “B” film. To dismiss the final scene is to deny the atmosphere of fun absurdity that the film has. Much like the William Castle or Roger Corman films, it is not meant to be taken seriously. Critics and cinephiles sometimes take films too seriously and forget to have fun and enjoy them, the reason they love films to begin with. To take Psycho too seriously is a disservice to one of the most entertaining films in history.