Alfred Hitchcock’s Secret: Psycho (1960)
Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho has arguably become one of the most recognizable films in cinematic history. If it is known for anything other than its iconic shower scene, it is known for its twist ending. Upon a second viewing, one can begin to understand how Hitchcock utilized simple foreshadowing in order to achieve a believable conclusion (Silet). Hitchcock, as he often does, takes advantage of a repetitive narrative structure. Take, for example, an, albeit brief, sequence occurring at 01:18:50 in the film. This is the sequence in which Sam, Marion’s lover, searches for Detective Arbogast at the deserted Bates Motel as Norman ominously stares out at the swamp. Here, repetition is presented in refreshing visuals that subvert our expectations at first, but ultimately allow us to anticipate the secret, sinister character motivation on which the film hinges upon.
Let me explain.
In order to fully understand the context of the repetition(s) present in this sequence, we must dissect it from the beginning. In the previous scene (occurring at 01:18:30) Sam decides to follow up on Detective Arbogast’s lead by visiting the Bates Motel without Lila, Marion’s sister. This decision is almost laughable, as we anticipate he will be murdered just like the others who have visited Bates Motel up until this point. This is even pointed out by Norman himself, later on at 01:26:00, when he tries to discuss things with his “Mother.”
MOTHER: I’m staying right here. This is my room and no one will drag me out of it, least of all my big, bold son.
NORMAN: They’ll come now, Mother! He came after the girl, and now someone will come after him.
Despite this trope, Sam survives his visit to the Bates Motel, finding it empty. However, Norman Bates is nearby, under a tree by the swamp. At first, Norman ignores Sam’s calls, fixated on the swamp in front of him. This is yet another instance of repetition in this sequence; one which implies Arbogast’s resting place in reference to an earlier scene. However, this repetition is retold in an opposing manner.
After Mother murders Arbogast, Hitchcock does not allow us to witness Norman’s discovery of the body or his cleaning up of the murder. Instead, we are to assume that similar events occurred in comparison to the previous murder (see fig. 1). This is especially evident given the shot of Norman by the swamp (see fig. 2) in relationship to Norman’s previous encounter with the swamp (see fig. 3).
The repetition, in location and similar shot composition, gives us the information that we need without drawing it out into a long, superfluous sequence. Instead, we are simply cued by this shot. It is by no accident that it is paired with Sam’s shouting “Arbogast?!” as the camera moves closer to Norman and his swamp. Norman turns to the camera, his face darkened by scattered shadows as if to confirm active participation in the crime (see fig. 4).
Gérard Genette, French literary theorist, provides an in-detail discussion on narrative patterns in his book Narrative Discourse. However, Genette does not discuss the particular instances found in Psycho, as they do not exactly fit into the boundaries he has provided. Genette finds repetition problematic and redundant in all forms, which, while unproductive to my argument, still provides me with an interesting vocabulary — one that I will continue to use for the remainder of my explanation (71).
The two forms of repetition found in this short sequence of shots are clearly different and have distinctly different functions. One plays on the trope of murder present in the film, denying the viewer the expected “repeating prolepsis” by allowing Sam to survive the encounter, or lack thereof (Genette 54–58). Notably absent is also the “clean-up” scene — a scene that is essential to the previous murder — which further lends to Hitchcock’s tendency to subvert the expectations of his audience. By completely retelling, and omitting, Norman’s discovery of a dead body, Hitchcock actually avoids redundancy, creating a more ominous atmosphere that allows the audience to interact with the film on a more intimate level. In other words, Hitchcock does not do the work for us again but allows us to insinuate or piece together what Norman has done. The other instance of repetition is an “anticipation” of more sinister behavior on Norman’s, or his Mother’s, part, but this also provides us with more context in order to validate the linkage between the two swamp scenes via the idea of “repeating prolepsis.”
If we were to stand back and look at the sequence as a whole, Genette would argue that the redundancy of this “repeating event” is due to its “frequency” in the film — the ongoing murders on the site of the Bates Motel, Norman’s disposal of the dead body, and another victim showing up in search of the dead person(s) (114). For me, it is more agreeable, especially in the case of Hitchcock’s Psycho, to side with Inbar Shaham’s critical analysis of Genette’s work. In this analysis, “The Structure of Repetition in the Cinema: Three Hollywood Genres,” Shaham disagrees with Genette’s sentiment on redundancy by expressing that he believes “repetition structures are a rich source of forms and functions” that can convey new information (446). I think that a perfect example of Shaham’s argument, which he does not use, is Hitchcock’s Psycho.
Hitchcock avoids redundancy with his careful execution of this sequence in particular. It is clear that he was hellbent on conveying new information in this sequence, while still staying true to the tropes he had already established. Regardless of this, he still is able to surprise the audience by denying them a predictable repetition structure that still makes sense. In this way, the conclusion and story arc of Psycho’s main character — Norman Bates — is believable in the end, as the gaps in time and the sinister atmosphere in the aftermath provide ample explanation for Mother’s demented impulses. Perhaps one could argue, this “narrative device,” for lack of a better term, is what separates Hitchcock’s work from the endless attempts at recreating this same sense of believable surprise?
Works Cited
Genette, Gérard. Narrative Discourse. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980. Print.
Psycho. Dir. Alfred Hitchcock. Universal Pictures, 1960.
Shaham, Inbar. “The Structure of Repetition in the Cinema: Three Hollywood Genres.” Poetics Today, Vol. 32, №4, 2013. Print.
Silet, Charles L. P. Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of a Film Culture. OLLI: University of Illinois. Print.
