Psycho (a Rare Book Review)

Hey I am back! Sorry it has been a while.  See, I watched The Last Exorcism and I was so disappointed and disgusted that I could not bring myself to think or write about horror for a whole week.  I kid.  I didn't HATE the movie, I just found it to be such a rip-off of other, better films that it left a bad taste in my mouth.  But, this post is not about that film.  Maybe I will write about it later, after I have had a drink or two and can think of something interesting to say about this Blair Witch/Exorcist/Commune/Wicker Man/Paranormal Activity/Cannibal Holocaust/King's Speech knock off.   I am being silly: The Last Exorcism doesn't resemble one of those films.  Can you guess which one?
While I was on vacation I finally read Robert Bloch's Psycho.  Love the film.  It is amazing.  No question.  But I had never read the source material. Last year was the 50th anniversary of the film and quite a lot got written about it.  Almost every article listed Bloch's book as a must-read.  I usually don't care for reading a book AFTER seeing the film: I prefer to do it the other way around.  But in this case I was glad I did.  Hitchcock followed Bloch's book very closely.  All the basics are the same.  The one big difference is Norman.  Anthony Perkin's Norman is a tall, skinny, bird like man who is socially awkward, young, and inexperienced.  Bloch's Norman could have been played by James Gandolfini.  He is older, in his forties, overweight, a heavy drinker, and quite the perv.  He is totally unlikable in every way, whereas you sort of feel sorry for Perkin's Norman.  I find it very interesting that Hitchcock made this change.  It was the right one.  First, it cemented Anthony Perkins as a horror icon and gave him the role of his career.  Two, it upped the ante: by making Norman more sympathetic and relate able Hitchcock really pulled the audience into his world, and famously made us identify with a killer.  Remember how you felt when you were with Norman, waiting for the car to sink?  That is what I am talking about. 

The book is very a very quick read- one or two days tops.  Yes, you know what is going to happen, but it is a very interesting journey to go on nonetheless.  Plus, Robert Bloch was the man and a FOL (Friend of Lovecraft.) 

Final thought: remember Gus Van Sant's ill advised shot by shot remake a few years back?  Wouldn't that have been interesting had he cast it to Bloch's book.  Just a thought.  Yes, it still would suck.  Why remake perfection?