ZAM Book Review: Psycho II

My current Psycho obsession started with a podcast I listened to celebrating Hitchcock's legendary film.  The commentators talked a lot about the excellent documentary The Psycho Legacy.  If you haven't seen it I recommend you check out.  It will make you want to sit down and watch all the Psycho films.  I have enjoyed all of them.  None of the sequels reach the heights of Hitch's original, but they are enjoyable in their own way. 

A few months ago I read Robert Bloch's Psycho for the first time.  You can read my review here.  It was recommended to me (by Jonny Metro over at the excellent Midnite Media) that I read the sequel, Psycho II.  Written in 1982, a year before the film sequel was released, Psycho II is one dark, twisted little tale with more in common with such films a The Player than Richard Franklin's sequel.  Rumor has it that Bloch was pissed the studio was moving forward with a Psycho sequel without him.  Bloch decided to write his own sequel, which Universal hated and allegedly tried to squash.  Bloch got the last laugh when his novel became a big success. 

It is no surprise that Psycho II is actually a satire of the film industry.  It starts out as a traditional horror.  We meet up with Norman Bates many years after the original murders.  He is in an institution, and supposedly functioning as a normal human being.  Hollywood producers are planning on making a film about the original murders entitled Crazy Lady.  They have contacted the institution where Norman lives in the name of "research."

When the opportunity presents itself, Norman makes his escape from the asylum with the intention of getting revenge on Lila Crane and Sam Loomis, now married and trying to move on with their lives.  A bloodbath ensues (with the added bonus of nun rape) before we finally make it out to Hollywood and the set of Crazy Lady.  Convinced that Norman is behind this new rash of murders and that he is on his way to kill everyone in Hollywood (is that really such a bad idea?) Dr. Claiborne, Norman's chief Doctor, hits the road to try to stop him. 

This is the point where the novel turns into a "Playeresque" type satire.  With the exception of a cat murder, there is not much carnage until the final, shocking end.  And the end was shocking because I did not see it coming.

I can see why Universal didn't want to use Bloch's story.  Our hero, Norman, is really hardly in it.  I don't think Anothony Perkins would have appreciated a cameo role in his own franchise.  I did like the book, although not as much as I liked the film sequel.  I felt the film story was better, and better served Norman.  Plus, I love Tony Perkins.  How could you not?  And I am so glad at some point a "good wife turned his life around" (snicker, snicker). 

I am really looking forward to seeing the upcoming film Alfred Hitchcock and the making of Psycho.  The cast is sick!  Ralph Macchio is in it!!  Yeah Karate Kid!!  Enjoy Anthony Hopkins as Alfred Hitchcock.

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?