Psycho: Movie Analysis

I'm not even going to pretend that I'm qualified enough to critique the masterpiece known as Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. The film is pretty much near perfection in all regards and there is nothing I could say that hasn't been heard a million times before. However, there is one thing I want to talk about and that is, the differences between the movie and book. Alfred Hitchcock is quoted as saying that everything that is in Psycho was from the book by Robert Bloch. For the most part, that statement is true, however, the movie does deviate a bit from the source material and in fact, the film could have used a bit of the book's material to help with the heavy exposition ending. If I've piqued your interest, read on...

Fair warning, there will be …show more content…
He tells her about the different personalities that Norman possessed. In the book he had three personalities, instead of the two in the movie. There was Norman, Norma and Normal. Norman being the child who relied on his mother, Norma being the mother and Normal being the Norman who despises his mother. The novel ends with Sam hoping that Lila won't forget him and hopes for a possible future together (Robert Bloch's Psycho II does show they do get together). As for the final scene in the film with "mother" saying she wouldn't hurt a fly, that thankfully is the same and yes, it still gives me goosebumps to this …show more content…
However, I feel that the book explained Norman's troubled past and the reason for the murder better than the movie. The movie kept any explanation until the end, resulting in a lengthy speech. The film could have done what the book did and have Norman talk more about his mother with Sam, but for some reason, Joseph Stefano chose not to. Although, I should point out that it is much easier for a book to provide backstory than a movie, as we the reader get to be inside the characters head, hearing their thoughts. Translating that to the screen is nearly