The world is a vast and scary place, filled with people and experiences that terrify us. But sometimes, the most frightening thing to a human is themselves. Alfred Hitchcock masterfully explores this in Psycho, the magnum opus of his career. By delving into the human psyche during such a volatile time in history, Hitchcock manipulates the audience into reflecting on the morally grey truths lurking within them. In doing so, he proves that unsettling the masses may be the only way to educate them. After all, a person cannot change while living a comfortable lie.
The dichotomy that makes up Norman Bates challenges the audience’s tendency to sympathise with “good” people. To accomplish this, Hitchcock combines bird symbolism with various camera …show more content…
Norman and Marion sit down in the parlour, framed by birds that symbolise their nature. Norman, despite seeming gentle, has predatory birds looming over him ominously, and is far away from the light so his face is overcast with shadows. On the other hand, Marion is bathed in the lamp light and there is a harmless stuffed songbird sitting next to her. This is symbolic of the power dynamic Hitchcock has created between his actors - predator and prey. Marion is the perfect victim, exposed by the light. Vulnerable because she has chosen to “deliberately step into” her “own private trap.” On the other hand, Norman is the unseen hunter, and the predatory birds looming over him are a constant reminder of his own sexually repressed desire to dominate women like Marion. Evidently, Norman subtly conveys this desire when he jokes that Marion eats “like a bird”, then explains that he likes stuffing birds rather than beasts because of their “passive” nature. This power dynamic illustrates that, in Hitchcock’s world, women were inferior to men. Unsurprisingly, in a society where women were treated as such, Hitchcock’s misogyny was no secret. Bidisha, a harsh critic on the portrayal of women in Hitchcock’s films, sarcastically complained that “Hitchcock's women are outwardly immaculate, but full of treachery and weakness. But, hurrah, he doesn't kill them all. He just teaches them a thoroughly good lesson”. This is irrefutably correct - Marion herself repented for her crimes and was killed by Norman regardless. Modleski agrees, asserting that Hitchcock “invites his audience to indulge their most sadistic fantasies against the female”. This is uncomfortable and frustrating to watch in 2018 - a generation that fiercely advocates for equality between men and women. Women watching in the 1960’s may have felt the same level of discomfort as we do now - after the war
The dichotomy that makes up Norman Bates challenges the audience’s tendency to sympathise with “good” people. To accomplish this, Hitchcock combines bird symbolism with various camera …show more content…
Norman and Marion sit down in the parlour, framed by birds that symbolise their nature. Norman, despite seeming gentle, has predatory birds looming over him ominously, and is far away from the light so his face is overcast with shadows. On the other hand, Marion is bathed in the lamp light and there is a harmless stuffed songbird sitting next to her. This is symbolic of the power dynamic Hitchcock has created between his actors - predator and prey. Marion is the perfect victim, exposed by the light. Vulnerable because she has chosen to “deliberately step into” her “own private trap.” On the other hand, Norman is the unseen hunter, and the predatory birds looming over him are a constant reminder of his own sexually repressed desire to dominate women like Marion. Evidently, Norman subtly conveys this desire when he jokes that Marion eats “like a bird”, then explains that he likes stuffing birds rather than beasts because of their “passive” nature. This power dynamic illustrates that, in Hitchcock’s world, women were inferior to men. Unsurprisingly, in a society where women were treated as such, Hitchcock’s misogyny was no secret. Bidisha, a harsh critic on the portrayal of women in Hitchcock’s films, sarcastically complained that “Hitchcock's women are outwardly immaculate, but full of treachery and weakness. But, hurrah, he doesn't kill them all. He just teaches them a thoroughly good lesson”. This is irrefutably correct - Marion herself repented for her crimes and was killed by Norman regardless. Modleski agrees, asserting that Hitchcock “invites his audience to indulge their most sadistic fantasies against the female”. This is uncomfortable and frustrating to watch in 2018 - a generation that fiercely advocates for equality between men and women. Women watching in the 1960’s may have felt the same level of discomfort as we do now - after the war