also, does anyone think the fact Peeping Tom was in color and we saw blood in it’s RED form had the impact over Hitchcock and his chocolate syrup?
I’ll try to be vague, but
POTENTIAL SPOILERS !!!!!
(and if you have managed to get this far in life without knowing much about PSYCHO, please do yourself the favor of watching it immediately before someone/collective-cultural-knowledge-at-large ruins it for you)
“While Hitchcoks made us feel uncomfortable through powerful POVs and losing our lead character
Powell’s made us feel uncomfortable by showings the camera’s POV and making the killer as our lead."
That’s the crux, JP.
Hitch gives us someone to shift to as a secondary lead halfway through the film, and doesn’t ask us to identify directly with the murders till the end, post-twist. It’s an entirely different structure and approach in which sympathy and disdain remain discreet whereas in PEEPING TOM we are asked to ride out the emotions simultaneously throughout. Arguably harder to handle both as director and viewer—though that’s not meant to rank Hitchcock against Powell—I enjoy PSYCHO more than PEEPING TOM, and have accordingly watched PSYCHO more, but the fact that PEEPING TOM is watchable at all or that Mark is sympathetic at all is a testament to Powell’s mastery.
Powell did age of consent afterward, his best film.
I think you’ve got it.
“Peeping Tom " is infinitely less explicit than “Psycho.” No blood. No murder ever fully depicted on screen. But it puts us in the position of the (wildly sympathetic) killer and implicates us in the crime in that our desire to see murders is underscored by the film’s depiction of the filmmaking process itself.
It’s quite a movie.
Extra Trivia Bonus Points: Scriptwriter Leo Marks was the voice of Satan in “The Last Temptation of Chrust.”
dont read if you dont want potential SPOILERS
I think the reason people were so much more outraged with Peeping Tom is because if the fact it DIRECTLY implicates the audience in the murders. We are not voyeurs watching as things happen, we are a part of why they are happening. The spectatorship is the most important part of the murders in Peeping Tom, it is not present in Psycho (in the film itself.) I think Peeping Tom is a superior film in many aspects and I personally prefer it to Psycho.
Yes to everything above. However, in the matter of sexuality and sexual morals Peeping Tom is a lot more confronting than Psycho. The old man buying pornos etc…
I didn’t see it that way at first, but i defaintly do now.
@ David, though its not much (even though the title of thread says it SPOILER!)
his tripod does have SOME blood on it at one point, I thought. (could be wrong), but nothing compared to the shower scene.
But still thanks for clearing it up guys, I’ve been pondering this for awhile
>Hitchcock still went on to make The Birds and Marnie
It’s important to recall that the TV show Alfred Hitchcock Presents was already well-underway at the time he made Psycho (he used his TV crew on the feature), that the show had already won some Emmys, and that Hitch was thereby made a TV star himself. And having made North By Northwest previously couldn’t have hurt his bold sense of adventure! Psycho was low-budget and viscerally disturbing—but it was made by a very wealthy and famous man who could afford to take the chance, and took it…
Blasphemy Alert here — Beware:
I’ve never liked PEEPING TOM. Seen it a few times, it always leaves me very cold indeed. It always feels like an academic exercise than an actual drama, a feeling I often have with Powell’s films, with the exception of THE RED SHOES, a film as hot and alive as PEEPING TOM is cold and dead. There’s never been any comparison at all for me: I’ll always prefer PSYCHO to PEEPING TOM.
Not looking to rain on anyone’s parade here, I’m clearly missing something with this movie, or it is just one of those acclaimed classics whose appeal I never see.
in the matter of sexuality and sexual morals Peeping Tom is a lot more confronting than Psycho. The old man buying pornos etc…—
Yes. Not only does it implicate the audience more explicitly that does Psycho, but Peeping Tom also conflates eye/camera, knife, and phallus more explicitly than does Psycho.
My guess is expectations had a lot to do with this. Hitchcock had become famous working in the suspense genre and had milked a lot of publicity touting how “shocking” Psycho had been. While is was certainly more extreme than his earlier works, his built in audience was somewhat prepared.
For Powell, without Hitchcock level fame and having done mostly period pieces up to this point, Peeping Tom’s audience was probably less prepared. Also, Hitchcock was much more adept as using back humor to make the sensitive (in 1960) subject matter more palatable.
Quality wise, I think Peeping Tom is now a bit overrated. Neither as good as Psycho or most of Powell’s previous works (though good on its own merits).
Is it true that Peeping Tom destroyed Powell’s career? The refrain is constantly repeated, but I wonder…
His career was in already in freefall from what I can see. Prior to Peeping Tom, Powell fell out with the Rank Organisation when it was the major UK player. Not to mention the break-up of his partnership with Emeric Pressburger.
JP. Schmidt
I was thinking … both of these films came out the same year, but for Powell it destroyed his Career and for Hitcock … well the worst thing it did was ban him from Disney World.
Hitchcock still went on to make The Birds and Marine
While Powell’s career was somewhat knocked down by his film.
They are relatively similar films from the two masters … was it just the UK’s response vs the American Response? I felt the violence was done very tastefully in both, it’s not like one went all gore over the other. (for Hitchcock considerately more tamed than his later film Frenzy)
Both films tackle the slasher mentality with voyeurism induced as well. Both include a parent who drove them crazy. Both had an obsession (taxidermy and then filming).
What is the science to this …
While Hitchcoks made us feel uncomfortable through powerful POVs and losing our lead character
Powell’s made us feel uncomfortable by showings the camera’s POV and making the killer as our lead.
What are your opinions? I don’t know what the times were like then, I’m only 22, so I don’t know if there was something social going on … or what …