Talk:Psycho (1960 film)

Subversion of romance through irony

I ask Dekkappai based on his thought if he thinks the "Subversion of romance through irony" subsection could be shorter. I converted half of the chapter into notes and converted the notes into the subsection as it stands. If there will be other interpretations inevitably added to the "Intepretations" section, should the subsection still be trimmed for viewpoint balancing and/or content conciseness? Erik (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article on a film that has inspired so much writing and interpretation is going to have to touch just briefly on the main ideas, I think. And I do think a whole section on the "Romance/Irony" thing is too detailed for the film article. A stand-alone "Interpretations of Psycho" article wouldn't be out of the question, based on the amount of sourcing, and a whole section on "Romance/Irony" would fit there well... This weekend I'll try to put together a first-draft "Interpretations" section based on the five books I mentioned, plus the existing section. I have access to most of the book chapters listed, so I could work them in next week. (One problem with collaboration is duplication of effort, so can I request a "freeze" on work on that section till I get my first draft posted, say, Sunday?) Dekkappai (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I will work on "Production" in the meantime. "Interpretations" of a film like this will be tough, definitely. I created Interpretations of Fight Club for a similar reason and have my big subsections there. (Talk page there has even more references to be used, agh.) American Beauty has a solid "Interpretations" section. When it comes to films and interpretations, I think we are in somewhat unprecedented territory... the old Featured Articles on significant films Casablanca and Sunset Boulevard do not offer much help. Erik (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that, with a film that can support a separate "Interpretation" article, the "Interpretation" section should be fairly minimal in the main article. Anyway, I'll put together my take on the section, and you can do with it what you will... And now I notice the "Soundtrack" section is practically non-existant-- for a film with one of the most interesting scores in cinema, it just lists CD tracks... Ought to at least mention that it uses a string orchestra... the interesting minor-major 7th chords, the "slashing" violin "screams" taking the place of Marion's "silent scream"... anyway we'll see how "Interpretations" goes, and I'll keep "Soundtrack" in mind for later... Dekkappai (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am considering being bold and creating Interpretations of Psycho. There will unquestionably be too much content for the main article. I would still like to use the opportunity to flesh out an interpretations sub-article now instead of being concise now and revisiting it later. What do you think? Erik (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely agree. Problem is, with a film like this, every little aspect can probably support a stand-alone article. (see soundtrack below-- I'll have to cut that way down for this article...) I haven't started on the "Interpretations" yet, but what I intend is to cut it waaay down to a couple-three paragraphs just touching on main points. The fuller analysis, I think, should be in the separate article. I wonder about titles for stand-alone articles though: Wouldn't it be better to have the film's title first? Something like "Psycho: Interpretations"? Dekkappai (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean sub-articles of the interpretations sub-article? I think that "<sub-topic> in/of <film>" is the usual approach. There is precedent for naming it this way. We will still list the article at Psycho anyway. Have you done anything with the existing subsection yet? I'll move it, and we can figure out concise sentences for that section. Erik (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't done anything with the interpretations yet. Maybe I'll just trim & polish up the soundtrack section and post it to the article, then go on to my Japanese stuff-- oh, and some real-life things to attend to. So, go ahead and start a full "Interpretations" sub-article, and I'll add what I can to that later today or tomorrow, and fill in more during the week. Then we can boil down the separate article to a summary section here in the main article... About titles, I was thinking more from the search-box perspective. Don't we do filmographies that way? "[Name] filmography". No big deal either way though. Dekkappai (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I merged the content back because I have not had time to sit down and contribute more interpretations at the sub-article. An editor took issue with the single reference there and proposed deletion. I just brought it back here for now, but feel free to trim it as necessary. Erik (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the complaints and the prod were s pretty silly... It would be a piece of cake to slap up four or five more interpretations on that article-- I've got books on the subject sitting right within arm's reach, and you've got the sourcing compiled. I got side-tracked onto the soundtrack section, and now I've bitten off a Japanese pink film project that is going to keep me busy for probably a month at least... Now, of course, the "Interpretation" section again is way to large and detailed for this article. A glance at the lead also reminds me-- I don't think mention of Ed Gein right at the front is necessary. This article is about the film, not the book or the incident that may have inspired it. If Gein is mentioned at all, it should be later within the body of the film-- inspirations, discussion of the film's relationship to the book, someplace like that... Dekkappai (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Soundtrack

I find a chapter on Herrmann's score for Psycho in A Heart at Fire's Center: The Life and Music of Bernard Herrmann (Steven C. Smith), so I call dibs on the Soundtrack section for this weekend too :-) Dekkappai (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I took time out from squabbling to work on the Soundtrack section. I've saved it here: User:Dekkappai/Temp2. Obviously, it grew beyond the bounds of this article, yet there is still much more that can be written on it... So there's another off-shoot article, probably. Dekkappai (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! I'm taking notes from Hitchcock's Films Revisited about Psycho. Still mulling over presentation of interpretations... Erik (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just cut it down as much as I could and posted it. Still might be a bit too long-- you and the others can edit it down... I'm very dubious about the part in the article that says Hitch doubled Herrmann's salary for this score. Everything I read says he tried to get Herrmann to reduce his salary, and then attempted to cheat him a bit after the work was done-- resulting in some animosity on Herrmann's part. Dekkappai (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Re my last bit of blather at the Film Project page, what do you think about removing the CD / track section, and starting a separate Psycho soundtrack article containing this version and the CD section currently in the main film article? My point is that ideally the "Soundtrack" section of a film article should be about the actual soundtrack, not album releases. I've read two chapters specifically on the soundtrack, and only one of them even mentions an album, and that's just a passing reference about the performance, which Herrmann conducted (in 1975). Psycho soundtrack, after the more detailed discussion of Herrmann's work, could potentially go into the history of recordings of the piece, which could obviously be quite lengthy. Dekkappai (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Motifs section: removed Ford Falcon and added British "bird"

Marion Crane begins her journey in a 1956 Ford and trades it in for a 1957 Ford. 1960 was the first model year for the Falcon, so the first Falcons went on sale just a month or two before Hitchcock and Janet Leigh started shooting Psycho on 30 November 1959. And the examples of the bird motif listed on page 92 of Janet Leigh's book include "bird" as British slang for a young woman, but nothing about the Ford Falcon.Ftfrk61 (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed "Differences" section

Three out of seven of the differences given between the novel and film did indeed give a real-world motivation for the change. (Hitchcock wanting to make Norman much younger- wanting to focus the audience on Marion Crane, and the uncinematic nature of the conversations with "Mother".) The other four were more peripheral, and except for the last one added by a different writer (how Marion is stabbed) all were listed in chronological order. Do these three need citations if put back? Are we to strictly limit ourselves to differences for which we know the filmmaker's motivation? The novel and the film are so close there really aren't that many differences. I don't think the full version would be in much danger of expanding.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I see now that the "Writing" section already covers a few of these differences. Perhaps further stuff should just be there. But honestly, while there are a tad fewer differences listed, some of the stuff there also seems "indiscriminate" (re comment deleting differences section). Changing the location of Arbogast's death from the foyer to the stairwell strikes me as a somewhat random detail, though yes it makes the killing more interesting on screen. But the difference in the "Writing" section about Marion's earring vs. scrap of paper seems especially trivial, far more so than anything in the removed "Differences" section. --WickerGuy (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I take back that last comment. There's a good reason for the paper scrap which has now been added to this section. I've put back in a bit of the stuff from the deleted "Differences" section, mostly in a new paragraph about how Norman is portrayed, except the bit about opening the film with Marion instead of Norman seemed to warrant being featured more prominently in the paragraph above. Real-world explanations have been added for stuff that was already there (paper scrap in toilet), and for the new material on Norman. The exception is I don't really have a real-world explanation for the film dropping Norman's fascination with spritualism and the occult, but it seems fairly significant. Hope this avoids the duplication of material created by the "Differences" section and maintains real-world explanations.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. There are original research issues here. Firstly the importance (or notability) of any differences is measured by the provision of references. Otherwise it is verging into original reserach territory: us mere Wikipedia editors cannot decide that something is relevant. Secondly, I've had to remove the sentence about the occult, which was too analytical without a reference. There is another problematic sentence, which I've left in for now but marked as worrying. This is, "Stefano's initial sense that an aspect of Norman that made him unsympathetic was his drinking [Rebello ref] may account for why Norman's transitions to "Mother" no longer take place when he is in a drunken stupor." Does Rebello actually say the second half of this sentence, or is it interpretation? Could you please remove the part of this sentence that can not be attributed. Thanks. The JPS^{talk to me} 08:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I was entirely unaware that WP policy used number of references in secondary sources as a criterion for WP:NOTABILITY!! The second half is interpretation as well. It is true that Norman's changes are sober in the film and in a stupor in the novel, but the idea that screenwriter Stefano's hostility to Norman's alcoholism accounts for this is indeed interpretation, though I said "may".--WickerGuy (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I basically thought that in discussing differences between novel and film, the imperative was to supply "real-world" context. I had that for the omission of conversations with "mother" and the drinking-issue, but as you say it was interpretation (albeit in the first case IMO bordering on self-evident). It seems personally to me to be extremely notable that Bates' interest in spiritualism has been axed from the film, but perhaps others do not think so.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Query

I can find plenty of sources that think the omission of Norman Bates' interest in the occult is notable. But so far I don't have any that provide a real-world context for it, i.e. the motivations of Stefano & Hitchcock. Does one need both notability and a real-world context? Or is just one sufficient? Just asking. Will go with editorial consensus. There's already stuff on this in the article Norman Bates. Perhaps that is good enough.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

For the time being, I would say if we have reliable sources (books, journals, etc. -- not bloggers) it can go in. Future peer reviewers (when it's reassessed for GA status, or if this ever gets good enough for a serious FAC) might insist that some phrases are removed, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Oh, can you confirm that the page number of the Truffaut ref you added corresponds with the other one in the article? (ISBN 0-671-60429-5, ref number 56)? The JPS^{talk to me} 15:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely the correct page number in Truffaut!! I kinda sorta guessed if the bloggers were a source on themselves it was acceptable (see WP:SELFPUB - of course this is mostly on articles about the self-published source which this is certainly not). Apparently, quite a few fans of Lovecraftian horror fiction seems to notice that Bates' occult interests are missing, but the rest of the world doesn't seem to care much.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If the bloggers were to go back at all (a very big 'if'), it would have to be decoupled from the other reference. Instead of the original

"Tangentially mentioned by interviewer of Stefano [1] and noted by a few online bloggers who write about horror fiction [2] [3][4] but generally given less attention than the film's omission of Bates' alcoholism and pornography."

try

"Tangentially mentioned by interviewer of Stefano [5]. This is generally given less attention than the film's omission of Bates' alcoholism and pornography, but had been noted by a few online bloggers who write about slasher and supernatural horror fiction [6] [7][8]"

In this rephrasing, the bloggers are now indeed sources on themselves per WP:SELFPUB, but since WP primarily allows this when the article is itself about the self-published source, maybe still not good enough. Any thoughts?--WickerGuy (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert Bloch himself started out as a writer of Lovecraftian horror fiction, contributing stories of his own to the Lovecraftian mythos. That would make it IMO somewhat natural for him to give Norman Bates an interest in the occult, which is IMO why fans of that genre note its absence from the film.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Psycho (film) → Psycho (1960 film) — The film was at Psycho (1960 film) when it was moved to a more ambiguous title without explanation. There are two other films on Wikipedia: Psycho (1998 film) and Psycho (2008 film). Per the naming conventions for films, films of the same title should be disambiguated from each other by release year. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Alas I believe I must agree with the move request. Although the 1960 film is the principal film and a fricken classic, disambiguation by year seems most appropriate (as is the standard for films).--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Not sure where we stand on this, bearing in mind the recent move request at Talk:Double Take (film) and earlier requests at Talk:Independence Day (film). The 1960 film is clearly the most notable of the three. There was also some discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, but I'm not sure what conclusions (if any) were drawn from it. PC78 (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• If this film and the other films are using disambiguated terms at all, then they are clearly not the primary topic. The page psycho is just a disambiguation page, so there is no primary topic among all topics titled "Psycho" in some regard. This is a secondary level where all existing topics use some kind of disambiguation; we cannot be applying the primary-topic argument here. It basically involves the claim that the disambiguation term is magically part of the title (no such thing as "Psycho (film)" outside WIkipedia) where the argument is re-applied. Doing so pushes for a multi-level hierarchy where the simple setup is to have a primary topic where possible and to disambiguate all secondary topics afterward. With no primary topic here, all topics should especially be disambiguated from each other. "Psycho (film)" is inherently ambiguous because it could refer to any of these three films. If the 1960 film is the primary topic, it would be at Psycho. Erik (talk | contribs) 06:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's not that I disagree with your assessment Erik, but past discussions have shown that this is not an opinion held by everyone. Still, I support this move per your arguments, and to reverse a recent move that was done without discussion and contrary to a previous concensus here (see archive 1). PC78 (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, although I would support a move to Psycho as it seems to be the primary topic. Psycho (film) is sufficient for this film, while the others can be differentiated by date. Powers ^T 23:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• You again! [shakes tiny fist] As usual, "Psycho (film)" is not the primary topic. The term "Psycho" is, and any article with a disambiguated title cannot be the primary topic. It already missed the boat on that. The term "Psycho (film)" is non-existent outside Wikipedia; we work with the key term with the disambiguation terms trimmed off. Someone looking for this film or any other topic titled "Psycho" will type in the key term and encounter their options. In the high-level sense of managing titles, release-year disambiguation specifies each film topic. It is a clearer organization of topics which are already disambiguated in the first place, where keeping "Psycho (film)" is detrimental in its incomplete disambiguation. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This article most certainly could be the primary topic for the undisambiguated name. And for the disambiguated name, I never said anything about "primary topic". I feel, however, that the undated disambiguator is sufficient for this subject; everyone knows which film is being referenced. Powers ^T 03:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure Much rests on whether or not the 1960 film can be considered a "primary topic". According to WP guidelines

  it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box
  ......
  An exception may be appropriate if only one of the ambiguous topics is a vital article. In such a case, consensus may determine that the vital article should be treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users.

  So far specific artists but NO actual works of art have been tagged as "vital articles" so no help there, but isn't it likely that WP users are far more likely to be looking up the 1960 film than either of the other two films, even if they have to type in "Psycho (film)" instead of just "Psycho". Also the film is much more famous than the novel, strengthening the case for it being a primary topic. But I remain somewhat undecided.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Anyone searching for or linking to "Psycho (film)" is very likely expecting this film, which is, as another editor pointed out, "a fricken classic". They are less likely to know the precise year it was made before reading the article. This film got 69,000 pageviews last month[9], compared to 18,500 for Psycho (1998 film)[10] and 900 for Psycho (2008 film)[11], so is primary usage for the term "Psycho (film)". A hatnote can direct the minority to the other films. There is no benefit to moving this to a unnecessarily precise title. In fact, if anything, this should probably be moved to Psycho and the dab page moved to Psycho (disambiguation), since this appears to be the primary topic for "Psycho", not just among films. Station1 (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Maintaining "Psycho (film)" means it fails to be precise as needed when we have two other film articles that are already disambiguated in clear-cut manners. "Psycho (film)" as a title, where there are three films whose titles had to be disambiguated could lay claim to it, is still ambiguous, and disambiguating by release year (which is the widespread norm) identifies the topics uniquely. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• This is exactly where the WP-concept of "primary usage" comes into play. I agree with your premise that the title "Psycho (film)" by itself is not precise enough when you have two other films. I also agree that one way to handle that ambiguity is to add the year of release to the title, and that this is the preferred method if all three films were approximately equally sought. However, another valid way to handle the ambiguity is by a hatnote from one film to the other two, and I believe this is the preferred method when one is clearly the article most people would be looking for, as is the case here. I've never seen a conflict between the two guidelines. Station1 (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Proposal A rather novel solution (that might need further discussion due to its novelty) is to disambiguate by saying "Psycho (classic film)" or "Psycho (original film)". The former might be objectionable as POV and the latter as failing to disambiguate the recent foreign film which is unrelated to the other two.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've always thought year of release was a poor way to disambiguate, just as birth years are not recommended for people. Genre, director, star, "silent", "TV" are all better qualifiers in many cases. Psycho (Hitchcock film) would be better than Psycho (1960 film) imo, if anything were needed. Station1 (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Plot

Is anyone actually working on the to do list, because the current plot summary is growing out of control it's getting close to being double it to triple it's stated goal. 67.8.72.12 (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the plot section to what had consensus during the last GA review. 67.8.72.12 (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)