THE SHOWER SCENE
Here is something I found on the "inter-web" with some facts and info about the scene, proving once again that some people have too much time on their hands. (And that I am grateful for them as usual.)
Shower Scene Info
Speaking of people with too much time on their hands, here's another incidental piece of info that I found. This person should be found and arrested:
Alfred Hitchcock (and his cinematographer) may truly have put one over on the censors. If you watch the sequence of the hand clutching around the shower curtain, you will see the curtain on the left side of the frame, the hand comes in center frame and diverts you from what can just been seen out of focus in the background right of the frame. If you increase the contrast on your monitor (particularly effective by tilting the monitor of a portable DVD player) the background visual information clearly resolves itself into a pair of naked breasts. Janet Leigh claims that she was not nude during the filming of this scene and was actually wearing a moleskin suit for the shot where she falls forward over the side of the tub. This is not disputed, but there was a nude model used for overhead and insert shots; this would be the case for the breast shot in question. Leigh insisted to her death that no nude woman, herself or a stand-in, was used in the actual filming, but modern video technology, including frame-by-frame advance, reveals one, in profile so as to expose no "private parts" and with the top of the frame at shoulder level so as to prevent identification.
Discussion Topic:
According to different sources, the "shower scene" in Psycho is composed of somewhere between 70 and 85 different shots(I've never counted personally), which took weeks to shoot. What would be the difference in tone and feeling, had the sequence been shot using half as many, or how about simply one long shot, as Alfonso Cuaron chose to do for his action scenes?
45 comments:
I think that due to the lack of special effects in the time of Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho, there were very different methods used to create different feelings in the audience. During the shower/murder scene, I think the intended feeling was “frantic, unorganized chaos.” And the best way to do it at the time was to shuffle viewpoints and angles in sync with the music and stabbings. If there would have been half as many shots, or even one long running shot, I believe Hitchcock would not have been able to achieve the intended feelings in his audience. This is simply because the audience would have felt entirely like a fly on the wall, rather than the victim, the killer, and a fly on the wall.
Alfred Hitchcock’s decision to shoot the shower scene in multiple shots takes away from the reality of it. Each time the camera angle changes, you feel as if you are being taken away from the character, making it difficult to build a connection with them. When watching the long shots of Alfonso Cuaron, you feel as if you are right there with the character. In Children of Men, you follow the main character Theo through gunfire for about five minutes. Alfonso Cuaron does not take the camera away from the action for one second. About half way through the scene, blood splatters on the camera lens and Cuaron leaves it there. Throughout the entire shower scene in Psycho, there is not one blood splatter. This may have to do with the censorship that existed in the period this film was made; however, the fact that it does not appear until the very end of the scene makes the whole situation unrealistic. If the shower scene were shot using one shot or fewer takes, the audience would have a stronger connection to the characters and the events that are occurring.
The shower scene is psycho is a very dramatic point if not the most dramatic part of the movie. The effect was created by setting a very panicy and dissoreinted tone by constantly switching the shots. One long shot of this would just show the event taking place, but by mixing up the shots in a fragmented way, we feel as though we are there seeing it happen and freaking out ourselves.
The many shots give it dynamic. Seeing that this movie was made in the 1960s, at that time you could not show the actual stabbing that occurred. The only way, at least for me, to show that she had been stabbed in many places is to switch views to at least get a shot that could look like she was being stabbed. As well, seeing the places where she was getting stabbed puts you in her place a little. Seeing someone getting stabbed in the stomach makes you grab your own stomach and say ouch. It puts you in the movie, even though it is a movie, but also because we aren't use to seeing movies in black and white, and its not likely that your going to be staying in a motel in the middle of nowhere (there is always a Comfort Inn, or Hampton). It makes it more real to the audience no matter the background and how many years ago it was made.
While re-watching the shower scene of Psycho on the u-tube link, I lost count of the different shots. It was definitely a lot of different angles. If there were fewer shots taken, then you wouldn’t get to see everything the way it ended up. If you only saw one angle it would be similar to as if you were watching as someone from the audience in the theater straight on. They change angles from watching the water run as if it’s on top of you, to watching Marion, to seeing her getting killed. You see all the angles making it have all the action for viewers to see everything. If there were less shots or only one shot, you wouldn’t feel as into the scene as Alfonso Cuaron makes you feel with the 70 to 85 different shots.
If the scene would have shot in a faster sequence I don’t think the audience would have been as shocked by the violence. The tone of the shower sequence allows the audience to feel the water in the shower because the tone provides contrast between the light bouncing off of the water, the white shower and tile and the metal shower head and blade of the knife. If the sequence was too fast the audience may not have been as shocked because the person who kills Marion can’t been seen clearly due to the contrast. The killer is somewhat hidden in the shadow of the darkness in part due to the bright light in the bathroom to the right of the scene. The audience gets a feeling of terror because they can imagine taking a shower, as many people do, and they usually have a curtain or something to keep the water from going on to the floor, and that obstructs vision. The terror comes from the feeling of imaging that someone could be standing outside of the shower ready to kill them with a knife. The audience only sees what looks like a female, due to the dress and wig, but the contrast makes it even more dramatic. The blood in the shower looks like it is dark red, but the movie is shot in B/W. The audience may have had the same feeling I had, that I could image the red blood, because I know what blood looks like. If the scene would have been shot in one long shot I don’t think the audience would have been as horrified because Hitchcock used persistence of vision to his advantage. If the audience were to have seen everything, leaving nothing to the imagination, the audience would not have used their imagination to fill in the gaps. Imagining what will happen is much more frightening than seeing what really happens. Everything about the shower scene was about fear, almost like having a night mare and when Hitchcock shows Marion’s hand reaching for the curtain I think the feeling is that of trying to reach for help, but it is in vain and then watching the blood run down the shower drain is a feeling that her existence is just washing down the drain. I also think the feeling in the scene is that this could happen to anyone and that in part is due to the contrast, the characters and of course the music. I am going to make sure I lock the door the next time I take a shower.
In the "shower scene" most of the shots appeared to be extreme close-ups, except for medium shots in the shower directly before and directly after the murder. The combination of the close shots with the short duration between cuts made the sequence feel longer, more subjective, more uncontrolled, and more violent than the images themselves were they presented alone or in a wider angle. Had the sequence been shot using half as many or one long shot, it wouldn't have felt as dramatic or intense. The sequence was so successful in doing this that the shower scene features only three nearly subliminal frames of the knife penetrating.
Also while doing a little research about the "shower scene", I found that Hitchcock originally wanted the sequence to play without music, but Hitchcock's composer convinced him to try it with music. Hitchcock agreed that it doubled the intensity, and thats why there is a soundtrack of screeching violins, violas, and cellos titled "The Murder," during the shower scene.
Another small fact is that the blood in the scene is in fact chocolate syrup, which shows up better than stage blood on a black-and-white film.
In the classic horror film Psycho, the infamous shower scene is tied together by a string of around 80 various shots. Each of them serves as a pursose to evoke emotions in the viewer. The choppyness of the scene is eerie, suspenseful, frightening and insightful since you are witnessing every single detail of the hrrific crime. if it was just one long single broing shot it would be less effective than Hitchcocks genius.
The approach that the director took to shot the shower scene in Psycho was very effective. If he chose to use fewer shots or even one long shot with the shower scene I dont think that it would have been as effective. With 80 or some odd shots, you can see the scene from every possible angle and truely feel like you are part of the scene. Futhermore, the scene was more dramatic than it could have ever been if it was one long shot because of the shot angles. I believe this was the best technique possible for this type of scene.
Given the year the movie was filmed in, if the shower scene was filmed in one long shot, I really think the movie wouldn't have been put out. Simply because, back then you didn't have CGI or computer generated special effects. Also, censorship back then was really crazy and there was ALOT you couldn't show on screen back then, as opposed to what you can show now. I feel if Hitchcock had used one LONG shot, he would have had to show the lady bathing in the shower (which he does), also show Norman walking into the hotel room, going into the bathroom, showing the knife as it stabbed the lady, show the blood, etc... I feel if it was shot that way, you would get a more demonic feeling, it would add that suspense that horror movie is supposed to have. It would be more real as opposed to seeing a few stab shots and a lady lying on the edge of the tub. But as I said, given the year, the way Hitchcock showed this scene, it worked for the time. Everybody figured out that she got stabbed and there was blood all over the place, without actually seeing a lot of blood.
Psycho uses many different shots to set a certain tone and feeling that is different than using one long shot. When using many different angles and shots, it gives an intense feeling. They show you the "mother" with the knife in the air, using a stabing motion. Next, you see the woman screaming with terror in her eyes. There were many shots used showing the knife, the woman in the shower, the blood flowing down, and the "mother". Not only do the usage of many shots give a more intense, suspense and scary feeling, the music is a major part. Music in any movie is a big part in the scene, making it seem more scary or suspensful. I watched it once with the music and then again, putting it on mute. It had somewhat the same feeling, but the impact of the scene was more successful with the music.
I think large amount of shots were used to emphasize the brutality of the murder. Going from the slow entrance to the quick harsh cutting of shots underscores the vicious cutting of Mary.
Had this method not been used I believe the effect of the murder would not have had the same shock factor and would not have resonated so powerfully in the minds of the audience.
The 70 to 85 shots that the shower scene uses makes it a more effective feeling of realism and horror. I don't necessarily think that Alfonso Cuaron should have used 80 different shots for the scene, but that's a different story. I believe if he had used one long shot for the shower scene it wouldn't have been the same. It would have to been boring and dull and wouldn't have been scary at all. the fact that it's choppy and brief shots are used add to the suspense and keep the audience guessing whats going to happen next. I dont understand why it would take weeks to film that one scene, but it was an incredible scene that has forever influenced and been is in everyone's memory when you mention anything horror. The tone of the scene would have been a lot less dramatic and less suspenseful had it been one clean shot.
If the director had choosen to use one big shot rather than 70-85, the scene would not have had such a dramatic effect on the audience. I think that by choosing to take many shoots, the director was able to capture the suspenful feeling that would make this scene so famous.
I think that having the scene with less shots would lose the effectiveness of how the violent and graphic the murder is. The way it currently is done shows the act as one that is senseless and mysterious one that engages the viewer to want more.
According to different sources, the "shower scene" in Psycho is composed of somewhere between 70 and 85 different shots(I've never counted personally), which took weeks to shoot. What would be the difference in tone and feeling, had the sequence been shot using half as many, or how about simply one long shot, as Alfonso Cuaron chose to do for his action scenes?
I think the reason for using so many different shots in this scene was to make the adudiance focus on different parts that Cuaron thought were important. For example when the camera goes from the shower drain to the eye, if that had been one long shot you should have had to follow up the tub over Janet Leigh's body up her face and to her eye and if would have been a completely different feeling and not as suspensful as moving with different shots.
Using that many shots gives the ability for the audience to see a scene through all possible angles, and the cinematographer has the ability to direct exactly what he wants the audience to see, when he wants the audience to see it. If he would have used half as many, it would take away from the cinematographer’s control, thus, loosening the atmosphere that the film is made to project. The scene would be less intense and not as terrifying to the audience.
I think that using more shots and from different angles allow the audience to only see what the director wants. If there were less shots in this take the scene would not be as suspenseful as it is. The way this scene was shot is very impressive and leaves the audience to wonder just what is going on in the scene.
I think that if they were to use less shots that it would not look as dramatic. And its a lot more suspenseful with all would the different scenes. Using all of the different shots allows us to see exactly what the director is aiming for.
I think that the quick camera changes added to the suspense and the chaos that i feel was meant to be conveyed during this scene. I feel it added to the uncertainty and fear that i felt was meant to be shown. If another kind of shot were used it would not have achieved the same tone or feeling. For example, if a long single shot would have been used, I think it would have been very anti-climatic and probably even boring to me. Even the suggestion of half as many would adequately convey the right tone, in my opinion, but would have been much better than a single shot.
I think that Cuaron's use of so many shots in the shower scene helped to build anticipation for the viewer. If this scene was shot in one continuous shot, I do not think it would have been as visually intense. With so many shots and angles throughout the scene, one gets a feeling of chaos and panic...which should be the feeling that one gets if they were to really see someone get stabbed to death in the shower.
Personally I feel that if Alred Hitchcock would have not used as many shots for the shower scene it would not have had such an impact as it did. The many shots gave different angles and observed many things except for a lady in the shower. There was more to the scene such as her being killed, then to the water/blood running down the drain, to her eye, and then the room after the killing. The many shots he took flowed nicely and grabbed the audiences attention and gave emotion the the scence that could not have been conveyed if it were to have only half the amounts of shots.
Although, Alfonso Cuaron was an amazing director and could pull of making a fighting scene in "Children of Men" in one shot it would not have been acceptable for the movie "Psycho" and the effect that Alfred Hitchcock wanted this viewers to feel during this scene.
In the thriller Psycho I believe that Alfred Hitchcock used so many scenes because of the mood he wanted to create. If that scene was one long shot not only would it have not been as scary but we would not have been able to see everything that was going on. The shots are coming at you very quickly creating a feeling of mayhem and makes the scene much scarier.
If there were half as many shots used in the shower scene it would not have the same tone as it does with 70-85 shots. The scene would seem much more rushed, and not as intimate to the character.
If there was one long action scene the scene would have seemed to take a lot longer to develop. The different shots in the scene give the audience more than on perspective, and keep their attention. If it was all filmed in one shot it would seem to drag on for more time than the scene actually consisted of.
I think that the shot would have seemed much less frantic and spur of the moment if Hitchcock had used only a few shots instead of the many shots he used. I don't think cutting the amount of shots used in half would have made a big difference though, especially with the music that he used.
Hitchcock made excellent use of shot selection and shot length in the shower scene from Psycho. The quick change from extreme close-ups creates a sense of chaos which puts the audience right into the action. While the woman is being murdered the shots are frantically changing which makes the audience panic along with the woman. The audience experiences the shock of woman who is unexpectedly attacked. It also creates the horror of the violence without being overly gruesome or lurid.
The numerous shots taken set the tone and feeling for the scene. The constant changing of angles distilled fear and suspense into our hearts. The variety of shots allowed for close-ups, mid shots, and others when needed. For example, you see a close-up of the shower head, the blood draining in the tub, and random parts of her body as she’s being stabbed to death. If Alfonso Cuaron chose to do just one long shot, I believe it would’ve it would take away from what the director was trying to impose upon the audience. Instead of many different types of shots we would just see one aerial view of the whole scene. We would then see the murder appear thus diluting the event of surprise. When this happens, it defeats the purpose of film by breaking the rules of time and space; thus falling into the category of theater.
Having the full sequence of shots made the scene not only revolutionary but a true classic. If Hitchcock would have chosen to incorporate only one shot or half as many as he did would have changed the scene completely. In my opinion the movie was made by this one shot. It brought the whole movie together in my eyes. The shower take made me feel as if I was there , I felt the fear ... and it frightened me. Exactly what a director wants to do !!
The shower seen is a classic horror movie scene because hitchcock spent time and devotion composing it of 80 different shots. If he had only used say 30 shots the emotional impact would have been lessened. If it had been just one long shot, the audience would not have the oppurtunity to feel the fear that hitchcock is trying to create. With the multi shot scene the audience is first a bit confused and then shcked with fear and dismay.
I think the way Alfred Hitchcock shot the shower scene adds to the suspsense of the movie in that particular moment. The multiple shots make the audience focus on different things. For instance, it focuses on the girl, then the shower head, then back on the girl, then back on the shower head, and then the girl from a different angle allowing you to focus more on what's going on behind her. I think that makes it more suspenseful because it makes the audience feel as though there is something about to happen and it makes them anticipate the unknown. It does have the feel of a old scary movie because they did not have the technology to make it anymore realistic. I think if the shot was continuous it would feel even more "fake."
I feel that Alfred Hitchcock's shower scene in Psycho was very dramatic. If he decided to film it any differently I believe that would have changed the mood. I enjoyed the different shots and camera angles, making it more dramatic. If he filmed it striaght through as though you were watching, the suspense and action would have had less of an effect. I enjoyed how it was more chaotic rather than one boring killer scene like most movies.
you cant compare Alfonso Cuaron's long single shots in Children of Men, when you follow the main character Theo through gunfire for about five minutes. because its a traveling scene that starts in one building goes to the streets and into another building and back to the streets again. There is no personal connection that really has to be made there, its shot as its supposed to be like we are watching it all happen. the special effects and the length of the shot is what makes us th audience feel connected and experincing what is happening. In Physco with the cramp quaters of a bathroom there are only so many different angles that you can see what is going on. But when its shot from all those different angles it gives the feeling of being frantic.. the same thing if you took a picture of soethig innoient from many different angles and then combined them, your first thought would be "wow this is all congested and so much is going on its too frantic" but that is what Alfred Hitchcock wanted us to think. In addiition to this being a old movie a bathroom/shower scene is alost on the verge of taboo which also connects with the audience displayin that is a serious scens. so i feel that if this shot was taken differently it would lose any lastin effect that it would have on the audience.
I felt that the movie Psycho, by Alfred Hitchcock, was designed to be more of a suspenceful movie rather than a gory murder flick. Obviously at the time in 1960 there was a big deal about censors and what not, so Hitchcock had to be creative in what he did to scare the audience but not go overboard. Another major part of the movie was the music used throughout. I thought the music always did a great job of complementing each scene and vice versa. It would be interesting to know whether, during the making of the shower scene, the music was chosen before or after shooting. Nonetheless the multiple camera angles and shots convey panic and chaos which fits in perfectly with the high pitched screeches of the music. Plus the dramatic movement and shots happen so fast that if your seeing it for the first time you wonder what exactly you did see and what you didn't. Thats how Hitchcock beat the censors. I mean my initial thought was surely she had been shown being stabbed somewhere throughout that mess, but when you go back and slow it down you can see that the only time there might be a hint of it is when they show her stomach. I suppose Hitchcock could have used one long shot and still created a scary scene but the rapid shots just fit better with the music and emotion of the movie. Plus he was able to have a go at the censors.
Alfred Hitchcock's "shower scene" does contain many, many different shots. This sequence of shots invokes a certain feeleing of chaos and suspense. The chaos of the shots allows the audience to feel flustered and intrigued. This way of putting a scene together also allows the audience to see the sequence of events from many different angles pushing the plot forward. It is almost as if more information is given than would be given through one consecutive shot. If the infamous "shower scene" had been one long shot or even half as many shots the entire feel and mood of the scene would have been totally different. It would have seemed less chaotic and slow. There would not be as much suspense without the many different angles and dissorientation. I think putting the many different shots together was a much better way to go so that Hitchcock could invike the feelings that he wanted.
Hitchcock uses the jumpiness of the shots to trick the viewer into seeing something that we actually never see. Each jump of the camera leaves the viewer imagining what is happening and also hoping to see what we are already imagining. Had Hitchock used one continuous shot, the viewer would have watched the event take place and he would have had to show us the horror that is taking place. By jumping around and never really showing us the stabbing, we as the viewer are painting the picture in our heads and the horror that we are imagining is endless. It makes the scene go on and on in our imagination while at the same time watching glimpses of portions of our imagination on the screen.
I feel that the shower scene in Psycho is one of the main parts. I think that the choppines and how it is very unorganized gives the scene a certain "flair". It shows that the director wanted that scene to be remembered by the audience. I feel if it had been shot a different way, such as one long shot, it would not have the same aftermath on the audience as the first one with many different shots had. If the director would have shot the shower scene in one long shot it would be like every other horror movies and murder scenes. The way it was shot left a lasting picture in the audiences minds.
Alfonso Cuaron used the number of shots that he did to add to the suspense since at the time of the movies creation, special effects were almost none existent. So by moving the camera around to different view points, it takes away what the viewer can see. But it also shows the viewer the surroundings, but from different perspectives. Such as i didnt notice something before, but when i moved over a little bit, i could see it.
By choosing to have several shots in the shower scene in lieu of having one long shot or half as many shots, Alfred Hitchcock maintained the feeling of mystery and enigma in the film. By shifting the point of views constantly and not focusing in shooting only from one angle the scene became "messy", therefore leaving the audience without really knowing what happenned and who killed the main character. Since it is a movie of suspence and terror the shower scene shot the way it was is the key to keep the audience's attention. Hitchcock's way of putting the elements of the scene as an unity of effect caused the movie to be intriguing in a way Afonso Cuaron was not able to in Children of Men.
Even people that have not seen Psycho have seen the shower scene. I think that by using that many takes on that particular scene Alfred Hitchcock was making sure that he got that scene perfect. By using that many shots he can go back and pick out the best ones to ensure that scene was as dramatic as he invisioned. If he would have taken half the amount of shots he would not have had enough takes to make it perfect, and as famous as the scene is!
I think with so many shots used it makes you feel more like you are a part of it. Its like you are holding the camera filming and avoiding different situations and panicing not knowing what to do. If it was one long shot it would make it less dramatic and be like any other scene. With the camera constantly moving it makes it more realistic.
The decision to use soo many different camera angles in such a short amount of time was actually very clever. First off he never really shows her getting stabbed and killed, so the intent obviously is not to see the blood and gore like usual, but instead to capture the utter horror that she feels while this is happening. the quickly changing shots can make you think faster and could be intended for the "soo many things racing through your head" type moment, even getting your heartrate faster. So many different angles also makes you feel confused, much like the character would feel as it is happening. Less angles or a continuous shot would focus more on the special effect of her being stabbed. More focus on that aspect would deminish the emotional - terror, confusion, and just basically panic.
I think the right tone was set. Having so many shots makes the audience feel frantic and axious about what they are seeing. Which in the time the movie was made was the best way to generate those feelings. If the shots had been edited different i don't believe that feeling of panic would have come across to the viewers. In this time period however, most people are used to the flashy effects. However i do think there should have been more blood going down the drain, but that is just my opinion.
I think the way the shower scene was cut made it very choppy. It would have seem more realistic and personal if the scene was shot in one long sequence while the killing was taking place. I think he was trying to make the viewer see something specific in each shot that showed. Also shooting it that way could make it more dramatic because you are forced to see the extreme shots. For example, going from the knife to her face, straight to the blood running down the tub. You dont see every moment, you only see each extreme action or expression.
I think the shots used for the shower scene were perfect. It gave enough dramatic effect from the beginning to the end. The audience is in suspense as each frame shows the killer getting closer and then the killer actually interacting with the victim. I honestly think it would of had as much of an effect had there been less shots because i think a lot of the key elements to the suspense would have been lost. The only thing i would change about it would be at the end when the blood is shown doing down the drain and then out of nowhere it turn into her eye.. i think its just creepy and out of place.. maybe it should have been the other way around
The famous shower scene from Psycho is probably so well known due to the variety of shots it presents to the audience. Before the actual stabbing occurs, Marion is shown simply taking a shower. The camera shows close-ups of the shower head, above Marion's body, and later a longer shot of the shower curtain with the killer approaching. During the actual stabbing, shots of the knife are shown, as well as shots of Marion's face, stomach, and feet. This variety of shots lets the audience feel as though they are truly in on the action. It appears as though not a single angle is left out. This feeling of actually being present during the action makes the scene, in my opinion, even more eerie.
Thus, had the famous "shower scene" been shot with half as many shots or, even worse, with just one long shot, countless angles would not have been taken into account. The viewer, therefore, would not feel as present in the action.
Mr. Pomeranz -
I am attaching the email you sent me earlier in the week regarding this late blog and receiving credit for it. Thanks!
Lauren, I apologize for the delay in my response. My internet is down
so I haven't been able to check email all day. Anyhow, without the
blog you'll be getting an 87 in the class. However, if you just send me the blog I'll give you credit for it, which will bring you up to a 92. Just do me a favor and copy this email into your response, just so I can keep track. Thanks. - Ryan
Post a Comment