I don't generally read books when I've already seen the movie, but there are exceptions. Recently my literary travels have brought me to Robert Bloch's Psycho.
The book is a good mixture of horror, thriller, and mystery. I don't think a scene-for-scene adaptation―the kind that Polanski would later do with Rosemary's Baby, for instance―would have been a hit. For one thing, Marian Crane (Mary in the book) meets her fate much quicker, and with less fanfare. So a lot of the familiar beats associated with her, like the frantic deal with the used car salesman and the tense traffic stop, aren't there. In fact the whole idea of starting the movie with Marian as the protagonist is the invention of Hitchcock and screenwriter Josef Stefano.
Norman is different too, of course. In the book he's older, fatter, wears cheap glasses, and his psychopathology is closer to the surface. Hitch knew that a handsome young man with a touch of shyness could get away with much more in the eyes of the audience.
2 comments:
I've seen Psycho a number of times but never did read Robert Bloch's original book. I understand what you mean about the difference between that and Hitchcock's version and it sounds like the director made a different interpretation of events portrayed than Bloch had witten them. I know you don't like to make value judgments but the difference in getting an immediate response from an audience can't be denied from the point of view of making a better film from an already good book.
It's funny because this afternoon we were talking about another movie where the director made a signiificant alteration that completely changed the story. I'm talking about The Shining and what happened to the hotel chef in the book compared to the movie. In the novel the Scatman Crothers character returns to the hotel and saves the mother and child but not in the movie. In the movie Kubrick had the psychic chef axed as soon as he walked in. After that you didn't know how the story would pan out.
Just last night we watched another of Jer's favorite old movies, one I hadn't even remembered, Richard Matheson's The Incredible Shrinking Man. It was very good and very likely written around the same time as Psycho. What an ending.. as you say, no late admission.
I don't know if it's a difference in interpretation so much as it is presentation. Some things are more obvious in the book than they were in the movie, others actually less so. But what Hitchcock really accomplished was the sense of building up one movie, telling one kind of story, and then dropping it in favor of another movie. Nothing in the first half of his version gets resolved until the very end, and it could be argued that some things never get resolved at all.
That was a significant change from book to movie, because Dick Halloran didn't just help to rescue Danny and his mother. He also helped Danny get perspective on what had happened to his father afterwards. Of course he can't do that in Kubrick's version. His part in the story is forcibly ended. I know that Stephen King disliked the movie, mostly because of Jack Nicholson's interpretation of the lead part. What his opinion was on killing off the cook I don't know.
I remember The Incredible Shrinking Man. As I recall I was freaked out that the guy never found a cure for his condition, or even managed to stop it. One fun thing I learned was that the cat who chased him when he was mouse sized was a well-known actor cat named Orangey, who did about ten movies and a whole bunch of TV over the course of 17 years. Pretty amazing given a cat's lifespan.
Post a Comment