Your quote: ŗ.....Actually, Norman Bates is Nothing But existential
If you re-read what I said, that is NOT the point...whatever crisis hešs in,
whatever disfunction hešs knocked up in...it never changes, hešs the same
from start to finish...that, precisely that, is the point...as far as his
character in the film is concerned ...in other words the way by which hešs
questionning himself (and we could have another whole debate about that..!)
never goes through any shift, any digression, bend...in other words..hešs
f-------p solid and we (the viewer) get only to learn why ... Look, Perry
Smith (aka Robert Blake), as a film character, goes through more phases in
1:30mns than Bates in Psycho...and that does nort diminish at all the
Perkins performance ...iotšs just something elseš....
Donšt know about the book...and donšt know either if you are talking about
the book or the celluloid...so maybe our argumentation is totally
By the way for all of you noir-rockers out there, I remind you of the noir
film exercise done by 80šs Britt band called The Hitmen called gloriously
ŗBates Motel˛...for those of you in the US you must have seen the video where Bates meets Maltese Falcon, with every noir-fim cliché mixed-in...glorious early MTV video and glorious song...check that You Tube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWBDcfLH_b0
...and then Todd, you will say happily that Bates is noir...and Išll dance to that...
...the funny thing is I still possess the Hitmen single, bought at record store (long gone) in Ann Arbor, after I saw the band here...opening for Midnight Oil I trust...
..I switch now to red wine...so Išll talk rara maņana...
On 7/15/09 8:51 PM, "foxbrick" <email@example.com> wrote:
> Actually, Norman Bates is Nothing But existential crisis.
> But, Mario, you are absolutely correct, the novel is superior to the film(s,
> though the second film of PSYCHO is a travesty)...PSYCHO II the novel somewhat
> better than the PSCYHO II the film, with which it shares little, and PSYCHO
> HOUSE is the worst of Bloch's novels, the only one I'd say doesn't really
> repay the reading (the further sequels, like the PSYCHO remake, are not really
> worth the effort either).
> Todd Mason
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:rara-avis-l%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> Steve Novak <Cinefrog@...> wrote:
>> > Bien dit....precisely...it is a mecanism in which all the cogwheels are
>> > defined and set...crazies included...none of these characters are
>> > questioning, themselves, existence, raison dšętre...they act along their >>
>> > set and since there is a strong plot it creates tension in the viewer...but
>> > nothing in these characters is disturbing, challenging, upsetting their own
>> > existence, their own validity...and/or ours by the same token...and nothing
>> > in shooting style, acting (and casting), edit...leads us another way...
>> > Enough...
>> > Montois reaching cocktail hour...(I should say apéritif...)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 15 Jul 2009 EDT