Hi Ken,

Norman bates is not only psychotic at his best but also a
coward.He prays on people and with in the sanctuary of his
delusional world he finds enough strength and motivation
for a kill.

In an apparent social context Norman would not even hurt a
fly.that is because the extremity of being a psychotic and
lack of control makes him feel low esteemed and vulnerable.

He is also envious and vein glorious,while in his prying on
to others,the ones,who are deviant with in the acceptable
norms of the world ( society)are the subjects that provide
stimuli and provocation, which is  just enough of an excuse
for him to be outraged and go for a kill.which is also an
act of feeling empowered and being normal( balanced). Until
he is faced with another provocation in order to unleash
his psychotic behavior he is satisfied (full filled)and
acts normal.

Norman is at best an Imaginary role player.Who could
possibly have his own world view( a construct),where in
being delusional is all right( normal).

The only possible parallel to Abraham's sacrifice, the god
or tradition gets added to make differently justifiable
world based on the conventions of that time.As apparently 
in a world, which is still saddled by the so called
religious frames of mind.

Otherwise Norman is a Nutcase hiding in the closet to be
discovered (needs help)and Normans can be found in the
context of all cultures and religious backgrounds, is what
makes Psycho a subliminal experience.

Bill's reference-

As far as pan-archetypes go, perhaps I might delicately
mention that we're talking here of murder; so no, I don't
consider life-taking to fall within the same genre as
professor, husband, father. But then again, if I lived in
Bronze-age Mesopotamia, among certain rural groups killing
and plunder would sound okay. But surely not to the decent,
law-abiding citizens of Ur.

The possibility for such acts to be committed, happens with
in the frame work of Reality that is removed, dark and
shadowy, where sickness of the mind has a free rain in the
name of secrecy and rituals.

regards,
Indrakaran.
____________________________________________________________

Reason is always a region carved out of the irrational—not
sheltered from the irrational at all, but traversed by it
and only defined by a particular kind of relationship among
irrational factors. Underneath all reason lies delirium,
and drift.
Giles deleuze.

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 00:02:43 -0500, bill harris
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>When people add "Voice of god" to their inner repertoire
they're just
offering a cover story; which is to say that Bates, indeed,
was god-like
 in
his non-Abrahamic refusal to do so. To trot out another
Philosopher of
record, then, it would seem as if Bates were the
Nietzschean hero who
refuses the supernatural crutch; thereby taking full
responsibility for
 the
delusional life.

Hi again Bill.  Norman Bates god-like and/or an exemplary
Nietzschean? 
That's a new one!  There ARE Nietzschean aspirants in
Hitchcock (e.g., in
ROPE and perhaps in VERTIGO), whom the respective films
pretty much put
 in
their place by the end (as I said the birds do to the
humans in THE
 BIRDS),
but Norman Bates is an absolute parody of such a being.  I
do in fact see
Norman as a parody of a 'tragic hero' or even of Napoleon
(the film's
reference to the 'Eroica' Symphony).  At the end, as he
sits
 contemplatively
in his cell and intones (in Mother's voice), 'He wouldn't
even harm a
 fly',
the moment parodies both Buddhism and 'all passion spent',
to quote the
 last
line of Milton's poetic tragedy 'Samson Agonistes'. 
Despite the
 'blinding'
imagery in the film, Norman is not Samson, blinded by his
enemies and
extracting a terrible revenge.  Norman is a nut-case.   

However, a related matter:

>As far as your pan-archetypes go, perhaps I might
delicately mention
 that
we're talking here of murder; so no, I don't consider
life-taking to fall
within the same genre as professor, husband, father [i.e.,
role-playing].

I meant of course, Norman as an 'archetype' of the human
situation, but
 in
extremis (the archetype, not the human situation).  This is
the lesson,
after all, of Raymond Bellour's celebrated essay on PSYCHO,
"Psychosis,
neurosis, perversion".  The film begins in normality, and
ends with
 Norman
('Nor man nor woman' perhaps?  Or simply 'Not normal'?).

Norman is a psychotic, the most extreme point of the
spectrum that
 includes
LESS extreme instances of deception and perversion and lust
and aberrant
behaviour (we meet four of them in the realty office at the
start:
 impetuous
Marion, soon to steal $40,000; timid Caroline, who took
sleeping-pills on her wedding night; affable Lowery, who
keeps a bottle of liquor hidden in his desk; and sleazy
Cassidy, who defrauds the tax people and covets a dirty
weekend with Marion).

Norman is a role-player, too.  As the psychiatrist says,
'When reality came too close' he dressed up, even wearing a
cheap wig of female hair.

>Epistemologically, this is to say that at a certain point
symbolic
interactionism loses its ability to coherently describe the
world,
 thereby
becoming nonsense.

The alternative to 'symbolic interactionism' is, I take it,
good healthy
 sex
(or even one of Cassidy's dirty weekends)?

In Abraham's day, they didn't have the Pill.  Could that
have been how
 all
the 'nonsense' got started?

I'm (at least half-) serious!

- Ken M
http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~muffin/news-home_c.html 











      ____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.  
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**