[Possibly last post from me, Ken M, for a while ...]
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 06:01:48 -0500, bill harris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hi Ken,
[...]
>So you are correct: evidence indicates that The Hitch truly believed in the
psychological explanation offered at the (more or less) ending.
>This makes the Hitch guilty of bad psychology; which is something, I
suppose, that I can live with.
No, I didn't say that Hitchcock endorsed (or opposed, either) the
psychiatrist's 'explanation'. I said that he had his reasons for including
it at this point in his film. I like the scene. A lesser director may well
have passed it up. I believe it SHOULD be there, and that it's deftly done.
I know that some people moan about it - too bad. They're not artists,
estimating an overall effect such as how to prepare an audience for the
scene of Norman in his cell, now totally dissociated, i.e. bonkers.
(Another masterly scene, of course, and beautifully written by Joseph
Stefano - like the rest of the film.)
- Ken M
http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~muffin/news-home_c.html
*
*
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]
**
|