Dumpster Diving (Psycho III)

(Editor’s Note: This is riddled with spoilers, now that I look at it.  Two approaches for you:  One, watch the movie and come back.  Two, just read and enjoy the review while taking my word as the gospel truth it is.)

Continuing Down the Spiral of the Psycho Sequels

I stated in the last review that Psycho II was a pleasant surprise.  That mostly holds true: there were a few jolts, a couple of unexpected turns, and two pleasant hours spent with everyone’s favorite homicidal Mama’s boy.  No harm and no foul, but will I ever watch it again?  Most likely not.  

I was eager to see where the next piece of the saga took our man Norman.  The other issue that made Psycho III a curiosity was that it was directed by Anthony Perkins himself.  How did that happen?  

Well, apparently Psycho II was an unexpected success.  The critics were accepting of it, and an audience showed up to foot the production bills.  I can only assume that this gave Mr. Perkins a bit of clout.  Was it enough to put him in the director’s seat?  I suppose so.   

What did that mean for the future of the “series?”   

A Conundrum

I’ll be completely honest: I’m not entirely sure what to make of Psycho III.  I heard rumblings in the past about this being “Norman’s side of the story.”  That’s probable, but a bit of an oversimplification.   The film spends more time with Norman than the other entries in the series.  (There are no digressions while private detectives go looking for missing sisters, for instance.)  

You do get more of a sense of his psychology, and what his continuing torment is like.  You watch several conversations with “Mother.”  You watch him cover up his latest killings (which he is shown committing in much more detail).   You even see how he reacts when he (almost) finds real love.  

An appropriate title for this film might be Psycho III: Will Norman Bates Ever Stop Stabbing People While Dressed Up as His Mother and Find True Happiness?   

This fresh insight into what really goes inside Norman’s mind is a welcome addition to the franchise.  What’s the problem?  The rest of the movie, to be perfectly honest.  That is not to say that Psycho III is “bad.”  I think it’s one hell of an interesting cinematic oddity. 

First: a Disclaimer  

I suppose an actual film critic would offer up a succinct plot summary.  I’ll be honest:  I found the script and story for Psycho III lacking.  That’s partially because there is an over extended effort to make it a logical sequel to Psycho II.  The subplot about a reporter (Roberta Maxwell) showing up to delve into Norman’s past didn’t knock my socks off.  The same can be said for a drifter (Jeff Fahey) who ends up with a temporary job at the motel.  There are only two plot elements I will concern myself with: Norman’s love interest, an ex-nun named Maureen, played with a wonderful melodramatic flourish by Diana Scarwid.  The other element (and this is a spoiler) is the fact that Norman “stabs” the mummified corpse of his “mother” to death.  It’s part of his final breaking free.   

Bite the Hand that Feeds You

The reason Psycho II succeeded was that Hitchcock’s directorial style was successfully aped.  

From the beginning of Psycho III, it is abundantly clear that Perkins is throwing Hitchcock out the window.  His manner of shooting the Bates Motel and the House on the Hill is shockingly different.   

You Could Even Say: “It’s The Same, But Different...”  

The first time we see the famous exterior of the Bates motel is like something out of a Spaghetti Western.  Tumbleweeds blow by in the wind, and there might be a dust devil on the way.   

Perkins has transformed the inside of Bates Manor into something resembling a Gothic Haunted House.  The lighting is surprisingly garish, ugly greens and pinks are everywhere.  This is definitely not a black and white film.  Perkins takes every opportunity to show us the redness of blood, the somber ugliness of mud, and even several close ups of his own pale face.  

There are two substantial shocks in store for us

Shock one:

Remember the swamp that Norman drives the car into in the first two movies?  This time, Norman is in the car as it gets swallowed up.  Nothing is left to the imagination and the metaphor is obvious.  This is Norman’s dark and guilty conscience unveiled.  He can’t escape from his identity as a mass murderer.  It’s a scary, visceral sequence that would do most horror movies proud.  

Shock Two:  

Norman’s precious “Mother” is on display here too.  That is perhaps the biggest surprise for me.  The black and white of the original somehow distanced me from what “Mother” might look like in real life.  I always assumed she would be green and black, the colors I associate with decomposition.  She is, instead, completely flesh colored and indeed full of saw dust.   

As I mentioned before, Norman finally disposes of her near the end of the film.  He does this by taking his trademark butcher knife and gutting out the saw dust.  Not only is “Mother” dying, but an iconic piece of film history.  Perkins’ ambitions to “give up the ghost” of Norman Bates is made manifest here.

There’s an even bigger shock to trump these two.  

Norman Almost Gets the Girl 

The opening to Psycho III is my favorite thing about it.  We open on total blackness and a female voice screaming: “There is no God!”  This is where we get Maureen’s back story, which has a taste of Black Narcissus and a dash of Vertigo.  She loses her faith, and climbs to the top of a bell tower to jump.  Through a mishap, she ends up pushing the Mother Superior of the convent off the top instead.  Everything about this sequence works...there’s black humor, there’s melodrama, and some jolts. 

She somehow manages to walk away from this.  Where does she end up?  The Bates Motel...this is a Psycho movie, after all.  

Now Diane Scarwid does bare a passing resemblance to Janet Leigh...if you squint.  Of course, Norman is the first one to see this, and it’s not long before “Mother” tells him to go down the hill and do some stabbin’.  

(Another major spoiler, be warned.)

The first part of the shower scene is lovingly recreated...until “Mother” yanks open the curtain.  Maureen is in the process of doing herself in, bleeding out in the bath tub.  This is Norman where goes from zero to hero...actively saving Maureen’s life.  He becomes both a savior and a romantic suitor.  Once Maureen heals up, they go on an actual date.  

Another good sequence: it’s oddly moving to Norman move in for a different sort of kill.  Perkins and Scarwid play off each other well; this could be a scene out of a dark romantic comedy like Secretary.  

So where’s the problem?  

I mentioned my conflict earlier.  Astute readers will note that until this point I’ve only talked about what I liked.  (Positivity is a rarity around here, so enjoy it.)  

The stuff that works here is cancelled out by the fact that Perkins still has to make a Psycho sequel.  He needs to include vicious knife killings (which are quite dull this time around). He has to answer for the action that was set in motion by Psycho II.  The problem is that his heart just doesn’t seem to be in that aspect of the material.   

It’s the film business, and I understand that.  I still would have like to have a stand alone film, with nothing much to do with the rest of the series.  You could keep Norman, Maureen, “Mother,” and the motel.  Get rid of the ludicrous “thriller” elements...they don’t work here.   

One more favor to ask: I know Psycho III has a somewhat happier ending.  Norman does ride off in the back of the police car proclaiming: “I’m free!”  

Personally, though, I’d like to see Norman “win” at least once.  Would it be too much for him to have a family with Maureen?  With future little psychopaths treading up and down the bloodstained halls?  

I can always dream.