Dumpster Diving (The Psycho Sequels: Psycho II)

Yes, I knew there were sequels to Psycho...

They were on the list of minor cinematic curiosities for me.  I would flip past them on cable from time to time and say: “This is completely needless.  Yet I can’t help but wonder about it.  I just don’t want to invest the time.”  

Keep in mind that needless is the operative word.  Yes, of course, there didn’t need to be a sequel to Psycho...much less three of them.  The fact that Anthony Perkins reprised his role upped that curiosity a bit.  The poor guy couldn’t get away from Norman Bates, and had been stuck playing variations on him since 1960.  The obvious question would be if his heart was still in it.   

I found a single DVD package with all of them on it; the price was $5 and I caved.  I had the money, and so that meant I would make the time.  Didn’t it? 

One year (and a move) later, I finally tore off the cellophane.  

Let’s start at the beginning, shall we?  

Psycho II (1983)  

Psycho II begins like the set up for a very bad joke.  We open on Norman in a court hearing with his psychologist (Robert Loggia) and lawyer.  They make the argument that Norman is “cured,” and is now fit to walk among us.  There is a slight worry that he might start dressing up as his mother and butchering people again.  However, he’s learned some really bitchin’ anger management techniques.  He can turn his harmful memories and murderous urges off like a kitchen sink. 

(That, of course, isn’t true.  There wouldn’t be a movie if it was.)  

The judge agrees to let Norman out of the nut house.  This doesn’t happen without some serious controversy from the sister of Norman’s most famous victim.  Lila Loomis (again played by Vera Miles) has not forgiven or forgotten Norman’s actions.  She, understandably, was never happy with the original “not guilty by insanity” verdict.   The first scene of the movie ends with her protest outside the court room.  

As I said, not the most inspirational first scene...but necessary for storytelling purposes.   

What happens after that?   

Norman goes home, arriving in front of the famous Bates manor.  (Remember the creepy house which is situated on the hill above the motel?   It’s still there, and just as troublesome).   

The site of familiar iconography from the original Psycho is effective on a subconscious level.  This is when, in its own fashion, Psycho II starts to click.  You know what’s coming, but the anticipation of it makes you nervous and giddy.    

I feel like calling this film a “sequel” is a bit unfair.  In our modern and cannibalistic times, this would be considered more of a “reboot.”  The seed of the original is used to start a completely new story...much like the recent Spiderman movie from last summer.  I would dig deeper and say that we also have a meditation on what made Psycho work.  

Director Richard Franklin and screenwriter Todd Holland understand a vitally important fact about Norman.  He is essentially a lovable monster, and it’s okay for the audience to feel a bit of sympathy for him.  This is what made him into the audience’s surrogate in the Hitchcock classic.  Psycho II takes our reluctant identification with a killer to new levels of absurdity. 

As the story progresses, Norman holds down a job as a dishwasher and assistant short order cook in a diner.  He meets a “nice girl,” played by Meg Tilly, a waitress who has fallen on hard times.  Norman invites her back to his house when she becomes homeless.  For at least the first act, it seems that Norman might (as Mary Tyler Moore did) make it after all.  I was hoping that he would. 

I’m not going to reveal the mechanics of the plot beyond this.  I’ll just tell you that Tilly’s nice girl is not what she appears to be.  People who should die (by movie logic) do.  Other killings (accidental and not) occur as a result of these actions.  To be honest, the plot gets a bit convoluted and heavy in the second half.  The “plot” is not the real draw here, anyway.  What is?

The secret of this movie’s success is that Franklin and Holland have completely internalized Psycho.  They know its rhythm, and they know how to play cleverly off it.  I mentioned before that we all know what’s coming.  The fun here comes from seeing how the filmmakers reinvent familiar scenes, and take them in unexpected directions.  Perkins does indeed make Tilly a meal of “sandwiches and milk,” just as he did for Janet Leigh.  The suspense here comes from watching him pull a knife...and then seeing him use it just to slice up the baloney.  

Then there’s Perkins...reprising his most famous role.  

I would say that his performance here is just as good as it was in the original Psycho.  I would even cite some instances where it is better.  He could have so easily fallen into the trap of “celebrity cameo.”  That would be playing a parody of himself for a quick and easy profit.

Perkins takes this material very seriously.  He not only recreates every trademarked nervous tick, but gives them a new and surprising poignancy.  When he declares to Tilly that “It’s happening again,” it’s a heartbreaking moment.  He can’t get away from his homicidal tendencies, or the ghost of his mother.  He is going “a little mad”...again.  

So is it “as good” as Psycho?  

The unavoidable answer to that question is “no.”  There is no way that any movie could have attained the sort of perfection that Psycho dealt in.  

Having said that, this is a good continuation of the Psycho mythology.  Psycho II manages to enhance the appeal of its predecessor without insulting it.