Murray Pomerance writes: "Gloria Monti and other Hitchcock afficionados will want to take one more look at PSYCHO. Marion Crane does not *steal* $40,000 exactly--at least not at the point Gloria has pointed out. Technically--and with AH we must be technically correct to understand--she *is entrusted with* $40,000 and intends to purloin it. Then, as she voyages, she intends to return it. Agents get in the way of her doing so, and are thus morally responsible. Note carefully that it's the weekend and until Monday morning there will be neither recognition that the money's gone nor any effect at all on the owner of the money. Who are the agents? Well, the first is a policeman . . . Thus, the "crime" is produced upon Marion from the outside, just like the stabbing in a way." That is probably true enough in a legalistic sense. But isn't the original absconding of funds a *moral* crime (until she repents and intends to return it)? That difference--between legal crime, moral crime and the effects of guilt on both--is often played around with in Hitchcock's films. Consider, for example, the ending of BLACKMAIL and of SABOTAGE. In both films, the heroine is "guilty" of murder, though she seems justified in her action and is allowed to get away with it at the end. But the endings of the films (especially the former) seem to imply that she will never escape a feeling of guilt for her "crime." Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN) ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]