Print

Print


mike frank writes;
 
"in other words, can't a formal or rhetorical analysis of the films serve
as well as a historicist account to explain the differences in reception?"
 
I'd like to suggest that Michael Powell's "political" situation may well
have made an attack on PT easier than an attack on Psycho would have been
had he, not Hitchcock made it. But to me the major difference lies in the
films themselves. Psycho is primarily a mystery whose explanation lies in
Norman Bates' family ties, while PT is at heart the study of a character
1960's society was not prepared to undertake.If Hitchcock had somehow (in
1960) undetaken to make a film like "Ed Gein: Up Close and Personal", his
illustrious career might have taken a turn for the worse.
 
Sincerely,
Peter Latham
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]