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]