2005-11-23 16:46:23
来自: 旧精魂
(αρετή)
Psycho / 惊魂记的评论
4
Hitchcock here exhibits his full grasp of the art of suspense. From the very start, we are titillated with a sense of thrill and foreboding, but we just cannot read the omen: we know something sisnister is in the air, but we are still surprised when we finally see where the real crime is, anc committed by whom. Looking backward, our intuition at the first viewing was generally right, but not precise; just as in real life. Watching the movie again, the surprises are of course gone; but that leaves us all the better prepared to appreciate the "surprisingness"---to quote C.S. Lewis---so carefully crafted by Hitchcock.
Anthony Perkins college-boy, jerky blitheness is excellently suited to the plot development. He seems the least ominous of all screen villains, a little effete, a little lost, all of which slowly build up to a sinister personality with few parallels. We are thrown hints, of course: digression on "eat like a bird", the professed passion for "stuffing things", taken-for-granted convictions like "a boy's best friend is his mother", and "we all get a little mad sometimes, etc, etc. The beauty of these tidbits is that we recognized the implied horror only in retrospect.
What ruins it for me is the film's heavy-handed use of half-baked Freudian psychology, the same excesses as in "Spellbound". The smugness of the court-appointed pschiatrist makes me want to kill HIM in shower, indeed.
Psycho / 惊魂记的评论
4
Hitchcock here exhibits his full grasp of the art of suspense. From the very start, we are titillated with a sense of thrill and foreboding, but we just cannot read the omen: we know something sisnister is in the air, but we are still surprised when we finally see where the real crime is, anc committed by whom. Looking backward, our intuition at the first viewing was generally right, but not precise; just as in real life. Watching the movie again, the surprises are of course gone; but that leaves us all the better prepared to appreciate the "surprisingness"---to quote C.S. Lewis---so carefully crafted by Hitchcock.
Anthony Perkins college-boy, jerky blitheness is excellently suited to the plot development. He seems the least ominous of all screen villains, a little effete, a little lost, all of which slowly build up to a sinister personality with few parallels. We are thrown hints, of course: digression on "eat like a bird", the professed passion for "stuffing things", taken-for-granted convictions like "a boy's best friend is his mother", and "we all get a little mad sometimes, etc, etc. The beauty of these tidbits is that we recognized the implied horror only in retrospect.
What ruins it for me is the film's heavy-handed use of half-baked Freudian psychology, the same excesses as in "Spellbound". The smugness of the court-appointed pschiatrist makes me want to kill HIM in shower, indeed.
2006-05-01 13:18:34 Jean
Just watched it yesterday with some friends. Not as good as i had hoped. Sorta figured out the ending when the 2nd killing happened.Primal Fear was a lot more surprising. :) but i guess this was pretty good for a 1960 movie. :)
Agree with you on the coutr-appointed pschiatrist. Wished he would've shut up earlier.
2006-11-05 20:23:29 时间
well written!2010-01-11 04:53:32 阿雯儿
i suppose it's "sinister"2010-01-11 04:56:36 阿雯儿
and psychiatrist2010-02-23 10:23:09 Doi
I thought Anthony wasn't a college guy...2010-09-13 22:05:05 smith27
LZZB> 我来回应