Oral Presentation Assessment- Psycho

This is my practice run at the IB oral commentary. For this commentary, I picked my extract in the film Psycho from the point where Norman Bates invites Marion Crane to dinner with him. If this were to go into IB, I think I would get somewhere in the 16-20 range. Although it isn't horrible, it isn't great either. Firstly, I spoke to softly and I was too far away from the mic; therefore, it seem as if I'm whispering for the entire 15 minutes. Secondly, I kept stumbling and saying "uhh" so many times that it makes it seem as if I have no idea what I'm talking about. Content wise, I feel there was a decent amount of background information on the film. I spent part of the introduction to talk about Ed Gein and his influence on the film. I talked about the director and how his previous work applied to this film in general. I also discussed the the genre and as to why Psycho was so revolutionary at the time by comparing it to older films and a film that came after, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. At the end, there was an explanation on why I chose this exact extract. I spent quite a time talking about the actors and how their performances enhanced the scene. Although the film's interpretation was not at the level I had hoped for, it is still detailed and works well enough. One of the mistakes that I made is that I go too much into the summary. If I had talked loud and fast enough, then maybe it would not have seen this way. Although this was not a good experience, I believe I have learned what I need to do to better prepare myself next year.

If I were to do it again, I would actually change the extract I picked. Although at the time I thought it was a good choice, it really did not provide the content that would have made my oral presentation better. The extract in itself was a fairly weak representation of the film now that I think about it. It isn't a bad representation, but it just isn't as well as many of the other scenes in the film.

After finishing I thought I had gone over the time limit, but I discovered a whole minute of  me just mumbling to myself. I think I may have hit pause instead of stop. Anyways, I was afraid I had gone over by too much, but I guess I made it on time for the HL requirements. 

Film Language and Representation Post

If a viewer was watching this scene only from the movie, it would seem that Marion is the protagonist due to the fact that the camera never leaves her to show what is happening to Norman. However, it would also seem that she lacks morals. Marion struggles to find a place to hide the money. The audience from this scene doesn't know that the money is stolen, but her struggle to find a place to hide the money suggests that either it was stolen or someone is after the money (both of them are true). Eventually, she wraps it all up in a newspaper and just leaves it on top of the desk near her bed. This suggests that this might be her first time trying to do anything of this nature. If she is a thief, she is a lousy one at that. Before wrapping up the money, she almost forgets about it and leaves to go unpack her clothes. Still, the fact that she remembers to come back and take care of the money first reminds us that it is of extreme importance. The second character in the scene, Norman, just seems like a supporting actor and nothing more in the beginning of the scene. However, as we go through the scene, it can be seen that he has some issues of his own. The most significant one being the one that concerns her mother. Norman's invitation for dinner shows his interest in Marion. He continuously stutters as he talks after coming back from his house. This could mean he feels ashamed of the way he is, a mama's boy. He doesn't want to upset his mother and this is seen through his change of his invitation for dinner from his house to his office. Although the mother is not seen, she seems to have a prominent presence just through her voice-over.

The acting by both Janet Leigh (Marion Crane) and Anthony Perkins (Norman Bates) is subtle. One actor does not distract the audience from the other. They both seem to have problems going on that they are hiding, therefore the audience is interested in what each character has to say. Janet Leigh delivers a performance where she says her lines perfectly without seeming suspicious of any doings. This perfection of line delivery is the character's desire to be perfect. She doesn't come off as a weak woman. She becomes a powerful character because of her firmness, posture, and the illusion that she has the skills to actually get away with the crime. "The chief skill of the Hitchcock heroine is to lie, inflict and then suffer untold torments without ruffling her hem" (Guardian).  Although Marion's demise is slowly approaching, this scene does well to show her ability keep her lie going. In no way does the audience think that she is the troubled one from the two. Anthony Perkins, on the other hand, stutters as he talks and it seems like he wants to show his mannerism.

In the beginning, although the two characters are physically standing very close to one another, that is not what is shown through the camera. Every time either Marion or Norman have a dialogue, the camera is awkwardly placed to only show the character talking. The entire frame is empty, leaving the character talking placed on one side while the other character is nowhere to be seen. The metaphorical separation symbolizes the Marion's desire to have no part in this man's life. Norman is the one who is inviting and Marion, who doesn't want to seem suspicious, reluctantly accepts his invitation for dinner. These two are shown on screen at the same time very rarely. When they are in the same shot together, there is also always an object symbolizing the mother's presence and her desire to keep Norman apart from this woman. For example, when Norman returns from his house, he and Marion are in the same shot together. However, there is the food tray with a giant kettle that Norman is carrying in front of him. He even takes time to look at it when he is unsure whether or not he should have dinner with Marion in her room. The tray is in a way, the looming shadow Norman's mother has on him. The camera remains static for the most part in this shot, except when Marion moves back to welcome Norman to her room. As she moves back, so does the camera and therefore it highlights the importance of her need to remain in her room. He want to stay in her room because she wants to keep an eye on the money, nothing else. She clearly has no interest in Norman, but Norman is oblivious to this because she presents herself as someone welcoming. Almost all the shots are medium-close ups. By doing this, Hitchcock doesn't let the audience get too attached to Marion or Norman. He gives them a good amount of screen time where one does not get more attention from the camera than the other. Any camera movement is simply a dolly or a tracking shot, which just helps the audience stay with a character. Other than that, they serve no important purpose.

The editing in this extract is realistic. Hitchcock doesn't want the audience to notice the work of his editor or his own. Instead, he opts to have his characters' struggle be the main focus. There are no quick cuts or any creative shots. Hitchcock lets the dialogue play itself out. There is, however, a series of shot-reverse shots. I feel this does not serve any purpose other than to keep the audience engaged in one dialogue/character. The shot duration is the most important factor in the pacing and the audience's engagement in the characters. As I said, Hitchcock decided to go for a realistic approach; therefore, he let the actions play themselves out. In this, the importance of great acting is crucial and the performances of Perkins and Leigh were just that. By not having the camera cut form character to character too much, Hitchcock lets the viewer decide who the most important is, especially in the scenes where both of them are on screen.

In this extract, lighting does not effect any scene except for one. When Norman returns from his home and is talking to Marion, his eyes are not visible under the light, especially when he looks down. This creates an image which makes the audience see Norman as someone distant. Because the audience cannot see his eyes, the audience can't cannot emotionally get attached to him just yet.

The music can barely be heard. When it is, it emphasis the importance of that scene. For example, there is a repeating violin orchestra music when Marion is hiding the money. Apart from that shot, the extract is fairly silent. This puts more importance on the money. Even though the money is just a McGuffin, Hitchcock is setting it up as the most important object int he film. The music does not add any more of an emotional tone to the overall film. The only emotional portion is when Marion can hear what Norman's mother is saying. Although we know Marion has done a horrible thing, we as the audience, feel the need to sympathize with her.  We actually want her to get away with a crime she has clearly done. It is not one of those cliche moments where the protagonist is proven to be a saint. In this case, the protagonist has villainous characteristics.

The sense of location in this extract does not seem to affect the characters of the story in a huge manner.    The only scene where the location actually matters is when Marion Crane and looking outside her room at the Bates' house while the mother's voice is heard. This imagery of the giant house from a low angle shot and the loud voice of the mother reflect how small Marion feels. The house, compared to Marion's position is like an overbearing figure that looms behind you. Although that may not exactly be the case for Marion, it is the case for Norman Bates. Compared to the house, he looks tiny and the low-angle helps illustrate that. The house represents his mother that is inside his own mind. She dictates how Bates reacts and behaves in the outside world.

All together, the scene does well to setup the next crucial scene that shifts the audience's attention from Marion to Norman Bates. Without this setup, the next scene would not be as powerful as it really is. In this extract, we stick with Marion who is the most relatable to the audience so far. She introduces us to the character of Norman Bates. Through her first experience, we as the audience go through the introduction with Norman Bates as well. We are introduced to the themes of isolationism (illustrated from the house and the motel's location) and innocence.


Sources:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/oct/21/alfred-hitchcock-women-psycho-the-birds-bidisha

Psycho: Narrative and the Film Extract

Hitchcock's Psycho was actually based on a novel by Robert Bloch. Hitchcock and his screenwriter, Joseph Stefano, took some artistic liberties and the story in a way they saw fit. For example, Stefano felt that the character of Norman Bates was too much of an outcast; therefore, he wrote Bates as someone "normal," making him far more relatable . That being said, the story is told in a non-linear way due to its complex storyline. With the introductory shots, the audience is introduced to the character of Marion Crane. She seems to be in a critical stage in her relationship where she wants to settle down, but her debts and her boyfriend's debts are standing in the way. At this point, the audience in convinced that the story revolves around this female character. The fact that she is killed 30 minutes into the film completely changes everything the audience could have predicted about the end of the story. From the beginning, it seems to have a linear 3 act-structure, but when the characters hit certain plot points, the story becomes even more confusing because the audience is not used to seeing such plot twists. Every plot point, especially the death of Marion Crane, is an attempt by Hitchcock and Stefano play around with what the normal audience would have expected from their movies at the time.

One principal that the film uses other than narrative sequence as a structure is the presence of the knife. Every time the knife is present in the scene, some new information is always shared with the audience or some new twist is introduced. The first time the knife is know, the audience experiences the death of the Marion Crane, a character who the audience thought was the main character of the story. The second the knife is shown, Arbogast ends up dead as well. Because as the time the audience was not used to seeing the "bad guy" as the main character, Norman Bates was not considered the new main character; instead of Bates, the Audience's first response is the consider Arbogast as the main character. With his death, the audience realizes that the figure that killed him was a woman so Norman cannot be the killed. By this time, Norman is the character who has appeared the most on screen so the audience begins to sympathize with him. Finally, the knife appears for the last time when Lila Crane is about to be murdered. Although Lila does not die by the knife, the audience officially learns the Norman Bates really is the killer. As seen through these examples, the knife is the one key principal that serves to move the plot forward.

The nature of our engagement with the story is that we, as the audience, think that we know more about what is going on than the characters do. I say "think" because it is not completely true. There are instances where Hitchcock has us believed that Norman is a disturbed but a nice young man. In the end, we see Norman to the extreme of being a psychopath. When Norman is wrapping Marion's body after the shower scene, we can see his concern for his mother. All the facts leading up to the death of Marion -- the argument between Norman and his mother, Norman's inability to go against his mothers' words, and Norman's desire to protect his mother -- make the audience believe that Norman can do anything for his mother. When he first sees Marion's dead body, there is a sense of shock on his face which indicates that he may not be behind the murder. The hints quickly add up to make the audience believe that the mother is most likely the killer, which is later "seen" that she is with the death of Arbogast. The whole time the audience believes that they know something that the other character need to know, but in the end they find out that they don't. This is the one nature of the story that keeps bringing in the audience.

 As I said before, Stefano changed the character of Norman Bates to someone the audience could relate to and accept as the protagonist. This character had to be casted perfectly for that to happen. Anthony Perkins made a great Norman Bates for that reason. His posture and personality, along with his acting seemed normal. Because of this, the audience had the opportunity to relate to this average Joe. He seemed to have some issues with his mother, but that's what makes his character so normal. This trouble he has symbolizes every man's struggle to find himself in the world. Perkins plays Bates in such a way that the audience can do nothing but feel for the guy.


Sources:
http://www.galyakay.com/filmnarrative.html

http://www.filmeducation.org/pdf/film/Psycho.pdf