Blog Assignment #1
Roland Barthes had an idea which texts should display the creativity and style of each individual author. He believed every writer has their own form, or manipulation of conventional writing styles. One of this form is Barthes’s Hermeneutic Code, which denotes an enigma or riddle, which moves the narrative forward, while creating suspense by setting up different blocks, distractions, or obstacles. The movie starts off by a scene showing a very passionate couple, a very brief moment yet important one as it gives the back-story of two of the protagonists. Right away the audience is given its enigma or riddle as the story focuses on the female lead character named Marion Crane; the question that pops in everyone’s head is “what will happen to her, will she get hurt by her lover, or will she find her true happiness”? The story almost promises an answer is it follows Marion most of the first half of the film, when she sets off with $40,000 cash that she stole from her office, gets seen leaving town by her boss, and catches the attention of a cop while traveling. But the main delay in the movie is when she meets Norman Bates, a kind and charming motel owner, she seems to be captivated by his charm and kindness at first as she allows him to prepare dinner for her. But it’s during dinner that she realizes something is wrong with the Norman and goes back to her room where she meets her eventual doom.
Barthes also had the idea of “readerly text” in which the reader just strictly reads and “writerly text” in which the reader has the freedom to interpret the text as he/she wishes. In my opinion “Psycho” is can be seen as both readerly and writerly as some scenes are left for interpretation by the audience and some a given straightforward interpretation. Scenes like when the lead female character, Marion Crane, sets off with the money leaves the audience to think where she was going, many say she was going to her lover but it has not been clearly stated nor displayed. Also when she decides to go back, no one could be for sure if she was actually going to do it or not, even though she’s seen counting the money and what’s left of it, she shows agitation at the fact that she spent so much already, and that leads a lot to belief maybe she changed her mind and decided maybe it’s not a good idea to go back after all. Also the whole mystery about Norman Bate’s mother is left for individual interpretation which leads me to believe the film has a writerly form. However, at the end of the movie when Dr. Fred Richman explains to Marion’s sister and lover what happened, all the questions are answered and the individual interpretations are thrown out the window. Therefore I personally think the film is a readerly text form.
I definitely agree with you about the fact that Psycho takes both the readerly and writerly text form, which is due large thanks given the movie’s success. It was great having so many things left open ended for interpretation, because the audience is forced to be drawn in and paying attention, and especially in a classic movie like this being shown to a modern audience who are used to exciting action scenes and wild special effects the technique comes in handy. Not knowing Marion Crane’s true intentions, or why the cop seemed so overly interested in her, for example, are storylines within the storyline that made me temporarily forget the fact that this movie was in black and white with a low budget and no real visual spectacle. This sort of thing needs to be paid attention to by directors/writers/producers who realize that the movie can not rely on surface material alone but also needs a solid backbone to keep the viewer engaged.
ReplyDeleteAs you pointed out, I think what Alfred Hitchcock did as far as turning the film into a readerly text at the end with the introduction of a random doctor who comes in and gives the perfect explanation that leaves no loose ends comes at just the right time. While that sort of ending seems to come with the territory more often than not in these slasher type films, the extent of this one got a bit annoying and had quite the Deus ex machina feel. Someone needed to tell ol’ Alfred that it’s OK to leave SOME questions left unanswered for the audience, even minor ones. Nevertheless, one might argue that it is much better to answer too much rather than too little so I will give him a pass this one time as long as the next Hitchcock movie I see is a little better in that regard.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Ahmad. When the movie starts out, we are posed with a conflict of two lovers; They wish to be together but money issues stand in the way. When a window of opportunity opens and Marion is entrusted with $40,000, we see her fighting to decide whether she should follow her heart or do the right thing. I believe when Norman is introduced and she accidently “insults” his mother is where the story takes a turn for the worse and we are blocked from having our original enigma solved.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to readerly vs. writerly text, I must disagree with you. This movie is strictly readerly in my opinion. I had to force myself to stop trying to take notes and figure out what would happen next and just watch the movie. Even still, it was pretty obvious that Marion took the money to run away with Sam. From what I understood of her character, she was a trustworthy woman, or else her boss would not have put so much trust in her with taking that money to the bank. Therefore, Marion would not take the money solely for the sake of taking it. At the beginning, we are given a glimpse of the one thing Marion wants more than anything, to be with her love. After learning it will not be possible, she returns to work bummed out and baring a strong headache. I do not think that she would be scheming anything else in her mind than to take that money and go find Sam. Also, she clearly stated she was on her way to California when questioned by the police officer. Furthermore, the Bates Motel was 15 miles from her end goal (as stated by Norman). I feel that after dinner with Norman, she was calculating how much money she spent so she could pay back the money because she already had it in her mind she was going back in the morning. Finally, like you mentioned, at the end of the film, Dr. Richman wraps up any further questions the watcher may still have, making this a strictly readerly text.