ld the law step into a mans world before he is discovered with reasonable certitude for engaging in illegal activities? This question can still come to mind about Norman Bates when hes interrogated by Arbigast, even though it follows his murder of Marion Crane. Norman obviously growing in tension, the camera sadistically watches him from a low angle, bearing its aim on his throat as he feverishly chews and swallows candy corn bits. Hes suggested as a victim in a way, despite the viewers (probably, (in moral optimism)) routine support of the law. One can feel sorry for him. And how much do we question Normans character as he spies Marion undressing through the parlor wall peephole? Particularly today the viewer would likely question it less than one watching Psycho during its first, theatrical release, what with modern films overwashing of the senses in gore, mechanical sex and violence to program unconscious indifference in viewers. Maybe it doesnt come to mind as readily because right after seeing the profile shot of Norman hiding in the peephole light and shadows, theres a cut to the cameras -- or the viewers -- voyeuristic assault on Marions privacy. This lessens Normans culpability. But noticing him in the act brings wonder to uncovering peoples secrets. Maybe these examples suggest engrossment of passive violence or wrong to such a modest intensity that the horror of the murder scenes still shock todays viewer. Of course those scenes are further dramatized by Hitchcocks fast editing; indicative of ...
