Psycho The impossible embodiment

Three versions of the protagonist’s journey Norman’s = Norman’s = = Marion’s Lila(m)Other F a t a l i n - v e r s i o n

Narrative and stylistic form Tripartite structure (essentially from Marion’s, Norman’s and Lila’s points of view) = the ‘golden section’ Tripartite structure (essentially from Marion’s, Norman’s and Lila’s points of view) = the ‘golden section’ Expressionistic use of lighting, sets, montage and casting Expressionistic use of lighting, sets, montage and casting

Tawdry populist thriller plot & devices / overtly high culture allusions and aesthetics Tawdry populist thriller plot & devices / overtly high culture allusions and aesthetics Vertical v. horizontal composition Vertical v. horizontal composition Production design: Gothic/past vs. modern/future in ‘flat’ black & white tones Production design: Gothic/past vs. modern/future in ‘flat’ black & white tones Narrative and stylistic form

Death Death Sexuality Sexuality Psychic drives Psychic drives Search for authentic life / self-expression Search for authentic life / self-expression Animal symbols of passion and excess Animal symbols of passion and excess Psycho-religious binaries of Dionysian v. Apollonian drives Psycho-religious binaries of Dionysian v. Apollonian drives incarnation / embodiment incarnation / embodiment arms / hands arms / hands spiral / vortex spiral / vortex Themes / motifs

Supporting characters & doppelgangers Sam - Norman Sam - Norman Arbogast - Lila / Sam Arbogast - Lila / Sam Cassidy - Norman / Mrs Bates Cassidy - Norman / Mrs Bates California Charlie California Charlie Judge Tate - Judge Tate - Psychiatrist - Psychiatrist -

Search for authentic life leading to the ‘death drive’: the impossible embodiment

From ‘I’ (eye) to ‘a’ (camera) From ‘I’ (eye) – a subject who has responsibility for their actions (the gaze as symbolic identification) From ‘I’ (eye) – a subject who has responsibility for their actions (the gaze as symbolic identification) to ‘a’ – an object; an object[ive] observer without the ‘stain’ of will or desire to ‘a’ – an object; an object[ive] observer without the ‘stain’ of will or desire

From ‘I’ (eye) to ‘a’ (camera) Before the viewer identifies with persons from a diegetic reality, he/she identifies with him/herself as pure gaze – the abstract point which gazes on the screen. Before the viewer identifies with persons from a diegetic reality, he/she identifies with him/herself as pure gaze – the abstract point which gazes on the screen. This ideal point provides a pure form of ideology in so far as it pretends to float freely in an empty space, not charged by any desire – as if the viewer were reduced to a kind of absolutely invisible, disembodied witness to events which take place ‘by themselves’, irrespective of the presence of his or her gaze. This ideal point provides a pure form of ideology in so far as it pretends to float freely in an empty space, not charged by any desire – as if the viewer were reduced to a kind of absolutely invisible, disembodied witness to events which take place ‘by themselves’, irrespective of the presence of his or her gaze.

From ‘a’ (camera) to ‘I’ (eye) the anxiety automatically arising in the viewer – a token of his/her solidarity with Norman – suddenly reminds him or her that his/her desire is identical to Norman’s the anxiety automatically arising in the viewer – a token of his/her solidarity with Norman – suddenly reminds him or her that his/her desire is identical to Norman’s

From ‘a’ (camera) to ‘I’ (eye) At this moment, the viewer’s gaze is de-idealised, its purity blemished by a pathological stain, and what comes forth is the desire that maintains it: the viewer is compelled to assume that the scene he witnesses is staged for his eyes, that his / her gaze was included from the very beginning. At this moment, the viewer’s gaze is de-idealised, its purity blemished by a pathological stain, and what comes forth is the desire that maintains it: the viewer is compelled to assume that the scene he witnesses is staged for his eyes, that his / her gaze was included from the very beginning.

Hitchcock’s subversive strategy of the tainted gaze By means of a reflexive inclusion of his/her own gaze, the viewer becomes aware of how this gaze of his/hers is always-already partial, ‘ideological’, stigmatised by a ‘pathological’ desire. By means of a reflexive inclusion of his/her own gaze, the viewer becomes aware of how this gaze of his/hers is always-already partial, ‘ideological’, stigmatised by a ‘pathological’ desire. Perversion as a socially ‘constructive’ attitude where one can indulge in illicit drives, torture and kill for the protection of law and order: the Law is split into Law as ‘Ego-Ideal’ – symbolic order which regulates social life and maintains social peace – and its obscene, super-egotistical reverse Perversion as a socially ‘constructive’ attitude where one can indulge in illicit drives, torture and kill for the protection of law and order: the Law is split into Law as ‘Ego-Ideal’ – symbolic order which regulates social life and maintains social peace – and its obscene, super-egotistical reverse

Hitchcock’s subversive strategy of the tainted gaze The deepest identification which ‘holds a community together’ is not so much identification with the Law which regulates its ‘normal’ everyday circuit as, rather, identification with the specific form of transgression of the Law, of its suspension (in psychoanalytic terms, with the specific form of enjoyment). The deepest identification which ‘holds a community together’ is not so much identification with the Law which regulates its ‘normal’ everyday circuit as, rather, identification with the specific form of transgression of the Law, of its suspension (in psychoanalytic terms, with the specific form of enjoyment). Southern white communities forgave minor transgressions but disowned those who refused to take part in KKK lynchings

Precisely when Hitchcock appears at his most conformist, praising the rule of Law, the fundamental identification with the ‘transgressive’ mode of enjoyment which holds a community together – in short: the stuff of which the ideological dream is effectively made – is contaminated beyond cure… Precisely when Hitchcock appears at his most conformist, praising the rule of Law, the fundamental identification with the ‘transgressive’ mode of enjoyment which holds a community together – in short: the stuff of which the ideological dream is effectively made – is contaminated beyond cure…

Psycho’s Möbius band The film's Golden Mean structure (the ratio of the first third to the last two thirds coinciding with that larger part’s ratio to the whole) contains a rupture at the death of Marion Crane… The film's Golden Mean structure (the ratio of the first third to the last two thirds coinciding with that larger part’s ratio to the whole) contains a rupture at the death of Marion Crane… a b

[car; motel; policeman; road; office; money; detective] marioN American alienation: financial insecurity, fear of police, desperate pursuit of a piece of happiness - the HYSTERIA of everyday capitalist life Is the Protagonist’s Journey a fatal inversion of the American Dream? [villa /'haunted castle'; stuffed animals; mummy; knife; false clothes] Norman a PSYCHOTIC reverse: the nightmarish world of pathological (mentally disturbed) crime

Or the passage from hysterical desire to psychotic drive? The relationship between these two worlds of American alienation and pathological crime misses the simple opposition of surface & depth, reality & fantasy – it only suits that of the two surfaces of the Möbius band: progress far enough on one surface, all of a sudden we are on its reverse. The relationship between these two worlds of American alienation and pathological crime misses the simple opposition of surface & depth, reality & fantasy – it only suits that of the two surfaces of the Möbius band: progress far enough on one surface, all of a sudden we are on its reverse.

Marion’s death as the zero-point The spiral first enters the drain, then exits the eye, as if passing through the zero-point of an eclipse of time – in sci-fi terms, we ‘pass the doors of time’ and enter another temporal modality The spiral first enters the drain, then exits the eye, as if passing through the zero-point of an eclipse of time – in sci-fi terms, we ‘pass the doors of time’ and enter another temporal modality

The passage from Norman to Marion = the ‘regression’ from desire to drive the Name-of-the-Father Marion stands under the sign of the father – that is the symbolic desire constituted by the Name- of-the-Father: the hysterical feminine position addresses the Name-of-the-Father Marion stands under the sign of the father – that is the symbolic desire constituted by the Name- of-the-Father: the hysterical feminine position addresses the Name-of-the-Father the desire of the mother Norman is entrapped by the mother’s desire not yet submitted to the paternal Law (and as such not yet strictly a desire but a pre-symbolic drive): the psychotic clings to the mother’s desire Norman is entrapped by the mother’s desire not yet submitted to the paternal Law (and as such not yet strictly a desire but a pre-symbolic drive): the psychotic clings to the mother’s desire

Marion’s desire as a signifier of the symbolic order Marion’s desire to become a wife and mother, to take on the Name-of-the- Father as Mrs Sam Loomis, gives her a ‘subject position’ within the symbolic order of patriarchy, even while it places her in pursuit of the ‘lost object of desire’: by definition, desire is always unsatisfied and drives the subject onwards from one signifier to another (‘a little piece of happiness’; $40,000; a husband…) Marion’s desire to become a wife and mother, to take on the Name-of-the- Father as Mrs Sam Loomis, gives her a ‘subject position’ within the symbolic order of patriarchy, even while it places her in pursuit of the ‘lost object of desire’: by definition, desire is always unsatisfied and drives the subject onwards from one signifier to another (‘a little piece of happiness’; $40,000; a husband…)

Norman’s psychotic drive as alienation within the maternal Other Drive is always-already satisfied: contained within a closed circuit around its object, it finds satisfaction in its repeated failure to attain the object – Norman, as the son of the (m)Other’s incestuous desire, re-enacts the killing of symbolic desire whenever he is attracted to a young woman who symbolises ‘normal’ patriarchal desire. Drive is always-already satisfied: contained within a closed circuit around its object, it finds satisfaction in its repeated failure to attain the object – Norman, as the son of the (m)Other’s incestuous desire, re-enacts the killing of symbolic desire whenever he is attracted to a young woman who symbolises ‘normal’ patriarchal desire.

Norman’s psychotic drive as alienation within the maternal Other Norman cannot take a ‘subject position’ with the Other because he has not escaped the Mother’s control. The ultimate function of the Law is to confine desire – not the subject’s own, but the desire of his/her (M)Other Norman cannot take a ‘subject position’ with the Other because he has not escaped the Mother’s control. The ultimate function of the Law is to confine desire – not the subject’s own, but the desire of his/her (M)Other

Psycho’s two great murder scenes = desire vs. drive Marion’s violent death comes as an absolute surprise, a shock with no foundation in the narrative line which abruptly cuts off its ‘normal’ deployment Marion’s violent death comes as an absolute surprise, a shock with no foundation in the narrative line which abruptly cuts off its ‘normal’ deployment Shot in a very filmic way, its effect is created by editing – one never sees the murderer or Marion’s whole body: the murder itself is dismembered into a multitude of fragmentary close-ups succeeding one another in a frenetic rhythm – as if the repeated strikes of the knife have contaminated the reel itself and torn up the continuous filmic gaze (or its opposite: the murderous shadow stands in for the power of editing itself…) Shot in a very filmic way, its effect is created by editing – one never sees the murderer or Marion’s whole body: the murder itself is dismembered into a multitude of fragmentary close-ups succeeding one another in a frenetic rhythm – as if the repeated strikes of the knife have contaminated the reel itself and torn up the continuous filmic gaze (or its opposite: the murderous shadow stands in for the power of editing itself…)

Psycho’s two great murder scenes = desire vs. drive Arbogast’s death surpasses the shock of Marion’s ‘intrusion of the Real’ by Hitchcock's presentation of it as something expected… Arbogast’s death surpasses the shock of Marion’s ‘intrusion of the Real’ by Hitchcock's presentation of it as something expected… =we endure the most brutal shock when we witness the exact realisation of what we were looking forward to: the most terrifying disturbance of our sense of reality which wholly upsets its symbolic structure – the smooth running of automaton – takes place when a structural necessity simply realises itself with blind automatism.

Psycho’s two great murder scenes = desire vs. drive Behind its apparent simplicity, Arbogast’s death relies on a refined dialectic of expected and unexpected – in short, of (the viewer’s) desire. Behind its apparent simplicity, Arbogast’s death relies on a refined dialectic of expected and unexpected – in short, of (the viewer’s) desire. What we have here is the ‘split subject’: ‘I know very well that X will happen (Arbogast will be murdered), yet I don’t fully believe it (so I’m none the less surprised when he is)’ What we have here is the ‘split subject’: ‘I know very well that X will happen (Arbogast will be murdered), yet I don’t fully believe it (so I’m none the less surprised when he is)’ Where does the desire reside, in the knowledge or the belief? Where does the desire reside, in the knowledge or the belief?

Psycho’s two great murder scenes = desire vs. drive Contrary to the obvious answer (in the belief – ‘I know that X will happen, but I refuse to believe it since it runs against my desire…’), psychoanalytically it is in the knowledge. Contrary to the obvious answer (in the belief – ‘I know that X will happen, but I refuse to believe it since it runs against my desire…’), psychoanalytically it is in the knowledge.

Psycho’s two great murder scenes = desire vs. drive The horrifying reality one refuses to ‘believe in’, to accept, to integrate into one’s symbolic universe, is none other than the Real of one’s desire, and the unconscious belief (that X could not happen) is ultimately a defence against the Real of desire: as viewers of Psycho, we desire the death of Arbogast, and the function of our belief that he will not be attacked by the ‘mother’-figure is precisely to enable us to avoid confronting the Real of our desire. The horrifying reality one refuses to ‘believe in’, to accept, to integrate into one’s symbolic universe, is none other than the Real of one’s desire, and the unconscious belief (that X could not happen) is ultimately a defence against the Real of desire: as viewers of Psycho, we desire the death of Arbogast, and the function of our belief that he will not be attacked by the ‘mother’-figure is precisely to enable us to avoid confronting the Real of our desire.

Psycho’s two great murder scenes = desire vs. drive And what Freud calls ‘drive’ – in opposition to the split nature of desire – is precisely the absolute ‘closure’ where what actually happens corresponds perfectly to what one knows exactly will happen… And what Freud calls ‘drive’ – in opposition to the split nature of desire – is precisely the absolute ‘closure’ where what actually happens corresponds perfectly to what one knows exactly will happen…

Psycho takes desire vs. drive beyond an abstract concept The first murder takes place in a motel epitomising anonymous American modernity The first murder takes place in a motel epitomising anonymous American modernity The second takes place in a Gothic house epitomising the American tradition The second takes place in a Gothic house epitomising the American tradition

Psycho takes desire vs. drive beyond an abstract concept This opposition – symbolised throughout the film’s contrapuntal visual design of horizontal and vertical lines – introduces more than an unexpected historical tension between tradition and modernity… This opposition – symbolised throughout the film’s contrapuntal visual design of horizontal and vertical lines – introduces more than an unexpected historical tension between tradition and modernity…

Psycho takes its opposition of desire and drive beyond an abstract concept It also locates Norman Bates’ notorious psychotic split spatially as a kind of impossible ‘mediator’ between tradition and modernity, condemned to circulate endlessly between the two spaces It also locates Norman Bates’ notorious psychotic split spatially as a kind of impossible ‘mediator’ between tradition and modernity, condemned to circulate endlessly between the two spaces Norman’s split thus epitomises the inability of American ideology to locate the experience of the present, actual society within a context of historical tradition, to enable a symbolic mediation between the two levels. Norman’s split thus epitomises the inability of American ideology to locate the experience of the present, actual society within a context of historical tradition, to enable a symbolic mediation between the two levels.

Psycho takes its opposition of desire and drive beyond an abstract concept Consequentially, the very duality of desire and drive can be conceived as a libidinal metaphor of the duality of modern and traditional society: Consequentially, the very duality of desire and drive can be conceived as a libidinal metaphor of the duality of modern and traditional society: The matrix of traditional society is that of a ‘drive’, circulating around the Same, repeating and reproducing the status quo The matrix of traditional society is that of a ‘drive’, circulating around the Same, repeating and reproducing the status quo Modern society is characterised by linear progress, embodied in the metonymic object- cause of desire that is money (e.g. $40,000) Modern society is characterised by linear progress, embodied in the metonymic object- cause of desire that is money (e.g. $40,000)

Psycho’s hybrid narrative: sticking together two contrary parts MA morality play in which, giving way to temptation, the heroine enters the path of damnation, only to be cured by the encounter with Norman, who confronts her with the abyss that awaits her – seeing a mirror-image of her own future, she soberly decides to return to normal life, the shower scene’s purification providing her narrative’s closure. NA traditional unravelling of the mystery of a pathological serial killer. Marion’s murder occurs in an interval between the two narrative parts: it plays a joke on the ideological presupposition that once the subject really ‘makes up his/her mind’, the carrying out of his/her inner decision in social reality will automatically follow… Marion’s murder occurs in an interval between the two narrative parts: it plays a joke on the ideological presupposition that once the subject really ‘makes up his/her mind’, the carrying out of his/her inner decision in social reality will automatically follow…

Psycho’s hybrid narrative: sticking together two contrary parts The entire subversive effect of Psycho hinges on putting together these two inconsistent pieces – mockingly reversing Aristophanes’ myth of ideal love from Plato’s Symposium, that men and women are all split halves of an idealised androgynous whole. The entire subversive effect of Psycho hinges on putting together these two inconsistent pieces – mockingly reversing Aristophanes’ myth of ideal love from Plato’s Symposium, that men and women are all split halves of an idealised androgynous whole. Taken alone, Psycho’s parts are consistent and harmonious – it is their fusion into a larger Whole which makes them unnatural Taken alone, Psycho’s parts are consistent and harmonious – it is their fusion into a larger Whole which makes them unnatural In contrast to the abrupt ending of Marion’s story, the second part seems to accord perfectly with the rules of ‘narrative closure’: at the end, everything is explained, put in its proper place… Yet on a closer look, the denouement proves far more ambiguous. In contrast to the abrupt ending of Marion’s story, the second part seems to accord perfectly with the rules of ‘narrative closure’: at the end, everything is explained, put in its proper place… Yet on a closer look, the denouement proves far more ambiguous.

Psycho’s androgynous narrative whole: the story of a Voice in search of its bearer How can film express the absence of embodiment – the presence of a subject in the absence of a physical being? How can film express the absence of embodiment – the presence of a subject in the absence of a physical being?

Ch.7 Ch.7

Psycho’s androgynous narrative whole: the story of a Voice in search of its bearer Psycho ends with the moment of ‘embodiment’ when we finally behold the body in which the Voice originates – traditionally a moment that should demystify the terrifying phantom-like Voice and dispel its power by enabling us (the viewers) to identify with its bearer… Psycho ends with the moment of ‘embodiment’ when we finally behold the body in which the Voice originates – traditionally a moment that should demystify the terrifying phantom-like Voice and dispel its power by enabling us (the viewers) to identify with its bearer… This reversal whereby the unfathomable Phantom assumes shape and body – reduced to a common measure – is not limited to horror movies ( The Wizard of Oz )

Psycho’s androgynous narrative whole: the story of a Voice in search of its bearer While Psycho also ‘embodies’ the Voice, the effect of it here is the exact opposite of ‘gentrification’, which makes possible our – the viewers’ – identification: it is only now that we confront an ‘absolute Otherness’ which precludes identification. The Voice has attached itself to the wrong body… While Psycho also ‘embodies’ the Voice, the effect of it here is the exact opposite of ‘gentrification’, which makes possible our – the viewers’ – identification: it is only now that we confront an ‘absolute Otherness’ which precludes identification. The Voice has attached itself to the wrong body… What we get is a true zombie, a pure creature of the Superego, totally powerless in itself (‘wouldn’t hurt a fly’), yet for that very reason all the more uncanny

Psycho’s androgynous narrative whole: the story of a Voice in search of its bearer The crucial feature of Psycho’s allegorical function is that at this precise moment when, finally, the Voice finds its body, Norman – in the penultimate shot of the film immediately preceding ‘The End’ – raises his gaze and looks directly into the camera (i.e. into us, the viewers) with a mocking expression which displays his awareness of our complicity: The crucial feature of Psycho’s allegorical function is that at this precise moment when, finally, the Voice finds its body, Norman – in the penultimate shot of the film immediately preceding ‘The End’ – raises his gaze and looks directly into the camera (i.e. into us, the viewers) with a mocking expression which displays his awareness of our complicity:

Psycho’s androgynous narrative whole: the story of a Voice in search of its bearer =The reversal of our gaze from ‘I’ (the viewing subject’s neutral gaze of the Ego-Ideal) to a (an object of the Other’s gaze). We look for the ‘secret behind the curtain’ (who is the shadow which pulls off the curtain and slaughters Marion?), and what we obtain at the end is a paradox: we always-already partake in the absolute Otherness which returns the gaze.

Pat Hitchcock’s character sees Cassidy’s ‘wad of cash’ in the real estate office and her reaction makes it into something more than it is; something obscene. Normally the ‘eye’ sees and integrates what it sees into a logical sense of reality: the Symbolic Order. But if some thing cannot be integrated in that way it leaves a stain Pat Hitchcock’s character sees Cassidy’s ‘wad of cash’ in the real estate office and her reaction makes it into something more than it is; something obscene. Normally the ‘eye’ sees and integrates what it sees into a logical sense of reality: the Symbolic Order. But if some thing cannot be integrated in that way it leaves a stain A triumph of the gaze over the eye

The transfixed gaze isolates a stain of the Real, a detail which ‘sticks out’ from the frame of symbolic reality – a traumatic surplus of the Real over the Symbolic; yet the crucial detail of these scenes is that this detail has no substance in itself – it is ‘substantiated’, caused, created by the transfixed gaze itself. The transfixed gaze isolates a stain of the Real, a detail which ‘sticks out’ from the frame of symbolic reality – a traumatic surplus of the Real over the Symbolic; yet the crucial detail of these scenes is that this detail has no substance in itself – it is ‘substantiated’, caused, created by the transfixed gaze itself. A triumph of the gaze over the eye

Norman’s final mocking gaze turns us into a stain of the Real, sticking out from the frame of symbolic reality – the diegetic reality that operates within a film – as creatures of his perversion: we are the Thing he/she desires but cannot have… Norman’s final mocking gaze turns us into a stain of the Real, sticking out from the frame of symbolic reality – the diegetic reality that operates within a film – as creatures of his perversion: we are the Thing he/she desires but cannot have… A triumph of the gaze over the eye

The clean white-tiled…bathroom [is part] of the [subsequent] ritual, with the mother’s voice standing by, saying: “If every rule of health is complied with, then you can enjoy life.” The clean white-tiled…bathroom [is part] of the [subsequent] ritual, with the mother’s voice standing by, saying: “If every rule of health is complied with, then you can enjoy life.” Margaret Mead in Male and Female (1949) links the mother’s voice with toilet training:

Unable to separate from the (m)Other, Norman fails to integrate into the Symbolic Order as a whole subject, an I (eye) whose truth can, like Marion’s, be seen and understood through others (her conversation with Norman releases her from her hysterical trap of desire). Unable to separate from the (m)Other, Norman fails to integrate into the Symbolic Order as a whole subject, an I (eye) whose truth can, like Marion’s, be seen and understood through others (her conversation with Norman releases her from her hysterical trap of desire). Dominated by the Voice of the (m)Other, Norman can only associate pleasure with filth and repression, killing automaton-like the Things he loves. Dominated by the Voice of the (m)Other, Norman can only associate pleasure with filth and repression, killing automaton-like the Things he loves.

Lila confronts an abject embodiment of the (m)Other

Bill Schaffer, ‘Cutting The Flow: Thinking Psycho’, April 2000 A suspenseful sequence can remain suspenseful even when I have seen it before, even if I know all too well what is about to happen and when. … A suspenseful sequence can remain suspenseful even when I have seen it before, even if I know all too well what is about to happen and when. …

Bill Schaffer, ‘Cutting The Flow: Thinking Psycho’, April 2000 What remains indeterminate even when the narrative outcome is certain, what may have changed in the interim since my first viewing and which may now be ready to reveal hitherto unknown dimensions, is not something in the film itself considered as an object kept at a distance, it is the film in me, as it lives in me. Ultimately, it is myself. What remains indeterminate even when the narrative outcome is certain, what may have changed in the interim since my first viewing and which may now be ready to reveal hitherto unknown dimensions, is not something in the film itself considered as an object kept at a distance, it is the film in me, as it lives in me. Ultimately, it is myself.

Bill Schaffer, ‘Cutting The Flow: Thinking Psycho’, April 2000 What I really hope / fear may emerge, at any instant whatever, is an image of my own secret body, an image of my fate, the body that is seen by time but does not appear in space: the virtual body which expresses me as pure possibility. What I really hope / fear may emerge, at any instant whatever, is an image of my own secret body, an image of my fate, the body that is seen by time but does not appear in space: the virtual body which expresses me as pure possibility.

Bill Schaffer, ‘Cutting The Flow: Thinking Psycho’, April 2000 Watching a Hitchcock film we are manipulated in a way that brings us to the threshold of an experience that cannot be manipulated, neither by director nor by viewer, a moment of 'real' affective risk … Watching a Hitchcock film we are manipulated in a way that brings us to the threshold of an experience that cannot be manipulated, neither by director nor by viewer, a moment of 'real' affective risk …

Bill Schaffer, ‘Cutting The Flow: Thinking Psycho’, April 2000 Thus the suspense in Hitchcock turns not only on the violent moment of convergence between opposed forces (already mastered by D.W. Griffith), but on the possibility that this will also function as a moment of reversal in which all of the characters change their relation to each other – and therefore force us to reconsider our relation to ourselves. Thus the suspense in Hitchcock turns not only on the violent moment of convergence between opposed forces (already mastered by D.W. Griffith), but on the possibility that this will also function as a moment of reversal in which all of the characters change their relation to each other – and therefore force us to reconsider our relation to ourselves.