SUNSET BLVD: NOT HORROR!

It's a debate that perplexes me. I balked at the notion decades ago when someone (albeit with decent intent) dared to compare Billy Wilder's 1950 hit, Sunset Boulevard, as being cut from the same dark cloth as Psycho and What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? After many years of contemplation (hearing all the pros and cons), I'm even more adverse to the idea now. Shoot, I nearly came to blows with a know-it-all who tried to shove the idea down my throat at a New Year's party, but I settled instead on setting the record straight through a refined, verbal lashing. I'll now recount my pompous position for this post.  

Sunset Boulevard has been categorized as "hag horror," but it's not, let alone does it hold the consequential, warped-clan/incestuous seeds that inevitably seep from such, not by a long shot. It's more in tune with John Brahm/Charles Beaumont/Jerry Sohl's Twilight Zone episode, "Queen of the Nile," but "Queen" has a distinct, supernatural bent, whereas Wilder's movie (which he not only directed, but cowrote) has none. It's about an eccentric recluse who wishes to relive her days of glory. That's not horror. That's not out of the ordinary. If anything, it comes across as a later-day slice of costume drama, empowered by Wilder's excellent execution, Gloria Swanson's over-the-top performance as Norma Desmond and William Holden's charismatic inclusion as Joe Gillis, the eyes through which one experiences the tale. 

Sunset Boulevard isn't wrought with substantial, psychological warfare, either, in the way of Baby Jane, and it doesn't hit the shock value of Psycho or its sequels, let alone its deviations through the "reality-grounded" horrors of the Texas Chain Saw Massacre queue or the likes of Homicidal; Strait Jacket; Hush ... Hush, Sweet Charlotte; Willard; Dementia 13; Spider Baby; Three on a Meathook; Magic; Deranged; and well, the maniacal sub-genre goes on and on. 

Unfortunately, so does the irritating, nonsensical debate. Heck, Sunset Boulevard was even referenced as hag horror in a recent Scary Monsters, but dang it, folks, it's not horror! It's not even a general thriller, though it does hold a few edgy elements. It's no more than a quirky quasi-comedy with a surprise wraparound.  

You know, I'd sooner step forth and say, due to the production's flamboyant margins, it's something that the drag-queen crowd would appreciate, and that crowd doesn't liken its antics to horror, unless one considers Dr. Frank-N-Furter, and he's never been a genuine embodiment of horror, no matter who argues the point. (We all know that Rocky Horror is more of a "pride parade" disguised as a monster movie, and there ain't no shame in that.)

For the record, Sunset Boulevard was also the basis for an Andrew Lloyd Webber/Don Black musical, and all for good cause. Its content meshes with that frilly-dilly sort of thing, and don't be a wiseass and try to compare it to Webber/Charles Hart's Phantom of the Opera, let alone its underrated sequel. Those productions are impassioned animals all unto themselves, and indeed, horror-sprung, regardless of their pretty polish.  

Anyway, there you have my two cents worth on Sunset Boulevard. For me, I hope this puts an end to the banter, at least when it comes to my vexed presence, and opens the door for worthier quarrels, like "Is Robert Eggers' Nosferatu a true-blue, Christmas movie?" Now, that's something worth debating.

R.I.P. PAT HITCHCOCK...

You were a natural actress and shined whenever the opportunity arose, Ms. Hitchcock, as in your father's classics, Stage Fright, Strangers on a Train and Psycho. 

Your work on Alfred Hitchcock Presents is also impressive and gave fans the chance to delight in your warm and welcoming aura. 

In addition, your insights regarding your father's work have been studied and savored over these many years and will continue to enlighten those who appreciate quality filmmaking. 

May you now join your dad in Heaven, where the two of you will no doubt tremble the clouds with good-spirited suspense. 

PSYCHO '60 RETURNS TO THE BIG SCREEN

For sixty years, Alfred Hitchcock's film adaptation of Robert Bloch's "Psycho" has endured as one of the greatest thrillers ever to splatter the silver screen. 

That's because the movie, like Bloch's novel, is rich in atmospheric character, even if the film and book hold their differences (in particular when it comes to the physical semblance of beleaguered Norman Bates). It's all okay, because Hitch's movie (thanks to his taut direction and supreme sense of pacing, backed by Joseph Stefano's crackerjack script) captures the deranged core and sadistic structure of Bloch's Ed Gein-inspired fiction.

Now, to commemorate the 60th anniversary of this groundbreaking, cinematic release, Fathom and TCM (courtesy of Fandango) have re-teamed to show the movie again in theaters, Oct 11 & 12 (at varying times at various venues nationwide).

This big-screen revival is an ideal way to celebrate "Psycho'"s impact on popular culture, and it's not only for the aforementioned reasons. The movie holds a shocking climax; a pulse-pounding Bernard Herrmann soundtrack; a jolting, Saul Bass credits sequence; Edward Hopper-ish ambiance; haunting John L. Russell photography; and an engaging, across-the-board cast: Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, John Gavin, Vera Miles, Martin Balsam, John McIntire, Vaughn Taylor, Simon Oakland, John Anderson, Frank Albertson, Mort Mills, Pat Hitchcock and Jeanette Nolan as the voice of Norma Bates, aka Mother. (Even Ted Knight gets a cool cameo.) Every aspect of this one is perfect, which is why "Psycho" is considered one of the irrefutable (and creepiest) creme de la creme.

One might wish to weather the pandemic paranoia and embrace this Paramount (pun intended) presentation. All one needs is a ticket, a mask and a trusty pair of balls, and that's just to get into the theater (wink, wink). From there, Hitch's masterpiece will sever the nerves as it warms the heart with macabre nostalgia. 

"Psycho" is way too good to miss, no matter how many times one has seen it.

HAPPY 60TH, PSYCHO!!!

On September 8, 1960, Alfred Hitchcock's adaptation of Robert Bloch's macabre novel, "Psycho" held its nationwide premiere. Adapted by Joseph "The Outer Limits" Stefano, "Psycho" headlined Janet Leigh, John Gavin, Vera Miles, Martin Balsam and in a career-defining role, Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates.

The production was made with a television crew, and though low-budgeted, "Psycho" brimmed with style and class, abetted by Bernard Hermman's iconic score. 

"Psycho" was such a sensation that it inspired a host of similar films, such as "Homicidal"; "Dementia 13"; "Black Autumn"; and even the ultra-gory "Blood Feast"; in addition to spawning three, official sequels; a remake; a "Twilight Zone"-ish television pilot; the A&E "Bates Motel" cable series; and titles like "Black Christmas"; "Halloween"; and "Friday the 13th".

Beyond a doubt, "Psycho" set the standard for cinematic sadness and madness--and endless, shower-scene scares. It has continued to shine with the test of time and will no doubt continue for as long as the horror genre thrives. 

An Alternate Reality: Fact, Fiction and Sharon Tate

Not long ago, some pompous ass insisted that I justify my disdain for real-life serial killers (and/or attested, murderous vermin of any sort) and yet was cool with the likes of Norman Bates and Leatherface. In my defense, I dealt the following: One of my novels concludes with a bank heist. I don’t condone bank heists, and yet I inserted one into my melodrama to brush it with real-life resonance. 

Norman Bates and Leatherface are based on real-life killer, Ed Gein, but that doesn’t mean I'm cool with Gein's dreadful deeds. I do, however, understand (accept) how Gein influenced the traits of a couple fictional characters, who if the truth be known, possess more differences than similarities to their inspiration. 

In a similar way, I despise Charles Manson and his “family” because they're the genuine, heinous deal. When I spot some out-of-the-loop kid sporting Manson's mangy scowl on a t-shirt, it enrages me. I see true evil exalted and not some conceptualized, emblematic entity who just so happens to be evil or criminally crazy: a character like the Joker, that is. Dig? 

Now this leads me to Quentin Tarantino's epic, “Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood”, a film I should have caught at the theater, but due to time constraints, experienced late in the going via disc. 

Tarantino's epic grazes upon gruesome, true-crime events, but in the writer/director's not-without-controversy account, significant details are altered. Sharon Tate (SPOILER) dodges her death through a justice-served climax. This artistic twist appeals to me. As such, the Manson aspects are easier to swallow. Manson and his Family aren't celebrated in Tarantino's tale; Tate is (in addition to several authentic and fabricated personalities). 

Why would my acceptance of any such embellishment be unacceptable? It comes down to dramatic license, right? That's why Tarantino rearranged the historic variables. The same no doubt can be said of Robert Bloch, Joseph Stefano, Alfred Hitchcock, Kim Henkle and Tobe Hooper, not to mention anyone who's ever essayed speculative scenarios on the Zodiac Killer and Jack the Ripper. (And that whole Dexter Morgan phenomenon is yet another fascinating spin, but that's another topic for another time.) 

I wish Sharon Tate hadn't died the horrible way she had. The same goes for the Manson Family's other victims, which include Tate's unborn child. I wish that the godforsaken Family hadn't gained  rebellious respect among certain callous quarters. A story that stomps on the fiends' blasphemous legacy pleases me, even if it presents examples of brutality to bracket its point, as do "Psycho" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". 

Good is good; bad is bad. The same goes for the divide of real and fake. If some pompous ass can't separate the two (whether it be for the sake of a horror story or revisionist history), then perhaps he should stick it where the sun doesn't shine and let folks like me enjoy what we do for the sensible reasons we do. And for that suggestion, I offer no justification. 

HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY 2019!!!

TERRIFIC TEAM-UP IMAGE: HITCHCOCK VS CASTLE/PSYCHO MEETS HOMICIDAL

Bates Returns for the Fifth and Final Stab!!!

It's been quite a psychotic ride for A&E's "Bates Motel": a parallel path to the acclaimed "Psycho" literary and film franchises. At times, it's been more of a mad soap opera than all-out horror. There's no doubt that the new-century Norman Bates, played to chilling effect by Freddie Highmore, certainly experienced more success with the ladies (well, at least of a potential sort) than his towering predecessor, portrayed by the legendary Anthony Perkins. I can't say that's necessarily a plus, but for better or worse, it's simply a bloody (pun intended) fact. 

It does appear that the teenage mush has at long last gone bye-bye, which for the sake of the show's lead character, only leaves more demented paths for him to travel. For example, as we begin Season 5, two years have passed, with the endearing but domineering Norma (Vera Farmiga) long defunct, yet lingering as an imaginary specter/Sister Hyde, as well as a preserved corpse. Her haunting presence should give Highmore lots to work with through the new season's inevitable, unsettling scenarios. With this in mind, the set-up could gain an even stronger Hitchcockian slant, along with the appropriate nods to Robert Bloch's novel and sequels. I, for one, would delight in such a blend. 

Also, Marion Crane will make her mythic entrance, this time played by pop-icon Rhianna. Will she arrive early or late in the season? Who can say, outside of those who've fashioned it? For certain, though, fans will be watching with great anticipation.  

I'm confident, too, that viewers will be biting their nails regarding the fates of steadfast Sheriff Romero (Nestor Carbonell); diligent Dylan Massett (Max Thieriot); woeful Caleb Calhoun (Kenny Johnson); faithful Chick Hogan (Ryan Hurst); and conscientious Emma DeCody (Olivia Cook). Where will the madness take them? Will they survive, flee, or...well, this is Norman's world, after all, and so...

Personally, I don't think Season 5 needs to end "Psycho'"s latest incarnation. Perkins made superb use of Norman for four terrific films. There's no reason why after a few years, Highmore couldn't return from, let's say, an institution, supposedly cured and start anew before slipping again. Perhaps we could even see his extended story unfold within a hospital, meeting people, killing them...escaping (maybe running off with his good buddy, Michael Myers, only then to be captured and analyzed by that compassionate crackerjack, Hannibal Lecter--ha,ha). Indeed, for those willing to broaden their minds, the sky's the hellish limit for our precious Hamlet of Horror, but for now, seeing the fruition of his early phases should more than fulfill. 

"Bates Motel: Season 5" commences Monday (Feb 20) at 10 pm.

HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY 2016!!!

A&E Presents a Damien/Norman Double Feature!!!

On March 7 (an already packed night in television programming), A&E will give horror fans a double-whammy treat, with a pairing of revisionist views on Norman Bates and Damien Thorn.

"Bates Motel" is now in its fourth season (as most surely know) and this hit retelling of Norman's early years (a concept presented first in "Psycho IV") has gained a following that few series can match, with Freddie Highmore embodying Anthony Perkins' most celebrated role and Vera Farmiga as his dear, domineering mother, Norma. (Nestor Carbonell is also engaging as the diligent Sheriff Romero.)

As a lifelong "Psycho" fan (which includes all the Perkins films, the ill-fated "Bates Motel '87" pilot, and Robert Bloch's superb, literary submissions), I find A&E's excursion a splendid, demented diversion. This season promises to push Norman deeper into his psychotic depths, and I'm most anxious to embrace the oncoming depravity.

On the "Omen-ous" side, Bradley ("Merlin") James enters as a thirty-year-old, war photographer version of Damien Thorn. This Damien has a fuzzy memory, having supposedly tossed his devilish urges to the side, but for how long can the Son of Satan stay stable, especially with his faithful guardian, Ann Rutledge (Barbara Hershey), encouraging the evil along? (Say, isn't Ann Rutledge the name of Abe Lincoln's first love? Ah, no matter; what's in a name?)

How this extension will measure up to the film franchise is anyone guess, but as an "Omen" fan, I'm intrigued to see what diabolical paths it may travel. (And hey, for sentiment's sake, Gregory Peck and Lee Remick will make flashback cameos. Can't beat that.)

There's no doubt A&E has a strong set-up here. Too bad the executives were unable to throw "Hannibal" into the mix, but I guess when it comes to horror team-ups, one can't have everything...well, at least not yet.