| Author |
Topic |
|
|
Karel Bata
 369 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2006 : 3:18:23 PM
|
Killing your protagonist half way through the film?
In Psycho Hitchcock kills off Janet Leigh 30 mins into the movie. Is it the only mainstream film to ever do this?

It’s not at all unusual for protagonists to get killed off in movies, in fact the teen-slasher genre is all about guessing which one gets bumped off next. Nor is it unusual for the hero/heroine to die in the last reel. But the point is that if it's been established they are the main protagonist their death inevitably signals the end of the movie. What happens in Psycho is rather unique.

Let’s go back to basics. Here’s a good dictionary definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/protagonist
What is briefly discussed there is the example of Othello. Who is the protagonist? Our focus of attention shifts from one character to another, and we may feel sympathy for Desdamona, but it is Othello who is clearly the protagonist. You can kill off Iago or Desdamona (in fact Shakespeare does) and this moves the plot on, but kill Othello and your story has clearly reached the end.
(Othello is also interesting because the protagonist never gets the chance to pursue a third act to redeem himself (the death of Iago doesn’t count – that's just a crowd pleaser to make us feel that some kind of justice has been done, and is not part of Othello's character arc) instead he is left stranded in his grief and guilt with death the only exit from his pain, and he knows it, which is what makes the play a tragedy. In a film this lack of a third act is very unusual, and often leaves us feeling that the story is somehow downbeat and unfinished. “Is that it?” we’re inclined to say. Full Metal Jacket is an example.)
In a Multiple Protagonist film you have more freedom to kill off your characters. As happens in most horror movies - after all you need a body count! But you can't kill just any of them. Some will perform a function that makes them indispensable till the last reel. Look at The Magnificent Seven. You could kill off any one of four of the leads mid-way and you'd be o.k. (though it would then be the Magnificent Six). But if you bumped off either Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen, or Horst Buscholtz (the young buck) your story would have a real problem. Likewise Eli Wallach, the antagonist, has to stay till the end. It’s also interesting to note that there is an another protagonist here – the group itself. The group can shrink - like in Final Destination - and may even gain more cohesiveness in the process, but in a film that is essentially about the formation and life of a group then once it is decisively broken up the movie is over.
Then we have films with a fractured timeline. Sunset Boulevard starts with The Protagonist literally dead in the water. The story is then told in flashback, and he actually gets shot in the last reel. Citizen Kane does the same thing.
The death of John Travolta in Pulp Fiction, which was mentioned on SP Wednesday, doesn’t really count – it’s a multiple protagonist film. However, let’s run with it. If you were to unravel the timeline, you would find a three act structure bookended by Samuel L Jackson as the main protagonist. Everything else is a sub-plot. Travolta has an entertaining evening with Uma Thurman, but in the end he learns nothing and his death only goes to underscore the lesson Jackson has learned from ‘the miracle’. Jackson then follows his path of biblical redemption by not killing Pumpkin and Honey Bunny, and the very last thing to happen chronologically is his walking out of the café to a (supposedly) better life. Nothing too unusual there.
As for films like The Sixth Sense or The Crow where the protagonists die and come back to life in some other form - well... they're still very much alive and kicking aren't they?
So (whew!) Joseph Stefano’s script for Psycho… First you have to forget all the cliches this genre has taken and developed in the half century since it's release to appreciate how fresh this once was.
For 20 minutes we follow Janet Leigh. She is very clearly The Protagonist. I don’t think we even see her boyfriend’s face. By the time she gets to the Bates' motel all the other characters have been left behind. But our feelings towards her are ambivalent. She is sexually promiscuous (by 1960 standards) and a thief. Still, she is appealing, is clearly bothered by her crime, and (it’s a Hitchcock movie) we’ve seen her in her underwear, so we like her.
Then, very late into the story, Anthony Perkins is introduced. But he is not presented as the villain and the film’s true Antagonist. Instead we see him as shy and likeable (if a bit odd) with a problematic domineering mother. Leigh is even unpleasant to him, which elicits our sympathy.
There is an absolutely key scene where Perkins watches Leigh through a hole in the wall taking a shower. What’s important is that we see this from Perkins’ point of view, and are encouraged to identify with him. We are first surprised at what he’s up to, then share a moment of voyeurism as we watch Leigh get her kit off, but before we have time to reject Perkins as a pervert, he expresses regret and decides to confront his mother. He’s not the hero, but plays the victim of circumstances, and we’re rooting for him. If you were to change one element of that scene the movie would take a very different course.
Then we have the shower scene which provides the main shock in the film - the heroine of the movie is brutally slain in front of us. Where can the film now go?
What it does is follow Perkins. He becomes The Protagonist. It’s worth noting that at this point, and right up to the end of the movie, we’re not meant to realise who the real killer is. This gives the film a great shock ending, but anything else would have alienated the audience. It was 1960 after all, and though they expected something ghoulish from Hitchcock, they would not have gone along with identifying with a brutal serial killer. Up till then Hitchcock’s heroes and villains were very clear cut.
(To me that ‘psychiatrist’ scene at the end seems very tacked on, and I do wonder, if he were alive now and given the opportunity of a director’s cut on DVD, if he might have chosen to excise it.)
So, to my mind Psycho is unique in this respect. I don’t know of any other film where The Protagonist is killed off, and is replaced by another character who is not introduced until 20 minutes into the movie (and is in fact The Antagonist!) who then goes on to become the film’s main protagonist.
Or does anybody know of another…?

|
|
|
David Goldman

47 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 09:27:39 AM
|
You know what would happen if that were made now? They'd be told to cut the crap, lose the first 20 minutes, and go straight to the motel. After all, you have to see the villain in the first ten minutes...
I think that happens a lot these days. Blame the likes of Robert McKee.
So, UKFF is being risen from the dead? (cool smileys )
Back to work now. 
|
 |
|
|
Karel Bata

369 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 11:34:07 AM
|
You don't think you're being unduly pessimistic? |
 |
|
|
David Goldman

47 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 11:59:44 AM
|
Are you being devil's advocate? 
Hitchcock was allowed to make psycho because he was Hitchcock. Kubrick got to make full metal jacket because he was Kubrick.
The rest of us are told to go and read Syd Mead again... 
|
 |
|
|
Mary Gallagher

5 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 12:58:24 PM
|
It must be at least ten years since I saw Psycho. I remember it was like watching two different films back to back. I didn't like that Kubrik film at all.
How do I get a nice picture like you have on the left? |
 |
|
|
My Name is Nuanda

11 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 1:24:28 PM
|
David, I think you may have been right up till a few years ago, but things have loosened up with regards to structure a lot recently. Have you seen Crash, Memento, or 21 grams? Pulp Fiction had a lot to do with that. Even Syd Mead has removed the page numbering from his 'paradigm' in the latest version of his book.
Mary, send Karel a PM of the picture you want to use. |
 |
|
|
Karel Bata

369 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 2:30:48 PM
|
Linda Aronson has a lot to say about movies like that. I went to a seminar of hers recently and hotly recommend it.
She points out that what a lot of recent films playing with structure do is take the second act crisis and put it at the beginning, let that run for a bit, then flash back to the chronological beginning of the story. What that does is to immediately engage the audience's attention, and makes getting through all that business of setting up the character/location/etc. a lot easier and more interesting for the viewer.
For example, if you wanted to spice up Lawrence of Arabia (which is a bit slow and dull to a modern audience) you move the climatic attack on the train to the beginning of the film, have Lawrence emerge with blood on his hands looking wild, then dissolve back to what used to be the original opening scenes. There we have a gawky, awkward, but engaging younger Lawrence who has not yet seen the horrors of war. What now makes him more interesting is that we've had a glimpse of the man he will become and so we are all the more intrigued.

Do I sound pompous sometimes? 
|
 |
|
|
My Name is Nuanda

11 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 2:38:11 PM
|
Yes. Does it worry you?
David Lean will be turning in his grave. 
|
 |
|
|
Karel Bata

369 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 4:07:38 PM
|
Mary, your avatar is now up and running. Welcome to UKFF.
Nuanda, I'm sure that David Lean would thank me for improving his film. 
|
 |
|
|
Mary Gallagher

5 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 5:01:24 PM
|
| Thank you. That's really cool. :-) |
 |
|
|
Lee Scoresby

57 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 6:51:50 PM
|
Pompous? Are you kidding? All this theory is a complete waste of time. You could have written a few pages of script today. Instead you wrote this junk. David Lean would spit on you. No really he would. He was a rude bastard. There's dozens of books about script theory, but are they written by people who actually write any scripts?? All they give you is one formula after another. Do you stick charts up on the wall? Do they help?
Sit down and write it. Then go shoot it, and if its not good in the editing shoot some more. From that learn how to do it. The practical way. Not from books on theory!
|
 |
|
|
Peter Nunn

153 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 8:45:40 PM
|
Groan. There's always one.
Lee, have you never made mistakes? Like time and again, and then someone shows you how to do it right and it's like a veil has been lifted? Have you never seen other people with bad habits because they never bothered to learn? Can you imagine how many centuries it took to work out how to make a wheel? And if only they had books with pictures in those days? Do you really not think you might have something to learn from those who look closely at how films are put together and what makes them tick?
Did you read the above stuff at all? Didn't you find any of it interesting or relevant? Is it really completely useless to you?
Karel - I like your choice of stills.  |
 |
|
|
Karel Bata

369 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2006 : 11:17:09 AM
|
I'm sure that Lee has my best interests at heart, and I thank him for his concern.
He's right you know. Maybe it is a waste of time writing anything here, and we should spend our times more productively.
That said, I did find writing that essay above to be useful. Having to argue something helps clarify the issues. I originally posted what I regarded as a simple question on SP, and was then taken aback by how no-one seemed to see my point. In fact a couple of responses seemed to see my query as idiotic. When my view of the world appears to be out of kilter with everyone else's it does bother me, so i started asking myself how justified my thoughts about Psycho were, and wrote it down.
I think I got a bit sidetracked in the Othello bit, but once it was there it seemed a shame to delete it. An editor would have kicked it out, but hey - I'm in charge, so it's my 'director's cut' - and they're always way too long. 
|
 |
|
|
Lee Scoresby

57 Posts |
Posted - 12 Mar 2006 : 12:03:23 AM
|
quote: I'm sure that Lee has my best interests at heart
You got it man. I don't mean you no ill will. Comes a time when you got to stop talking about it and do it. You sound like intelligent bozos so get on with it! I bet youll make soem really cool films. But not while youre siting on your asses yattering film theory.
Peace. 
|
 |
|
|
Peter Nunn

153 Posts |
Posted - 12 Mar 2006 : 08:58:25 AM
|
He's a stoner! |
 |
|
|
Karel Bata

369 Posts |
Posted - 12 Mar 2006 : 11:37:51 PM
|
Stoners are welcome here too (after all, we're desperate!)
Did you see that post in today's SP attacking their new website - particlularly the removal of the resources, which baffles me too - and accusing the main forum of a lack of professionalism?
I'm interested to see what happens tomorrow....  |
 |
|
|
Karel Bata

369 Posts |
Posted - 13 Mar 2006 : 09:05:30 AM
|
And a big "Well done!" to John T, who emailed me this privately:
"I agree that Psycho is unique, but the closest I can think of (not surprisingly) is a Brian De Palma film called Sisters aka Blood Sisters where Lisle Wilson's character is the protagonist initially but is killed some way (20 minutes or more?) into the film. The Jennifer Salt character then becomes the protagonist. I think she may have been introduced just before the murder but it is not at that stage clear how important she will become." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070698/ Someone else suggested Dressed to Kill, but if my memory serves me at all well, I remember Angie Dickinson being murdered only minutes into the movie - in fact, weren't the credits rolling as she took that shower? I could be wrong.
I know of one other film - A Town Called Bastard, in which Telly Savalas is despatched half way through, to be replaced by newcomer Robert Shaw. All the secondary characters remained. I saw it as a schoolboy and remember sitting bolt upright and thinking, "Hold on, you can't do that!" (I saw my daughter do exactly that, using the very same words, during North by North-West, when Cary Grant appears to be shot and killed. Only he was pretending. So that doesn't count!)
|
 |
|
|
davebluez
1 Posts |
Posted - 13 Mar 2006 : 7:19:56 PM
|
Hi chaps
I'm the new bloke. Greetings all.
With regards to protag killing, although not in the same league as Psycho, I thought I'd mention that Mr Craven did it quite nicely in the first installment of 'Scream', by setting up Drew Barrymore as the protag and then ruthlessly removing her from the equation.
That was a rather unexpected move. (Well, at least until the first review appeared...) |
 |
|
|
Karel Bata

369 Posts |
Posted - 14 Mar 2006 : 1:21:07 PM
|
Hi Dave. so you're member 392! Hope to see more of you. Clearly we never should have closed...
Scream is a cool film full of movie in-jokes. I'm not surprised that Mr. Craven plays with our expectations by despatching Drew Barrymore like that, and that's the point - it is the joke.
Maybe that's the secret to pulling that device off - you make it a very up-front feature of the plot. Do it casually and the audience thinks "what the..!" but use it as an in-yer-face plot twist, or a joke, and it works.
I think it's one of the few things you can do now that is still fresh.
|
 |
|
|
Peter Nunn

153 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 11:37:32 AM
|
quote: I remember Angie Dickinson being murdered only minutes into the movie - in fact, weren't the credits rolling as she took that shower?
That was Carrie. Another DePalma film.
Angie Dickinson sticks around for a while. Michael Caine, the psychiatrist at the beginning, turns out to be the murderer (I think). So he's there all the way through.
|
 |
|
|
Karel Bata

369 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2006 : 9:14:40 PM
|
Peter the Pedant 
I watched A Town Called Bastard last night. Certainly Telly Savalas is killed off unexpectedly - though you don't actually see him die. But there's plenty of other characters who are there from the outset with equal status, including a gorgeous Stella Stevens who sleeps in a coffin! Weird film.
Anyway, that makes Psycho unique. 
|
 |
|
|
Karel Bata

369 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2007 : 9:52:21 PM
|
I sadly got my answer to the riddle of why Psycho is the only movie to kill off it's protagonist after 30 minutes in the Guardian obituary to Joseph Stefano:
When Stefano met Hitchcock to discuss the script of Psycho, he confessed to having a problem with the material; principally, he disliked the character of Norman Bates. In Robert Bloch's 1959 novel, Bates is plump, balding, bespectacled and 40 years old. "I really could not get involved with a man in his 40s who is drunk and peeps through holes," reflected Stefano. "The other problem was that there was a horrendous murder of a stranger I didn't care about either. I just kept saying to Hitch, 'I wish I knew this girl. I wish Norman were somebody else."'
Consequently, Stefano suggested that the screenplay begin with the character of Marion Crane, who steals $40,000 from her Phoenix, Arizona, employer to begin a new life with her lover but is murdered after stopping at the Bates motel. "Audiences would be sucked into a character who did something wrong but was really a good person," Stefano said. "They would feel as if they, not Marion, had stolen the money. When she dies, the audience would be the victim. With so much early emphasis on Marion, no one dreams she'll get killed. Killing the leading lady (Janet Leigh) in the first 20 minutes had never been done before." (Or since...)

As to the writer's qualms about the central male character, Hitchcock pacified Stefano by asking, "How would you feel if Norman were played by Anthony Perkins?" Stefano was delighted. "I suddenly saw a tender young man you could feel incredibly sorry for," he recalled. "I could really rope in an audience with someone like him." Hitchcock's motives in suggesting the lean, lanky and boyish-looking 28-year-old Perkins were not wholly artistic, though he enjoyed the idea of evil disguised as innocence. He knew that the actor owed Paramount a film under an old contract and could be hired relatively cheaply - for $40,000, the same amount that Marion stole.
Coincidentally, both Stefano and Perkins were in psychotherapy when they were hired by Hitchcock. A weirder coincidence was that Stefano had no idea that Perkins' father had died of a heart attack when his son was five, the same age as Norman at his father's death. Nor was Stefano aware of Perkins' intensely close relationship with his widowed mother.
Stefano was interested in how a formidable and over-protective mother could turn Norman Bates into a killer. So he wrote a scene between the adolescent Norman and his mother that was never intended to be shot. In it, the pair are larking about on the floor. Suddenly, Mrs Bates discovers that her son has an erection and her joy turns to hysterical anger. Screaming that he must forget that he has such a disgusting part of the body, she pulls a dress over his head, smears his face with lipstick and locks him in a closet.
Joseph Stephano 1922 - 2006 |
 |
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|