78/52: Hitchcock’s Shower Scene is a ninety-one minute documentary that analyzes every aspect of the iconic Psycho shower scene—in the greater context of history, film history and culture and the symbolic meaning of every moment within the film up to and through that sequence. It is a must see documentary for film lovers generally and Hitchcock fans specifically, but if you are simply a person who enjoys watching film for entertainment and are wondering how to plunge into the deeper meaning behind the movies that you watch, this film provides a great example of the many ways that you can excavate significance from a film without shelling out several grand to go to your nearest academic institution.
The documentary’s title, 78/52: Hitchcock’s Shower Scene, stems from Hitchcock’s seventy-eight camera set ups and fifty-two editorial cuts. The film does not assume that everyone will agree to the significance of this scene, but takes great pains to make sure that a viewer understands that at a minimum, it was the most significant scene to Hitchcock given the amount of time, energy and resources that he devoted to this scene. Hitchcock even says that this murder scene made him interested in making Psycho after a series of technicolor, more conventional hits. By the end of the documentary, it explores how this scene has generally entered human consciousness even if a person has never seen Psycho. I think that the documentary succeeds in making its case, but I also agreed with its premise before seeing this movie.
I love films like 78/52: Hitchcock’s Shower Scene because they see the world as I do. Every moment is imbued with significance, and if you ignore that significance, you are not deriving the complete value from that experience and leaving gems on the ground. It is not possible for any one person to understand everything about a moment so this film gives us a rare opportunity to have a kind of post-film outing that you normally only have with your friends to discuss what you watched and find out what other people think of this common, shared experience. You can share a space and an experience, but the resulting reactions can wildly differ from this common starting point. Communion over a single scene transcends the practical restrictions of time, space or temporal connections.
78/52: Hitchcock’s Shower Scene is a delightful mix of archival footage and interviews from talking heads that range from being in academia, having a direct connection to the film from either working on it or being related to someone who worked on it or are filmmakers-actors, producers, directors. While the average film lover may not instantly identify most of the participants’ faces, a simple IMDb search will elicit screams of recognition. Some of my favorite familiar interviewees were Jamie Lee Curtis, Elijah Wood, Guillermo del Toro, Camino and Raze’s Josh C. Waller, Camino’s Kreng, Color Out of Space’s Richard Stanley and Daniel Noah, Destroyer’s Karyn Kusama, Stephen King television miniseries’ adapter Mick Garris, Upgrade’s Leigh Whannell, my fave directing duo Justin Benson and Aaron Moorhead, The Descent’s Neil Marshall, Marvel editor Jeffrey Ford, Eli Roth, Ileanna Douglas, Peter Bogdanovich, Danny Elfman and Bret Easton Ellis. Part of the joy of this documentary is watching these accomplished people fangirl over Psycho while showing their intellectual side.
If I had to choose one person’s commentary to exclusively focus on in 78/52: Hitchcock’s Shower Scene, it would be editor Chris Innis, who worked on The Hurt Locker because her insight perfectly pairs the practical with theory, which includes her explanation of the psychological cut. If I was permitted to expand my scope to a more academic, intellectual approach with less fangirling as their more famous counterparts, Stephen Rebello and Marco Calavita provide film analysis with a political, socioeconomic historical insight of the broader international context. Osgood Perkins definitely has a unique, cinematic perspective as a director and descendant viewing this film. The Academy Award winning editor of The Conversation’s Walter Murch provides an expert shot by shot analysis of the scene.
My favorite aspect of the commentary is delving into the detail of the painting over the peephole in Psycho. I was familiar with the painting, but did not recognize it when I watched the movie. Without 78/52: Hitchcock’s Shower Scene, I would have left meaning discarded on the ground, and I am someone looking for it. This film is not only about a film, but also about the nature of movies—that they are best experienced as a group activity with multiple eyes rooted in and bringing different experiences to the film so they can collectively and fully appreciate every aspect of the film whether or not it is intentionally a part of the film.
If I had to complain about 78/52: Hitchcock’s Shower Scene, it is the unnecessary recreations of some scenes from Psycho. They just are never going to be as good as the original, and the documentary already uses archival footage, so I do not understand why the filmmaker did not continue to do so. It is the weakest point of the film and an inauspicious beginning of a remarkable documentary. It was a wise choice to make the entire documentary black and white so it was less jarring when toggling between commentary and the original film. The interviewees are placed in an environment similar to the décor of the motel in Psycho.
The most controversial moment in 78/52: Hitchcock’s Shower Scene is the suggestion that after the titular scene, the remainder of Psycho is comparatively boring, which I would have to agree. I definitely want to rewatch Psycho with the benefit of more years/experience to see if I would still feel similarly as I did after my initial viewing. It felt vaguely disappointing that the reality of my viewing of the entire film was underwhelming in comparison to my imagination of the film derived from the music and specific shots from this scene.
I also loved the inherent respect that 78/52: Hitchcock’s Shower Scene has for horror films as shown by its choice of commenters. There is a genuine appreciation for all the tools that go into terror: the score, the diegetic sound, the mise en scene, the editing style and the acting choices. The violence of a cut, editing, enhances the violence of the scene.
I adored Douglas’ question of “Who is the menacing figure,” i.e. the shadowy figure with the knife standing at the shower. Even though we know the actual answer, this moment provides a blank space for each viewer to project their fear on this person, which makes it scarier than the reality, which can feel somewhat anticlimactic until Bates Motel revisits it and delves into the psychological profile. The real terror for me is this figure destroys everything. This person has no respect for any boundary: the fiction that money can purchase privacy, space, security and solitary sanctuary. This person punctures the fiction that doors, shower curtains and flesh provide by transgressing every boundary regardless of its solidity.
If I left 78/52: Hitchcock’s Shower Scene with one question, it was how did Wood, Waller and Noah know each other? I highly recommend that you check out this film whether or not you are a film lover if you are interested in learning more about this film or film analysis.
