Film adaptations are often argued to be unfaithful and blasphemous destructions of a treasured piece. However, Alfred Hitchcock’s adaptation of the novel Psycho by Robert Bloch, was both striking and well-received. Although Hitchcock’s work was not a complete replicant of it’s source, it still can be regarded as faithful to its given medium.
Robert Stam, author of Beyond Fidelity: The Dialogics of Adaptation, argues that adaptations are meant to be automatically different and original due to the change of medium. This implies that iconophobia must be put to rest, and instead there should be a greater regard for the resources each medium offers. Film, in Hitchcock’s case was advantageous in allowing a merge of simultaneous elements (E.g. quick music and stabbing).
…show more content…
Unlike the book which introduced Norman first, the film followed the story of Marione. The audience perceived her as the protagonist, and develops a connection with her, making her death more shocking. Additionally, placing Marione’s story first takes the role of the chapter Bloch wrote on her tragic backstory. By playing with restricted narration, the audience grows attached in a similar means as the book, but in an effective method for film which lacks the time to etch out her entire backstory.
Furthermore, Norman was played in the film by a skinny man who enjoyed conversing with Marione, which diverges from the original character who was fat and embarrassed. Making Norman skinny and talkative, created a guise, where he could be interpreted as small, harmless, and weak. This also provided reason for Norman to be on screen, as in the book much of what Norman said was to himself, due to his embarrassed and meek nature, which would not be as powerful in a film medium, as Hitchcock intends on keeping everything ambiguous to build on the