.
Last edited:
ALIEN or PSYCHO: which is better and why?
- Thread starter Rowdy Roddy McDowall
- Start date
The Thing from Another World was made 9 years before Psycho? (unless I'm reading you wrong in which case apologies).
It's curious, two films made by revered British directors were released in 1960, both involved voyeurism, both involved empathetic killers who'd been twisted by the actions of a parent, both featured the killing of women, yet one was immediately lauded and the other was derided for many, many years until it was reappraised by people, including Scorsese, one of it's most vehement supporters.
Psycho vs Alien? Try Psycho vs Peeping Tom!
My apologies for not being clearer. I meant that Alien itself was probably influenced by Psycho
Personally I don't see a lot of significant points of comparison between 'Alien' and 'Psycho' beyond both being suspense horrors, that I guess you could also call "slashers". Alien is more of a haunted house movie than a real slasher. It's people in a confined space and under pressure. Slashers tend to be more about the kills, and 'Alien' kinda shy's away from showing those. Kane and Brett are the only ones we see die on screen (Ash doesn't count), and in all instances the narrative focus isn't on the killers or even the victims, it's on the bystanders. It's about their reactions. The crew has to watch helpless as the chestburster is "born"; They arrive just as Brett is taken, again, helpless; they sit and listen as Kane goes into the vents and never comes out; Ripley has to listen to Parker and Lambert's cries over the intercom as they're both toyed with and killed. Even Lambert being raped is merely implied, and most seem to miss it entirely.
I guess one could argue a similarity is that they both feature famous "shock" moments (the shower and chestburster scenes, respectively.) But that's a fairly superficial point. And yeah, there's a sexual component to both, but that's hardly noteworthy for the genre; besides which they're both expressed very differently and for different reasons. In Psycho it's largely about how it relates to psychological trauma and it's long term effects. For 'Alien' it's way more primal, tapping into things like the male fear of childbirth, and I guess androgyny?
I guess one could argue a similarity is that they both feature famous "shock" moments (the shower and chestburster scenes, respectively.) But that's a fairly superficial point. And yeah, there's a sexual component to both, but that's hardly noteworthy for the genre; besides which they're both expressed very differently and for different reasons. In Psycho it's largely about how it relates to psychological trauma and it's long term effects. For 'Alien' it's way more primal, tapping into things like the male fear of childbirth, and I guess androgyny?
Nah. The makers of the movie have been fairly clear about their primary influences. For Ridley, the greatest influence from a horror movie perspective was 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre'.
That's really interesting because, certainly originally, I had assumed there was a sexual assault there, not so sure anymore, if only because it doesn't seem to fit the xenomorph's nature, but it is interesting to know I'm not the only one to have ever read the situation like that.
It's not a read: over the years both Ridley and Cartwright have said as much was the intent. Also, just look at the scene as Ripley finds it: Parker is slumped over in the corner right where he was killed, but Lambert is bent over, hanging from a chain, and her legs are bare: both her boots and trousers are clearly off.
I mean, you don't need to be a detective to figure out what happened there.
As for the Alien's nature: as I said, that script is deliberately playing on primal fears of sexual assault in general (and male fear of childbirth in particular.) Ignore what the later movies did with the creature and just focus on the intent of the script. There's a recurring motif of it being "Kane's child", with vague implications that it's inherited more than just some human genetics but some psychology too, including a propensity (or at least a curiosity) for sexual violence. Even before the camera cuts away, it's clearly toying with Lambert, so that at least tracks.
Indeed these two approaches are diametrically opposed. Hitchcock wanted the audience lulled so he could make them jump. Ridley wanted constant and oppressive tension the that the audience *never* relaxes.
Last edited:
One of the things that made "Psycho" memorable at the time of its release was how the audience was set up to believe, through the marketing, the direction and the script, that Janet Leigh's character was the main protagonist and likely to survive until the end. Instead, she was killed off earlier in the story, subverting audience expectations.
In the case of Alien, the audience was set up to believe, through the marketing, the direction and the script, that Tom Skerrit's character was the main protagonist and likely to survive until the end. Instead, he was killed off earlier in the story, subverting audience expectations.
Given how influential "Psycho" was, there's at least a decent chance it had some influence on at least that aspect of "Alien."
I don't really see them as being the same thing. Hitchcock was playing deliberate misdirect games to set the audience up for a shock. Not so with Ridley and 'Alien'.
The script was written to be all male, casting Lambert & Ripley as women was an almost off-hand thing done fairly late in the process. Yes it was unusual and bucked the usual trope, but it wasn't baked into the material, just a sort of "wouldn't it be cool if we did it this way for a change?" flourish.
The Dallas character was never set up to be either heroic or even the focal character. It was an ensemble cast, all equally well developed, and deliberately presented that way so the audience would genuinely have no clue who (if anyone) was safe. So there's no misdirect. No pledge, no turn, and so no prestige.
Indeed at one point they contemplated a bleak "no survivors" ending where the creature kills them all and heads for earth.
Now, audiences may have been surprised at how it shook out, but that was entirely a matter of their expectations, not something the movie set out to do.
This is why if I had to choose between the two Psycho wins out. Alien is not even close.
I am extremely biased as I think Alien is a terrible film franchise.
Does it need to be a zero sum game? Just seems arbitrary to pit these two against each other given how vastly different they are in tone, intent, style, execution, and separated by almost two decades. Apples and oranges.
What does the rest of the franchise have to do with anything when we're just talking about the first movie? Does 'Psycho IV: The Beginning' factor into this too?
The first movie is not a good movie from my point of view. It is not in the same class as Psycho.
Can I make both films a tie? Both films established the slow moving creeping fear which lingered throughout their own environment and it was bone chilling scary to be aware the monster is close by and quite deceptive. Both of them share the psychological factor of tension within the minds of the characters and I agree I felt Mr. Hitchcock's was better because of his precision with technique. The man knew how to shoot a scene and sequence, I think Steven Spielberg is better but not by much which, for me, tells me a lot of how brilliant Hitchcock was as an auteur.
I give Psycho the edge because it's more plausible, which imo is why it's more scary. Alien is well done, but I was never scared because I know something like that will never happen. There's never going to be aliens crawling along my house to get me. Now a guy with a split personality who can creep up on you when you're taking a shower? Far more scary and believable.
Which is better at what? What do these 2 have in common that we're deciding one is better at? Not trying to be a dick here, but if I could understand what standard by which we're comparing them, I could offer a more thoughtful choice.
As of now, I'm just judging based on what's a better overall film, which I'd say is Psycho. The suspense is more adept, & the overall product is more groundbreaking. By comparison, Alien, while a masterful film, is just a slasher flick inspired by the cinematic breakthroughs of 2001 IMHO
As of now, I'm just judging based on what's a better overall film, which I'd say is Psycho. The suspense is more adept, & the overall product is more groundbreaking. By comparison, Alien, while a masterful film, is just a slasher flick inspired by the cinematic breakthroughs of 2001 IMHO
I still don't get that. There's nothing in Alien similar to the disruption of Janet Leigh's murder in Psycho imho, which turns the whole picture on its ear. I never saw any of the Alien cast as being that much of a lead. It's an ensemble, wherein Ripley incrementally emerges as lead, & Tom Skerritt is not so much at all really, unlike a movie like The Abyss, where the commander, played by Ed Harris, is clearly the lead
Similar threads
