Book vs. Film: Norman Bates

Where would the film industry be if it weren't for books. No, seriously, think of five films off the top of your head, chances are the majority, if not all, are based on a novel or short story, often without your realisation. I find adaptations fascinating, even if they don't work (in fact, that sometimes makes a film even more interesting). It's always interesting to notice what they left out, what they changed slightly, or the complete diversion of the original text, but also "why?". Film is a different medium to a book. Pretty obvious, I know, but it's surprising how purists forget this. It's important to change things from medium-to-medium. In a book, you have the advantage of the author's narration, which can be as poetic as possible. Film is a visual medium, and you should always hire the best actor you can to play a role. Whether their appearance is identical, or not is irrelevant, so long as they embody the character.

This is going to be series I get back to every-so-often, where I draw the same character from book and its adaptation(s).

First, we have Robert Bloch's classic thriller, PSYCHO, famously overshadowed by its 1960 Hitchcock adaptation, starring Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates. As you can see from the image below, the two look very different. Bloch's Norman Bates is a chunkier, middle-aged man, like that guy you encounter on the bus. Perkins portrayal of Norman Bates is the shy, awkward pleasant boy next door. They both work in that idea of anyone in you town, or street could be a killer.