We’re open for another week here at BCB After Dark: the coolest club for night owls, early risers, new parents and Cubs fans abroad. Come in out of the cold. There’s no cover charge this evening. We can check your coat for you. We still have a few tables available.

BCB After Dark is the place for you to talk baseball, music, movies, or anything else you need to get off your chest, as long as it is within the rules of the site. The late-nighters are encouraged to get the party started, but everyone else is invited to join in as you wake up the next morning and into the afternoon.

Last week I asked you which Cubs catcher you thought was going to have the better season in 2025. It was a clear choice for you as 76 percent of you went with Miguel Amaya over Carson Kelly. I agree, but I also think Kelly is going to have a good season in Chicago.

Here’s the part where we listen to tunes and talk about movies. The BCB Winter Hitchcock Classic is down to the classic movies that everyone knows and tonight, we look at Psycho. But those of you who don’t care in the least can skip ahead now. You won’t hurt my feelings.

Tonight we’re featuring a live performance in Brazil from 2009 by the Robert Glasper Trio. It’s a mash-up of Herbie Hancock’s “Maiden Voyage” and Radiohead’s “Everything in its Right Place.”

Jamire Williams is on the drums and Vicente Archer plays bass.

You voted in the BCB WInter Hitchcock Classic and to no one’s surprise, Rear Window advances over Suspicion. I’d be surprised, in fact, if any of the top four films got knocked out by anyone other than each other.

Tomorrow night (Wednesday), Turner Classic Movies is playing several of Hitchcock’s British films and re-running Becoming Hitchcock—the Legacy of Blackmail documentary. I watched this last week and it makes a compelling case that everything we love about a Hitchcock movie was first developed in his first talkie film, Blackmail (1929/1930). It’s definitely worth a watch if you’re interested in that sort of thing. I particularly found the differences between the silent and talkie version interesting.

Anyway, you should set your DVRs if you have TCM and are interested.

Tonight we have our number-two seed, that just happens to be Hitchcock’s most famous and successful film Psycho (1960). When we get to these top four films, I feel inadequate to really say anything about them. But I gave it a shot and I hope you appreciate it. Psycho takes on our 10-seed, To Catch a Thief.

Psycho (1960). Starring Anthony Perkins, Vera Miles, John Gavin and Janet Leigh as Marion Crane.

What can one possibly say about Psycho? It’s certainly one of the best-known films ever made. The shower scene is probably the most famous movie scene ever shot. Even if you haven’t seen the movie—and I’m having trouble believing you haven’t seen the movie unless you’re a teenager—you know the shower scene. It’s Hitchcock’s most famous movie and financially, at least, his most successful.

I’ve said in the past that you can divide American cinema into two periods—before Bonnie and Clyde and after. But honestly, you could make the division seven years earlier at Psycho as well. It certainly stretched all limits of the Production Code to the point where producers began to see it as toothless, which started the road to its abolition. (Although it should be noted that Some Like it Hot was released the year previous without the approval of the Production Office and was a huge hit.)

The other way that Psycho revolutionized cinema was in Hitchcock’s insistence that no one be allowed in the theater after the film started, which had never been done in America before. It was common practice before multiplexes to show up at a theater whenever and sit through a film and then hang around until the next time it showed to catch the beginning. It’s where the phrase “This is where we came it” originated.

It seems funny today, when people are still watching and re-watching Psycho 65 years later, but at the time, Hitchcock thought the film would have a short shelf life. He believed that once people knew the secret behind Norman Bates’ mother, their interest in the film would end. So he started a campaign against spoilers, warning people not to reveal the ending. He wouldn’t let Leigh or Perkins do a traditional promotional tour. But he was also worried that if someone showed up in the middle of the film, they’d miss Janet Leigh and demand refunds because the posters said Janet Leigh was in the movie.

That’s another way that Hitchcock broke down conventions. Stars might die at the end of a film, but no one ever killed off a major star like Leigh a little over a third of the way through a movie before. In fact, Hitchcock’s goal in Psycho was to continuously subvert the audience’s expectations. He wanted us to first think the film was about a woman who stole money. Then he wanted us to believe it was about her giving the money back after speaking to the odd motel owner. Then we’re supposed to think it’s about her murder and a private detective on the case. Then it’s the dead woman’s sister’s search for her. All the while, Norman Bates’ mother remained mysterious.

Heck, Psycho was the first American picture to show a toilet. That’s another break from the past.

Hitchcock had become obsessed with low-budget horror films in the fifties that seemed to make a lot of money. He thought most of them were poorly-made and disposable, but what if a truly talented director like himself tried to make one? Famously, no studio agreed to finance Psycho because of its lurid story. So Hitchcock had to produce the film himself and use the black-and-white film crew from his television show Alfred Hitchcock Presents to get the job done cheaply. (Hitchcock also had a non-financial reason for shooting in black-and-white. He thought the shower scene would be too graphic in color.) In any case, Psycho turned out to be Hitchcock’s biggest box office hit. It also truly looks great despite the low budget.

Anthony Perkins’ portrait of Norman Bates is obviously one of the most iconic performances in all of cinema. In the Robert Bloch book the film is based on, Norman is an older, paunchy, balding, middle-aged man. But again, Hitchcock wanted to play with our expectations and he figured that anyone who looked like that would immediately repel the audience. So he had the inspired idea to cast Perkins in the role.

Perkins twitchy performance was all him. For example, Hitchcock generally hated it when actors came to him with ideas, but it was Perkins’ idea to have Norman stutter over words that upset him. Hitchcock loved the idea. Perkins alternately played Norman as sympathetic and creepy, friendly and menacing, normal and odd.

Leigh impressed Hitchcock by showing up on the set with a complete life story of Marion Crane written out. Leigh threw herself into the part and even though we only know Marion for a little over 40 minutes, she makes us know her. Perhaps most shockingly to audiences of 1960, Marion Crane is a sexual being, as noted by the opening scene and her affair with Sam Loomis (Gavin). She commits her crime in a moment of desperation and then alternates between reveling in the deed and fearing the consequences. She eventually decides to come clean, only for her redemption arc to be cut short by the most famous murder in movie history.

The last half of the film involves Sam and Lila Crane (Miles) searching for Marion and the script originally had a lot more backstory about Sam and Lila. But Hitchcock decided that by that point in the film, the audience only really cared about the search for Marion and cut almost all of it. But Gavin and Miles do excellent and often-overlooked jobs conveying that these two characters have a lot more going on that simply a search for Marion. Lila Crane is clearly a woman of action that you didn’t often see in films of 1960.

I haven’t even mentioned Martin Balsam. He’s terrific too. And him going down the steps at the Bates Mansion is a masterpiece in film technique.

Not only is the shower scene arguably the most famous in movie history, the Bernard Herrmann score for Psycho is arguably the most famous musical score in film history. Deservedly so. Herrmann used an all-string orchestra—and he used to strings thematically as knives to slice through the story. Hitchcock famously wanted the shower scene to be without music. Herrmann told him it needed a musical accompaniment and that he had exactly what the scene needed. It was one of the few times in his life that Hitchcock admitted he was wrong about a film. You can’t picture the knife in your mind without Herrmann’s score punctuating each blow.

Hitchcock thought Psycho would have a limited shelf-life once audiences knew the twists. But the reason we’re still watching and talking about Psycho 65 years later is that it’s simply a masterpiece. I’ve only scratched the surface here as to all the reasons why people still love Psycho.

Here’s the trailer for Psycho. There is no actual footage from the movie in it because of Hitchcock’s deathly fear of spoilers. Instead, we get a tour of the Bates Motel and Bates Mansion—a tour you can still take at Universal Studios theme park in Hollywood. Also, that’s not Janet Leigh in the shower at the end of the trailer. That’s Vera Miles in a wig. It took years for anyone to notice.

To Catch a Thief (1955). Starring Cary Grant, Grace Kelly and Jessie Royce Landis.

Here’s most of what I wrote last time about To Catch a Thief.

French new wave director François Truffaut said that when he listed Alfred Hitchcock as one of the greatest living directors and one of those that influenced him the most, American critics would tell him “He’s rich and successful, but his movies have no substance.” Truffaut conducted a series of interviews with Hitchcock that was turned into the book Hitchcock/Truffaut to try to refute that idea.

One film he wouldn’t have used to refute that statement is To Catch a Thief, which really doesn’t have much substance at all. Even Hitchcock told Truffaut “It was a lightweight story.” To Catch a Thief is the story of a reformed cat burglar/jewel thief who is being framed for a series of similar crimes. John Robie (Grant) must use all of his knowledge of jewel thievery to catch the actual thief and clear his name.

So if To Catch a Thief is a lightweight story, why is the film so well-liked? Because it’s got Cary Grant being Cary Grant, Grace Kelly being Grace Kelly and everyone in the film looking fabulous in some of costumer Edith Head’s most fashionable work. There’s also the glorious location shooting in the brilliant color of VistaVision in the south of France.

Hitchcock mostly hated shooting on location and most of To Catch a Thief was shot on sound stages in Hollywood. But there are several location shots in Nice, Cannes and other places on the French Riviera. . . .The whole film looks glorious and certainly Grant and Kelly add to that beauty and sophistication.

Grant’s character, John Robie, also known as “The Cat,” was an infamous cat burglar who went to prison before the war. So basically, your stock “gentleman thief” from dozens of other films. Robie escaped prison during the German occupation of France and joined the Resistance. As a thank you for his efforts, he was pardoned after the war and has been living a quiet life in the South of France since them.

But when a series of jewel burglaries happen in the luxury hotels that follow the modus operandi of “The Cat,” everyone assumes that Robie is up to his old tricks. He convinces an insurance agent (John Williams) to give him the names of their rich and insured customers so that he can stake them out and catch this impersonator in the act.

One of these rich tourists with expensive jewels is the American Jessie Stevens (Landis), who is traveling Europe with her beautiful daughter Frances (Kelly), Robie pretends to be a rich American oilman to get close to them and Jessie tries to set up her daughter with Robie. Of course, a romance develops between John and Frances.

(Here’s where I have to draw attention to an unfortunate convention of Hollywood. Jessie Royce Landis was eight years older than Grant. Grace Kelly was 26 years younger than Grant. You would think this rich widow would be more interested in Robie for herself than her daughter. But that’s Hollywood for you. We should also at some point call attention to Hitchcock’s preference for icy, thin blondes as his leading women, but we’ll save that for another day.)

Eventually, Robie enlists the mother, daughter and the insurance agent into an elaborate scheme to catch the actual cat burglar, with the backdrop of costume balls and elaborate mansions.

If you haven’t seen To Catch a Thief, the reveal of the actual cat burglar becomes pretty apparent early in the film. I won’t spoil it, but it’s not exactly the most surprising twist of Hitchcock’s career.

But if any Hitchcock film can be considered a triumph of style over substance, it’s To Catch a Thief. And what style it has.

Here’s the original trailer for To Catch a Thief.

So now it’s time to vote.

You have until Wednesday to vote.

Up next is a film that was a commercial flop and got mixed reviews when it came out in 1958: Vertigo. Today, it’s is not only considered the Hitchcock’s masterpiece, it was voted the greatest film ever made in 2012 and finished second in the 2022 vote. Vertigo will face off against The 39 Steps.

Welcome back to everyone who skips the music and movies.

The Cubs reportedly were the runners-up for reliever Tanner Scott. They made an offer of four-years and $66 million which is definitely outside the team’s “comfort zone” for a reliever and also definitely a good-faith offer. Unfortunately, the Dodgers swept in with a four-year, $72 million offer. You can say that the Cubs should have gone to $74 million, but then the Dodgers can go to $76 million and this game could go on all winter. Considering that Ben Clemens of Fangraphs estimated that Scott would get four years and $60 million at the start of the winter, it’s hard to argue the Cubs didn’t try.

Still, there are no prizes for finishing second in free agent bidding other than possibly avoiding the “winner’s curse.” And the Cubs still need a pitcher at the back of the rotation.

I’ve asked about a lot of free agent relievers this winter, including for Carlos Estévez, whom the Cubs have reportedly been talking to. Estévez is arguably the best reliever left on the free agent market. But Al has already done a piece on Estévez over the past two weeks, so it’s best to move on to a different topic of discussion.

If the Cubs can’t get a great reliever on the free agent market, perhaps they can get one on the trade market? Ryan Pressly is a two-time All-Star who was the Astros’ closer from 2020 to 2023. He saved Game 5 and the decisive Game 6 of the 2022 World Series. However, he was demoted to a set-up man role when the Astros signed Josh Hader. The Astros have also been trying to shed payroll and there were rumors that Pressly could be dealt earlier this winter. (The Athletic sub. req.)

There are some obvious advantages and disadvantages to trading for Pressly. The advantage is that even if he’s lost a step from his peak, he’s still a very good reliever with closer experience. He’s also only due to make a reasonable $14 million this season.

The disadvantages are clear too. For one, the Astros would want something back for Pressly and that probably means a good prospect. The other issue is that Pressly is a free agent after this upcoming season, so he would probably be a one-year rental. He also just turned 36, if that’s a concern to you. I tend not to worry about the ages of pitchers like I do position players, but 36 is around the age where I start to have some concern.

The other issue is that Pressly has a full no-trade clause and as the linked-to article makes clear, (The Athletic sub. req.), he’s quite established in the city of Houston. However, at 36 he’s probably looking for one last payday before retirement and having a bunch of saves on his record in 2025 would probably increase his value next winter.

Because Pressly has only one year left on his contract, he’s unlikely to command a top prospect in return. On the other hand, because his contract is reasonable, the Astros don’t have to trade him and there are other teams who might like him, he won’t be cheap. (Of course, if Pressly were to say that he would only waive his no-trade deal for the Cubs, that would drive his price down considerably. That would be nice, but I’m not counting on it.)

I don’t think the Cubs would have to give up one of their top five prospects for Pressly, but I can certainly see the Astros asking for someone in the next group like Jefferson Rojas, Brandon Birdsell or Jaxon Wiggins.

So if that were the price for Ryan Pressly, should the Cubs trade for him?

Thank you for stopping by this evening. We hope we made your evening brighter. Please get home safely. Stay warm. Recycle your cans and bottles. Tip your waitstaff. And join us tomorrow night for more BCB After Dark.