The Consequences of Acting on Impulse: Psycho (1960)

psychoAn impulse is “a sudden strong and unreflective urge or desire to act.”1 In Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960), Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) makes an impulsive decision: She steals $40,000 from Tom Cassidy (Frank Albertson) and plans to run away. The film shows how acting on impulse can have consequences that are devastating.

Marion steals $40,000 to solve a problem in her relationship with Sam Loomis (John Gavin). He won’t marry her because he can barely support himself financially. With a struggling business and an obligation to pay alimony to his ex-wife, he can’t provide for her if she wants to have children. Marion takes the money, believing it will give her and Sam financial freedom. In 1960, $40,000 was a small fortune, worth $330,437.84 today.2

When Marion goes on the run, she doesn’t consider the consequences. However, the following day, she imagines what the likely consequences might be. After reflecting on her decision, Marion decides to go home and give the money back. When a person takes time to think about the possible consequences, they are more likely to make a wise choice.

Unfortunately, Marion’s impulsive decision has consequences that are unforeseeable. During a rainstorm, she stops by chance at the Bates Motel, and meets Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins). Her murder serves as a warning: Bad things can happen to good people when they make one bad choice. Marion is an innocent victim, but if she hadn’t taken the money, she never would have met Norman, a “psycho” who is controlled by violent impulses.

Marion’s actions reveal three reasons why people make impulsive decisions: They have an overpowering desire; they act quickly, and don’t think logically. While it is possible to be impulsive and not suffer any negative consequences, sooner or later, the individual who fails to think before acting will make a serious mistake. There is, however, a silver lining to acting on impulse. If the consequences are negative, you may learn a lesson that you will never forget.


  1. Oxford Living Dictionaries, s.v. “impulse,” accessed July 4, 2017,
  2. US Inflation Calculator, accessed July 4, 2017,

My Kindle eBook ⇒ The Donkey King and Other Stories


Illegal Immigration and the Risk to Public Health: Panic in the Streets (1950)

Panic in the StreetsIn Elia Kazan’s Panic in the Streets (1950), Kochak (Lewis Charles), an illegal immigrant, is patient zero in a potential outbreak of pneumonic plague, a deadly disease that can kill a person “within four days.” An important issue in the film is illegal immigration and the risk to public health. Because illegal immigrants do not have the same access to health care as American citizens, if they are carrying a communicable disease, the disease can spread more quickly throughout the general population. The film also shows how American citizens without health insurance are equally at risk for contracting and spreading a communicable disease.

One difficulty in stopping the outbreak of a communicable disease is finding everyone who is already infected. The individual who is sick may not go to a doctor or a hospital, believing they will get better without treatment. After Kochak’s body is cremated, Dr. Clint Reed (Richard Widmark) and the police try to find Vince Poldi (Tommy Cook), the second person to be infected with the plague. The longer Poldi moves freely among the general population, the more likely the plague will spread. Whether American citizen or illegal immigrant, an individual who has a communicable disease needs to be treated and/or isolated.

In 2016, there were an estimated 11.3 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.1 Illegal immigrants face a greater risk of contracting and spreading a communicable disease because they don’t have the same access to health care as American citizens. In the U.S., under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), illegal immigrants “are either explicitly barred from accessing federal benefits or face significant restrictions on Medicaid and other programs for the poor.”2 Health care options are limited, and vary widely from state to state.3 Even when health care options are available, illegal immigrants may not access services because of “fear of deportation.”4

When access to health care is a privilege, and not a right, it is not only illegal immigrants who are at risk for carrying a communicable disease. In 1950, the year Panic in the Streets was released, the United States did not have Medicaid for low-income earners.5 It is almost certain that Poldi, who is poor and unemployed, doesn’t have health insurance. His only likely option is “charity care”6, which is why a nurse is “sent for” when he is sick in bed. Blackie (Jack Palance) later pays for a doctor to examine him, but there is nothing the doctor can do. Poldi needs to go to a hospital.

In Panic in the Streets an illegal immigrant is infected with pneumonic plague, and, tragically, two more people contract the disease and die. If there were a possible pandemic in the U.S., it is likely measures would be taken to inoculate illegal immigrants, if the disease were treatable. However, this does not change the reality that illegal immigrants are in a precarious position when it comes to accessing health care. Add to this the fact that over 28 million Americans do not have health insurance,7 and the entire population is at risk if there is an outbreak of a deadly disease.


  1. Jens Manuel Krogstad, Jeffrey S. Passel, and D’Vera Cohn, “5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.,” Pew Research Center, April 27, 2017,
  2. Keegan Hamilston, “Obamacare Bars Illegal Immigrants—and Sticks Hospitals With the Bill,” The Atlantic, December 18, 2013,
  3. Lisa Zamosky, “Healthcare options for undocumented immigrants,” Los Angeles Times, April 27, 2014,
  4. Ibid.
  5. Josh Hicks, “Ron Paul’s claims about life without Medicare and Medicaid,” Washington Post, February 1, 2012,
  6. Virgil Dickson, “Medicaid a lifeline for the poor and disabled,” Modern Healthcare, May 23, 2015,
  7. Dan Mangan, “The rate of uninsured Americans hits a record low as Obamacare’s future remains a question mark,” CNBC, February 14, 2017,

Before you go, I would like to send you a free eBook

Three Reasons Why Women Have An Affair: The Letter (1940)

The Letter 1940In the opening scene of William Wyler’s The Letter (1940), Leslie Crosbie (Bette Davis) murders the man she was having an affair with. The film reveals three reasons why women cheat on their husbands: boredom, loneliness, and an emotional connection with a male friend.

In research by Allen et. al, “boredom in the marriage”1 was cited as one reason why men and women were unfaithful to their spouses. One factor in Leslie’s unfaithfulness is boredom. Throughout the film, she is seen doing lacework. She finds the activity “soothing”, and took it up because she “had nothing else to do.” Although she has been married for 10 years, she has no children, and does not work outside the home. Even in her own home she has little to do. She says, “the boys take such good care of us.” Leslie has no major responsibilities as a housewife. An affair brought excitement to her life.

Another factor in Leslie’s unfaithfulness is loneliness. As the manager of a rubber plantation, her husband Robert (Herbert Marshall) works long hours, and is sometimes away on business for “a day or two.” Leslie accepts the reality of her husband’s absence, saying “I never mind being alone. A planter’s wife gets used to that.” However, the reason Leslie is “used to” being alone is that she has been cheating on Robert for many years. With an absent husband, she felt lonely, and her affair filled that emotional void.

While it is more common for men to have an affair due to physical attraction, women are more likely to be in love with the man they have an affair with. According to Spanier and Margolis, “Women report a significantly greater emotional involvement with their extramarital partners than men.”2 In their research, 51% of the men and 72% of the women reported that they “had some emotional commitment” or it was a “long-term love relationship.”3 Leslie confesses to Robert that she has been “in love for years.” Her extra-marital relationship began as a friendship seven years prior, but at some point she fell in love, and it became a sexual relationship.

A central theme in The Letter is that a married woman who is idle and has an absent husband is more likely to cheat. Robert loved Leslie, provided for her, and gave her everything that she needed, but she was bored, lonely, and had no goals or dreams of her own. With no children to care for and no job, she turned to another man to find meaning in her life. Then, when her lover suddenly abandoned her, she murdered him.


  1. Elizabeth S. Allen et al., “Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Contextual Factors in Engaging in and Responding to Extramarital Involvement.” Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice 12, no. 2 (June 2005): 109.
  2. Graham B. Spanier and Randie L. Margolis, “Marital Separation and Extramarital Sexual Behavior.” The Journal of Sex Research 19, no. 1 (February 1983): 23,
  3. Spanier and Margolis, “Marital Separation and Extramarital Sexual Behavior,” 36.

My Kindle eBook ⇒ The Donkey King and Other Stories

The Nature of Evil: Touch of Evil (1958)

touch-of-evilIf an act of evil is intentionally causing harm to an innocent person, then numerous characters in Orson Welles’s Touch of Evil (1958) are either guilty of evil or a victim of it. A central theme in the film is the progressive nature of evil: The more a person does what is evil, the less guilt they will feel, and after rationalizing their actions, they may commit even greater acts of evil.

Hank Quinlan (Orson Welles), the police captain, wants to punish criminals who are guilty of evil. When his instincts tell him that a suspect has committed a crime, he plants evidence in order to secure a conviction. Hank has violated the most basic principle of justice: innocent until proven guilty. He has not only broken the law, but if his instincts are wrong, he is guilty of evil himself. Innocent people may have been imprisoned or executed.

To conceal his crimes, Hank causes harm to an innocent woman. When Mike Vargas (Charlton Heston) discovers that Hank planted evidence in order to arrest Manolo Sanchez (Victor Millan) for the car bombing, he plans to publicly expose him. To destroy Mike’s credibility, Hank has Mike’s wife, Susan Vargas (Janet Leigh), kidnapped and drugged. Later, he commits an even greater act of evil: He murders Joe Grandee (Akim Tamiroff) and tries to frame Susan for it. By doing what is evil, Hank’s conscience has become dulled and blunted.

To avoid feelings of guilt, Hank rationalizes his actions: “a form of self-deception unconsciously used to make tolerable … feelings, behaviors, and motives that would otherwise be unacceptable.”1 When Pete Menzies (Joseph Calleia) accuses him of “faking evidence”, Hank says he was “aiding justice” because all of the people he framed were guilty. Instead of taking responsibility for his actions, he says, “I blame Vargas for everything.” Hank blames an innocent man.

The irony in Touch of Evil is that Hank, who wants to see criminals punished, becomes a criminal himself. In the climax of the film, he is shot dead before he can murder Mike. Such is the nature of evil: It deceives you, changes who you are, and then leads you into a path of destruction and ruin.


  1. Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition. s.v. “rationalization,” accessed May 19, 2015,

My Kindle eBook: The Donkey King and Other Stories