No, it's explained in the movie that the casket that was buried was weighed and didn't contain the mother's body. The body was never buried in the cemetery.
Again, I think he is desperate to maintain his inner fiction, to avoid any guilt - guilt about killing his own mother or anyone after. That's why he split in two in the first place. He's crazy. He spends the film blaming his mother for the murders, and then in the final moments, we hear the mother side of him blame Norman. He is desperate to maintain the fiction that his mother is still alive, to avoid the realization that he killed her. He is desperate to make his mother the murderer, to avoid the reality that he killed Marion. Once he is exposed at the end, the fiction falls apart, and the only way mentally/psychologically he can survive - now that Norman is indeed about to be blamed for everything - is to retreat fully into the mother persona, who also is blaming Norman for everything. I don't think what I'm saying here or said above conflicts in any great way with the psychiatrist's explanation at the end. What we have on paper is clearly an emotionally damaged, mentally ill man who seems to make a habit of killing people. He's invented an entire fiction in his head, alternate personality and all, to avoid the guilt and blame. He wants to see himself as virtuous and gentle. He behaves that way as Norman towards people in the film (up to a point!). Then, his mother persona at the end wants to see herself the same way. The guilt of his matricide has split him in two, both sides finding ways to blame the other for everything.
This is just an interpretation, not the "correct" answer, but I think it comes down to the conversation Norman has with Marion. She isn't just nice to him. She discusses the lives of people who are trapped by their situation (or something to that effect), but Marion adds that people don't have to live that way. They can make choices to live differently. I'm paraphrasing from memory, as I haven't seen the film in awhile. Marion is basically referring to herself and her situation, but Norman doesn't know that. He does see the wisdom in what Marion is saying, though - that he doesn't have to live the way he is living (meaning, killing people compulsively due to his mental health issues). He sees a peaceful way out, but "Mother" senses this conversation as a threat to her very existence because, of course, she's just a part of Norman's mind that he could discard healthily by following Marion's advice. Hence, the argument between Norman and "Mother," etc. Marion gave him a kind of hope, but "Mother" destroys it. EDITED TO ADD: Jimmyb posted a link to the scene I'm describing.
Not the details of Norman sleeping with his mother, which was done in the TV version. BTW, anybody who wants to read the original 1959 script, here it is on the interwebs... Psycho 1959 Script on Daily Script
Whatever pathology Norman suffers from, it isn’t clear what exactly triggers it. Simply seeing an attractive female isn’t going to set him (or his “mother”) off. Surely you are not assuming the two other murder victims are the only women he ever saw before Marion came along. No doubt a number of would-be victims had brief encounters with Norman over the years, encounters too short and transient for him to become aroused. There is no reason for him to be intentionally cold and stand-offish with every young female who crosses his path. Plus he’s running a hotel; you can hardly expect him to be rude to his customers! He invited her to the back room of the motel office (not the house as you say) to have sandwiches because of that part of him that is kind and compassionate and no doubt desperately lonely. Also he probably believes he/Mother can control his impulses, not to mention he doesn’t think he’ll be “caught” entertaining by his mother, whom he considers a separate entity from himself. Perhaps he’s surprised b/c he honestly thought it wouldn’t happen again. Maybe he and Mother had a good talk and she promised never to do it again. I don’t find his behavior nonsensical at all, given that he is severely mentally disturbed.
I'm 62 and the movie still scares the bejeezus out of me and I've watched it many times over the past 50 years. It is so unsettling. The fact that is has such an effect by suggestion rather than gratuitous scenes of violence is the magic sauce that so many modern filmmakers miss- just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD. Not enough is left to the viewers imagination- this actively involves the viewer in the narrative and in the creation of their very own unique scenes created within their imagination. Your imagination will often take you to terrible places no censor would ever allow!
Married once. That was enough. Thankfully no one was physically harmed in the process although the mental scars are still healing almost 30 years later. Trust was a major casualty and still is a major issue in all relationships/friendships since. My goods were damaged- a kinda Notre Dame burning to the ground scenario! A lot of ashes to be sifted through and careful reconstruction. Can't believe I've just overshared this- makes me sound a bit bonkers (cue Psycho shows scene soundtrack...)
No, he invites her to the house first, to have dinner in the kitchen. But then you hear him arguing with his mother, who objects to him bringing a girl into the house. That’s when he bring the sandwiches out and asks Marion to eat in the parlour of the office instead. From the script: NORMAN Then will you do me a favor? (without waiting for her response) Will you have supper here? I was just about to, myself... nothing more than some sandwiches and a lot of milk, but I'd like it if you'd come up to the house and... I don't set a fancy table but... the kitchen's awful homey.
Hitch's TV crew was young and smart and quick. And, like I Confess, they were using light B+W cameras, not big, bulky things. His direction on this movie was surgical.
Many commenters' assumptions seem plausible to me, but if you're looking for an in-movie justification is it enough to note that if he's convinced himself his mother is still alive and committing these crimes he can convince himself of anything, including that the crimes never happened (until they do again) because Mother would never do anything like that? If you're looking for an explicit, let-me-draw-you-a-map explanation, I think you're limiting yourself and the movie both. Give yourself to the film and accept it as an artistic statement more than a case history and it'll work its magic. Plus, I'm impressed that Hitchcock kept your teens engaged. You must have done something to raise them right!
