Bates Motel: Unique Internal Logic

In the pilot of Bates Motel, Norma Bates (Vera Farmiga) and her teenaged son

Norman (Freddie Highmore) move to Oregon to start a new life, purchasing an old motel to open as a new business for them. However, one of the neighbors,

Keith, who lives on the adjacent property, threatens Norma and tells her to leave, claiming that his family used to own the place. She warns him to get off her property. He returns when Norma’s alone, attacks and tries to rape her, but

Norman returns in time to help and his mom ends up stabbing Keith.

At this point, Norma’s caught between two wrongs. If she calls the police and reports it, she can claim self-defense. She’d likely have a decent case, but she’s just about to open the new motel; does she really want to report a rape-murder that took place there? Does she really want to risk turning the entire town against them? Keith’s been part of the fabric of this community.

So, Norma and her son decide to cover up the murder, so that their business can move forward. Would most people have done that? No, they would have called

1 the police regardless. But what defines Norma—and she brings Norman in as her accomplice—is that she’s desperate enough to cover up a murder for the sake of starting that new life.

Part of Norma’s internal logic of making that decision (which is one of the central mysteries of the show) is that in the pilot’s teaser, her husband is found dead in a pool of blood in the garage. Ergo, this is the main reason she and Norman move away for a fresh start. There’s already a potential trail of bodies following Norma and as viewers, we don’t yet know who killed her husband. We’ve also seen the movie Psycho, so we’re aware that Norman, not his mother, may be the one who’s unhinged and psychotic. Although we are left guessing, that’s part of the fun. Bates Motel is a thriller with some bloody horror moments, but in addition to the body count, there is humor, some levity and comic irony, as it recasts the classic movie in the present day with Norman in high school.

When faced with a dilemma such as Norma’s, a useful exercise is to follow

Walter White’s example and make a list of pros and cons about each bad choice.

1Which option has a slightly more desirable potential outcome, if we follow the trail of all the potential outcomes, as the dominoes fall? As writers, we usually start with, “What would I do?” Then, we need to think, “What would this

!2 character do, based upon who they are—e.g., who Norma Bates is, or who

Midge Maisel is, or who Michael Burnham is?” Each would make very different choices, based on the sum of their experiences. Any time a character stands on the precipice of making a decision, as writers we need to remember they were not born here as an adult facing that decision. Again, what’s their history? What are all the events, relationships and interactions that brought them to this precipice, which are then going to inform their decision? What’s their unique internal logic?

Our characters’ goals also influence their decisions. What are they trying to gain? We need to evaluate the potential stakes. What do they stand to lose?

What decisions are they going to have to make, either of their own volition, or as something demanded of them? Our Walter White-style pros and cons list of all the possible ramifications of each choice needs to be balanced between the two wrongs. Although there may be a potential positive outcome, there’s a lot of wrong, with negatives that could come from either choice. And there can be no easy way out, for then characters are not really trapped in a situation. Having a complex, evenly balanced list of pros and cons for each “wrong” choice helps to generate conflict and sustain more drama.

!3 Note

1 See “Breaking Bad and the Master List of Pros and Cons” in the Bonus Content for Chapter 8.

!4