I don't feel like giving Sacha Gervasi's Hitchcock more credibility it deserves by posting a still from it here, so instead what you've got here is Hitchcock himself, and Leigh herself, and maybe a set-dresser, making the actual Psycho.
I suppose I'm pretty lucky that the movie, which is bad (as I discuss at some length in my review for MSN Movies) is as bad as it is, because it spares me what might have been some sort of aesthetic/ethical conflict. That is, what if the movie had been engaging, entertaining, in some way valuable, while at the same time telling the same number of lies it tells, and insulting the same filmmakers it does. I mean, some might tell you that Oliver Stone's JFK has movie-movie value even as it insults American history. except Stone would argue that he's not insulting American history and that he made the movie from a conviction to tell a higher truth. In the case of Hitchcock, the historical distortions are arguably in the service of giving Alma Reville her due as Hitchcock's most important artistic collaborator. She is in the credits of about twenty of his fifty or so films, and as the most important part of what Truffaut called the "family brain trust" it is of course a given that she ought to have received more credit. But to valorize her at the expense of Hitchcock amounts to a kind of special pleading that ultimately insults her more than anything. I have other complaints about it in the review. And if you think that's "hero worship," well, tough.
Incidentally, i don't write my own headlines for my MSN pieces but in this case I insisted on "Hitch-Crock!" which I think rather good.