PSYCHO: Concealing or Revealing Identity Through Costume
Contributed to Issue 1 of The Grey, Fashion & Gender by London based seamstress and costume designer Scarlet Riley.
This essay will be an exploration of the intersection between costume and identity. There is no denying that the carefully constructed appearances people choose to present to audiences reveal a lot about their identity – at the top of that list arguably is gender. Designers can choose which features they wish to highlight/exaggerate to others and, in reverse, can choose which to disguise or totally hide too. Naturally when out in the world of fashion we are all guilty of making assumptions of the people around us based on how they dress, whether these assumptions are what the wearer wanted us to think or not. But by looking more at costume, where designers intentionally pick clothes based on what they will tell viewers, the specific questions in this case are whether our clothes can speak for themselves, whether we are really in control of how they present our identity, and even after manipulation can our costumes (or disguises) still reveal our truths. And this can be applied to the world of fashion, for example if we dress up for an occasion do we feel more confident and attractive, if we put on a suit do we feel more professional and in control? And how deep could these changes go – if a man puts on a dress will he embody a more feminine gender?
This idea is perfectly summed up in this statement from Stella Bruzzi: ‘The use of clothes as spectacle and mechanism for display… clothes can function independently of the body, character and narrative.’ So significant are clothes to our readings of the body that they can come to stand for sexual difference in the absence of a body. On a toilet door the fact that one abstract human form wears a skirt tells us all we need to know. The connotations of the item of clothing are so strong that they can transcend the biological body. To look into these ideas I will be using the examples of the film ‘Psycho’, and ‘American Psycho’, by looking into the characters within them using textual analysis. ‘Psycho’s Norman Bates creates the most believable disguise possible as a nervous harmless young boy, but also dons his mothers dress as his entire personality changes into that of a hysterical murderer. While Patrick Bateman of ‘American Psycho’ obsessively sculpts his body, wardrobe and home to present himself as a functioning member of society. Proof that fashion goes beyond clothes and even a naked body is not devoid of fashion. But within this obsession and the complete breakdowns he has if anything is not perfect his true darker identity is hinted at. I intend to look into these characters and their dress in a deeper analysis throughout this essay.
I am interested n looking into this topic because my work (and life) have always reflected on fashion as identity. As an identical twin I have always been fascinated with how people view individuality, and the roles that fashion plays within this. It’s suspicious to me that people claim to have freedom of dress – yet somehow everyone chooses to do the same thing? The judgements people make based in how you look, and whether these are correct of not. Looking at the current world of fashion and the fast fashion world, where everyone buys the same things and looks the same, identity seems to be missing from the streets, as an advocate for the removal of fast fashion I also want to express how important clothing is and that people shouldn’t be buying things everyone else can also buy, as your appearance should be a carefully curated image of yourself, not a repetition of something else. I am making a feature of the marks of wear and tear that out clothing collects over the years, celebrating them as memories or little pieces of our life and personality which we can physically wear. I am using Psycho as my design reference as its such a key example of the link between clothing and identity, and how we are viewers are manipulated to see Marion as good, then as bad, using the white then black bras to reflect this change. Or the audience being almost forced to switch from seeing Bates as a harmless boy to seeing him as a psychotic killer by putting on a dress.
THE PERFECT DIGUISE?
Norman is sitting in his back room, behind reception. This scene is where we first see a glimpse of who Norman really is. The thematic analysis of Alfred Hitchcock found online looks into this scene and point out what we are given hints to the ‘Notion of a split personality’ (thematic analysis Alfred Hitchcock, novel guide) Norman sits in a corner of his room as if he is lurking or hiding, and filmed from the side so that the light falls harshly on him – hiding one half of his face in the darkness, his dark clothing, with the taxidermy bird hanging over him. This online essay even points out that his timid position holds an unnatural location for the placement of his hand – sitting on his inner thigh, which hints at his sexual deviance. This set up points to the two sides or Norman, one in the light and one hidden away, the ‘Subconscious battle between good and evil that exists in everyone through the audiences subjective participation and implicit character parallels (thematic analysis Alfred Hitchcock, novel guide). But clothing and Gender are fluid variables that can shift at any moment, nothing about identity is fixed. Our ‘true self’ is just something we have decided on by repeating specific expressions to reinforce it until we feel it is true. It is all a performance, all traits are various faucets of one identity.
This is what the language of cinema can do, the angles used, lighting effects and positioning of characters can give away much more than the characters themselves. And this is a perfect example, the shot of Norman is filled with these signifiers of a darker presence, especially compared to the shots of Marion in this scene which set her us to become the victim, showing her straight on, fully lit and central to the frame with soft curved of her and clothing. We are led to see more about him, and as well as foreshadowing Normans darker side, this first proper conversation between he and Marion is used by Hitchcock to make the audience pity him and his devotion to his mother, and lack of any enjoyment in life. A technique that makes the ending realisation that he is the Killer even more shocking. This nervous, poor little boy is an incredible disguise.
The way that the designer has created the outfit as if his mother picked them out, they are modest, crumpled, and plain. His speech, along with his pathetic ‘meal’ make us think he is completely harmless and if anything we see him as a victim, and our sympathy as viewers move to him rather than Marion, unaware of how misguided our sympathy is. In fact, in the book Norman is a character much less easy to sympathise with, he is older, overweight, and less innocent. So here in the film (with the writer Stefano’s character changes) even Normans physical body, underneath his clothes, becomes another layer of disguise as his young skinny frame makes it unbelievable that he could commit such terrible crimes.
These facts I have stated about the semiotics of the scene itself, should make us suspect Norman, but the fact that we continue to support him goes to show just how believable his costume is, that it can lead us to ignore all these other signs. Liza Betts (201) and Barbara Brownie (2015) have both written key texts that explain this phenomenon. Betts writes about the use of every day clothing as a costume, the context of the clothing is changed for the screen. She says ‘Within the media or television representation more specifically, it has become too easy to misrepresent or characterise the ordinary as something banal and bland.’ (Liza Betts P3) which is something taken advantage of in psycho with Normans unimpressive appearance. It predicts normality. This is something that Brownie backs up with her statement that ‘Any costume, as it is associated with a particular role, is accompanied by a set if unwritten rules dictating how the wearer must act. Through clothing, all humans communicate expectations about their actions and abilities’ (Brownie 2015 p34)
Norman’s costume leads us to assume that he will be acting as he appears – a nervous innocent man, and it’s shocking that he would behave in any other way than that which his clothing dictates. This is the power that clothing has. He couldn’t be bad - he looks so innocent. Bruzzi also writes about costume and identity, but with a slightly different opinion that we can in fact see hints of villainy in a regular disguise. She states that ‘Wrinkled and stained clothes showing emasculation (Bruzzi, 1997), and looking at Normans wardrobe we see this lack of ‘masculinity’; he is almost a child - remaining childlike to protect himself, from himself, from his mother, and from women – the ultimate fear. The fear of women, and their ability to emasculate men, has been a constant one. In fact we can even see a reflection of this fear in Hitchcock himself. He was neurotic, wanted complete control and neatness so that he didn’t have to be vulnerable, and he also treated women poorly. Hitchcock felt a lot of shame and guilt about himself and his body (even when he went to the toilet he would clean it until it looked like nobody had been), which links so closely to the way that his character hesitates at the bathroom when showing Marion her room – he can’t even make himself say the word.
HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT
This same idea can be applied to Patrick Bateman. The way Patrick is dressed leads everyone around him to refuse to believe that he could commit such crimes as the ones that he does, even when he openly confesses. He is dressed up as the most respectable of people, a well off businessman, in a world full of identical businessmen it is the perfect disguise as all of their identities are interchangeable and everyone confuses each other’s names. Here we closely can see the link between Identity and dress, again, Betts makes a good point about this: ‘identity is often only considered when there is a lack evident, an identity crisis for example’ (Liza Betts P2), Patrick is not given his own identity, the only thing unique about him is his murderous streak, but who knows, perhaps everyone else kills people too. The ‘use of incongruous stereotyped representations of the ‘ordinary’ as sameness, is still a stereotype and a powerful one that has political, cultural and social implications’ (Liza Betts P3) so we can see here how he uses his clothing to just blend in. He is wearing a mask. Barbara Brownies text reflects on this idea of a mask saying that ‘the mask is a lie; concealing the wearers true identity…to some extent the mask reveals the identity.’ Its an interesting idea considering that in the current society, those anonomous ‘normal’ (straight cis men) are the ones out here enacting hideous assaults and murders upon women, the LGBTQIA+ community, or those who represent themselves in ways that seem different.
By providing anonymity, the mask provides a hiding space, and this, in turn, makes it unnecessary to hide. All humans present a public face: acts of identity construction occur in every choice of garment, as wearers select their clothes to reflect the way they hope to be received by others. Much of this identity construction occurs subconsciously…. The public persona is a deliberately and carefully constructed alternative identity’ (Barbara brownie 2015 p29) Neil Kirkham speaks about ‘the notion of the ‘transparent’ or ‘invisible’ woman…undergarments seem to be worn, though by a female body that is not visible…eroticized underwear but pushed the model herself into the background’ (Neil Kirkham 2017 p14) On one hand, I believe that this is what the designers do to Patrick, they make his clothes so beautiful that his true identity becomes almost invisible within them. However on the other hand, when this character removes his clothes, his body has also been styles to reflect his obsessive and materialistic outlook on life: with perfect muscles, glowing skin, an expensive tan. Even without his costume his body bears cultural symbols that help to disguise him: ‘It has been argued that the body is never truly naked in visual culture, in that manipulation of hair, make-up and nail varnish anyways render it styled in some way.’ (Neil Kirkham 2017 P136) His lies go further than his clothing, and run deer into his physical being too. It is this carefully crafted idea that once he is alone the audience sees the truth and realizes it has been there the whole time, but that other characters just miss it in their carelessness, is what makes his costume so effective.
Bateman has just killed a man that people mistook him for, but who he believed was doing better than him. Paul Allen had the better clients, better hair, better apartment, and a better business card. In this world of materialism, objects are what Bateman obsesses over, as they are the way that he can control his image and shape his intricate and successful costume. We can see his obsession in the fact that he always describes friends by what they’re wearing; listing garments brands and prices, rather than mentioning any personality traits. He is obsessed with brands and names and organising of classifying everything so that he knows what is ‘hip’ what is correct, what is valuable. Anything nameless or uncatagorisable becomes something to be feared. Therefor his costume must be perfection. We can see this from the angle of the shot, with him above us, and us looking up at him almost from the victims’ perspective. He slicks back his hair and returns to his suit as soon as possible, an interestingly feminine action of obsession with looking good seeing as ‘The idea of fashion is still somehow synonymous with the frivolous and the feminine’ (Pamela church Gibson 2011 p58).
This is a difference between psycho and American psycho, we are meant to be fooled by Norman’s disguise, but we are let in on Patrick’s true identity right from the start. It is revealed in his immaculate dress, this reputable pinstripe businessman suit also has sinister undertones. Stripes have always been used to represent social deviants – pirates, prostitutes, criminals etc. – and so can the pinstripes also have this meaning. And in this intense attention to detail reflects an overly obsessive and dark personality.
YOUR MASK IS SLIPPING…
In the second to last scene of the film psycho, we finally see Norman’s inner self, and the quick shot to him reflects the audience shock at the sight. He is not fully lit in the face, with a strong contrasting light. The bare bulb in the centre of the room brings Norman fully into the light, while casting a strong shadow behind him – lurking like a hidden force behind him. He bursts in with a high-pitched hysterical scream and panicked jolting movements embodying the psychotic image of a woman. For the first time we become fully aware this ‘mother’ is not alive. ‘Psycho exploits this by offering red herrings in he form of point of view shots which suggest that Norman’s mother is still alive’ (G Turner, 2002 p69). He is dressed in his mothers dress, literally put over the top of his everyday masculine clothes as if he’s just slipped it on, the two genders and identities mixing together, but the mother identity is, in the end, completely covering up the nervous Norman identity. The fact that we can make out the shapes of his other clothes beneath, and his natural hair beneath the wig, shows us how much of a ‘costume’ the mother is. His weak, helpless identity is male, and his strong, adult one is female – his mother
This is something Barbara brownie also touches on, stating that it is ‘actively and overtly a disguise, implying that there is something significant and interesting to discover underneath’. (Barbara Brownie, 2015, P30) The dress is very matronly, ridiculously modest – a strong contract to the fitted clothes of Marion, an example of ‘respectable’ women’s clothing. This look was just one of twelve dressed made for mother, each in different sizes, allowing us to realise just how much trial and error goes into getting the costume perfect for this key moment. Hitchcock himself did dress in drag on a few occasions, so maybe this inspired the look. It seems to be a running pattern in Hitchcock’s films, that the main characters have glimmers of bisexuality within them, it begs to question why. Is it a choice he consciously made or if it was subconscious, he did say himself that if it wasn’t for Alma he may well have been homosexual.
This costume and gender change that Norman preforms here is something many people write about – the idea of ‘changing’ your clothes, that this action reflects a restlessness or insanity. ‘The more costume changes, the more deranged… pathology is somehow inscribed on clothes’ (Bruzzi, 1997 P129). And this also works in the opposite way, with the idea that ‘A heavily consistent image, the control these characters exert over the action and characters around them is straightforwardly reflected in their controlled appearances’ (Bruzzi, 1997 p129). This is something we can see in Patrick, his ridiculously controlled image applies to his whole way of life. Everything is purposeful, even his crimes, which reflects these all-encompassing forces in his life. So by making characters change, or not change, directors are already sending us messages about their unseen mental state. The designers are sending us little signals and hints, but they are also trying to keep us in the dark. And we cannot forget the fact that these films are made from a misogynistic viewpoint, where ‘A woman is more likely to be read through the way she looks than her male equivalent.’ (Bruzzi, 1997 P126). And this actually works hugely in the favor of psycho, as it means the audience really don’t read into the signals being sent to us through Normans’ clothing, making his big reveal even more shocking.
In this scene we are confronted with the idea that ‘the mind still upstaged the body’. (Emile Cheng-Hsien lin 2015 P2). Normans body is ‘presented in certain ways to display the attributes and ideologies celebrated in the unperceivable mind’ (Emile Cheng-Hsien Lin 2015). The aspects of his mind that we couldn’t see before: the gender troubles, the mother issues, the violence, all are now on display on his body. This costume although more a costume than his regular clothes, actually is a much more real representation of his true identity. Gendered clothes are so significant that they completely change the readings of the body, we see Norman as mother, despite the fact that all the director has done is put him in a dress. And his true self is summed up particularly accurately in this statement from Carol J Clover: ‘The notion of a killer propelled by psychosexual fury, more particularly a male in gender distress… permanently locked In childhood (carol J clover, 2015, p77). He is a sexual deviant, with confused reasoning behind his violence – allowing him to perfectly fill the role of a classic slasher genre villain. Is Psycho a slasher film? I would argue yes, as slasher films speak ‘deeply and obsessively to male anxieties and desires’ (carol j clover, 2015, p106), and to me this is what Psycho is all about.
We are presented with the contradiction that is the character of Norman; a boy living in fear of ‘Females whose power is both fascinating and seemingly limitless’ (Tania modleski 2015 p1). Whilst also adopting the stereotypical behaviours of such women to express ‘feminine’ ‘feelings of rage, helplessness, victimisation, oppression” (Tania Modleski 2015 p4) Tania Modleski writes about this a little more, explaining how women in cinema exist as a way for men to fulfil their desires and anxieties – and this is exactly what the women in both psycho and American psycho do. For Norman, Marion allows him to act on his desires for her, and his mother helps him find a way to fight against his fears of women. Whilst for Patrick, women are there for him to harm as much as he desires to, mainly in defence of his fears of being out of control. Men always have the desires, and women are always the ones punished for it. (Tania Modleski 2015 p1) the way women are treated in both films allows characters to reveal themselves to us without revealing themselves to other characters (G Turner, 2002, P69).
It is very clear from the research and analysis I have undertaken looking at these particular films, that dress is a key language. And every change we have to our appearance can say a lot about us, and is also what we use to gain a sense of our own identity. And in film and costume, this is much more of a conscious than in real life as ‘images reach us as already encoded messages’ (g Turner, 2002 54). The filmmakers use colours, sounds, lighting, mis-en-scene, to already try to tell us about the characters we are watching. It is a whole independent language built us of semiotics and signs and hidden meanings. Costume is one of the most important aspects for character development within film.
We see here the ways in which designers really can sculpt a complete identity (real of fake) by how they present characters, ‘underlining how individuals perceive their positions in society and what they opt to present themselves in’. (Emile Cheng-Hsien Lin 2015). Both Norman, and Patrick are consciously given fake visual identities so successful that they not only fool all the other characters they encounter, but they also fool us – the viewers. Imagine their clothes when not on the body, what do they say then? For these characters their disguises, if you found them in an exhibition for example, against a blank background, they would tell us everything we wanted to know about the characters. Norman’s ill fitting, stained and wrinkled humble clothing would make us think he was a sweet nervous boy, living with his mother. Patrick’s sharp, tailored, expensive suits would portray a businessman, successful and respectable. They are perfect disguises.
We cannot help but see clothes as both ‘part of the subject and as objects for the subject’; they can never be conceived of as ‘totally separate’ from the body (Warwick & Cavallaro 2000: p.44). Clothes are just clothes, but once they are worn, inhabited, and part of life, they cant help but give away truths about the wearers life. When these beautiful suits are placed onto Patricks obsessively perfect body they start to become creepily fake and forced. When we put Normans clothes onto his small frame, and they are moved in with uneasiness around his eerie house, he too begins to make us feel uncomfortable. As if his male body doesn’t feel quite right in them, compared to the complete confidence once he dons a dress. Sometimes unexpectedly gendered clothes are the ones that make an individuals body make more sense to themselves and others.
The biggest example of one of these secrets is gender, masculinity and feminity. The way that Norman’s costumes allow his character to flow between the two, while Patricks costume helps him to become the most toxicly masculine version of himself that he can – it shows that there is ‘no such thing as genuine womanliness, then there is no such thing as genuine manliness’ (Bruzzi, 1997 129). The body seems much less important to gender than the mind and the costume. And in fact, female dress or traits seem to be the enemy. In these two different but ultimately patriarchal worlds, the thing that everyone fears (and what brings the downfall of both these characters) is femininity. ‘b,,9) Norman is a character terrified of his mother, but his mind has warped this strange upbringing to make him idolize his mother and as a reaction hate every other woman he encounters – but this is all down to a fear of them due to lack of experience. Whereas the character of Patrick also cares little for women, just uses them as bodies, and hates their feminine traits as they reflect everything he wishes he wasn’t. Therefor all women that actually dress as a women stereotypically would, or performs a feminine personality with traits such as sex appeal, or hysteria, are destined to die. ‘Characters who’s sexual appetites show on the outside have to strike a balance between liberation and vulgarity. Such characters are generally not sensible, they wear impractical shoes or bring too much luggage, they cheat and/or flirt and, in any cases, end up dead.’ (Anne Bachman 2017 P26)
Of course, ‘All humans play a number of different roles in their lifetime, and the transition from one role to another is marked by costume’ (Barbara brownie 2015 p34) as clothing is incredibly important in telling us all about a character, therefor a change in costume, reflects these dual personalities and secrets than can exist in one person. Such as Normans change to his mothers dress, Patricks change to his own bare body as opposed to a suit. But the question still remains, do these outfit changes spark the change in identity within these characters, or does their change of character mean that designers need to change the way they are represented? I believe that it is a mix of both, that it is not black and white, one or the other.
This also applies to the world of fashion. We as people subconsciously make small changes to our appearance depending on even out smallest change of feeling during the day, but its also true that if we dress someone in something that to them embodies certain memories and actions, it would be impossible for them to refrain from leaning into these implied traits a little more than they usually would. Because of these factors it will always be near impossible to tell if the person you walk past in the street really does fit into the instant judgements we make about them, are they just a nice guy giving you a smile as they pass by, or are they on their way home to commit unimaginable crimes. Even in films, when we are presented with characters who’s costumes have been deliberately designed to send viewers a specific message, it is not a given that every viewer will come to the same conclusions. The judgements people make based on what they see are each unique to that individual – influenced by culture, society, upbringing and a wide range of other factors. Were I to present this film stills to a group of people, and ask them to make their own assumptions of the characters they would undoubtedly each have views different to each-other, and different to my own. Therefor, I don’t think we can trust what we see and should take time to dig a little deeper before we make judgements based on appearance.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Primary:
· American Psycho (2000), Dvd, Directed By Mary Harron, Usa,
· Brett Easton Ellis, 1991, American Psycho, Picador Publishers
· Psycho, (1960), Netflix, Directed By Alfred Hitchcock, Usa
· Robert Bloch, 1959, Pyscho, Simon & Schuster Publishers
Secondary:
· Allen, Mike, (2017), ‘the sage encyclopedia of communication research methods’, Sage Publications
· Bachmann, Anne, (2017) ‘Costume, Nostalgia And Sexuality In Murder Mysteries By Maria Lang And Their Adaptions’, Volume 8, Number 1, Intellect Ltd, Edited By Barry Keith Grant, University Of Texas Press Publishers, Proquest Ebook Central
· Betts, Liza, ‘Costume In Literature: What Do Television Adaptations Of Modern Literature ‘Write’ On The Body Via The Clothing Used As Costume?’, University Of The Arts
· Brownie, Barbara , (2015), ‘The Superhero Costume: Identity And Disguise In Fact And Fiction’, Bloomsbury Pubishing Plc, Ebook Central
· Bruzzi, Stella, (1997) ‘Undressing Cinema: Clothing And Identity In The Movies’, Chapter 5, Clothes, Power And The Modern Femme Fatale, Routledge Publishers
· Bugg, Jessica, ‘Mediated Materiality And Meaning: Curating Experience Through The Body And Dress’, Rmit University Publishers
· Cheng-Hisien Lin, Emile, (2015), ‘The Fashioned Victims: Addressing The Yn/Dressed Body In Hwangs M.Butterfly’, Clothing Cultures, Intellect Ltd Publishers,
· Colpert, Lisa, ‘Costume On Film: How The Femme Fatele’s Wardrobe Scripted The Pictorial Dtyle Of 1940s Film Noir’, Studies In Costume And Performance, Volume 4, Number 1
· Creed, Barbara, (2015), ‘Horror And The Monstrous-Femenine: An Imaginary Abjection,’ Dread Of Difference,University Texas Press Publishers, Proquest Ebook Central.
· Dirid, Emmanuelle, Kirkham, Neil, (2017), ‘Still ‘Fashionably Laid’? Costume And Contemporary Moving-Image Pornography’, Film, Fashion And Consumption, Volume 6 Number 1, Intellect Ltd Publishers
· Gibson, Pamela Church, (2011), ‘Film Stars As Fashion Icons, Fashion And Celebrity Culture’, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, Proquest Ebook Central,
· Gibson, Pamela Church, ‘Part 1: Fashion And Fim,’ Fashion And Celebrity Culture, Berg Publishers,
· Hagelin, Sarah, (2013), ‘Reel Vulnerability: Power, Pain, And Gender In Contemporary American Film And Television’, The Furies, He Men, And The Method, Cinematic Languages Of Vulnerability, Rutgers University Press
· Hansen-Miller, David. (2011), ‘Cocivilised Violence: Subjectivity, Gender, And Popular Cinema’, Conclusion: Gender And Pervasive Violence, Routledge Publishers
· Hill, John, (2000), ‘film costume’, ‘film studies, critical approaches’, oxford publishers,
· Http://Www.Novelguide.Com/Reportessay/Literature/Novels/Thematic-Analysis-Alfred-Hitchcocks-Psycho
· J Clover, Carol, (2015), ‘Her Body, Himself: Gender In The Slasher Film’, Dread Of Difference, University Of Texas Press Publishers, Proquest Ebook Central,
· Kirkham, Neil, (2017), ‘A Very British Tease: Costume, Fetishism And Materiality In Soft Core Pornography’clothing Cultures, Volume 4 Number 2, Intellect Ltd Publishers, Barbara Creed
· Modleski, Tania, (2015), ‘Introduction: Jitchcock, Feminism, Anc The Patriarchal Unconscious, The Women Who Knew Too Much, Hitchcock And Feminist Theory’, Routledge Publishers, Proquest Ebook Central
· Turner, G, (2002) ‘Film And Social Practise, Chapter 3: Film Languages.’ Taylor & Francis Group Publishers