Norman's Dress: Transphobic?
In my internet surfing for "Psycho" stuff, I found several articles that quoted a writer for the cable TV series "Bates Motel" -- Kerry Ehrin.
A discussion point had to do with the "writer's decision" that in the big "shower murder" to be shown on "Bates Motel," not only would the victim now be a male(a "new" and villainous version of Sam Loomis), Freddie Highmore as Norman would NOT commit the shower murder dressed as his Mother(which, famously in the 1960 consisted only of Anthony Perkins and his various doubles wearing an old lady's flowered dress and a gray wig -- no female make-up, etc.)
This article from "Indiewire" has this quote:
BEGIN
"Thematically, Ehrin was also very conscious not to reinforce a transphobic narrative — an accusation attached to “Psycho” because of how it demonizes a man when he identifies as a woman. In the film, Norman is dressed as his mother when he kills people, including Marion. Because Norman himself is innocent when identifying as a cisgender male and murderous when he identifies as a woman, one could argue “Psycho” propagates fear of trans individuals and supports a heteronormative viewpoint."
END
And thus...no dress for Norman in the "Bates Motel" shower scene.
Of some interest to me is that modernly, a lot of gender-based political/social debate is pretty much...academic. On paper only, or perhaps arguments expressed at a panel discussion.
But the Bates Motel example is "theory in actual practice." The showrunner made a purposeful decision NOT to give us a Norman Bates who murders in his Mother's clothes(and fake wig) for the political reasons expressed above.
I argued with myself against even bringing this up, except I find it demoralizing as a matter of ...art.
To me, way back in the 1960 original, when "Mother" came storming out of her room at Arbogast and slashed him in the face, and then when "Mother" leaped on Arbogast on the floor...part of the reason that the sequence WAS so horrifying(even with a comparative lack of bloodshed) was because an "old woman" was committing this virile and vicious attack. It created a "nightmare image" of a subhuman Monster Mother, that, frankly, was never fully erased by the reveal of Norman as the killer.
I find Mother most terrifying in the Arbogast murder(because of her mobility), but "she" is certainly also a terrifying figure in shadowy close-up in the more famous shower scene, and that same "nightmarish" emotional effect kicks in, in the overhead shots of "Mother" leaning in close against Marion's naked body with her blade in the frame. ("Two women" -- one nubile, beautiful and nude; one strapping and white-haired and aged, share a shower.)
Now: imagine both the Arbogast murder and the shower scene if all we saw was: Anthony Perkins. Perkins appearing clearly in the shower(and thus demolishing the twist ending "game" in the film as we have it, not to mention turning the scene into something more sexual) Imagine Perkins in his sweater and slacks, racing out of the door of Mother's room.
It doesn't really work, doesn't it?
I think the remarks of the Bates Motel show runner about why she eliminated the dress from the shower scene are..above all...sad. The Hays Code of censorship is back...the movies are not as free as they were from 1960 to say, 2000. A whole array of artistic decisions will be made.."not to." And art itself is being sacrificed to political dogma.
I don't THINK this is going to happen but...on the basis of the showrunner's expressed concerns above...why would the original 1960 Psycho NOT be made subject to censorship...or withdrawal from circulation...in the future?