It's not persuasive. People just state opinions without backing them up. They're more interested in posturing than proving. For starters, there's no proof that queer themes present themselves in horror films more than in other genres, it's just assumed and the viewer is expected to accept that. Sometimes the speakers strain to apply the thesis.
The worst episode was the one in which Anthony Perkins was discussed. Norman Bates is not a gay or queer man: he's a mentally disturbed straight man who's looking for the love of a woman. That's established in Psycho and all the sequels and I assume the Robert Bloch book from which Psycho was adapted. Why would a gay man spy on an attractive, straight woman who's undressing, and it's implied, become aroused by the sight? AFAIK, Ed Gein, the real-life inspiration for the Psycho book, was not queer. When Bates dons women's clothes, he's not engaging in a deliberate act of sexual or identity expression. He has dissociative personality disorder and literally thinks he's a woman in the moment. There's no act of transgression or transformation. How far is this interpretation of coded queerness supposed to extend? Are we to believe that every reclusive, unmarried character is a latent homosexual?
The treatment of Perkins' terrific performance as nothing more than a self-confession is profoundly insulting. He used some elements of his personal life, but so do all actors. But ultimately, he was an actor and an artist who made specific choices to interpret a role. He was NOT Norman Bates. He suffered because he was seen by so many as nothing but this character and it was assumed he was nothing but this character. Just yesterday, I saw an interview with Perkins as an older man who described the auditions for Psycho II. He was at the studio's office when unexpectedly he had to read with one of the actresses being considered for Mary. He talked about how he had to work to summon Norman Bates on short notice. Even his own son, Oz Perkins, jumps on the queer theory bandwagon and utters opinions that make no sense. I guess it's nice to feel like part of the club. But I was amazed by Perkins' son's statement that Marion Crane is wondering why Bates isn't trying to have sex with her. What? We've seen that she's in a serious relationship and she's just impulsively committed a crime that could land her in prison for several years. She's a bit preoccupied with how to fix her rather monumental problems. We see later that she hopes to return the money and pay back what she spent. She's an attractive woman who feels sorry for Bates, but the last thing on her mind is "Does he think I'm hot?"
It also was ridiculous for Oz Perkins to look at John Gavin's character, Sam Loomis, as similar to the characters Anthony Perkins had played in the past. Loomis is a traditional man who's comfortable in his own skin. In movies like "The Actress," "Friendly Persuasion," "The Lonely Man," "The Tin Star," "The Sea Wall," "Desire Under the Elms," "The Matchmaker," "Green Mansions," "Fear Strikes Out, "On the Beach" and "Tall Story," all of which I've seen, Perkins played intense, sensitive boy/men; they were nothing like Loomis. It's bizarre to claim that when Bates kills Loomis it's some kind of triumph over the roles Perkins played before Psycho.
One of the commentators notes that it was telling that Hitchcock cast suspected gay actors as villains in "Rope" and "Psycho" (Incidentally, I don't know that Hitchcock did know that Perkins was homosexual at the time.). But even if true, how many films did Hitchcock make in which the villain was a straight actor? Quite a few. The overwhelming majority. This is an example of how critically weak the series is and how it suffers from selection bias.
I have no problem with queer theory analyses when the work supports it in some way. I thought the documentary "The Celluloid Closet" was illuminating when it did not overreach. For example, such an interpretation is quite plausible in regard to a character like Mrs. Danvers in Hitchcock's Rebecca. It's not in regard to Norman Bates and Psycho.
The worst episode was the one in which Anthony Perkins was discussed. Norman Bates is not a gay or queer man: he's a mentally disturbed straight man who's looking for the love of a woman. That's established in Psycho and all the sequels and I assume the Robert Bloch book from which Psycho was adapted. Why would a gay man spy on an attractive, straight woman who's undressing, and it's implied, become aroused by the sight? AFAIK, Ed Gein, the real-life inspiration for the Psycho book, was not queer. When Bates dons women's clothes, he's not engaging in a deliberate act of sexual or identity expression. He has dissociative personality disorder and literally thinks he's a woman in the moment. There's no act of transgression or transformation. How far is this interpretation of coded queerness supposed to extend? Are we to believe that every reclusive, unmarried character is a latent homosexual?
The treatment of Perkins' terrific performance as nothing more than a self-confession is profoundly insulting. He used some elements of his personal life, but so do all actors. But ultimately, he was an actor and an artist who made specific choices to interpret a role. He was NOT Norman Bates. He suffered because he was seen by so many as nothing but this character and it was assumed he was nothing but this character. Just yesterday, I saw an interview with Perkins as an older man who described the auditions for Psycho II. He was at the studio's office when unexpectedly he had to read with one of the actresses being considered for Mary. He talked about how he had to work to summon Norman Bates on short notice. Even his own son, Oz Perkins, jumps on the queer theory bandwagon and utters opinions that make no sense. I guess it's nice to feel like part of the club. But I was amazed by Perkins' son's statement that Marion Crane is wondering why Bates isn't trying to have sex with her. What? We've seen that she's in a serious relationship and she's just impulsively committed a crime that could land her in prison for several years. She's a bit preoccupied with how to fix her rather monumental problems. We see later that she hopes to return the money and pay back what she spent. She's an attractive woman who feels sorry for Bates, but the last thing on her mind is "Does he think I'm hot?"
It also was ridiculous for Oz Perkins to look at John Gavin's character, Sam Loomis, as similar to the characters Anthony Perkins had played in the past. Loomis is a traditional man who's comfortable in his own skin. In movies like "The Actress," "Friendly Persuasion," "The Lonely Man," "The Tin Star," "The Sea Wall," "Desire Under the Elms," "The Matchmaker," "Green Mansions," "Fear Strikes Out, "On the Beach" and "Tall Story," all of which I've seen, Perkins played intense, sensitive boy/men; they were nothing like Loomis. It's bizarre to claim that when Bates kills Loomis it's some kind of triumph over the roles Perkins played before Psycho.
One of the commentators notes that it was telling that Hitchcock cast suspected gay actors as villains in "Rope" and "Psycho" (Incidentally, I don't know that Hitchcock did know that Perkins was homosexual at the time.). But even if true, how many films did Hitchcock make in which the villain was a straight actor? Quite a few. The overwhelming majority. This is an example of how critically weak the series is and how it suffers from selection bias.
I have no problem with queer theory analyses when the work supports it in some way. I thought the documentary "The Celluloid Closet" was illuminating when it did not overreach. For example, such an interpretation is quite plausible in regard to a character like Mrs. Danvers in Hitchcock's Rebecca. It's not in regard to Norman Bates and Psycho.
