Genre and representation of madness presented in women in the films psycho and angel at my table

In this essay I would like to study two films, and consider how the idea of madness in women is represented in these films. The two texts I am going to study are Psycho (dir. Alfred Hitchcock, 1960) and An Angel at my Table (dir. Jane Campion, 1990).

The two key theoretical areas in this question are notions of genre, and of representation.  The term ‘genre’ basically means the type of film.  It is a word used to categorise films, for example, Western, gangster, horror.  The genre of a film is defined by the genre conventions that can be identified in it, for example, plot elements, thematic conventions or film technique – such as low lighting common in horror films.   
The idea of representation is best illustrated by the painter Magritte who painted a picture of a pipe, with the words “Ceci c’est ne pas une pipe” – written below.  He was making the point that a picture of an object is not that object – it is a representation of that object.  It is a step away from the object.  To that end, the object is no longer objective, but imbued with the thought of the artist.  So, it is therefore true that women represented in art are not real women, but representations of women, interpretations of women put up on the screen, and imbued with the ideas, thoughts and perceptions of the artist who created them. 
I would like to examine how the women are represented in correlation with the idea of madness, and consider what this means within the context of the genres of the films.  I would also like to consider the audiences watching the films (and what the filmmakers are communicating to this audience on a conscious or subconscious level).

Psycho is one of the most famous horror films of all time, and is one of the most prolific films directed by the much lauded Hitchcock.  It is notable for several reasons, the shocking montage, in which knife is never directly seen piercing flesh, the fact that the heroine dies so early on in the film, and, of course, the shocking and unexpected climax in which Norman Bates is revealed as a cross dressing murderer.  Here is not only a representation of a woman, but of a man appropriating the demeanor, the gender of a woman.
An Angel at my Table is a biopic, based on the autobiography of the poet Janet Frame – a poet and novelist from New Zealand.  The heroine, Jean, is determined to become a writer.  The film traces her life as a child, through her adolescence and finally, as a woman who finds fulfillment through literary achievement.  She spends much her time in an institution, where she is misdiagnosed, and given archaic treatments – such as electric shock treatment – to try and cure her supposed “madness.”

The genre of Psycho is horror.  The lighting is low, as is traditional in horror films.  The score is eerie – it echoes notions of suspense, pointing towards, and building up towards a violent climax through its use of sinister string music.  One way in which this film deviates from the traditional horror narrative is the murder and subsequent early departure of the heroine from the script.  I would like to consider this point in correlation with the “madness” that Marion displays in some of her behaviour.

While Marion does not behave in ways that overtly correspond to a traditional notion of “madness” – for example, she does not murder, or suffer from any type of mental illness – her behaviour is “mad” in terms of it being irrational, dangerous and spontaneous.  Indeed, while engaged in conversation with Norman Bates, eating supper in his parlour, he proposes to her that “we all go a bit mad sometimes,” to which she responds, “Just once is enough.”  This statement appears to be an allusion to her theft of the $40,000 and her subsequent departure from her hometown.  She later remarks that she is going to return, and try and sort out the situation she has created.  She has recovered from this bout of madness, and is ready to return home, to try and absolve herself of this madness.  However, I would like to propose that her madness is represented in this film as negative, and she is punished for it.  There is one clue that denotes the representation of madness as a pejorative trait – before she steals the money, she is dressed in white – traditionally a symbol of purity and innocence.  After she steals the money, she changes into a black dress – black being symbolic of darkness and evil.  The symbolism of the colour of her clothes illustrates that what she has done is negative.  She is then punished for it, when she is murdered by Bates, who is masquerading as his mother.  The representation of madness in women is very clear – women should stick to a certain script of goodness and purity (symbolised by the white dress at the beginning of the film) and if they deviate from this (even if, as Marion says, “just once,”) they will be punished for it.

This is just one point that denotes female madness in this film.  I would also like to consider the character of the “murderess” or “Mother” – the female counterpart created and acted out by Norman Bates.  What is particularly interesting about this idea in correlation to women and madness is that there is a man pretending to be (or thinking that he is) a woman that is mad. 
It is interesting that he can only commit his crimes when he becomes the doppelganger.  It is as if he is absolving masculinity of this heinous crime, and implicating femininity in the crime of murder. 

The “madness” in this film lies in direct opposition to notions of “madness” in An Angel at my Table, where the idea of madness corresponds to a more contemporary understanding of madness as being mental illness – in this film, a wrongly diagnosed case of incurable schizophrenia.  Again, madness is seen in the heroine’s refusal to adhere to a pre-destined script of femininity.  Firstly, on the most basic level, in the character’s appearance, we can see that she does not conform to the traditional notion of a beautiful female lead.  She is plump, rather than slim, she is not striking of face, she is rather plain.  Rather than being the popular, socially successful type, she is introverted.  She dismisses the destiny assigned to her when she declares that she has, “…made up my mind not to be a teacher.  I am going to be a poet.”

The explicit demonstration of “madness” culminates in Jean’s nervous breakdown – she is committed to an institution.  She is then wrongly diagnosed as an incurable schizophrenic.  This is an interesting point, as it illustrates that the “madness” that is imposed upon her does not originate within her.  Rather, it is a diagnosis that has been created by those around her.  Her own impotence, even in the face of what is seemingly her illness, is striking.  It corresponds to the notion illustrated in Psycho that a woman who diverges from the norm will be punished, ostracized and removed from society.  Marion is removed from society through death, Jean through institutionalisation.  Her madness is not initially seen in schizophrenia, but in her behaviour and through the nervous breakdown, that is borne out of her extreme sensitivity to both external and internal stimuli.

There are many basic differences between the two texts – firstly, Psycho was released in
1960, and An Angel at my Table in 1990.  The social contexts of the two pieces are therefore wildly different.  Artistic work is never created in a vacuum, indeed it is shaped and influenced – both consciously and subconsciously- by the cultural cloth from which it is cut.  The role of women in society varied hugely between the sixties and the nineties – so it is striking then that the women are ostracised so overwhelmingly from having not conformed to a notion of what a woman should do, and who she should be.  Neither of the heroines in the two films conform to this universal standard which has been assigned to them, which is why the trajectories of their respective lives are inalterably invaded.

Another key difference is the fact that Psycho was directed by a man – Alfred Hitchcock, and An Angel at my Table by a woman – Jane Campion.  While both the films show the women being “punished” for acting in a way that does not conform to what was expected of them, how does the gender of the director affect the way in which this “punishment” is viewed?  In Psycho, Marion is killed.  She steals the money, admits that doing it was “madness” (confessing to Norman Bates that being mad “just once” is enough) and symbolically dons the colour denoting evil, madness, and all that is in direct opposition to the innocence and purity of woman (i.e. when she changes her clothes from white to black).  In doing this, she brings upon herself the ultimate and most final punishment – death. 

This is irreversible.  Her life is lost forever.  This is the price she pays for her transgression.  A curious footnote to her death arises out of Bate’s disposing of her body and car.  While the car containing her body starts sinking into the swamp, it stops for a moment, while the camera focuses on Bate’s nervous face.  At this point the audience is invited to empathise with Bates, willing the car to sink into the swamp, and conceal its dangerous secret.  To this end, the audience is supporting Marion’s death – the alliance has swapped to Bates.  Her punishment has been approved by the audience.
Jean however, while suffering the indignities bestowed upon her in the institution, finally escapes.  She escapes the fate of brain surgery, and goes on to accomplish her goal as a full time writer.  Campion acknowledges the difficulties faced by Jean, but represents her escaping from them.  Her transition from the script of femininity is ultimately rewarded through her love of literature.
An interesting point of comparision in the two films is the role of the psychologist.  In An Angel at my Table it is members of the medical profession who condemn Jean.  This operates in direct opposition to in Psycho, where the psychologist uses his knowledge of Norman Bates to explain his crimes, if not to absolve him of them.  The psychologists condemn Jean – a woman – for her “madness” but explain Bate’s – a man – transgression using psychology in a manner that is almost sympathetic.
The aim of this essay was to examine the representation madness in women in two films of different genres.  After establishing how I defined the notions of genre – i.e. the type of film, and representation – how women are depicted and shaped – I had to apply these areas of theory to the films Psycho and An Angel at my Table.
One key point that came into play was not only looking at women in Psycho as a film that stands alone, but to consider the film in it’s wider social context, and decipher what meaning it could have metaphorically – outside the boundary of the film.  I wanted to consider what social impact and meaning the film had – how society was reflected in the characters and plot in the film.
In Psycho, Norman Bates is presented as a murderer when he inhabits a woman’s costume and character (he even appropriates her voice) – that of his mother.  When he is a woman, he loses control and kills remorselessly.  The male psyche loses control of the female psyche.  As this film was released in 1960, this could be an indication of a nervous male collective consciousness in response to increasing female emancipation in society.  A feeling that the male audience could probably empathise with.
The more contemporary audience of An Angel at my Table would more be more likely to be shocked at the treatment of Jean, and applaud her escape from the institution which has trapped her.  As I proposed before, while Bates disposes of the body, the audience is encouraged to empathise with him.  This is not the case in An Angel at my Table.  Madness is represented as the cross Jean has to bear for daring to depart from what is expected from her as a woman.