The male ego, film, performance, and queerness: A peculiar mixture.
Now, it is no surprise that the self-described “high value, red pilled” men (though I prefer the term misogynist losers) have a particularly parasitic grasp on the media. What is a surprise is the specific films that this brand of man has attached itself to. As one finds oneself in the unfortunate position of the proverbial trenches of these men's content, you will find a myriad of American Psycho and Fight Club edits, discussions and memes. In which their metaphorical displays of the male queer experience have been completely ignored, or more likely, misunderstood as a mere show of the male ego and violence.
Interestingly, I found that one distinct, magnanimous villain was missing from these supposed sigma-male alters. That being said, Hannibal Lecter, now I propose a few reasons for this: 1) In his introductory film, The Silence of the Lambs, he is already imprisoned. His life is no longer aspirational; thus, these men have nothing to lust after, so to speak. 2) On a more superficial level, he is arguably not conventionally attractive. I would argue that this is a key reason, as a predominant aspect of manosphere content is based on the understanding that looks are paramount. 3) Unlike American Psycho and Fight Club, the Hannibal Lecter films lack the veneer of action or black comedy. It could be argued that in removing this shiny face, the uncomfortable and raw truths of such a deplorable character are laid bare to its audiences. In doing so, the men of the manosphere are deterred from aspiring to Hannibal.
Now, the merciful near-absence of Hannibal within the manosphere may seem like a waste of time to discuss. However, I argue that this scarce appearance serves to highlight exactly how the manosphere interacts with film. More specifically, their main characters. As in every case I’ve seen of the manosphere’s favourite fictional men, they are less characters to be enjoyed but rather to be used as a criteria to achieve. In doing so, the complexities of said characters are systematically removed and replaced by superficial aspirations.
I feel that one of the most explicit examples of this is Patrick Bateman. When removed from his context, his lifestyle is arguably desirable. However, when analysed in conjunction with his social and cultural impacts, it cannot be ignored how stifling and tragic his self-made hell truly is. His infamous morning routine highlights this the most clearly. He carefully curates a rigid routine to hide behind. And in doing so, he creates a version of himself that is so impenetrable that no one can compute him being anything other than the perfect masculine man. At its core, both the film and the book serve to satirise the type of man who does this in a genuine sense. And while there is no doubt that the 80s were rife with this kind of man, there is an outpouring of them today. As seen in their litany of showboating social media posts and intense morning routine TikToks. (All of whom do not understand the complexities of Bateman's self-made tragedy.)
Now, I am aware that the title of this post notes queerness as a key theme, and so far, I have barely mentioned it. In relation to ‘American Psycho’, I see that Bateman's obsession with his own masculinity and his desire to fit in with the other men around him is an offshoot of his desire to hide away from his queerness. I say this because an integral part of the film is the performance of it all, the falseness of Bateman’s persona. Within his intimate scenes, he is separate from them, almost as though they are merely another stage for him to perform. Following the theme of queerness, it can be seen that Bateman is trying to reinforce to himself that he cannot be queer because of his relations with women. I’d note the scene in which he directs an adult film with him as the focal point as a key feature here.
In the book, these scenes are as graphic and intense as his murder scenes. In both the book and film, sex and murder are one and the same. With this, it can be argued that these are, in fact, the same thing, that Bateman’s murders are a metaphor for queer sex. This is further supported by the fact that his murders are seen as a ‘release’ for Bateman. These murders are the only time that we see his mask fall away. They are reinforced as secretive, intense and personal. With this in mind, Bateman's final scene, in which he tearfully admits to murdering various men, can now be understood as him finally being true to himself. The tragedy of it all is that no one believes him due to how perfectly crafted his persona is. He cannot escape his own facade and is powerless to remove himself from it.
Again, the men of the manosphere have a complete detachment from this. And in doing so, have ironically become exactly what both American Psycho and Fight Club have so aggressively satirised. What these men fail to realise is that this is not a desirable lifestyle, and in fact a cautionary tale in what an obsession with one's outward image can do. Both American Psycho and Fight Club serve to highlight this cautionary tale. Both of the titular characters are doing everything in their power to fit in. In both films, this self-enforced conformity becomes a key part in their eventual breakdowns. Additionally, both films highlight the performance of it all.
Regarding Fight Club, this performance and by extension, his (the Narrator's) sexual identity, is conveyed through the Narrator’s home, initially, it's perfectly bland and unassuming. It's clear that the Narrator's perception of himself is directly tied to his possessions and how he is viewed. After Durden exploded the Narrator's home, he lamented how embarrassing it is to have all your personal effects on show. That, in essence, his identity is now exposed for all to see. To escape the fear of being perceived, the Narrator flees to what he deems the safest, physical touch with other men in an atmosphere where that is expected rather than condemned. Ironically, he seeks this in an underground fight club. Now, for those keen-eyed readers, you’ll remember that earlier I proposed the idea that in these films, violence is a metaphor for queer sex. And, yes, that analysis extends to this film. In the wake of this, the Narrator falls deeper and deeper into the fight club, similar to how earlier in the film, he uses group therapy sessions as a release. He does so here, too. I feel that the infamous “don’t talk about fight club” only serves to emphasise the metaphorical sexual nature of it. As the secretive nature of it all reflects the experience of hiding something that is deemed “other” by a wider, restrictive society.
It's funny to me that the manosphere dilutes their vitriol with endless edits of Tyler Durden; the man who, in both the book and film are such an obvious display of overt masculinity to the point of comedy (this is in no way a critique, I love it.) In my mind, Durden is almost a Frankenstein's monster of what the narrator believes makes a man. Each part of him, his fashion, his attitude and his relationship with Marla are turned up to 100%, so to speak. In the real (or as real as the internet can get) world, the manosphere is the narrator, turning to Durden as though he is the pinnacle of man. While completely ignoring every damaging aspect of him, this ignorance of depth and damage is a rather common attribute of the manosphere, as I have previously mentioned. In doing so, the complexities of these pieces of media are lost.
I’d rather not end this first post on such a sad note. So, instead I’ll end it on one of hope. In my research for this essay, I found many video essays and traditional essays on this subject matter. Which to me shows that while the manosphere has taken these films and diluted/stripped their messages. There is still an entire community working to keep these films and books alive and in the social consciousness. So I guess my closing message is that it’s up to the rest of us to peer behind the curtains and uncover the depth in our media.
