“And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable… I simply am not there.” – Patrick Bateman (American Psycho, 2000).
Alison Landesberg suggests in her essay Prosthetic Memory: Total Recall and Blade Runner the experiences an audience member has watching a film is equally impactful and informative as lived experiences. These simulated experiences cultivate identity and these memories without the lived experience encourage the formation of new opinions. Landesberg explains that these memories build empathy because they give opportunity for audiences to visually put themselves in others’ shoes. However, these movies do not just induce empathy, but encourage confirmation biases and inspire toxic behaviors as well.
Confirmation bias is defined by the Northeastern University Library as “the tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with one’s existing beliefs.” Therefore, if a man believes that they are exceedingly charismatic but utterly self-reliant they will only experience information or experiences that will affirm these self-proclaimed behavioral traits.
Top of the corporate ladder, disciplined, in a relationship with an heiress, and does as he pleases with others, the dream life. Just one character flaw, if you would call it as such, he likes to “dissect girls”. Hello Patrick Bateman, the poster boy of the Sigma Male.
A Sigma Male can be defined as a lone wolf, someone who is defined as the “rarest of males (Rose, 2024)”. They are essentially better than everyone, they are logical, confident, women love them and they don’t care; they are not just better than everyone they are above. Sigma Males can be a form of narcissism. Men watch American Psycho and internalize the experiences Bateman lived and say “I could be as successful as him, he is literally me.” Landesberg states films induce empathy from a viewer. However, if one is empathizing with Patrick Bateman and seeing similarities I do not think they are digesting these films critically. While films can promote empathy, there needs to be a recognition of audiences that are not looking to empathize with another person’s lived experience.
The book American Psycho was written by a queer man Bret Easton Ellis, and the film was directed by a woman. It could deduce that this film was not trying to establish this character that depicts masculinity, rather the opposite. One could say that Patrick Bateman is a satirical depiction of the greed of climbing the ranks of capitalism, as well as the deliberate overlooking of warning signs of dangerous men. “White men can get away with anything. Though that is not what the self-proclaimed Sigma Males take away from the narrative of American Psycho. They see Bateman’s confidence, his logic, his class and not just strive to see themselves in his character, they see themselves as Patrick Bateman (minus the murder tendencies). There is a confirmation bias men use when watching films that highlight men without looking at the deeper meaning. Their analysis is surface-level because they are just looking at themselves. Audiences that see the socially toxic parts of themselves can perpetuate social oppression. These narratives men take away from American Psycho can often be harmful for women.
Another archetype of men that has been formally labeled via digital media is the “Nice Guy.” Many men try to separate themselves from the “common.” That is why Sigma Males try to emulate the “lone wolf”, someone who does not need anyone. While Nice Guys differentiate themselves from other men, they hear the gross behaviors of other men and act opposingly. However, because they recognize these traits, they believe women owe them the attention because “they are not like other guys.” An example of this would be the male lead of 500 Days of Summer. Though the female lead of the film established many throughout the term of their relationship, the male lead thought she owed him a relationship because he invested so much time with her. Many audiences empathized with the male lead and villainized the female lead. Thus, perpetuating the harmful narrative that women should give in to something they do not want because a man wanted.
Landesberg does clarify that she wants to emphasize that audiences should take away the sentiments of films rather than unquestioningly validate their own pasts. Just like any experience, it could be collective yet the individual will form a unique perspective. While movies are a beautiful way to view a new narrative with a moral that needs to be emphasized, many should realize that they can be just as harmful as they are helpful. Landesberg does a great job describing the positive effects of films yet her argument lacked a contrasting point. Films and media have hyperbolized and affirmed a spectrum of behaviors. Which has radicalized and divided as much as it has connected communities.
As a filmmaker I believe that films can create a narrative of empathy that connects the world, yet there is a need in the world to study context as well as the film itself. There are identities being built from the prosthetic memory received from film, Landesberg emphasizes empathy and I emphasize systematic oppression. There is a trend where viewers of these Sigma Male films are alienating themselves from others and they are developing a disdain for others. Audiences are not seeing the larger picture, they are perpetuating the thoughts that are internalized not just in them but in societal systems.
Works Cited
American Psycho. Directed by Mary Harron, Lions Gate Films, 2000.
Fake News/Misinformation/Disinformation: What is Confirmation Bias?. Northeastern University Library, https://subjectguides.lib.neu.edu/fakenews/bias.
500 Days of Summer. Directed by Mark Webb, Fox Searchlight Picture, 2009
Landesberg, Alison. Prosthetic Memory: Total Recall and Blade Runner. Columbia University Press, 2004.
Rose, Steven. The sad, stupid rise of the sigma male: how toxic masculinity took over social media. The Guardian, 12 Jun, 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/12/the-sad-stupid-rise-of-the-sigma-male-how-toxic-masculinity-took-over-social-media.
Love your choice! I’ve spoken about this phenomenon of American Psycho a number of times. How ironic that the very men who idolise this character, are the ones this movie means to poke fun at. I like that you brought up 500 days of Summer, I absolutely agree, it’ tragic watching people call Summer a manic pixie dream girl when she is presented only through the main character’s perspective. He sees her as his manic pixie dream girl, but the movie offers so many chances for the audince to understand that she is only reduced to that through his view. Another movie I occasionally see misinterpreted is Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World. While I’ve never heard of anyone idolising Scott Pilgrim in the same way Patrick Bateman is, Scott, much like in 500 days of summer, is often pitied. Yet, Scott is a horrible person… The sad heartbroken Scott, dating a 17 year old, at the ripe age of 22 who he then cheats on and dumps for his own manic pixie dream girl. Overall, not a good person… but still great movie!
Hi Maxine!
Totally agree with the Scott Pilgrim opinion! Scott is extremely idolized, and while I commend the filmmaking for its experimental multi-media approach, I found Scott quite problematic.
What I wanted to convey with this blog post is that the characters that are written (not just the men) are complex and their multi-faceted characterization conveys layers of important messages. However, what I have found throughout analyzing feedback from these kinds of movies is that people do not understand the main message, or only find a message that confirms their points of view. I am not saying everyone, however, there is a niche group that takes the wrong messages to the extremes! All films I mentioned are great in their own respects!
Hi Bridghet! This was such a great read! I love how you take Landesberg’s idea of prosthetic memory and flip it to show what happens when people relate to the wrong parts of a film. The Patrick Bateman example was perfect! It’s wild how a character meant to satirize toxic masculinity somehow became a role model for “literally me” guys online. Your point about confirmation bias made that phenomenon make so much more sense, and the comparison to the “Nice Guy” archetype was spot on. I really appreciate how you connect theory to actual internet culture in a way that feels so natural and grounded.
Hi Nate!
Thank you for the kind words! Extremism on social media is getting increasingly more and more profound. I am increasingly wondering what the initial perspective of these Sigma Males are, and their mental processes to find confirmation to their bias within these social-commentary based films!
Very fun and relevant topic, Bridghet! Like you pointed out, It’s very bizarre to be in this time and space we’re in online where satire seems to be so entirely lost in the absurdity of internet culture and echo-chambers. I think the key to a lot of this is the power that is inherent in memes and humour as an agent to muddy the waters of discourse. Personally, I’m skeptical as to whether the majority of self proclaimed “sigma-males” who claim to relate to Patrick Bateman have ever even seen the movie. I think instead, we’re seeing this weird confluence of sincerity and irony, where people, completely in jest, spread memes of characters like Patrick Bateman, and then certain people with a predisposition to conservative, hypercapitalist, hypermasculine insecurity continue to spread them in a way completely unintended by their originators. In terms of semiotics they become these muddy symbols that are denote entirely different things to different groups. Specific in-groups and ideologies use and understand these symbols according to a new constructed system of meaning completely divorced from the original context, content and authorial intent of the movie they came from. You did a great job laying out this new landscape of insecure internet weirdos!
Hi Daniel!
It is interesting you mention the lost of satire in this world. I find with the vast dispersion of information people have grown tired of analysis and have just started taking information at face value. This de-concentration of information has also resulted in the extremism in politics and polarization of opinion. I believe Michael in class said that, because of the internet instead of having an opinion on a singular topic, one person can have an opinion on a version of one event. This causes a lack of cohesion amongst common information, therefore creating fractures in true information. Thus, resulting in these sub-groups that take pieces of media and distort their meaning into affirming more of their extreme beliefs.
I was reminded while reading this about one of the papers that was discussed in my group last week during Journal Club #2: Drenton’s “Curating a consumption ideology: Platformization and gun influencers on Instagram.” Two of it’s key points are that over-the-top gun-culture is perpetuated by the weapons being ‘glamourized’ through their media depictions, and the symbiotic, fervent ‘tribalization’ of those who identify with the community in response to perceived antagonists (or threats) to the community. It’s so easy for people to complain to each other online about their ill-feelings and face little for their views. However, the tendency you outlined for ideas being exchanged over whatever digital social to become increasingly radical could be attributed to the “glamorization” and reaffirmation in a medium — building community and identity through communal identification. Developing more dramatic and removed-from-reality-views in these echo-chambers, their is undoubtably a tribal mentality fanning their hostile, violent reactions when the saliency of their opinions are put at odds with a society based in the real world. But sure, ‘he’s literally me’ or whatever. Guess I want a new drug.
Love this contemporary choice, Bridghet! As an internet user as well as a young woman simply living her life, I have definitely had experiences that confirm your arguments illustrating the negative effects of prosthetic memory. I particularly loved your use of the psychology term confirmation bias — it is well-known that youth are vulnerable to media messages, especially those that make them feel included and socially accepted. Combined with lower cognitive development and undeveloped media literacy, this often results in young audiences misinterpreting satirical pieces to prioritize the information that aligns with their own priorities and mindset. This reminds me of the controversial quote “The author is dead”, and the argument that as soon as a media piece is published, the intentions of the creator are rendered “dead” and overtaken by the audience’s own interpretations. In the case of American Psycho it is definitely harmful and telling of a system that encourages male dominance and isolation, but in other situations it has created opportunities for creativity and reclamation. Curious to hear your thoughts!
I really enjoyed this post, as it reminded me of how people, including myself, tend to adopt characters and turn them into their own identity after watching a film. It’s a good reminder that context matters, and that films can shape people in ways that are just as harmful as they are insightful when the audience isn’t looking closely. I’ve always liked American Psycho because of how absurdly exaggerated Patrick Bateman is. However, as you mentioned, people often quote his lines and praise his toxic character as an aesthetic or lifestyle choice, reinforcing entitlement or toxic behaviour when viewers hook onto a character uncritically. I think that’s a powerful addition to Landesberg’s argument in that prosthetic memories can reinforce wider patterns such as these.
Instead of seeing Bateman as a critique of capitalism, masculinity, some may absorb only the parts that affirm their own fantasies about confidence, control, or superiority. It’s like people aren’t actually watching the film, and they are watching themselves in the film.
Bridghet, I love your post so much ????
This is a great addition to Landesberg’s argument and an important reminder of a very real issue that non-critical media consumption poses. You did a great job analyzing two significant archetypes of men, too (sorry you had to think about men for school, I think there must be some kind of compensation in place for this).
My main question is: are there any possible solutions to this in your opinion? There isn’t a way to regulate how critically a person watches a movie or how much reflection is going on in a movie theatre. We can also not stop the creation of critical films. Do you think there could be some kind of solution and, if so, on what scale? Individual, local, global, even?
Ban men from movies.
Hi Bridghet! This was such an engaging and thought-provoking read. I really liked how you took Landesberg’s idea of prosthetic memory and applied it to the way audiences relate to problematic characters like Patrick Bateman. Your analysis of Sigma Males and Nice Guys illustrated how confirmation bias can warp empathy into harmful self-identification, which makes the concept feel very real in digital culture. I also appreciated how you highlighted the contrast between the author/director’s intentions and the audience’s interpretations—it really emphasizes how media can have unintended social consequences. Your discussion made me think a lot about the responsibility of viewers in critically engaging with media narratives.