AMERICAN PSYCHO discussion (consolidated) (spoilers!) - Page 2

I haven't seen the movie and don't plan to, and I know it's always a mistake to compare movies to the books on which they're based, but I'm going to anyway.

In the book American Psycho, Bateman is always bringing his suits to a dry cleaner who notices blood stains but doesn't say anything. Also, in Ellis's book Glamorama, Patrick Bateman has a cameo, and a character unrelated to Am. Psycho notices and wonders what the strange stain is on Bateman's suit. I don't remember the line, but it's clear that it's a blood stain.

This comparison is cheating, I know; I'm sure the movie is very different from the book, and maybe the point in the movie is that he didn't really do it, but I never got that from the book. Of course, I'm not the world's most sophisticated reader, either.

Read this:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/review/..._21_0_,00.html

Keeping the discussion centered strictly on the movie, it has been stated many times by the creative team that, in their view, the murders were indeed real, but, in retrospect, they feel that they failed to convey that properly.

This EW article (and the DVD commentary) are simply the latest instances of this declaration on the part of the creative team...a Google search will turn up much older interviews in which they express their original intent and vision.

IMHO yes he did.

He even confessed and it did no good, becuase his laywer didnt belive he did anything.

The bullet that blew up the police car was a lucky shot(again Patrick can get away and his luck keeps him from getting caught. He is after all - priviledged) and the laywer not believing him was a running theme through out the film. The laywer had lunch with someone he "thought" was Paul Alan (Since they all wear the same suits, haircuts, glasses, etc.)(This is further backed up when the detective "reminds" Patrick he had dinner with so and so(forget the name), when Patrick wasnt even there. It was someone the guy thought was Patrick).

It goes with one theme of the film which is how self absorbed these people are.

I think Bret Ellis has hates the rich. There seem to be common themes through his books (and films).

Wow, I can't believe that twist never occurred to me. Adds a whole new level to the film for me, which I'll have to rewatch now.

See, it's things like the "Feed me a stray cat" ATM machine that throws me off. Also his oft-uttered line in the film "I have to return some video tapes." just seems really strange to me.

However some things in the film do support the 'real' theory, like Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) , it was shown so that we the audience could see it.

I have to agree that it was real, but not handled well by the filmmakers. It's cool though, they inadvertantly added another layer of delerium to the film which reflects Bateman's spiraling madness and makes it all the more interesting.

Some have speculated that when Bateman returns to Paul Allen's apartment to find no trace of his killings, this may have been because the owners of the property cleaned it up themselves clandestinely to ensure that the value of the property could remain stratospheric.

I've never found myself compelled to really try to answer definitively the question of did-he-or-didn't-he. The raising of the question itself provides the only real comeuppance that can mean anything to Bateman - the horrifying realization that he may still just be another anonymous asshole in a suit, without even murders to distinguish him from anyone else.

--Jefferson Morris

Along the lines of the EW article: Guinivere Turner, co-screenwriter of (and actress in) American Psycho, in an interview with Ron Hogan published in Bitch: Feminist Response to Pop Culture said this:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I think it ends up becoming a "Lady or the Tiger" sort of question for many people, regardless of the filmmakers' intentions. After seeing the film I was of the opinion, like some have alluded to, that Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
But I think how you view it depends on what notions you bring to the table, which always makes for interesting discussion when the movie is brought up.

American Psycho

How is this film? I've been curious about it since Bale is in it... but that is literally all I know about the film.

It's based on a the novel by Bret Easton Ellis (author of Less Than Zero and Rules of Attraction as well) and is a satire of yuppies and 80's pop culture. Also, the main character happens to cut people up. It's really a love it or hate it movie. I am definitely a fan. Bale's excellent as Patrick Bateman (which is eerily close to Batman) and essentially plays him as a cold Bruce Wayne who's alter-ego is a bit more maniacal. When I first heard Bale would be playing Batman, I knew he'd be perfect since I'd seen American Psycho. It's disturbing, funny and a good way to spend two hours. Highly recommended by me.

Me too.

The movie's a laugh riot. Buy it.

I interpretted the ending a little different then everyone else. I saw the lawyer as playing dumb with Patrick on purpose.

Bateman obviously has money so he's got one of the best lawyers in town. I figured the lawyer got his message and "took care" of everything (cleaned up the apartment, fixed all his mistakes) whatever he had to do to hide all these murders. So when they meet at the bar, the lawyer is playing to dumb so Patrick won't make a big scene; laying low. By the lawyer dropping that bombshell that he had lunch with Paul Allen, this was a sign that the lawyer knew what was going on; he was in the loop. Everything was hidden, don't worry about it.

After hearing this Bateman slumps bakc down with his friends and stares off and gives that great montage. " My confession means nothing." I think Bateman had himself so psyched up to get caught that he truly thought that this was the end. It's like he almost wanted to get caught to end the pain. Now that he's cleared he can go at it again, start the cycle over.

This may be a far shot interpretation but this was how I first analyzed it. After researching and reading your posts I see im in the minority. But, just a thought.


- Don't just stare at it, eat it!!  

I don't care if the filmmakers tried to convey the fact thay he was really killing people.  The movie makes it clear to me that it was all in his mind.  The editing betrays their intentions.   the book may have made it clear that he was killing.  That doesn't matter because the movie is structured with intention.  Bateman killed no one.