Quote:
Originally posted by cynicalgrrlll
well the movie is supposed to be based on the book, so therefore the movie has to be more sanitized than the book, because they couldn't show half of went on in the book in the movie. Movie should be following the book
|
Everything in the movie was directly lifted from the book. As far as I can remember, Mary Harron who directed, wanted to remain faithful to Ellis' narrative, but emphasise the satirical elements of it rather than the visceral, hence she put the violence squarely off screen. I think because the book is so graphic, that is all a lot of readers come away with, and it's hard to say that such lovingly detailed violence could ever be imaginary (although obviously Ellis imagined it...). As I say, it never occurred to me to wonder if it was real or not when I read the book. It was the film that got me wondering, because it labours that point.