AfterBurn

I recently watched the movie and finished reading the book but I don't quite understand some things. Was he emagining all the murders or actually commiting them? Did he want to escape his current lifestyle or something? Why did everyone mistake everyone elses name? Why didn't he kill his secratary in the movie? ANyone who has seen the movie or read the book, help?

__________________
smoking weed everyday keeps the doctor away

illesturban

hmmm it's been a while since the movie so I don't really remember specifics but I do know that it's a good movie. Christian Bale really pulled off the psycho role. Is the book good?

AfterBurn

The book is amazing. Even though it has very graphicly detailed murder scenes and 2 chapters that are devoted to huey lewis and the news it was way deeper than the movie and you really get to know the 'american psycho'

__________________
smoking weed everyday keeps the doctor away

Mr.Deflok

It's left ambigious, personally I think he bored of his life and see's how shallow it is subconsciously so imagines a more exciting side to his life whihc ultimately takes him over and he loses a grip on sanity and a concept on what is real and what is not.

sadatx

No, he was actually commiting the murders in both the book and the movie. He wasn't imagining any of it. (except maybe the very ending where he the ATM said "feed me the cat" or whatever and he was starting to break down)

In the movie, yes he does. I forgot exactly how it goes in the book, but I don't think he breaks down at the end like the movie.

See he's trapped in this "artificial" world of the wealthy 80s New York Coporate set where everyone is so self-involved that they don't ever bother to look deeper than the surface of things....

....and they're so self-involved they don't even care to get other peoples names right.

Because he senses that she's not like the other people and that she actually looks deeper than the "surface" and cares about him.

The book, I believe, tried to be a satire, but missed the mark and was more interested in detailing the murders (again, it's been a while scine I read it).

I thought the movie was somewhat sucessful as a satire, but it was just so obvious. It just beat you over the head with the point it was trying to make.

The "NO WAY OUT" sign in the resturant above Bateman's head in the last shot was meant to let everyone know that there was no way out for Bateman from this world where noone really cares about anyone but themselves. They don't even care about someone going around killing people they just cover it up and move on.

MY friend loved this ending. I just thought the movie was saying "GET IT!" with all the sutblety of a brick to the head.

Charlatan

The end is left rather ambiguous... however, in Easton Ellis' book Glamorama Patrick Bateman makes a cameo appearance and does seem to be doing the murders...

By the way... The "No Way Out" scene comes straight from the novel.

Other than that sadatx is right on the money...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

ChrisJericho

I REALLY like this movie. However perhaps taking a date to see back in highschool wasn't such a good idea.

Yes the ending is ambiguous like everyone else says and I have not read the book. My interpretation is that whether the murders are real or not, he cannot escape his situation. He's trapped in a society that only cares about appearances. This causes him to "kill" even more, which only drives him more insane.

But yeah this is one of my favorites, up there with Fight Club.

__________________
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows us that faith proves nothing." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Kostya

You can make a pretty solid case either way with regards to the murders being real or imaginary. Frankly, I don't think it really matters either way, the most important thing is the underlying theme of the film which works with either scenario.

filtherton

I dunno if i'm just a sick individual, but this movie made me laugh(pardon the expression) like a motherfucker. All of the clipped-out-of-the-paper music critiques, and the attempted murder over better business cards. The part near the end where he is just running around shooting people because he can't leave any witnesses. It gets to a point where even bateman is like "jesus christ, how people am i going to have to kill tonight".
Has anyone seen the sequel with jackie from that 70's show as the psycho? I saw it in the video store and it looked just awful.

Confederate

I personally think it's all imagined, with the monotony of his life his mind was making up for it

almostaugust

I had to have a lie down after i read this book. The only books that compare to this in the 'too-far' stakes are COWS by Matt Stokoe and The Wasp Factory by Iian Banks

__________________
'And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe
Maybe this year will be better than the last
I can't remember all the times I tried to tell my myself
To hold on to these moments as they pass'

AfterBurn

Thanks alot for your responses, cleared a few things for me. But if he really did hate his life that much why didn't he just move somewhere? What about the part in the book where he takes a vacation to Price's house on the beach, away from everyone and yet he still wanted to murder evalyn and ate sand..?

__________________
smoking weed everyday keeps the doctor away

Kaos

It was awful...very awful.

I didn't even watch the whole thing, it was that bad.

ChrisJericho

Yeah me too ! Some of the funniest parts are the threesome scene where he's checking himself out while he's banging and when he tells one girl "Don't just stare at her ass, EAT IT." I also laugh at the end where he's delirious and loses count of all the people he's killed. Dark humor, but humor nonetheless !!

__________________
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows us that faith proves nothing." - Friedrich Nietzsche

AfterBurn

Yeah that was hilarious, which brings me to another question...Why was he checking himself out while fucking the 2 girls, is it because he's a closet homosexual or what? Also, why doesn't he choke luis curruthers in the movie, when luis started kissing his hand he just backed off..Can anyone clear this up for me?

__________________
smoking weed everyday keeps the doctor away

Kostya

Hell yeah,

Despite being violent and misogynistic, Patrick Bateman makes some classic calls in that movie.

The bit where he runs through the revolving door, then runs all the way around to shoot the lady coming out of the elevator is hilarious.

bundy

totally agree. i'd even go as far as to say that its the most quotable film ever.

__________________
Ohayo!!!

Kostya

Hmmm, that gives me an idea for a thread...

I do love Patrick Bateman quotes:

'I have to return some video tapes.'

'I can't believe Bryce prefers Paul Allen's card over mine'.

'I'm trying to listen to the new Robert Palmer tape, but my fiance keeps talking.'

'By the time we reach 'espace' I', almost in tears because I think we won't get a good table, but we do and relief washes over me.'

'It's not just a song about the pleasures of conformity.'

'I'm in murders and executions.'

'What would her head look like on a stick?'

'Let's see you try to get a reservation at Dorsia's now!'

'It's duct tape, I need it for... taping something.'

Nancy

I think he was just so suprised to be hit on by another man that he didn't know how to react

__________________
I have all the characteristics of a human being: blood, flesh, skin, hair; but not a single, clear, identifiable emotion, except for greed and disgust. Something horrible is happening inside of me and I don't know why. My nightly bloodlust has overflown into my days. I feel lethal, on the verge of frenzy.
I think my mask of sanity is about to slip.

cynicalgrrlll

I have only read the book and not seen the movie, I don't think the movie could ever be a as violent and descriptive as the book.
Ole' Bateman doesn't seem to hate his life, hence how he describes everything everybody is wearing in extreme detail and slaveing over his body and business cards like everyone else seems to do.
I think he just happens to be a serial killer/psycho within high society and no one close to him is willing to turn him in based on the fact that he his rich and socialites look out for one another and not step on each other's toes. just ignore other's deviant behaviors, even though it seems that he actually wants to be caught and sent to jail for what he does. Especially since he keeps leaving his house a mess for his maid to see and his friends house all bloody. And rountinely telling people what he has done.
Another thing is most people with pyschcatic complexs are confused about their sexuality, hence he violence towards more women than men and mainly women he's either attracted too or after he has sex with them.

I'm a chick and don't have the stomach for alot of violence even in books. It more worried me on how Ellis could come up with such fucked up ways to kill people.

Golgothas

In the book Bateman is told by many people, including gay men, that said he could be a model/actor in talking with them. He kills atleast one or two gay men, but the reason he doesn't kill Caruthers is because he was not what he seemed like on the surface - no one in his group realized Caruthers was gay. Combine that with Bateman's homophobia and he let him get away, as Caruthers - in the book - tranfers to Arizona because Bateman doesn't love him.

ABout the murders being real or not, they could be but they could also not be - or some of them are real and some are not. For example, Paul Allen may have not been killed at all and really could have just been in London. I think he did kill most of them though, and the forgotten names - which shows up again in Glamorama a lot - reinforces that he was killing them, that everyone was just too shallow to be able to know who was who. Or maybe they just didn't know who Bateman was because they didn't notice him. Very ambigious atmosphere =P

THe satire of the book and movie itself is meant to be absurd, which is why it's so obvious and darkly funny in both.

philosopherking

I think his guilt is meant to be ambiguous, it lets the viewer/reader think about things and come up with their own scenario of what really happened. This is part of the appeal for me, I don't really like things that are clearly defined, it's much more interesting to have to come up with your own take on things. Also, regarding the book, I don't think I've ever come as close to being physically ill after reading something as I did with that book. It was still good, just very disturbing, especially the scene with the rat.

AfterBurn

Interesting, Bateman is pretty messed up

__________________
smoking weed everyday keeps the doctor away

World's King

Is that a rain coat?

__________________
heavy is the head that wears the crown

Strange Famous

cool book, never seen the film... my reading of the book was that he wasnt really committing the crimes he talked about, it was all a fantasy.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

flamingdog

It's intended as a black comedy.

Bateman seemed to me to be ambivalent about his life. He could have anything he wanted at the snap of a finger, women, material goods, drugs, etc. But in spite of that he was just another drone in corporate 80s culture. Hence people kept thinking he was Marcus Halberstram - everybody is so anonymously dressed and styled, they all look identical.

Consider when Bateman flips out in Paul Owen's apartment and ends up daubing 'Kill All Yuppies' on the wall. Does that seem like a man who's happy with his life? Yet as he tells his Jean, his secretary who is in love with him, "I just want to fit in".

I think Bateman, as was said above, is a psychopath who happens to work in Wall Street. He's not happy with his life, but he's happy enough with it to keep up appearances, perhaps because he doesn't know what else to do. So much for Bateman.

What's really going on here is a commentary about American culture in general. Bateman is so bereft of identity, the rigid conformity of his peers, his social situations, his job mean his killings become his way of manifesting his identity in the world. Consider the way he plays with dismembered victims, making sausages out of them, or arranging entrails artfully around their bodies. It seems like a twisted equivalent of someone like you or I painting a picture or writing a story in order to manifest ourselves.

And the sheer audacity of his murders, the lengths he seems to go to to try and get caught, just demonstrate a society so in love with itself that it simply does not care. As long as Bateman looks and acts the part of a Wall Street broker, he is relatively safe. Even when he calls his lawyer and confesses after the cop chase, his lawyer assumes he is making a joke. Ellis shows us a world completely closed to compassion and love. Accumulation of wealth is the be-all and end-all, and external appearances are everything.

In the end, I don't think it matters whether the murders are real or not, and it's up to the reader/viewer to decide. The film is obviously biased towards the idea of the murders being imaginary, but I had read the book some years before the film was made, and I was never drawn to that conclusion myself. For instance, Bateman's lawyer dismisses his confession by telling him Paul Owen has been spotted in Europe. Well, we know how reliable that sighting is likely to be.

Whether the murders are real or not, the comment remains the same, and perhaps becomes even more sharp if you accept Bateman is imagining the killings. On reflection, I don't think the book gives enough evidence either way.

Excellent American Psycho site:

http://www.briankotek.com/psycho/frame.html

-Ever-

I thought that he didn't kill the girls? His lawyer thinks he is joking in the message he left, and none of the bodies were in the closet he 'left' them in...

Absolutely amazing acting on his part though!

__________________
Embracing the goddess energy within yourselves will bring all of you to a new understanding and valuing of life. A vision that inspires you to live and love on planet Earth. Like a priceless jewel buried in dark layers of soil and stone, Earth radiates her brilliant beauty into the caverns of space and time. Perhaps you are aware of those who watch over your home And experience of this place to visit and play with reality. You are becoming aware of yourself as a gamemaster...
--Acknowledge your weaknesses--

bundy

Yes it is, Paul!

__________________
Ohayo!!!

Tophat665

Funny you should mention it; I watched the last 2/3 of it last night. It was nowhere near as bad as I expected it to be, if nowhere near good enough to go out of my way to watch again. Course, I was a bit medicated, and it was very late, and the girl was pretty cute in a psycho kind of way....

(I enjoyed Spice World more.)

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Sleepyjack

Saw the film a while back, and read the book a month or so ago, which was incredible.

As for everyone not being able to recognise anyone, i thought that was just about that everyone looked the same! (ie. they're all suits with designer everything). When Bateman was pretending to be Marcus Halberstam (sp?), 'cause Paul Owen thought it was him, was very amusing.

I generally enjoyed the observational quotes/comments/thoughts. I think Bateman must've had a obsessive compulsive disorder, as every chapter he'd tell us about the Patty Winters show and also a description of clothing/labels, of pretty much everyone he'd come in contact with. Lots of good quotes as well. Definitley a black comedy, but i felt bad laughing at some of the stuff
eg. the whole episode at the zoo, with the kid and tossing the coins in the seals/dolphins tank

anyway, flamingdog covered lots of good points, it's generally left with a degree of ambiguity so you get whatever you think out of it.

World's King

Thank you. I was waiting for someone to answer me.

__________________
heavy is the head that wears the crown

queedo

I really enjoyed this movie as well. I have read all the post here and people say that he commited the murders in the book. But I think in the movie they leave it up to the individual viewer to make their own minds up.

__________________
If you think you can or you can't, you are right!

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

philosopherking

Movies don't necessarily have to follow a book verry closely. It's up to the Screenwriter and Director as to how faithful the movie is to the book. It's common for a movie to show one picture while the book shows another. As for the movie having to be a sanitized version, of course, a movie that graphic would have a hard time making it past the censors. Although it would have been interesting to see the version that Oliver Stone would have put out.

AfterBurn

Wow really great information in this thread! Cleared a hell of alot of things for me . I find it weird that Bateman wants to escape his current lifestyle but yet he wears designer everything like his co workers, I mean if he really wants to find someone who loves him and not be so shallow then why doesn't he just move?

__________________
smoking weed everyday keeps the doctor away

boden11

Well after watching the movie I read the book, and then a few more of Bret Ellis' books...including The Rules of Attraction. Now if you've read (or seen the movie) you know that the main character is Sean...Sean Bateman. Yes, Patrick Bateman's brother. The book was written in 1985 (vs 1991 for American Psycho) and not only is Sean explicitly Patrick's brother, but there is an entire chapter written from Patrick's point of view. (Well chapter is a loose term since all the 'chapters' in RoA are about 2-3 pages).

Anyways, here's an excerpt which is very Patrick-esque

"He comes out of the room moments later and not with the white mask of shock I'd thought he'd be wearing, but with a simple and expresionless look on his face. No smile, no sadness. The eyes, bloodshot and half-closed, still manage to exude hatefulness and a weakness of character that I find abhorrent. But he's my brother, and at first I let it pass."

but then he later berates Sean for using coke (which he uses all through out AmPsycho). But then again this is 6 yrs before the book and this character is still being worked out by Bret Ellis.
--
on to the point, I don't think it's important whether or not he did commit the murders as the book is written more as a satire about the 1980s yuppie way of life than anything. true the book can be VERY graphical, but hey, oh well

AfterBurn

I've been reading alot of interpretations/analysis of the book and I come to the conclusion that bateman is a scizophrenic and imagines alot of the characters and does not actually commit the murders, he imagines the detective, christy and a bunch of others. any opinions?

__________________
smoking weed everyday keeps the doctor away

flamingdog

AfterBurn, I think you're trying to take it too literally. I get that impression from your other posts in this thread, saying 'why doesn't he just move', and so forth. Maybe you need to look at it as more of a metaphor for how we in the west live our lives, rather than as a straight account of one man's behaviour.

To answer, I think Bateman is trapped in a cycle of consumption, as many of us are. Except with him it's raised to the power of n because he's so filthy rich. He can't leave because he's locked in. Yet simple acquisitiion does not feed the hunger in the soul. He doesn't feel anything. To quote, 'I simply am not there'. In order to make his life mean something, he kills (or imagines he does - it's a moot point as far as I'm concerned).

Also consider how people continually mishear him, or pay no attention to him at all, unless he is advising on the correct way to wear a cummerbund, or the aptness of a four-in-hand tie knot as contrasted with the windsor. You could almost argue he's a free radical, trying to effect change from the inside.

Edit - just had another brainwave: Just to further illustrate this point, bear in mind the occasion when he stabs the young boy in the zoo. He draws no satisfaction from the killing because the little boy hadn't got anything for Bateman to take from him. No memories, experiences, no opinions, because he was just a kid. That just goes to show why Bateman does what he does. He finds meaning in his killing. The killing of a small boy was meaningless to him. Hence, (if I recall correctly) he says he won't be doing it again.

cynicalgrrlll

Good perspective flamingdog, Excellently put

flamingdog

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.