american psycho ending

whosurpaddy

re-watched this at the weekend for the first time in a long time. but i was still non the wiser about the ending. can anyone enlighten me?

was it all in his head. did he actually kill anyone? the scene where he revisits paul allens apartment really throws me off, the "there was no ad in the times" one.

simu

I think that it was all a series of hallucinations.

Giblet

Yes, and they ignore that in the "sequel" by saying he was a mass murderer. It was obvious to me that nothing actually happened, that it was all a collection of his fantasies.

whosurpaddy

the entire film? it was clever introducing the fact that none of them seemed too sure who one another was (like when he was mistaken for marcus) and that the lawyer could have been mistaken about having dinner with paul allen in london.

that scene in paul allens apt still doesnt make sense to me though.


/edit oh yea. i forgot there was a sequel. the girl from 70s show was in it. ive actually seen it but cant remember anything from it.

ixoy

From various sources:

The director admits that she screwed up here. It was SUPPOSED to be implied
that only the ending bit of the movie was his fantasy and the rest "really"
happened. However, due to a poor script and very sloppy filmmaking, it's easy
to assume he never killed anyone.

The final scene, with the one guy saying he just saw one of the people
supposedly killed in London is supposed to be just more of those guys mixing
each other up. However, since it wasn't done well, it's easy to misunderstand
the director's intent.

whosurpaddy

Originally posted by ixoy
From various sources:

The director admits that she screwed up here. It was SUPPOSED to be implied
that only the ending bit of the movie was his fantasy and the rest "really"
happened. However, due to a poor script and very sloppy filmmaking, it's easy
to assume he never killed anyone.

The final scene, with the one guy saying he just saw one of the people
supposedly killed in London is supposed to be just more of those guys mixing
each other up. However, since it wasn't done well, it's easy to misunderstand
the director's intent.

when you say "the ending" do you include the final killing spree in that? where he killed the cops/doorman/cleaning person. still dosent explain that one scene im thinking of


you got a linky ixoy?

lodgepole

It's deliberately ambiguous, like the book.

Though I think the director left a clue as to how she saw the book in the choice of music used during murders...

ixoy

Originally posted by whosurpaddy
when you say "the ending" do you include the final killing spree in that? where he killed the cops/doorman/cleaning person. still dosent explain that one scene im thinking of

you got a linky ixoy?

Well I found a link to an article by the director before, explaining her stance but I can't find it. I did a search on Google Groups using keywords like "american psycho" "ending" on the rec.arts.movies.currentfilms group. Maybe you'll find it once more...

bandit

The scene where he goes back to Marcus appartment and the letting agent is there isnt in the book so I never understood it

In terms of all the other misunderstanding of people saying they saw marcus and mistaking patrick for other people is all to show the facelessness ( Hey I just made up a word!!) of 80's yuppee culture. All they see is your clothes and status symbols.

I think he was a killer and the appartment scene was a halucination or him imaging it happened so he could make himself belive that he hadnt killed after all as he said "his mask of sanity was starting to slip"

sceptre

Originally posted by Lodgepole
It's deliberately ambiguous, like the book.

(except the book never explains how a hallucination of Tom Cruise manages to correct him on the title of the movie he was in (Cocktail rather than Bartender)

Agent Orange

I believe this may answer your questions regarding the estate agent.

From Cinephiles.net
http://www.cinephiles.net/American_Psycho/Cinephiles-Gate.html

The author is talking about 'instances' where Patrick's violent behaviour is ignored or goes unnoticed...

"After Patrick has met with detective Kimball, who "figures out" that Patrick "could not have been" the murderer, Patrick goes back to the slaughter house, that is, Paul Allen's apartment. Before entering, Patrick places a painter's mask to cover his mouth and nose from the expected stench of the victims' decomposing corpses. This detail implies an ellipses of time between the revelation of the "hidden compartments" full of victims (during Christie's forced tour of the house) and the present moment. As he enters the apartment, Patrick (and the viewer) is completely astounded by the turn of events: the blood stained walls are perfectly white, the apartment is empty, and there are people touring the apartment. Discovering empty buckets of white paint where the corpses had originally been, Patrick's painter's mask nicely proves to be a justifier to the woman who now approaches him. She is a real estate agent who questions Patrick's presence. Realizing he is "looking for Paul Allen's place," she lowers her voice and warns: "Listen, I don't want any trouble here," and asks Patrick to leave.

How may this instance be justified? In spite of the effective ambiguity that seems to support the idea that no slaughters ever occurred, there is a quite simple and logical explanation which consistently integrates the society's concern for "outer perfection" and for projecting a perfect image of oneself. The justifier for the thirteenth instance, therefore, proves that as everything points to Paul Allen being the one responsible for all the murders, his family then needs to avoid the scandal. This refers back to an interrogation scene, where Kimball explains that there is no information regarding Paul's disappearance on the newspaper in order to keep the case private. Lastly, a final justifier may also point to society's concern for material objects, and wealth, as it suggests that selling the apartment is a priority (perhaps it would have been more difficult to sell a slaughter house), thus pointing to the inflated value of New York's real estate market. "