American Psycho Discussion

Galvasean

I saw a few people around here listed it as one of their favourite movies (I am one of them). I had to do a presentatipn on it for college last year which was great. Since then Ive read the book and am currently looking for the follow up Lunar Park because the character of Patrick Bateman is (despite his obvious flaws) one of the greatest ever commited to cinema.

Now what I want to discuss is something of a spoiler so if you have not seen the film do not read on because it will ruin it for you (I can't reccommend you seeing this film enough).

How much of the film do you all think was real and how much do you think was in Bateman's head? To be honest I'm not even sure he was Patrick Bateman at all. I think Bateman could be an alter ego of course since everyone thinks he's Marcus Albertsan and Bateman is someone else.
And does anyone know why Paul Owen's name changes to Paul Allen? Could it be that one of them really did go to London while the other was killed by Bateman or possibly even made up by his imagination?

Such a great movie. We (well I) could talk about this for ages.

MadsL

I've never said this about a book, but I regret reading it. Some things are better not described or left in your head.

LundiMardi

Great great movie, but i still don't get it. Needs another watch methinks.

Sad Professor

The book is brilliant but I found the movie a somewhat poor and uninspired adaptation for the most part. Bale is excellent however and his performance elevates the film significantly. The scene of him having sex while admiring himself in the mirror is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

And everything is real. Anyone that thinks Bateman just fantasised the whole thing is missing the point. It's satire.

LundiMardi

that last part could be considered a spoiler for those who have yet to see the movie.

Sad Professor

Sorry fixed. It's not really a spoiler though imo. I didn't say what he supposedly

fantasised.

Galvasean

Sad Professor wrote:

And everything is real. Anyone that thinks Bateman just fantasised the whole thing is missing the point. It's satire.

There are several clues to suggest he

fantasised alot of it.
Notice when he drags the bag containing Paul's body it is leaking blood. No one else sees the blood and in shots where Bateman is talking to that gay guy (I forget his name, Courtney's boyfriend) the blood has disappeared altogether. Not to mention that Paul was infact sighted in London (the book confirms that it actually was him) and the fact taht Paul's name alternates between Allen and Owen.
In the business card scene everyone's job title is the same (vice president).
In the book there are scenes where Bateman hallucinates. For example at one point he imagines the city as a jungle complete with exploding volcanoes and at another point he is chased by a park bench for four blocks.

faceman

Galvasean wrote:

There are several clues to suggest he

fantasised alot of it.
Notice when he drags the bag containing Paul's body it is leaking blood. No one else sees the blood and in shots where Bateman is talking to that gay guy (I forget his name, Courtney's boyfriend) the blood has disappeared altogether. Not to mention that Paul was infact sighted in London (the book confirms that it actually was him) and the fact taht Paul's name alternates between Allen and Owen.
In the business card scene everyone's job title is the same (vice president).
In the book there are scenes where Bateman hallucinates. For example at one point he imagines the city as a jungle complete with exploding volcanoes and at another point he is chased by a park bench for four blocks.

Yeah i agree with this

daiixi

Sad Professor wrote:

The book is brilliant but I found the movie a somewhat poor and uninspired adaptation for the most part. Bale is excellent however and his performance elevates the film significantly. The scene of him having sex while admiring himself in the mirror is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

And everything is real. Anyone that thinks Bateman just fantasised the whole thing is missing the point. It's satire.

I agree. I've not recommended the film to anyone although I have recommended the book to lots of people.

faceman

daiixi wrote:

I agree. I've not recommended the film to anyone although I have recommended the book to lots of people.

it is the case with most book to screen transfers with the exception of a few. e.g. the Godfather, Lord of the rings. But even then there will still be a faction of book fans who knock the film.

Its a totally different medium than the other so it will never be the same.

American Pyscho is written present tense in the first person, a very unusual style.

paddycorry

daiixi wrote:

I agree. I've not recommended the film to anyone although I have recommended the book to lots of people.

I reckon this is one of those rare book-to-movie adaptations where the film acts as a companion piece to the book, and complements it very well. I was almost frightened to watch the movie after reading the book, but the film-makers, and Bale in particular, did an excellent job. (Is it just me or is Christian Bale a very under-rated actor? He's consistently brilliant, even if his movies aren't always the best.. I reckon he's ripe for a big Hollywood career-defining role very soon)

I'd be the opposite, would recommend the movie, but would be cautious about recommending the book. I enjoyed the book - if that's the right word - but some people would react pretty viscerally to a book like 'American Psycho'. The scariest parts for me were the chapters about his music taste: Huey Lewis, Phil Collins.. frightening stuff!!

Bret Easton Ellis' new one, Lunar Park, reads like it was written to be made into a movie, but I don't think its as strong as American Psycho.. Ellis is moving more into Stephen King territory to be honest. Still, with the right cast it could be good i spose, 'The Shining' wasn't bad after all..

Pigman II

I always took the pov that everything Bateman did was real but that the social circle he ran with just wouldn't function as a collective entity if the notion the people like him existed among their ranks. So they merely ignore the reality in order to continue on with their comfortably egocentric little lives.

If anything he's not the one imagining things, it's everyone around him who is living in denial.

LundiMardi

paddycorry wrote:

(Is it just me or is Christian Bale a very under-rated actor? He's consistently brilliant, even if his movies aren't always the best.. I reckon he's ripe for a big Hollywood career-defining role very soon)

You do know Bale has made some very career defining movies since American Psycho yes?

Karl Hungus

LundiMardi wrote:

You do know Bale has made some very career defining movies since American Psycho yes?

Agreed. But he's made some pretty career defining films before American Psycho too, I mean, Empire Of The Sun.

paddycorry

LundiMardi wrote:

You do know Bale has made some very career defining movies since American Psycho yes?

Sure, like The Prestige (haven't seen), Batman Begins (great) and, um, Reign of Fire , but that point was really about recognition for performances, rather than his box-office success.. Will Smith gets an Oscar nomination for a half-decent job in a below-average film this year, and I don't think Bale has ever been nominated for an Oscar. I won't lose sleep over it though!

Has anyone seen 'Harsh Times' by the way? Am interested to know if its any good..

LundiMardi

paddycorry wrote:

Sure, like The Prestige (haven't seen), Batman Begins (great) and, um, Reign of Fire , but that point was really about recognition for performances, rather than his box-office success.. Will Smith gets an Oscar nomination for a half-decent job in a below-average film this year, and I don't think Bale has ever been nominated for an Oscar. I won't lose sleep over it though!

Has anyone seen 'Harsh Times' by the way? Am interested to know if its any good..

two words....

The Machinist

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the Oscars to be honest.

paddycorry

LundiMardi wrote:

two words....

The Machinist

Yeah, I keep meaning to see that one. It looks pretty dark though..

lodgepole

Sad Professor wrote:

And everything is real. Anyone that thinks Bateman just fantasised the whole thing is missing the point. It's satire.

I think you're incorrect if talking about the book. The book is completely ambiguous, there is no right or wrong answer. That, in fact, is the point of the book.

Something i've always noted in the film was the choice of music. Obviously the pop songs were hugely important in the context of Bateman's character in the book, but take note of which murders were backed with pop music and which were backed with score. I've always felt this was a conscious choice and gives a lot away as to what the director felt really happened and what didn't.

Karl Hungus

paddycorry wrote:

Will Smith gets an Oscar nomination for a half-decent job in a below-average film this year, and I don't think Bale has ever been nominated for an Oscar.

In the same year that Edward Norton was nominated as best supporting actor for his role in Primal Fear, Cuba Gooding Jnr. for it for his role in Jerry Maguire.

Face it, the Oscars are a joke.

Gillie

paddycorry wrote:

Has anyone seen 'Harsh Times' by the way? Am interested to know if its any good..

Loved it! Crazy Movie. Bales "performance" is scary!!!:eek:
What a legend!

Galvasean

paddycorry wrote:

I reckon this is one of those rare book-to-movie adaptations where the film acts as a companion piece to the book, and complements it very well.

I agree with that. After watching the movie I wanted to know more about this Bateman character so I read the book. Patrick Bateman's brother Sean has a couple of scenes in the book. He also stars in Rules of Attraction where a couple of references are made to his rich brother Patrick. They also hate each other. Which is important because...

In the American Psycho book Patrick buys Sean a tie for Christmas. At the end of Rules of Attraction Sean uses it to hang himself.

Sad Professor

Lodgepole wrote:

I think you're incorrect if talking about the book. The book is completely ambiguous, there is no right or wrong answer. That, in fact, is the point of the book.

Well, art is, of course, open to interpretation regardless, and what I've said is only my opinion but it's a very strong one. The book and the movie are different animals but both the director and screenwriter have stated that they believe

the murders to be real and NOT imagined.

Ellis has kept his mouth shut on the subject except to say that he considers the book a comedy. And given the furore the book provoked upon it's release, I suspect he's quite content to let people believe it was all in Bateman's head as long as they leave him alone. A lot of readers had trouble understanding the humour and instead of laughing at it as Ellis intended they took the whole thing literally.

The book is clearly intended as satire imo. However this satire depends upon Bateman being a psychopath and murderer. If he imagined it all then it's a cop-out which makes no sense imo.

It's been a while since I've read the book but where is it confirmed that Owen (or Allen as he is called in the film) is still alive? In the movie the lawyer says he had dinner with him last week, right? This is the same lawyer, who keeps calling Bateman "Davis" or something, he doesn't even recognise his own client. This is an ongoing joke throughout the book and movie, everyone keeps mistaking everyone for someone else. Why? Because they all look the same; same clothes, same haircut, same business cards, etc. This is the satire, you see. It's the 80's and they're all soulless yuppies. Nobody, not his lawyer, not the cops, not his friends believe Bateman is capable of murder because they're all too self-obsessed to care and too focused on surface details to notice.

Galvasean

Sad Professor wrote:

Well, art is, of course, open to interpretation

The book is clearly intended as satire imo. However this satire depends upon Bateman being a psychopath and murderer. If he imagined it all then it's a cop-out which makes no sense imo.

I dont exactly agree with that. One could interprate

that he imagined a second life to counter the monotony of his normal life. However to the same extent one could argue that the murders were real for the same reason.

That bit where Bateman shoots the police car and it explodes, even he looked like he didn't believe it.

And then there was that sequel... *shudders*