Boards > Lifestyle > AMERICAN PSYCHO

courtland_17

Canada

June 2004

NOV 12, 2004 01:35 PM

man oh man.
i stumbled into this huge debate on IMDB.com about whether Patrick Bateman imagines every single one of the murders he commits.
what a ridiculous idea.

why would breat easton ellis, or the filmmakers, make a social-commentary book/movie about a guy who kills people in his mind?

the whole point of the whole thing is that Bateman gets away with what he does because he's rich, white, and a lawyer. he defines the status quo in the largest city in North America.

you could argue that Bateman does become delussional at the end, but that's because his world is so surreal. The only repurcussion for any of his actions is when the cabbie robs him. As a result, his idea of reality starts to slip.

Ryan_Dipietro

Naples, FL

April 2004

NOV 12, 2004 01:37 PM

i like when he stuffs that dude in the rediculously large human shaped gautier bag and drags him through his building and out into the street.

rickets

Seattle, WA

March 2003

NOV 12, 2004 01:37 PM

It's been too long since I read that one. I'll have to revisit it.

I agree though. That "all in his head" thing is BS. It's literature, not an episode of Dallas.

Ryan_Dipietro

Naples, FL

April 2004

NOV 12, 2004 01:38 PM

oh, i was talking about the movie.

courtland_17

Canada

June 2004

NOV 12, 2004 01:39 PM

rickets said:
I agree though. That "all in his head" thing is BS. It's literature, not an episode of Dallas.

ha ha ha, bloody exactly.

Ada

SUICIDEGIRL

Maryland, USA

NOV 12, 2004 01:44 PM

Hmm.. I actually agree with the "all in his head" theory and I think it's more of a psychological exploration and social commentary when interpreted that way. Otherwise it's just a random meaningless orgy of violence. *yawn* But I'm not going to get into this debate again, because I don't even like the book/movie. "Literature" my ass.

rickets

Seattle, WA

March 2003

NOV 12, 2004 01:45 PM

Ada said:
Hmm.. I actually agree with the "all in his head" theory and I think it's more of a psychological exploration and social commentary when interpreted that way. Otherwise it's just a random meaningless orgy of violence. *yawn* But I'm not going to get into this debate again, because I don't even like the book/movie. "Literature" my ass.

But what do you really think?

RubberSoul

Los Angeles, CA

February 2003

NOV 12, 2004 01:48 PM

The movie is totally different than the book. The book is a social commentary on the morals of the late 80's "trickle down" consumer culture in the Regan era (similar to Oliver Stone's "Wall Street"). Patrick Bateman and Gordon Gecko are cut from the same cloth. I don't think the violence is imagined, but rather, is a metaphor for the greed and excess of that era, which was "killing" American society.

The movie, on the other hand, was a piece of shit.

courtland_17

Canada

June 2004

NOV 12, 2004 01:50 PM

Ada said:
Hmm.. I actually agree with the "all in his head" theory and I think it's more of a psychological exploration and social commentary when interpreted that way. Otherwise it's just a random meaningless orgy of violence. *yawn* But I'm not going to get into this debate again, because I don't even like the book/movie. "Literature" my ass.

k, you can't state your point then say 'but i don't want to talk about this.'

it *is* a social commetary and mental exploartion, but through real-life fact. you're right, but things like his repeated cries for help, or his descriptions of childhood show us the genuine characteristic of a serial-killer.

Lemonkid

Canada

May 2003

NOV 12, 2004 01:53 PM

souljacker said:
The movie is totally different than the book. The book is a social commentary on the morals of the late 80's "trickle down" consumer culture in the Regan era (similar to Oliver Stone's "Wall Street"). Patrick Bateman and Gordon Gecko are cut from the same cloth. I don't think the violence is imagined, but rather, is a metaphor for the greed and excess of that era, which was "killing" American society.

The movie, on the other hand, was a piece of shit.

I'm of the exact opposite opinion.

Ryan_Dipietro

Naples, FL

April 2004

NOV 12, 2004 01:54 PM

souljacker said:
The movie is totally different than the book. The book is a social commentary on the morals of the late 80's "trickle down" consumer culture in the Regan era (similar to Oliver Stone's "Wall Street"). Patrick Bateman and Gordon Gecko are cut from the same cloth. I don't think the violence is imagined, but rather, is a metaphor for the greed and excess of that era, which was "killing" American society.

The movie, on the other hand, was a piece of shit.

wall street is a great movie.

Ada

SUICIDEGIRL

Maryland, USA

NOV 12, 2004 01:55 PM

courtland_17 said:
why would breat easton ellis, or the filmmakers, make a social-commentary book/movie about a guy who kills people in his mind?

the whole point of the whole thing is that Bateman gets away with what he does because he's rich, white, and a lawyer. he defines the status quo in the largest city in North America.

But it's completely ridiculous and unrealistic if it's supposed to be actually happening Like when he chases someone down the stairway of an apartment building weilding a chainsaw... and no one notices? You're saying that's because he's rich and white?

I think the movie actually does a better job of implying that it's all in his head-- he keeps saying things to people-- like some bartender girl, i think he tells her he wants to kill her and do horrible things to her or whatever-- and they never seem to hear him. That's because he's thinking it, not saying it. He's boring and ineffectual and people ignore him, so he imagines doing all these horrible things-- he's the ultimate narcissist, creating this maniacal evil personality to glorify himself in his mind, to see himself as superior, because he actually feels inferior. Blah blah blah, I said I wasn't getting into it and here I am.

At the very least, I will say that if it's meant to be interpreted as actually happening, it's a hollow and ridiculous story, and if it's meant to be interpreted as being Bateman's fantasy then it's at least multi-dimentional and interesting.

RubberSoul

Los Angeles, CA

February 2003

NOV 12, 2004 02:01 PM

Ada said:

courtland_17 said:
why would breat easton ellis, or the filmmakers, make a social-commentary book/movie about a guy who kills people in his mind?

the whole point of the whole thing is that Bateman gets away with what he does because he's rich, white, and a lawyer. he defines the status quo in the largest city in North America.

But it's completely ridiculous and unrealistic if it's supposed to be actually happening Like when he chases someone down the stairway of an apartment building weilding a chainsaw... and no one notices? You're saying that's because he's rich and white?

I think the movie actually does a better job of implying that it's all in his head-- he keeps saying things to people-- like some bartender girl, i think he tells her he wants to kill her and do horrible things to her or whatever-- and they never seem to hear him. That's because he's thinking it, not saying it. He's boring and ineffectual and people ignore him, so he imagines doing all these horrible things-- he's the ultimate narcissist, creating this maniacal evil personality to glorify himself in his mind, to see himself as superior, because he actually feels inferior. Blah blah blah, I said I wasn't getting into it and here I am.

At the very least, I will say that if it's meant to be interpreted as actually happening, it's a hollow and ridiculous story, and if it's meant to be interpreted as being Bateman's fantasy then it's at least multi-dimentional and interesting.

I don't know if you read the book, but the killing was much more plausible than in the movie, which escalated things to an unrealistic extreme. The point of the book is pretty clear and courtland nailed it.

[Edited on Nov 12, 2004 by souljacker]

waxangel

Baltimore, MD

May 2003

NOV 12, 2004 02:02 PM

courtland_17 said:
man oh man.
i stumbled into this huge debate on IMDB.com about whether Patrick Bateman imagines every single one of the murders he commits.
what a ridiculous idea.

why would breat easton ellis, or the filmmakers, make a social-commentary book/movie about a guy who kills people in his mind?

the whole point of the whole thing is that Bateman gets away with what he does because he's rich, white, and a lawyer. he defines the status quo in the largest city in North America.

you could argue that Bateman does become delussional at the end, but that's because his world is so surreal. The only repurcussion for any of his actions is when the cabbie robs him. As a result, his idea of reality starts to slip.

Did you actually read the book? Because it's definitely up for debate.

Unless of course you've spoken directly with Bret Easton Ellis about his intentions.

Why would Ellis, or the filmmakers, write a book/produce a movie about a guy who kills people in his mind? Myriad reasons. Foremost, to make money. Secondly, the social commentary exists with or without the reality of the murders. Bateman is a horrible human being, symbolic of all that is/was wrong with corporate society, whether or not he actually commits any of the crimes, or simply has a brutal, psychopathic imagination.

I wouldn't deign to know conclusively the author's inner dialogue without him actually telling me.

waxangel

Baltimore, MD

May 2003

NOV 12, 2004 02:04 PM

souljacker said:
I don't know if you read the book, but the killing was much more plausible than in the movie, which escalated things to an unrealistic extreme. The point of the book is pretty clear and courtland nailed it.

[Edited on Nov 12, 2004 by souljacker]

Not exactly. The book presents just as many, if not more, implausible situations as the movie. Are we really supposed to believe that noone in Bateman's apartment building EVER noticed bloodcurdling screams, blood dripping from their ceilings, a stench of rotten flesh, etc. ad infinitum?

It's not nearly as cut-and-dried as many of you are making it out to be.

courtland_17

Canada

June 2004

NOV 12, 2004 02:06 PM

Ada said:
I think the movie actually does a better job of implying that it's all in his head-- he keeps saying things to people-- like some bartender girl, i think he tells her he wants to kill her and do horrible things to her or whatever-- and they never seem to hear him. That's because he's thinking it, not saying it. He's boring and ineffectual and people ignore him, so he imagines doing all these horrible things--

the whole point is that it's a superficial culture, where no one really listens to what anyone is saying....being in theatre i experience it all the time, even on a small scale:
"What are you up to?"
"Good, you?"

nobody actually listens

[Edited on Nov 12, 2004 by courtland_17]

waxangel

Baltimore, MD

May 2003

NOV 12, 2004 02:07 PM

rickets said:
I agree though. That "all in his head" thing is BS. It's literature, not an episode of Dallas.

This is just a silly thing to say. Ever read Nabokov's "Invitation to a Beheading"? Literature has always used the power of a character's imagination to illustrate concepts/social commentaries/etc.

Fact is, the book says very nearly the exact same thing, whether or not the killings were real or imagined. Think a little more deeply/abstractly about it.

Ada

SUICIDEGIRL

Maryland, USA

NOV 12, 2004 02:19 PM

souljacker said:

Ada said:

courtland_17 said:
why would breat easton ellis, or the filmmakers, make a social-commentary book/movie about a guy who kills people in his mind?

the whole point of the whole thing is that Bateman gets away with what he does because he's rich, white, and a lawyer. he defines the status quo in the largest city in North America.

But it's completely ridiculous and unrealistic if it's supposed to be actually happening Like when he chases someone down the stairway of an apartment building weilding a chainsaw... and no one notices? You're saying that's because he's rich and white?

I think the movie actually does a better job of implying that it's all in his head-- he keeps saying things to people-- like some bartender girl, i think he tells her he wants to kill her and do horrible things to her or whatever-- and they never seem to hear him. That's because he's thinking it, not saying it. He's boring and ineffectual and people ignore him, so he imagines doing all these horrible things-- he's the ultimate narcissist, creating this maniacal evil personality to glorify himself in his mind, to see himself as superior, because he actually feels inferior. Blah blah blah, I said I wasn't getting into it and here I am.

At the very least, I will say that if it's meant to be interpreted as actually happening, it's a hollow and ridiculous story, and if it's meant to be interpreted as being Bateman's fantasy then it's at least multi-dimentional and interesting.

I don't know if you read the book, but the killing was much more plausible than in the movie, which escalated things to an unrealistic extreme. The point of the book is pretty clear and courtland nailed it.

[Edited on Nov 12, 2004 by souljacker]

I did read the book, actually, and I agree with you that the violence was much more realistic (though iId still argue for a lot of the events being implausible). That's what I meant when I said that the movie did a better job of implying that it was his fantasy.

Honestly I read the book, having heard great things about it, and just thought it was awful. It seemed really shallow and meaningless and implausible and I didn' really see the point. Oooh the 80's were decadent, yuppies are selfish and horrible and shallow. Okay, I knew that already. I thought the graphic violence was really self-indulgent-- it seemed to me that he had this weak premise and he goal of shocking and disgusting people and getting a lot of press for it. Which he did.

However, when I saw the movie I changed my opinion. At first I was snorting at every ridiculous implausible murder, but then there's that scene where the ATM machine tells him to feel it a cat... and I realized: we're not meant to think any of this actually happened. This is all his delusional fantasy. And then there's that scene where the secretary finds his notebook with all the doodles of murders and gore and stuff and I thought "why would this guy, who is supposedly such an cool and effective killer, a total sociopath, be drawing doodles of all his crimes?" Because he hasn't actually comitted them-- they're fantasy. And it made me see the movie in a whole new light and actually almost like it.

Bu it's not like any book or movie can't be interpreted a million different ways. Who knows what the author actually intended. I'm sticking with the "fantasy" interpretation, because I think that gives it more meaning and makes it more worth having seen/read.

courtland_17

Canada

June 2004

NOV 12, 2004 02:39 PM

Ada said:

However, when I saw the movie I changed my opinion. At first I was snorting at every ridiculous implausible murder, but then there's that scene where the ATM machine tells him to feel it a cat... and I realized: we're not meant to think any of this actually happened. This is all his delusional fantasy.

The ATM is his fantasy, not the murders. The ATM is a device to show how he has completely lost touch, and has taken the further step that mny serial killer's take, which is complete psychosis.
Because his world is so surreal, he can no longer keep in touch with reality.

Idjit

HOPEFUL

I'm lost

NOV 12, 2004 02:42 PM

Could Ada be any hotter? No. No, I don't think so.

RubberSoul

Los Angeles, CA

February 2003

NOV 12, 2004 02:42 PM

courtland_17 said:

Ada said:

However, when I saw the movie I changed my opinion. At first I was snorting at every ridiculous implausible murder, but then there's that scene where the ATM machine tells him to feel it a cat... and I realized: we're not meant to think any of this actually happened. This is all his delusional fantasy.

The ATM is his fantasy, not the murders. The ATM is a device to show how he has completely lost touch, and has taken the further step that mny serial killer's take, which is complete psychosis.
Because his world is so surreal, he can no longer keep in touch with reality.

Furthermore, the use of the ATM is an obvious metaphor for his (and society's) obsession with money. I'm not saying the book is great literature, but I don't think it is very hard to interpret. I'm surprised some people don't get it. I can see how the movie is hard to figure out, since it was a mess.

PointBlank

New York, NY

November 2004

NOV 12, 2004 02:43 PM

Lemonkid said:

souljacker said:
The movie is totally different than the book. The book is a social commentary on the morals of the late 80's "trickle down" consumer culture in the Regan era (similar to Oliver Stone's "Wall Street"). Patrick Bateman and Gordon Gecko are cut from the same cloth. I don't think the violence is imagined, but rather, is a metaphor for the greed and excess of that era, which was "killing" American society.

The movie, on the other hand, was a piece of shit.

I'm of the exact opposite opinion.

You think a piece of shit is a movie?

Sound

I'm lost

January 2004

NOV 12, 2004 02:46 PM

wow this is a real good debate...id give my input but i have a reservation at dorsia tonight and i need to return some videotapes

RubberSoul

Los Angeles, CA

February 2003

NOV 12, 2004 02:47 PM

BillyBentley said:
wow this is a real good debate...id give my input but i have a reservation at dorsia tonight and i need to return some videotapes

What is the Zagat rating?

waxangel

Baltimore, MD

May 2003

NOV 12, 2004 02:47 PM

courtland_17 said:

Ada said:

However, when I saw the movie I changed my opinion. At first I was snorting at every ridiculous implausible murder, but then there's that scene where the ATM machine tells him to feel it a cat... and I realized: we're not meant to think any of this actually happened. This is all his delusional fantasy.

The ATM is his fantasy, not the murders. The ATM is a device to show how he has completely lost touch, and has taken the further step that mny serial killer's take, which is complete psychosis.
Because his world is so surreal, he can no longer keep in touch with reality.

So he's completely lost touch, yet it's unimaginable to you that he's lost touch enough to fabricate the murders in his own head? I think it's arrogant of you to insist that your own personal interpretation is the only possible and correct one. Unless you happen to actually BE Bret Easton Ellis, your attitude is completely unfounded.

BOARDS:

TOPICS:

Canada

June 2004

NOV 12, 2004 01:35 PM

Naples, FL

April 2004

NOV 12, 2004 01:37 PM

Seattle, WA

March 2003

NOV 12, 2004 01:37 PM

Naples, FL

April 2004

NOV 12, 2004 01:38 PM

Canada

June 2004

NOV 12, 2004 01:39 PM

SUICIDEGIRL

Maryland, USA

NOV 12, 2004 01:44 PM

Seattle, WA

March 2003

NOV 12, 2004 01:45 PM

Los Angeles, CA

February 2003

NOV 12, 2004 01:48 PM

Canada

June 2004

NOV 12, 2004 01:50 PM

Canada

May 2003

NOV 12, 2004 01:53 PM

Naples, FL

April 2004

NOV 12, 2004 01:54 PM

SUICIDEGIRL

Maryland, USA

NOV 12, 2004 01:55 PM

Los Angeles, CA

February 2003

NOV 12, 2004 02:01 PM

Baltimore, MD

May 2003

NOV 12, 2004 02:02 PM

Baltimore, MD

May 2003

NOV 12, 2004 02:04 PM

Canada

June 2004

NOV 12, 2004 02:06 PM

Baltimore, MD

May 2003

NOV 12, 2004 02:07 PM

SUICIDEGIRL

Maryland, USA

NOV 12, 2004 02:19 PM

Canada

June 2004

NOV 12, 2004 02:39 PM

Idjit

HOPEFUL

I'm lost

NOV 12, 2004 02:42 PM

Los Angeles, CA

February 2003

NOV 12, 2004 02:42 PM

New York, NY

November 2004

NOV 12, 2004 02:43 PM

I'm lost

January 2004

NOV 12, 2004 02:46 PM

Los Angeles, CA

February 2003

NOV 12, 2004 02:47 PM

Baltimore, MD

May 2003

NOV 12, 2004 02:47 PM