American Psycho - Violence Real?

[AEKDBet]

Liked the movie, just finished the book.

Still on the fence on what to make of Patrick Bateman. Did Bateman really commit all the violent acts?

E.g did Bateman really ax Paul Owen to death, or was he really in London as Bateman's laywer said at the end of the book and movie. Opinions and theories please.

[thatpfunk]

What do you want to take from it?

[daveymck]

I thought the film sucked,does it work better as a book?

[thatpfunk]

book>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>movie

and i find the movie hilarious

[AEKDBet]

Whatever Ellis intended.... whatever the hell that is.

It seems to me that it is a general commentary on the state of yuppidom. Everyone is so caught up in themselves, and materialsim that no one ever takes Bateman's crazy remarks in conversations seriously. Is this to say that he gets away with all those murders, and dead bodies?

Is Bateman really even Bateman???? I mean his laywer and Paul Owen mix him up with someone else. Marcus Halberstram I think. In both cases these characters talk smack about Bateman, to Bateman, thinking he is someone else.

It makes sense that Bateman DID murder all those people, but I mean for god sakes toward the end of the book he says that on the Patty Winter's show they interviewed a cheerio! They even had a little chair for it. He is is obviously hallucinating to a certain degree. How much I don't know.

So WTF is going with this book?

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever Ellis intended....

[/ QUOTE ]

Good writers, especially those similar in style to Ellis, will very rarely have one single intention or point or interpretation. In interviews has has said that there are parts of his novels that he is unsure how to interpret.

Your question is probably one of the most interesting aspects of American Psycho. Depending on my mood when reading or thinking about it, my thoughts change.

link (http://www.americanpopularculture.com/journal/articles/fall_2002/blazer.htm)
This is a literary critique that gets very, very deep into what you're asking. If you're into this kinda stuff, you may find it interesting.

[AEKDBet]

[ QUOTE ]
and i find the movie hilarious

[/ QUOTE ]

"What do you want out of life? And don't tell me you want to do something with children"

http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte899v/bateman_nailgun.JPG

http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte899v/feed%20me%20a%20stray%20cat_msg.JPG

http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte899v/feed%20me%20a%20stray%20cat!.JPG

http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte899v/bateman_flexes.JPG

[Rushmore]

I have read the responses, and have to admit that I am mystified by them.

There's nothing debatable about these things. The point is that nobody knows who anyone is, nobody cares what anyone is doing, and nobody can be bothered to even take note of a person's name.

It's intended to further isolate Bateman from the rest of humanity, even partially justifying his actions.

P.S. The book is great, and the movie is more a novelty than anything, really.

[AEKDBet]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that nobody knows who anyone is, nobody cares what anyone is doing, and nobody can be bothered to even take note of a person's name.

[/ QUOTE ]
Everyone cares what everyone is doing, and who everyone is, but ONLY for rank in social status and materialistic purposes. Trump, who's eating at Docia on Friday, etc. Past that it is all empty, soul-less.

[ QUOTE ]
It's intended to further isolate Bateman from the rest of humanity, even partially justifying his actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, but only for the murder of yuppies. Bateman's character lies outside of this box, and is looking in. He sees the nature of the yuppie Manhattan society and camoflagues accordingly to fit in. Seeing the molding of the perfectionist-yuppie form day to day is the grotesque. Having Bateman sink his claws, (nailgun, sharpened coathanger ,etc) into them is the beauty.

[IndieMatty]

Well said.


FWIW, I think the movie opened the debate about whether he actually committed those acts or not. When I read the book the first time, it never even occurred to me that he didn't.

[Rushmore]

I think we are essentially agreeing, with the exception of the notion that there is any question whatsoever that Bateman is the one who committed the crimes.

Note also that we are talking about THREE parts of society:

1.) General humanity (actually only implied or inferred, for us to juxtapose against Group 2, which is
2.) Yuppie Scum (enough said), and
3.) The Isolated Serial Killer

The beauty of it is that Bateman exists in both Groups 2 and 3, and we are shown such hideousness on the part of Group 2, that we actually come to sympathise with Bateman's Group 3ness.

But then he kills a dog and cuts a bum's eyes out and whatnot, and we cannot understand him again.

Note also that in the book, Bateman is only one of TWO total characters who have any sort of actual humanity (the other being his secretary who is in love with him, not knowing any better). Everyone else in the book is utterly abject.

[Mansavage]

If anyone saw American Psycho 2 (the worst movie of all time btw), it is revealed that Patrick Bateman is a famous serial killer.

I say that he didn't kill if you watch the movie and read the book, but the sequel seems to say otherwise.

[crownjules]

I loved this movie, absolutely cracked me up at times (especially the ATM and stray cat scene). I haven't read the book, but that's something I will apparently have to do in the near future.

My take is that Bateman never kills anyone. Those murders are his mind visualizing what he would like to do to the people he absolutely disdains (yet is forced to socialize with on a daily basis). That's why he doesn't kill the secretary (or does he? I forget now...been awhile since I last watched it). She isn't one of those types of people. She's 'human', unlike the yuppies Bateman works/dines/associates himself with who don't care for anything but materialistic gain and where they stand on the social ladder in comparison to their ilk.

My favorite part of the whole movie is the business card comparison scene.

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]


FWIW, I think the movie opened the debate about whether he actually committed those acts or not. When I read the book the first time, it never even occurred to me that he didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, I'm of a much different opinion.

I think the book is perfectly ambiguous. It allows for both readings: if you read that Bateman did do the murders, you can interpret the book to say that society looks the other way and ignores such behavior, and his actions are the consequences of his loss of identity. If you read that everything is in Bateman's head, you can interpret the book as a severe psychological character study of a guy so deluded by his desire to assimilate into pop culture and high society that his inability to form an identity causes him to make up these bogus dreams of being a murderer -- that it's his subconscious actively defying his outward persona. And yet as a man he is too afraid and incompetent to actually pull off these killings.

But the movie to me was far less ambiguous, and seemed to openly declare that it's all in Bateman's head. The way Harron shot the ATM scene and the police chase, etc. -- it just came off as too satirical, and seemed to take the interpretation that we're inside the mind of a madman who has visions of killing these people (hence his confusion when he goes to the apartment where he's been stashing bodies only to find a realtor showing it off) but can't actually do anything for real.

Looking forward to reading that literary criticism link.

[Rushmore]

Ok, too many people are saying something that is definitely wrong.

Patrick Bateman is, indeed, a serial killer. Anyone who has read the book should know this.

Anyone who tries to read more into it, saying that he is NOT a serial killer, is guilty of the literature equivalent of Mike Caro's Fancy Play Syndrome Theory.

Call it Fancy Interpretation Syndrome, if you like.

[Shajen]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, too many people are saying something that is definitely wrong.

Patrick Bateman is, indeed, a serial killer. Anyone who has read the book should know this.

Anyone who tries to read more into it, saying that he is NOT a serial killer, is guilty of the literature equivalent of Mike Caro's Fancy Play Syndrome Theory.

Call it Fancy Interpretation Syndrome, if you like.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bring the old avatar back dude, it much better fits the tone of your posts.

thank you.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
There's nothing debatable about these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is showing some real blatant ignorance about writing in general.

Read the link I posted or re-read the book.Just because it is your "interpretation" does not make it right.

If you're really not convinced, try some interviews with BEE.

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
I loved this movie, absolutely cracked me up at times (especially the ATM and stray cat scene). I haven't read the book, but that's something I will apparently have to do in the near future.

My take is that Bateman never kills anyone. Those murders are his mind visualizing what he would like to do to the people he absolutely disdains (yet is forced to socialize with on a daily basis). That's why he doesn't kill the secretary (or does he? I forget now...been awhile since I last watched it). She isn't one of those types of people. She's 'human', unlike the yuppies Bateman works/dines/associates himself with who don't care for anything but materialistic gain and where they stand on the social ladder in comparison to their ilk.

My favorite part of the whole movie is the business card comparison scene.

[/ QUOTE ]


Nice observation of why he doesn't kill the secretary. But what about his friend Tim Price? He also seems to have some vestige of humanity, when at the end of the movie/book he seems disturbed by Ronald Reagan being so "cool" about "lying like that" and how he presents himself as some "harmless old codger" and then gets criticized by the inhumans for daring to doubt Reagan's integrity.

He also mentions Price being the only interesting person he knows.

And he has a mental breakdown and goes into rehab, no doubt because the people around him made him so nervous.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, too many people are saying something that is definitely wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. You have absolutely no right to say something like this. You sound like a 7th grade english teacher.

[ QUOTE ]
Patrick Bateman is, indeed, a serial killer. Anyone who has read the book should know this.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe he is schizophrenic?

I normally agree with you on things but you're displaying some real ignorance here.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
link (http://www.americanpopularculture.com/journal/articles/fall_2002/blazer.htm)
This is a literary critique that gets very, very deep into what you're asking. If you're into this kinda stuff, you may find it interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got this far:

Chasms of Reality, Aberrations of Identity:
Defining the Postmod

[thatpfunk]

Hence the caveat, "if you're into this kinda stuff (literary critiques)..."

[A_C_Slater]

I enjoyed it. The more pedantic the better.

[Jeff W]

I am down with literary critiques. I disdain postmodernist analysis.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
I disdain postmodernist analysis.


[/ QUOTE ]
boooooo! I don't think we can be friends /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Seriously though, don't you find American Psycho to be a very postmodern novel?

[Klepton]

an arguement for the notion that bateman really did kill paul allen is that the lawyer may have confused Paul allen with another person, just like he does bateman

i'm sure all of your questions could be answered here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144084/board/threads/)

[thatpfunk]

I have no questions (that I don't want) and I am referring to the book. I trust my analysis much more than a message board.

[Rushmore]

Ok, man.

But only because you have a Bukowski avatar.

I have read the book three times, easy. I'd be shocked if I went back and saw that the door was open for this alternative interpretation, but I'll run it up the flag pole anyway.

That way, I can read the lines We buy balloons, we let them go again.

[Rushmore]

I already said ok, man.

Jeez, NOW who's being ignorant?!

Ok, that didn't make sense, but you get the idea.

[AEKDBet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I loved this movie, absolutely cracked me up at times (especially the ATM and stray cat scene). I haven't read the book, but that's something I will apparently have to do in the near future.

My take is that Bateman never kills anyone. Those murders are his mind visualizing what he would like to do to the people he absolutely disdains (yet is forced to socialize with on a daily basis). That's why he doesn't kill the secretary (or does he? I forget now...been awhile since I last watched it). She isn't one of those types of people. She's 'human', unlike the yuppies Bateman works/dines/associates himself with who don't care for anything but materialistic gain and where they stand on the social ladder in comparison to their ilk.

My favorite part of the whole movie is the business card comparison scene.

[/ QUOTE ]


Nice observation of why he doesn't kill the secretary.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't kill his secretary because she worshipped and adored him.

When he breaks up with Evelyn at dinner, and in the middle of the argument she calls him "honey". Bateman gets mad. She asks what does he would prefer to be called then. He thinks, but doesn't say, "King".