Favorite on screen sociopaths

[jasonmccarthy5]

I'm cracking up from the Seinfeld stuff and the Larry David pic. Good stuff guys! I'm such a huge fan of Larry David. lol

 

[P A]

That was very well worded and also too preachy.

Well, excuuuuuse me.

Tom Cruise in Collateral

Good one. Similarly to AP and Bale, I actually enjoyed Cruise's performance in this film more than any other of his that I've seen (and yes, if Tom Cruise is in a movie, it is assuredly 'his' movie, for better or worse).

 

[jasonmccarthy5]

Has anyone mentioned Memento?

 

[P A]

Are you sure that Pearce's character really counts? I mean, the guy has severe brain damage and a seriously troubled, seemingly recent past. It's not like he was abused throughout his childhood and thrilled by the prospect of murder itself - he's just out for a vigilante's deeply personal revenge, plain and simple.

Or are you referring to Joe Pantoliano's character? If so, I wrote him off as a garden-variety Hollywood-stereotyped dirty cop rather than a pathological sadist with no regard for right and wrong. The guy comes across as more of a tired, desperate asshole than anything else.

 

[Eyes On the Roll]

Nick Stahl from the brilliant film Bully ( a movie that takes murder seriously and doesn't cop out).


And you can claim "eye of god", that's just your way of not taking into account that American Psycho played itself too straight all along to then go to another level. It just didn't ring true, and the book is by far better.

Which is why for as many times I have seen American Psycho, I have only watched the ending once. Joe Pesci in Goodfellas is good. If you research Joe Pesci's character in real life, you will realize that he actually fits the description of Serial Killer.

Leonardo DiCaprio was supposed to be Patrick Bateman in the movie, but I guess something happened. Although Christian Bales performance was exceptional, I can only hope, and want, for a film with Leonardo DiCaprio at that age, as a psycho killer.

 

[jasonmccarthy5]

Yeah but in Memento he is aware of what the "brain damage" and decided to create another puzzle. I think it's a tough call. Pesci definitely meets the criteria and that's one of the best performances I've ever seen. And I do agree that DiCaprio mighta made Psycho better as well. I love Bale, but Leo is out of this world.

 

[P A]

And you can claim "eye of god", that's just your way of not taking into account that American Psycho played itself too straight all along to then go to another level. It just didn't ring true, and the book is by far better.

I agree with everything following the word 'American.' I never claimed American Psycho as a masterpiece with an enduring legacy among slasher films. In fact, I don't particularly care for AP over and above other movies featuring serial killers or psychopaths in prominent roles. I just thought that the film was noteworthy (and its eponymous character well-developed) enough to merit inclusion in this thread. I then compared it to Dexter, with AP coming out on top.

And as for your whole 'at least Fight Club gives you the whole picture' thing? That's a far more damaging example than any I could have contrived, an almost perfectly note-for-note demonstration of how not to transpose unreliable first-person narration into a Hollywood format without coming off as gimmicky in the extreme. Did you even read the novel? While it wasn't strictly bad, the movie's ending looked and felt like the sick lovechild of Se7en and anything by Emniteshamamlalalmama ('It was Ed Norton all along, whatatweest!'). I swear, that guy must have been on the writing staff...

Either way, you don't get to treat my opinions on film in a heavy-handed manner whilst making Fight Club out to be the king of narrative subtlety and taste, mentioning something about a 'masterpiece' to boot. Give me a break.

 

[jasonmccarthy5]

I guess it's kinda comical that when it comes down to it I probably like American Psycho better than you. Lol, anyways I make no apologies for any of my comments. Fight Club was one of the best films of the 90s, Vanilla Sky is one of my favorite movies as well. Just thought I'd throw that out there to spark more insults, lol

 

[P A]

Fight Club was one of the best films of the 90s, Vanilla Sky is one of my favorite movies as well. Just thought I'd throw that out there to spark more insults, lol

I don't have any particular problem with any of these movies (I thought Vanilla Sky was pretty good, and definitely earned its second viewing), but I wouldn't call them masterpieces by a long shot. They fail to achieve that which is not their aim in the first place, namely excellence. These pictures are all fine at what they intend to do for the viewer, but I don't consider them to be masterworks in any sense of the word because they lack perennial significance, groundbreaking directorial/technological/thespian output, or any kind of broad-but-nuanced, humanistic purview, all of which I consider to be deal-breakers when it comes to judging a 'masterpiece.' When I make such a judgment, its usually as an impassioned film-snob who keeps more people than himself in mind when evaluating the relative merit of the various movies he watches. To whom does Fight Club principally appertain and appeal? People like its anonymous, disenfranchised narrator, of course. Upon whom does American Psycho fixate? Mostly a small cadre of elite, ultra-rich douchebags and a highly improbable, satirically-portrayed serial rapist and murderer among their ranks. To whom does Vanilla Sky mainly cater? Eh, that's a hard one - it's got quite a lot of human depth for a plot that basically revolves around a single, unremarkable pseuo-scifi M. Night Tweest at the end. But I'd argue that this movie offers more humanity than either of the two aforementioned films combined, albeit with a side-order of melodrama and conceit. However I look at it, I can't consider these movies to be masterpieces of anything other than their own genres, and even that stamp of merit rings dubious to me. I mean, what could Vanilla Sky possibly be the masterwork of, exactly? PKD-esque, sci-fi romances? What is its competition, Solaris? Anyway, this is a woeful digression from a good thread topic, so I'll just drop it right here.

I don't mean to deprecate your choices of 'favorite' or 'best' films, but I have to beg your pardon when you accuse me of lazy thinking or half-assed commentary. I honestly don't take film (or [insert other art form]) criticism so seriously - and there's certainly no need to be harsh about it. Though movie critiques are often deeply personal judgments, I take great care to distance myself and (especially) others from my critiques when it comes to evaluating the overall merit of a work, whatever that may be. If someone accuses me of rationalizing a personal quirk or being otherwise disingenuous, however, I feel obliged to say otherwise. No insult intended.

 

[jasonmccarthy5]

You have a world view that looks at film very differently than I do. When I see a movie I admire the direction, writing, acting, music, and so on...but at the same time if a movie can truly allow me to get lost in its glory then it is a masterpiece to me. People always say Hitchcock is a the greatest of his genre, I have seen plenty of his movies, they're damn good, but outside of Vertigo and Psycho his work is just really good. I'm not interested in what film I'm watching and who it appeals to, that sounds like some market research bullshit that I don't wanna think about. I'm at the movies to be enlightened and have something deep and human from it...Fight Club was very emotional in my opinion, people don't see this b/c it's ultra violent, when in reality it's not about fighting at all. Vanilla Sky is one of those movies I was just drawn into and I never let go of till the last frame. I think VS did break new ground, the nonstop pop culture references and music throughout the film. I realize other movies have done this but not quite the way Cameron Crowe did. I love watching the behind the scenes b/c you can see the director sitting there and realizing he's playing with toys he hasn't played with before. It breaks through genres to me...some people call it erotic or sci/fi romance, I think it's just a great moral story of our times. I mean when you get down to it...it's a romance, a sci fi flick, a dream film, a character study, a psychological film.. so you can't even place it in one genre to me, that makes it a masterpiece. And really the same for Fight Club, oh sure I thought of Clockwork Orange, but I don't feel it was staying to a genre either...its serious...it's funny...it's crazy...its romantic...dark etc etc. To me a genre film would be something like Jerry Maguire which I think is a good movie, but not a classic. I would like to say though as much as I probably don't sound like it I am a snob too when it comes to film.

 

[ErikTheRed]

Hannibal Lector, seriously no one has mentioned him?

 

[hydroazuanacaine]

because he loves clarice.

 

[sarcophagus.heels]

I gotta go with Lisa from Girl Interrupted, especially since her diagnosis as such is an integral part of the movie. And she has the added benefit of being Angelina Jolie.

NSFW:

The Salamanca's are an entire family of sociopaths right there.

Actually, changed my mind. I'd go with Gus. While the Salamancas are some crazy sons-of-bitches, I'm not sure I would call them sociopaths, although they do some qualities of it. It's more of a cultish family self-worship. Wouldn't Gus be a better fit for sociopathy?

 

[P A]

I think that the issue of Fring's supposed psychopathy has already been lightly touched upon in this thread. Much like Walter's haphazard scramble to safeguard his own interests, Gus commits morally atrocious acts solely as means to bring about his master-mind culmination of a nation- and decade-spanning vendetta. This man likely exhibited a few antisocial traits before his fateful encounter with Don Eladio (he was a meth dealer, after all), but the trauma inflicted upon him by that leader of the Mexican cartel certainly changed him, most likely for the worse. Much like Dexter, this man possesses near-superhuman faculties of self-control and stress tolerance, and is capable of achieving shocking feats of violence whilst retaining the full composure of a crisp businessman on the job. However, unlike Dexter, Fring possesses such remarkable traits not because of some gimmicky emo superpower, but because this is simply the man that he is. And, most importantly, and in further contrast to Dexter, Fring is most certainly not an emotionless sadist, avoiding unnecessary violence whenever possible and revealing a profound level of courtesy and care for those under his command (cf. the whole medical tent thing in which Jesse and Mike are treated alongside Gus after the shootout). Like the unnamed protagonist in Drive, what few emotions this man has run exceptionally deep - and this is not in keeping with the traditional APD description at all. Gustavo Fring is anything but a psychopath; he stakes no risky bets, takes every necessary precaution, and repeatedly demonstrates an unrealistically high capacity for ultra-high-order thought processes and laser-sharp attention to detail - all of which disqualify him for a diagnosis of APD or any other brand of 'sociopathy' that comes readily to mind.

 

[sarcophagus.heels]

Huh, interesting. I looked through the thread, but I suppose I missed that. I'll have to think on that before commenting, because there's still something I don't like about that explanation, but I can't pin it down yet.

 

[Carl Landrover]

Are you sure that Pearce's character really counts? I mean, the guy has severe brain damage and a seriously troubled, seemingly recent past. It's not like he was abused throughout his childhood and thrilled by the prospect of murder itself - he's just out for a vigilante's deeply personal revenge, plain and simple.

I'd agree somewhat. To a certain degree it was personal, but his only drive was "revenge" for the murder of his wife and the person who gave him brain damage. It no longer becomes personal when he is "deciding" who his next target is going to be by manipulating his own clues. If his goal was met when he killed "John G" then I'd agree with your statement, but he would continue to create new "John G's" to continue with his plan of vengeance.

I guess with his injury and the fact that his brain could never process the closure of achieving revenge might take him out of the sociopath category, but he kept himself in that mindset with the clues/notes he'd leave for himself.


I don't understand the point of not having a troubled past either. Severe brain damage can drastically alter someone's personality. Calling Phineas Gage. Phineas Gage please report for response.

 

[P A]

I don't understand the point of not having a troubled past either. Severe brain damage can drastically alter someone's personality.

Naturally so, but you must concede that both Gage's and Pearce's character's cases are representative of an outlandish exception to an otherwise dreary rule. While many people with severe brain damage do indeed take a turn for the worse, their personal transformations are typically un-dramatic (i.e., boring and sad) and are often accompanied by severe cognitive dysfunction and a slew of other disabling abnormalities. Both Memento's protagonist and Phineas Gage make such fascinating case studies in part because of the fact that their individual cases are so incredibly sensational and anomalous.

My purpose in mentioning a 'troubled past' should, I think, be pretty obvious: Real-world, honest-to-goodness psychopaths almost invariably come from abusive homes and dangerous neighborhoods. This fact is part of the reason that I take issue with the dubious phenomenon of the 'Hollywood psychopath' (cf. my comments on the title character of Showtime's Dexter). Cinema repeatedly insists on presenting a glamorized, whitewashed version of what an APD 'sufferer' actually looks like, as in, IRL. If you want a faithful rendition of what modern psychiatry recognizes as a typical case of APD, look to Natural Born Killers, not Silence of the Lambs; watch Chopper, not Dexter; consider Boardwalk Empire or the Sopranos as opposed to Se7en. Serial killers are most often not the hyper-intelligent, resourceful lizards with which we are presented in Hollywood's ridiculous cavalcade of Lecters and Morgans. I understand that what many people expect from their cinema is outlandish sensationalism, and that some people really do thrive on hyperbolically gruesome forms of entertainment, but I consider thoughtful, intellectually honest realism to be of equal or greater importance in modern film, perhaps excepting the annals of Quentin Tarantino and Michael Bay.

In Memento, Pearce was extremely troubled by his unfortunate past and by his unfathomable, multilevel moral uncertainties, as would any normal person under his (admittedly bizarre) set of circumstances. The fact that his trauma, which serves as the sole impetus from which all of his phony-vigilante actions flow (and which incidentally also triggered the interesting pathological state in which the movie - and the dirty cop - finds him), occurred during his adulthood makes all the difference in the world if we're trying to evaluate from an armchair whether or not a fictional character exhibits well-documented psychopathological traits. Most people who experience violent trauma post-childhood do not go on to commit horrific acts of violence. Many people who undergo such experiences (repeatedly) as children do. That was my point.

 

[Carl Landrover]

Naturally so, but you must concede that both Gage's and Pearce's character's cases are representative of an outlandish exception to an otherwise dreary rule. While many people with severe brain damage do indeed take a turn for the worse, their personal transformations are typically un-dramatic (i.e., boring and sad) and are often accompanied by severe cognitive dysfunction and a slew of other disabling abnormalities. Both Memento's protagonist and Phineas Gage make such fascinating case studies in part because of the fact that their individual cases are so incredibly sensational and anomalous.

Just because Pearce's case would be an exception to the rule doesn't mean he doesn't fit the category.

I had understood why you would include people who have troubled pasts, I just didn't understand why you would immediately discount people who didn't (or at least discounted Pearce).

There's a lot of people mentioned on this thread that have no allusion to their character's childhood or no allusion to a troubled childhood who are still being considered sociopaths. External factors can still change people even after childhood and the formative years.

 

[P A]

Just because Pearce's case would be an exception to the rule doesn't mean he doesn't fit the category.

Huh? To which category are you referring? Psychopathy by way of neurological trauma? I don't believe that such an outlandish category is even clinically recognized, i.e. I think that such a diagnostic criterion is dubious at best. That was kind of my point.

There's a lot of people mentioned on this thread that have no allusion to their character's childhood or no allusion to a troubled childhood who are still being considered sociopaths. External factors can still change people even after childhood and the formative years.

Doubtless this is true, which I freely grant (cf. my posted pic of James Darmody). But I think you need to review the difference between necessary and sufficient criteria. My contention that Pearce's character isn't a psychopath was based on a combination of considerations, one of which went something along the lines of, "he didn't appear to have any undergone any marked childhood abuse/trauma, nor could his current antisocial state be reasonably attributable to such." In other words, his (supposedly) unblemished long-term history, in combination with his relatively recent trauma and subsequent brain damage, is far more suggestive of a vindictive vigilante than a sadistic murderer per se. See what I mean?

I'll concede that the inherent narrative ambiguities of the film do present far more of a puzzle than I'm letting on, but I think that my assumption is a safe one nevertheless. Of course, yes, the possibility is presented that he could in fact be a very special, entirely unique kind of amnesic serial killer who continually stokes his subconscious drive for vengeance that may or may not be based on any facts whatsoever, making him sound more akin to the character of Marv in Sin City - a 'psycho killer' high on his own manic thrill at the prospect of destroying a nemesis that could easily be long dead or non-existent (for all he knows, that is).

 

[psood0nym]

Nick Stahl from the brilliant film Bully ( a movie that takes murder seriously and doesn't cop out).

I just watched Bully not that long ago and thought about him for this thread. It's hard to not cop out of taking murder seriously when you're basing your movie on a true story, though, heh. I'm not knocking the film at all, I thought it was pretty great (better than "Kids" even), just saying.

I actually wished their was more exploration of Stahl's character's relationship with his father in it. It was hard to peg exactly what about it the film was suggesting made Stahl's character who he was. Granted, you go too far in that direction as a director/writer you end up with a lawsuit. I was actually surprised not to find any stories about lawsuits in a quick search. So many real people are effectively portrayed as disgusting ape-like people in that movie.