cravNbeets
Bluelighter
Curious Yellow said:
man english class would be a real hoot w/ you. perhaps we could discuss poetry sometime:D
a) the movie and the novel are two different productions
b) there's room for interpretation
-
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Film & Television
Welcome Guest
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat Recently Watched Best Documentaries ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak
Film: American Psycho
- Thread starter Edvard Munch
- Start date
man english class would be a real hoot w/ you. perhaps we could discuss poetry sometime:D
a) the movie and the novel are two different productions
b) there's room for interpretation
I have read the book five times and seen the movie four times and still can't answer your question. I feel that Morrison's Lament has explained it best and I would have to agree. With regard to Patrick Bateman being in other Ellis books he is in 'rules of attraction' & mentioned in 'glamorama'.
incident
Bluelighter
Supposedly, he never killed ALOT of people. As previously stated, I agree with the fact that it was in fact all done in a dreamlike state, where nothing that seemed to happen actually happened.
MOS
Bluelighter
cravNbeets said:
Exactly.
onetwothreefour
Bluelight Crew
just bumping this because i watched it again the other day, and noticed a familiar picture on patrick bateman's wall. it is a cindy sherman photograph (we did a bunch of her stuff in class one day), which i recalled wanderlust posting about some time ago. had a search and voila, original thread: http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67570
anyone else notice this? (i just really like the picture, tbh
).
anyone else notice this? (i just really like the picture, tbh
).
onetwothreefour
Bluelight Crew
film: american psycho (explanations -?- and musings)
vote now
vote now
rollmodel36
Ex-Bluelighter
That's what makes for a great movie,let alone a great book. Two people watching the same movie are able to watch two different kinds of movies. Doesn't mean either one is wrong in their interpretation. I guess I'll throw my two cents in.
I saw American Psycho as a well deserved slap in the face to 80s society. I grew up in the 80s and remember the birth of the yuppies. Carbon copy replicas in their deigner shoes,suits and frames. That's why I think most of the characters mistook one for another. Patrick Bateman wanted to stand out of the crowd in subtle ways(his card,apartment)but his love of the designer look put him back in with the other sheep. The atomic and Vietnam eras spawned the Gacys,Son of Sams and Geins of their time. All Bateman had was the stress of getting reservations at the best restaurants,making his lack of motive all the more absurd. He only found meaning in his music. Throwaway hits like Hip To Be Square and The Greatest Love Of All. If you think about it,most 80s music was horribly dismissive and lacked any meaning,with the exception of making the Top 40. In the end,his blending in turned out to be his salvation. The lawyer didn't see Allen last week. Just someone he mistook for Allen,just as he mistook Bateman for Halberstram. But,I could be wrong.
I saw American Psycho as a well deserved slap in the face to 80s society. I grew up in the 80s and remember the birth of the yuppies. Carbon copy replicas in their deigner shoes,suits and frames. That's why I think most of the characters mistook one for another. Patrick Bateman wanted to stand out of the crowd in subtle ways(his card,apartment)but his love of the designer look put him back in with the other sheep. The atomic and Vietnam eras spawned the Gacys,Son of Sams and Geins of their time. All Bateman had was the stress of getting reservations at the best restaurants,making his lack of motive all the more absurd. He only found meaning in his music. Throwaway hits like Hip To Be Square and The Greatest Love Of All. If you think about it,most 80s music was horribly dismissive and lacked any meaning,with the exception of making the Top 40. In the end,his blending in turned out to be his salvation. The lawyer didn't see Allen last week. Just someone he mistook for Allen,just as he mistook Bateman for Halberstram. But,I could be wrong.
mariacallas
Bluelight Crew
love this movie, never read the book tho i will buy one when i see it in the bookstore if ever. ive seen the dvd about five times 
The only thing i noticed is that there are a few scenes where PAtrick Batemans BRITISH accent keeps threatening to tear its way out as he is speaking in dialogue. LOL
The only thing i noticed is that there are a few scenes where PAtrick Batemans BRITISH accent keeps threatening to tear its way out as he is speaking in dialogue. LOL
PhorIndicator
Bluelighter
read the book. blows the movie out of the water. the movie was an insult to the book.
captainballs
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2004
- Messages
- 9,954
The book is a just a drug, meant to bring you up and then bring you really far down - then up again. Patrick Bateman, although a convenient representation of just about anything, is just an excuse to bring as much pain as possible to the reader's mentality when the trough comes... but then when it's time for nothing to matter and things to be funny he can supply that too. I think it was a matter of convenience that the book was inspired by the superficiality of that particular culture and time because Bret would have found a way to produce a book that renders the reader manic one way or another.
psychetool
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Messages
- 6,186
He was a schitzo man, it was all in his mind. He never killed anyone.
wizekrak
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2000
- Messages
- 4,250
Finished the book today, seen the movie a few times, here's my take:
There's evidence pointing to either possibility. First that it's all in his head.
-The chapter where he goes kinda nuts (glimpse of a thursday afternoon) he just runs around like a mad man.
-Kimball tells him he was at dinner with a few people the night Paul Owen was killed (McDermitt always calls him by name).
-When he goes back to visit Paul Owens apartment it's in pristine condition, no evidence of murder.
-All of his victims are transient in his world (the homeless, ex girlfriend from out of state, hookers). He never kills anyone who has any really attachment to the world (the only exception can be Paul Owen).
-When he hides in the office building after the shoot out with the cops, there are no repercussions. No one looks for him the next day, no news of slain officers on TV. As with most of his murders he always achieves his goal. never gets caught.
-His meeting with Jean towards the end of the book alludes to some possible awaking of dead facets of his personality. The comparison of his mind to a saharan wasteland, and the black child baking in the sun who no one cares about (being Patrick), but someone does care (Jean).
-When ever he kills he is always alone, no one from his world is ever around.
-and of course the ATM talks to him "feed me a stray cat"
-I'm sure there are others but I can't think of more right now.
Evidence that he really did kill people:
-He leaves the message on Paul Owen's machine. Kimball says there was a message on his machine.
-Patrick gets mugged by the cab driver in retaliation for killing "Solly". At a subsequent meeting he has a new rolex covered by insurance (mix of of murder fantasy life and his real life).
-Blood on his sheets are seen/cleaned by others.
--------------------------------------------------------
While I really liked the movie I much preferred the book. And I'm leaning in the direction that it was all in his head. Patrick lives in a world where everyone is so self centered and isolated that the essence of their humanity is crushed under the trend to conform. The death of their human spirit manifests itself as the desire to kill others, to subject others to their loss of center (the yuppie writing "kill all yuppies" above the urinal). Patrick seems to be the personification of the 80's he is governed by 2 motivations, greed and disgust.
That's just my take on it, there's a lot you can pull out of the book, it's definitely one of my favourites, but not for the squeamish.
There's evidence pointing to either possibility. First that it's all in his head.
-The chapter where he goes kinda nuts (glimpse of a thursday afternoon) he just runs around like a mad man.
-Kimball tells him he was at dinner with a few people the night Paul Owen was killed (McDermitt always calls him by name).
-When he goes back to visit Paul Owens apartment it's in pristine condition, no evidence of murder.
-All of his victims are transient in his world (the homeless, ex girlfriend from out of state, hookers). He never kills anyone who has any really attachment to the world (the only exception can be Paul Owen).
-When he hides in the office building after the shoot out with the cops, there are no repercussions. No one looks for him the next day, no news of slain officers on TV. As with most of his murders he always achieves his goal. never gets caught.
-His meeting with Jean towards the end of the book alludes to some possible awaking of dead facets of his personality. The comparison of his mind to a saharan wasteland, and the black child baking in the sun who no one cares about (being Patrick), but someone does care (Jean).
-When ever he kills he is always alone, no one from his world is ever around.
-and of course the ATM talks to him "feed me a stray cat"
-I'm sure there are others but I can't think of more right now.
Evidence that he really did kill people:
-He leaves the message on Paul Owen's machine. Kimball says there was a message on his machine.
-Patrick gets mugged by the cab driver in retaliation for killing "Solly". At a subsequent meeting he has a new rolex covered by insurance (mix of of murder fantasy life and his real life).
-Blood on his sheets are seen/cleaned by others.
--------------------------------------------------------
While I really liked the movie I much preferred the book. And I'm leaning in the direction that it was all in his head. Patrick lives in a world where everyone is so self centered and isolated that the essence of their humanity is crushed under the trend to conform. The death of their human spirit manifests itself as the desire to kill others, to subject others to their loss of center (the yuppie writing "kill all yuppies" above the urinal). Patrick seems to be the personification of the 80's he is governed by 2 motivations, greed and disgust.
That's just my take on it, there's a lot you can pull out of the book, it's definitely one of my favourites, but not for the squeamish.
wizekrak
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2000
- Messages
- 4,250
fengtau
Bluelight Crew
Kinda like in the movie IDENTITY, no?
Belisarius
Bluelighter
Liked the movie the first time I saw it; I thought it was darkly hilarious, like a joke you hate yourself for laughing at, even though it's one of the best you've heard. In my op, the movie implies much more than it shows, a quality I've always liked in cinema and television.
In my op, the movie implies much more than it shows, a quality I've always liked in cinema and television.
Benefit
Bluelighter
Was it all in his head? Was he some kind of super killer? Combination of the two?
Hello!?! There is no answer to this question folks! And that, of course, is the point and it accounts for some of the genius of the film.
Admittedly, I have not read the book. But comparing movies and books is almost always an exercise in futility and should be discarded from the outset. The movie should be judged on its merits as a movie. And this movie is great.
Aside from the obviously outstanding acting by Christian Bale (though Edward Norton probably would have been a better selection for the role), the film is great because it is heavily symbolic, dynamic, clever and very complex without being weighed down by these things. It is, for all its depth, still thoroughly engaging and can be watched without necessitating heavy analysis.
As a satire of the over the top 80s lifestyle it's brilliant, and as an examination of cognitive dissonance and the dark side of human nature/emotion it also scores a homerun. The self-reflective exploration of a radically image-conscious society is subtly reinforced throughout the film, both visually and in the dialogue. Consider, for instance, when Bateman emphatically declares to his fiancee, "I just want to fit in." This finds an interesting counterpoint in the hyperbolic nature of his lengthy monologues on music, which are so essentially meaningless -while striving to be meaningful- that they are rendered comical.
Another really clever aspect of the film is the opening montage; the credits. In the opening credits, you see a red liquid being splashed on a pristine white background. Aside from the aesthetic qualities of this segment, it also at first makes us think that the red liquid is blood. Indeed, we see a butcher knife flash, and given the title of the movie we are meant to believe there is something malicious and perhaps murderous underpinning this sequence. However, a few frames later we realize the red liquid is some kind of paste being used as a garnish and the knife is being used to cut meat.
This, of course, reflects the essential duality that struggles to reconcile itself throughout the film: reality vs. illusion. That's the kind of visual trick that can only be implemented in a film as opposed to a book. This is a very intelligent film.
Hello!?! There is no answer to this question folks! And that, of course, is the point and it accounts for some of the genius of the film.
Admittedly, I have not read the book. But comparing movies and books is almost always an exercise in futility and should be discarded from the outset. The movie should be judged on its merits as a movie. And this movie is great.
Aside from the obviously outstanding acting by Christian Bale (though Edward Norton probably would have been a better selection for the role), the film is great because it is heavily symbolic, dynamic, clever and very complex without being weighed down by these things. It is, for all its depth, still thoroughly engaging and can be watched without necessitating heavy analysis.
As a satire of the over the top 80s lifestyle it's brilliant, and as an examination of cognitive dissonance and the dark side of human nature/emotion it also scores a homerun. The self-reflective exploration of a radically image-conscious society is subtly reinforced throughout the film, both visually and in the dialogue. Consider, for instance, when Bateman emphatically declares to his fiancee, "I just want to fit in." This finds an interesting counterpoint in the hyperbolic nature of his lengthy monologues on music, which are so essentially meaningless -while striving to be meaningful- that they are rendered comical.
Another really clever aspect of the film is the opening montage; the credits. In the opening credits, you see a red liquid being splashed on a pristine white background. Aside from the aesthetic qualities of this segment, it also at first makes us think that the red liquid is blood. Indeed, we see a butcher knife flash, and given the title of the movie we are meant to believe there is something malicious and perhaps murderous underpinning this sequence. However, a few frames later we realize the red liquid is some kind of paste being used as a garnish and the knife is being used to cut meat.
This, of course, reflects the essential duality that struggles to reconcile itself throughout the film: reality vs. illusion. That's the kind of visual trick that can only be implemented in a film as opposed to a book. This is a very intelligent film.
^agreed
unlike the horrendous sequel, which i downloaded out of sheer morbid curiosity. It opens with a characature of pat bateman getting killed by a stupid little girl and immediately revealing that he did, in fact, kill all those people.
I stopped it after 15 ior 20 minutes and immediately rid my computer of that god aweful piece of shit.
unlike the horrendous sequel, which i downloaded out of sheer morbid curiosity. It opens with a characature of pat bateman getting killed by a stupid little girl and immediately revealing that he did, in fact, kill all those people.
I stopped it after 15 ior 20 minutes and immediately rid my computer of that god aweful piece of shit.
Mugz
Bluelighter
me and my dad have just watched it and he thinks it was total rubbish but i think it is great. One of my favourite films. I definitely think he does actually kill the people.
34-dihydroxyphen
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,362
My take, and I've never actually seen anybody take this stand, is that he both killed people and imagined killing people. He might have killed Paul Owen and the little boy at the zoo (from the book), but he didn't run across New York killing police officers. Remember that in the book he claimed he hallucinated constantly, so his sense of reality is definitely fucked up.