American Psycho?

TheDallasDon

TheDallasDon

AegonTheConqueror-Now bend the knee
Messages
2,884
Reaction score
401
I just watched this film for the first time....I'm a little confused and have questions.

SPOILERS BELOW!!!


Did he kill anyone or was it all in his head?

At the end he talks to the lawyer who said he had lunch with Paul in London, but here's where I veer off-course. All through out the movie people keep getting names wrong, so is it possible that 1.)The Lawyer got someone confused with Paul? 2.)or Bateman confused someone else as Paul?

Then there's the cop seen where Batemen even notices that the gun shouldn't have done what it did.....which makes me think its all in his head.

I keep going back and forth on this and there's more stuff I noticed but would love to get y'alls take on this?
 
Then there's the business card thing....which could verify Patrick Batemen/Paul Allen/Timothy Bryce/Luis Carruthers all being the sam person just his different personalities.

This movie is throwing me for a loop......IDK its a weird movie though.

Still would like to hear others take on this film.
 
Oddly I was watching this last night as well. It's undetermined. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. The lawyer at the end could have just been having dinner with someone he thought was Paul Allen. But that leaves the remodeling of Paul Allen's apartment. They left that scene just odd enough to let you think the bodies etc. may have really been in the apartment.
 
I tend to think the events occurred in his mind. The purpose of the film is lampooning corporate culture in the 1980s. The business card scene is wonderful and iconic.
 
The mistaken identities was a criticism on how everyone in that world is basically a carbon copy. If youre at all familiar with the elitist class that work on Wall Street, you know what I mean. WASP male, blue pinstripe suit, double Harvard, etc. That was more so the case historically and perhaps reached its peak in the 80s. You're not supposed to be able to make much of a distinction between the business cards. They're all very slight variations of the same "perfect" thing -- which can reference the person or the card. Patrick explains this in a couple spots. The people are just "entities" that are created and molded to match an ideal person in their world. They all just want to "fit in" by being identical to one another (or that ideal person).
 
theogt;4575031 said:
The mistaken identities was a criticism on how everyone in that world is basically a carbon copy. If youre at all familiar with the elitist class that work on Wall Street, you know what I mean. WASP male, blue pinstripe suit, double Harvard, etc. That was more so the case historically and perhaps reached its peak in the 80s. You're not supposed to be able to make much of a distinction between the business cards. They're all very slight variations of the same "perfect" thing -- which can reference the person or the card. Patrick explains this in a couple spots. The people are just "entities" that are created and molded to match an ideal person in their world. They all just want to "fit in" by being identical to one another (or that ideal person).
Click to expand...

I know the point the writer/director was making.....but its more then just variation, go back and watch again they have the same V.P. title(possible) but they all have the same phone and fax numbers. Also near the end when David say No to the beer I need a scotch and as soon as he said that Bateman is drinking a scotch.

To the apartment it could be that his lawyer help cover it up for him.....while also saying he ate twice with Paul in London in order to continue getting money from Bateman which would also stay true to the Writers/Directors agenda.

This is a view through a psychos perspective....so it may be intended to be confusing.
 
In the book it's clear that he did all those things and worse. Everybody, including his lawyer are nothing more than self-absorbed yuppies who can't seem to reason beyond their next dinner and change of wardrobe. It's a pretty disgusting book.

His dialogue v/o at the end of the movie I think makes it clear that he did do all of that.
 
TheDallasDon;4575043 said:
I know the point the writer/director was making.....but its more then just variation, go back and watch again they have the same V.P. title(possible) but they all have the same phone and fax numbers. Also near the end when David say No to the beer I need a scotch and as soon as he said that Bateman is drinking a scotch.

To the apartment it could be that his lawyer help cover it up for him.....while also saying he ate twice with Paul in London in order to continue getting money from Bateman which would also stay true to the Writers/Directors agenda.

This is a view through a psychos perspective....so it may be intended to be confusing.
Click to expand...
Maybe. There's no clear answer.
 
vta;4575056 said:
In the book it's clear that he did all those things and worse. Everybody, including his lawyer are nothing more than self-absorbed yuppies who can't seem to reason beyond their next dinner and change of wardrobe. It's a pretty disgusting book.

His dialogue v/o at the end of the movie I think makes it clear that he did do all of that.
Click to expand...
It's not supposed to be clear in the book or the movie.
 
theogt;4575069 said:
It's not supposed to be clear in the book or the movie.
Click to expand...

It's probably just subjective. I thought it was obvious, but two men looking at the same object come away with two different perspectives.
 
I too watched this for the 1st time a couple weeks ago, and I had questions.

I took him using those names, as him trying to make an aalibi for these guys, so people thought they were still alive so he wouldn't be a suspect.
 
This movie is like DC today, using those metaphors for selfishness and extreme image molding.

The culture in this city is disgusting. It's one of the main reasons I want to move away.
 
TheDallasDon;4575141 said:
Great find thanks, theo

So she messed up the film basically.....or she did it intentionally so people like us ask talk about this question.
Click to expand...
Well, I think she intended it to be more ambiguous than people many people took it. The real estate lady at Paul Allen's apartment, for instance. I remember when the movie initially came out I thought that was an indication it was all fake. It wasn't until years later when watching it again that I realized she could have actually covered it up as indicated in this FAQ. She could have made that more apparent, I suppose, which would have made the whole thing more ambiguous.
 
theogt;4575156 said:
Well, I think she intended it to be more ambiguous than people many people took it. The real estate lady at Paul Allen's apartment, for instance. I remember when the movie initially came out I thought that was an indication it was all fake. It wasn't until years later when watching it again that I realized she could have actually covered it up as indicated in this FAQ. She could have made that more apparent, I suppose, which would have made the whole thing more ambiguous.
Click to expand...

That's what I was also thinking....can't sell a condo for regular price when all that took place inside.

Money grobing is a legitimate reason for her covering that up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 126 more.
Total: 7,966 (members: 226, guests: 7,740)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,054
Messages
13,786,152
Members
23,771
Latest member
LandryHat
Back
Top