Short answer: No.
Long answer: Yes, but no.
The original message of the book is that the society is just a heap of manipulated and shallow tools. They only see what they want to see and refuse to believe that Bateman slaughtered all those people. That money and material goods were more important then human lives. But to be honest, he left it intentionally vague. Same thing in his interviews. The movie done goof with the lady at Paul Allen's apartment. That's the problem with the movie and why's it's confusing. I'd hate to be one of "those guys", but just read the book.
In the movie, I take it he didn't kill anyone besides the homeless man. The whole ending part the ATM scene, the cop car exploding, the walking through his apartment, Paul Allen actually being in London, leads me to believe the rest of the film was just figments of his imagination. The only person who says Paul Allen was in London was the asshole lawyer, and the movie went out of it's way to show how all of the businessmen were indistinguishable because they dressed, behaved, and spoke so similar to one another. If you're to believe that Paul Allen actually was in London, then what prompted William Dafoe's investigation? My interpretation is still that the lawyer mistook him for someone else, and most of the movie actually happened. Really, only the ATM, exploding cop car scene struck me as being imagined.
I felt like the lady at the apartment found all the corpses and what not, presumed the killer would never come back, and covered it up to keep the property value up to go along with the movie's message about greed or materialism etc. Like the lady was willing to cover up a great evil for the sake of protecting her assets. That's the only thing that makes sense, the way she recognized Bateman and said "you'd better leave" seems to indicate she knew he was fucked up. I think the thing with the guy seeing Paul Allen in London was just because all the corporate drones were so similar, he probably confused him with someone else. Pretty much that. But I felt in the movie she wasn't scared. Like she was just saying to leave because. In the book it's made out that she's scared when she sees him because she realizes who she is. The actress in the movie just doesn't seem to understand what her motivation is.
Some people say "what happened at night didn't happen", maybe thats true with the book but in the movie its clear the message is being so wrapped up in making profits and looking good is bad because people didn't take time to pay attention to the fact that Bateman was murdering all these people. The apartment lady covered up the murders because she would never be able to sell that apartment again and it would probably be torn down.
so wrong..see the author's interviews..he killed all those people..the film is about how shallow everyone one has become..not knowing anybody by name..everyone striving to be the same leading to look alikes everywhere..this is why his lawyer believes he had lunch with paul allen 10 days earlier..why nobody can get his name right
ReplyDeletehow the hell did he get away from the helicopter if it was alll real? it was literally shining its light on him.
DeleteI saw you post the same thing on Yahoo answers, yet you never link any sources. So without a source your word is just that, your word. No proof. Not doubting you, but ffs if you want to be taken seriously then post a source.
DeleteYou've got to understand there are NO SOURCES for him to post. It's opinion and interpretation. What's a source to corroborate that?
DeleteThe only true source would be some information from the author directly that substantiates his claims here. Good luck with that.
Bret Easton Ellis is the author of that book.
Maybe you can contact him somehow.
Either way his format is satire and I have to say there's plenty of that in the book and movie.
Personally I think that it's one of those deliberate question marks that allows the reader/viewer to make their own decision. I hate that part of artistic license but it happens too often. It reminds me of bands that hold the mic to the audience.
If I wanted to sing I'd save $300 and stay home in the shower.
The same goes for books and movies. I don't pay to tell myself the story.
I view it as LAZY.
btw Paul Allen's place is incredible. It has to be like 2800 sq ft. Right downtown? That's an easy 4mil in 80's dollars $15 or more today.
DeleteLastly one perspective I'd like to offer which I've not really seen yet is this:
DeleteIt is real, but since he is a deranged psycho he is also plagued with hallucinations/fantasies along the way. So you are literally seeing everything through his eyes. The murders, the people so self absorbed even the cop doesn't think it's happening. And the fantasies like the chopper and the exploding cop car.
Because of this, you cannot tell what the fuck is reality or fantasy. Guess what? That's the definition of schizoid. They cannot discern between fantasy and reality.
I would LOVE to think this because it fits the facts and wow what a hell of a writing story... It would almost allow you to justify the actions having personally experience how confusing it would be to be patrick bateman.
Although I highly doubt this writer is truly that inclined.
Sorry bret!! :(
I am only extrapolating from your core elements and you've not really had anything that raw or "method" prior or post this book.
Is it possible that I lack any substance whatsoever, and am borderline a serial killer and fit in with these people because I think Patrick Bateman and Paul Allen are both examples of perfection?
DeleteI also think my good friends boyfriend is a serial killer. I knew immediately when I walked into his apartment . . . and we had a connection over conversation concerning horror films and serial killers . . .
Deletealso see the realtor..wanting to sell the property and hide what has happened there..it is blatantly obvious..if you can not see he killed all those people you have missed the point of the film..those are the author's words
ReplyDelete^ Someone didn't read this at all :P
ReplyDeleteThis makes hardly any sense. Your title says that he didn't kill anyone in the film, but your blog reads as if you're explaining that he actually did and refer to the messages and themes of the movie.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone else notice that his friend whom he had the threesome with the prostitute with mentioned Paul Allen's disappearance while they were in Paul Allen's apartment. Also, why does the security guard call him Mr. Smith when he goes into the building before he shoots the security guard, and asks him to sign in? Why does he call him Mr. Smith?
DeleteAlso, to continue putting forth questions, it is possible that the entire movie is his confession, which he states at the end, and even though he has let us into his world, and confessed via the movie and the narrator, has has gained no new knowledge about himself because no one has paid any attention to him, and he will not be punished for his crimes. After going crazy, he is literally able to regain his place in the group without anyone noticing anything is amiss. That amount of shallowness could make anyone go crazy really. (T.Dolor, ^above and below).
DeleteHe washes his hands in the bathroom despite the gloves not because he is homophobic per se, though he does use a slur later in the movie during his phone confession, but more so because that's how robot his behavior has become in the "real" world. (T.Dolor)
DeleteThe film is full of satire - I laughed ALL THE WAY THROUGH IT. To say that he didn't kill anyone and it was all in his head means that you have completely missed the humour and therefore over all point of the movie. There are gags all the way through, the final gag being that he confesses in the way he does, yet still doesn't get caught - it would completely enforce the idea that "society is just a heap of manipulated and shallow tools." For him to get to the end of the film and we realised its all in his head would completely reject this idea, and therefore all of the other satirical details of the film. He even says at the end, "No new knowledge can be extracted from my telling. This confession has meant nothing."
ReplyDeleteCharles Stanton you get an A+++. People who don't understand the satire of this movie are the exact kind people this book/film is based on. Thank you!
Deletethe movie had a very serious tone all the way through, the only part that i saw as "funny" was the business card scene but its also very serious because they're trying to show how shallow they all were.
DeleteI think you guys are being really pretentious with this satire theory, really, there was nothing funny about the killing scenes nor the big picture either
Are you serious? Bret Easton Ellis is a renowned and self-proclaimed satirist. Black humour is a huge device in his writing and this is true of the film, too. The ridiculousness of his behaviour and the situations he creates? The tone of the music he plays and his passionate reviews of cheesy 80s music? Some of his alibis? They all build a comedic and jarring backdrop. I don't think it's in the slightest bit pretentious for people to see it that way. Pretentious would be telling them they're pretentious for thinking something and then enforcing your view of it as definitive. Much like what you did and what I'm doing now. Although I'm right and you're wrong. And I have a better haircut.
DeleteVery funny Al, laughing out loud.
DeleteThe tought of him having simply imagined and fantazized about these murders definitly crossed my mind when Jean opens his agenda and finds all of his sketches.
ReplyDeleteThe hooker and the homeless guy are both people who no one looked for. As for paul allen he could of flown to London to start fresh, a new identity of some sort which would spark his searching. So could his rampage and his lawyer would of made up an excuse because he taught bateman was just stir crazy and wanted to keep him from doing harm to himself. But then I remembered something very important; I was high when I taught of that.
It's simply to many "what if's". Plus he does kill in the book, why would the producers go out of the books way like that? I must say though, that would of probably been the best twist in the history of cinema. My brain would of probably exploded out of shear awesomness.
Would have*
DeleteHis father was the ceo of the company the killings were real and his father covered him and used the lawyer to do so as an alibi
DeleteHis father was the ceo of the company the killings were real and his father covered him and used the lawyer to do so as an alibi
DeleteI never read the book. I took it as he killed Patrick Batman. Was Phil Davies or whatever everyone kept calling him and his views of society turned him into a disillusioned schizophrenic taking on the identity of the only man he killed and doing away with everyone he hates in society whilst escaping responsibility by not actually doing it himself because he in his mind while killing is "Patrick Bateman". He was day dreaming and drawing it out in his journal. What drove him to this state of mind was the shallowness of society, nothing matters, including him being bat shit crazy. That is the joke. Its not just about materialism, its about purpose and lack of. Phil Davies easily could of started fight club following the same motivations, as in the book anyways. Fight Club the movie was a little off. Gonna have to read American Psycho now.
ReplyDeleteOn a side not, has anyone read 50 shades of grey? I have not but I assume both characters are quite similar. Just one is described from the psychos point of view and the other is what the secretary sees.
I think he killed everyone. The first time I saw the movie, I thought it was all imagined. (I never read the book.) But I just watched it again on HBO last night. He killed them. And he got away with it because nobody even knows who Patrick Bateman is. Nobody pays attention to him. Even though his old man practically owns the firm he works for, as Reese Witherspoon's character points out in their limo ride, they still don't recognize him. So Patrick is so obsessed with being well-known - recognized and important and top dog - but he constantly gets dissed. Paul Allen doesn't even know who Patrick is - and he has a better business card to boot. His lawyer doesn't even know Patrick by face. Remember in the club where they're doing lines in the bathroom and it turns out it's not really cocaine? Patrick tells his buddy to just do the lines - it's his way of fitting in, being cool, important. But Patrick is cruising through life ignored. His way of controlling that and having an upper hand on the situation? Kill people. But even then, he doesn't get what he wants - recognition. So back to square one for him. Sitting in a bar, with his shallow buddies. The only person who does uncover his sick mental state is his assistant - the one person close to him who is not a greedy ladder-climbing corporate exec or snobby trust account woman. (gidgetgurl)
ReplyDeleteJust finished reading it. maybe in the movie it is clearer (i haven't seen it), but in the book there is definitely a duality game between what's hallucinated and what's real. i had my serious doubts till the taxi driver robs him and then all the incident with the uzi gun had to be real. but then again, it is really crazy what happens that night, minimum of 5 people dead at the hands of a madman with a gun and an exploding patrol? i get with him getting away with murder in such a materialistic society, but that is just mass murder in the street
ReplyDeleteCome to think... It all had to be real then, since he called to his lawyer and left the message after the massacre and the next day the lawyer said he got the message and found it very funny.
ReplyDeleteIn Paul Allen's apartment last scene.... when you guys brought this assumption up, well I'm happy that I'm not the only one who feel weird about it... I mean, Isn't it too coincidental!? all the walls're repainted, even in the clothes closet!!? Why!? except the old lady tried to hide something.
this is wrong he DID KILL EVERYBODY you should do some research before doing an article the writer himself said it in an interview that the only thing he hates about the movie is that it looks like he didnt actually kill the people.
ReplyDeletePart1:
ReplyDeleteI’ve just watched the movie for the first time. I have not read the novel so I can’t comment on it at all.
I believe it is perfectly valid to view the murder in the movies as both all real and all in his imagination. Both interpretations of the movie could be correct and both allow for the same or similar themes to social commentary.
Even if the author of the novel stated in an interview that he wrote the book as if the murders were real doesn’t affect discussion of the movie at all. The movie can be discussed and analyzed independently of the novel. Also – I found this link http://www.shortlist.com/entertainment/the-bret-easton-ellis-interview where Bret Ellis says “Regarding the murders, I was always on the fence about whether they were fantasy or real. I don’t know and I prefer it that way.”
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteFor those two reasons I believe it’s important to stop discussing the book and the author as though you we can use them to “prove” something about the movie. Not only are they two separate media but the author himself is unsure. I won’t attempt to “prove” that the murders in the movie were imaginary, I would simply argue that they could be viewed as such, and, that the movie is still a rewarding and compelling story when then they are – perhaps even more interesting.
As other have said – the first hint that the murder may be unreal – or could be viewed as unreal – comes during the shootout with the police and the murderous run through the city. Patrick doesn’t seem to be a trained shooter and yet manages to shoot people with ease at long distances. Despite returning fire from several policemen who are trained and aiming – one is kneeling, one is braced against a door – Patrick is unhurt. He then proceeds to detonate one (or two) police cruisers with a single bullet. To say this scene is ‘unlikely’ is the understatement of the year – unbelievable and surreal are more accurate. At one point he even looks down at his gun and checks his own body in amazed confusion – how did I just do that? Why have I not been shot? Why have I not needed to reload? We know he is hallucinating – he just saw an ATM order him to feed it a cat – but yet he acted on that as if it was real, but we know it was imaginary simply because we know ATMs don’t often order cat sacrifices. There’s no reason to believe that everything that happened after wasn’t also part of the same hallucination.
Part 3:
ReplyDeleteIt’s also very important to consider the narrator of the movie – the person who reveals what we see on the screen. As an audience we’re used to the conceit of an omniscient narrator. We’re used to the idea that anything we see on the screen is reality. But in this case, the Narrator is Patrick Bateman himself. Think about that for a moment – the psychopath is narrating the movie to us. The movie is his memories of the past few months and his descent into madness. At the end of the movie even he isn’t sure if he ever actually killed anyone. The Narrator is not omniscient he is deeply flawed. His motivations, memory, and sanity are all questionable, and thus, so is the “reality” he relates to us.
Further reinforcing the idea of the flawed narrator is the fact that we almost never see a scene in the movie where Bateman was not present, or at least not aware of. It means there aren’t any moments where we, the audience, are taken out of Bateman’s narration and shown what other people are doing in the “real” world. There was no scene of a typical bustling police station where an overworked cop dismisses a dead hobo and missing prostitute as just another unsolvable case, there was no scene where Bateman’s “friends” discuss how weak he is while the movie flash cuts to him in another area of the city murdering someone. Those types of scenes are so ubiquitous in traditional crime/thriller dramas that it is very telling when they are missing. The only scene that I can think of (again – I’ve only seen the movie once so there may be more) is at the very end as his secretary sits alone flipping through his day planner becoming more and more horrified at his growing insanity on display. This scene also comes at a crucial moment in the movie as Bateman’s narration comes to a close. The movie up until this point has been his memories, but at this moment we enter The Present. The movie comes out of Patrick’s head and we see one of the only real/honest people in the movie in a real moment. We know it’s real because Patrick wasn’t there, he didn’t know and couldn’t know that it was going on. It’s the first scene that comes from a source other than the flawed narrator.
This was a brilliant analysis, and you I never considered what you are purporting. (Dolor)
DeletePart 4:
ReplyDeleteI believe the movie can be viewed as the story of a man *going* insane and slowly reaching the point where he can bring himself to actually murder someone. Every murder is really an elaborate fantasy lived out in his mind and sketched in his day planner. Something stops him – throughout the movie he still feels some amount of guilt for what he’s imaging – what he knows he wants to do and will eventually do. He knows he is sick and feels he deserves to be punished. It’s only at the very end of the movie as he desperately tries to confess his evil and is ignored that he finally snaps. He looks around him and is finally free of the last vestiges of human empathy - as he says “There are no more barriers to cross”. He looks around a world that is so shallow and self-absorbed they don’t even notice or care about his insanity and evil – they won’t even punish him in the way he deserves and craves – and so he desires nothing now but to bring pain and death to everyone.
So we see that the murders in the movie version could be seen as imaginary, but in the end, even if we view them solely as the sick & elaborate wishes of a man descending into madness the themes of the movie still work and the message is still poignant.
American psycho part 2 is totally stupid. But they do mention Patrick Bateman as being a serial killer and the plot has nothing to do with him.
ReplyDeleteHis secretary messed with his journal/ diary which contains all his imaginary murders. Look at that diary carefully. he's plain nuts. But his being a nutjob has intelligently showcased the society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteDig this people: once a book is released it no longer belongs solely to the author. In a book like American Psycho, with so much deliberate uncertainty multiple interpretations are going to spring up. They're all valid. Yep. The author's intent may have been one thing, but once other people start reading the book wherever it leads them is where it leads them, because the story belongs to whoever is reading it just as much as who wrote it. If the author wanted it to be a story about a serial killer he could've written it that way and made it unshakable. Instead we have this possibly unreliable narrator and all kinds of ambiguity. It's too late for the author to go back and say "duh, of course he killed people". He had the chance to make it clear and didn't. So now if people read it and think the narrator is psychotic and all the killing is imaginary, well they're allowed to and that interpretation is valid.
ReplyDeleteAmerican Pyscho is a mind fuck like a Twilight Zone Episode. The first 2 times I saw the film I thought it was Bateman's sick imagination, especially when his secretary found his twisted journal with the violent pictures. Now, I'm not so sure. Maybe he did murder but his world and people around him were as sick as he was? Why the character of the detective if the killings were imaginary? Maybe the detective was in Bateman's mind too? LOL....told you. I didn't read the book but the movie was meant to leave you guessing.
ReplyDeleteAll In all these we're in his mind things that he wanted to do but didn't, believe it or not the biggest thing to consider that says he may have done at least some of it is when he's twirling around the hair of that cute chick, I mean maybe he went back an fucked her/killed her but whatever the case if he didn't girls don't normally give out parts of their hair, I mean she coulda been sleeping an he just cut it off, whatever whatever bottom line to me is I think it was in his mind, certainly things he felt, but I ain't saying 100% that he didn't an I know in the book it was said that he actually did do em, but as far as the movie if they laying bets I would go with no, but not a lock Yano what I mean!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePatrick Bateman doesn't kill anybody because Patrick Bateman doesn't exist. Patrick Bateman is an excellent character created to get inside of our own minds and make "us" question his realities. Which were never real. This may sound like a cop-out suggesting that nobody died because nobody was real, but I think that story shows us just how questionable our own minds are...
ReplyDeleteFor here we are on the internet with questions and concerns about nothing more than a well told lie.
a fictional story
I keep reading "bateman" as "batman" lol. But anyway after reading some of the comments, I definitely think he did kill all those people and it's a message about how shallow the people are. A great example of this that we can all agree actually happened was when he broke up with his girlfriend, he was acting completely insane, and even drawing the girl being killed by the chainsaw on the table and she didn't even notice.
ReplyDeleteThese comment are a great read. I can't say the actual article is though.
ReplyDeleteCome on people, the first few lines of the movie is the giveaway. PATRICK BATEMAN DOES NOT EXIST...it's all in his mind and he is going crazy...that's why some people don't recognize him as Patrick Bateman. Maybe he's suffering from schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder..either way, this is the story of the reality of someone who is slowly loosing their mind and is in the process of becoming an actual serial killer. Most serial killers do in fact imagine and daydream about their crimes before they actually commit them. This perspective is rather brilliant actually. Its confusing because mental unstable people are in a state of confusion when they begin to go crazy. It shows you how they see the world in a distorted reality.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's EITHER/OR I think it's both.
ReplyDeleteThat's the hang up that confuses everyone. But again I doubt this only b/c Bret would be out of character (author wise) having pulled this off intentionally. If anything it's an incredibly happy accident.
The ending however highly suggests that it's all real and he (patrick) freaks the fuck out because he realizes that "this confession means nothing" Meaning that not only is he a serial killer, not only was there an investigation, not only has he murdered, not only has he confessed, but he has realized that nobody gives a fuck and some people EVEN KNOW it's happening but eagerly turn a blind eye.
Personally I think at large the book is a big middle finger showing just how absurd the 80's stock raids were.
Hedge funders pulling down 30-40 million a year... 20 somethings earning 7 or 8 figures... the obnoxious lifestyle that ignores (hence the murdered bum) other people's hardships, etc....
I think that is the main and pretty much only point in this book. That people were so self absorbed that he COUILD be a killer whether he is or is only in his mind, and nobody would care.
That's the satire right there. It's funny but because it's TRUE it's dark humor.
Paul Allen's muder scene is a physical display of this. He has NO IDEA that patrick is about to murder him,.
Any one of us sober and aware would EASILY be like WTF? and want to get the hell out of there. Paul was too busy loving himself and rubbing his success into "halberstram's" face.
That's why he yells "Try getting reservations at Dorcia now your stupid fuck!!"
I think Bret does an amazing job of this and it's a great book and amazing movie. I still am reluctant to give him credit for the aforementioned concept I posted.
He's a great writer and far better than ever I will be but I just don't see Bret intentionally doing the whole schizoid thing either...
If I could ask Bret I am willing to bet he'd say "It doesn't matter if it was real or not, that's not the point I was making"
ReplyDeleteIn the film, a black comedy satire of '80s hedonistic and materialistic yuppies, Bateman is a caricature.
ReplyDeleteBanking to this day is renowned to be a haven for successful psychopaths with borderline/narcissistic personality disorder.
Bateman is schizoid/psychotic and therefore is uncertain of reality himself, so it's only right the film is ambiguous. We can't be certain about anything being real - apart from the scenes not involving Bateman.
Clearly the cop chase was imagined and the chainsaw murder could not've gone undetected either. Did his dad cover everything up for him?
It doesn't really matter as the story is a satire about the stereotypical narcissistic '80s yuppie psychopaths.
Paul Allen sorry
ReplyDeleteMy interpretation of the whole thing is this :
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of the film he says stuff about him not actually existing " there's no real me, there's an idea of Patrick Bateman"
I guess all the killings were just a scenario he imagines while he's with the victim, evidence to this is him blowing up cars and police chasing and just lookin at him and that the lawyer guy says Paul is alive
It's an awesome mindfuck but it doesn't need too much explaining and thinking.
That's my point of view at least