So.....it was all in his head?
Quite a twist at the end LOL.
shareNo, he killed them. The director explained that the last scene wasn't meant to raise doubt about it.
shareWhat happened to the bodies?
shareI think that it's just that this is a really expensive, sought after apartment, with a lovely view of Central Park. I think that the owners, assuming Paul was renting wanted to get someone living there as soon as possible. Instead of calling the police and having the property value plummet, the owners quietly have the mess taken care of. The agent became really suspicious of Bateman when he stopped by. When she was asking him about seeing the ad, it's seems that she knows who he actually is and tells him to go away and never come back.
shareI've always interpreted the ending as being intentionally ambiguous, but yes, I still thought he actually killed them and the main reason was the shady behavior of the real estate agent.
I've never understood why some viewers end up being so certain that it was all in his head when that lady was acting weird as hell.
I think that it's a combination of both. I'm going more from the book than the movie, but I think he did kill people, just maybe that things were exaggerated in his head.
I know that Mary Harron has said that she didn't mean to go so far with the ending, that there was supposed to be some ambiguity, but no where near as much.
Right. I think at the end of the movie he was starting to lose touch with reality, but the murders and pretty much everything leading up to that really happened. Willem Dafoe's detective character was real and investigating an actual murder, for example.
This is my interpretation too.
shareIt was a psychotic fantasy.
One big clue was when he went to the apartment and the real estate agent had no idea what he was talking about.
The book was written about the author's experience becoming popular in Hollywood. He found himself becoming a competitive maniac. So, he looked great in real life, appeared to have it made, but inside he was becoming evil.
That's what the film is about.
No, you have completely misinterpreted that scene, it means the opposite of what you think it means. He is an unreliable narrator but that doesn't mean it was all fantasy.
shareHe's not an "unreliable narrator".
I literally TOLD YOU what the film is about. It follows the book very closely and the author said it was about him becoming a narcissistic crazy person in Hollywood.
He's not in Hollywood, the book and movie are different works and there is a lot more going on than someone going crazy. Try watching the movie for what it is and interpret it for yourself.
p.s. sometimes movies don't follow the book.
Not sure where I should put this reply, but this is from a Rolling Stone interview with Easton-Ellis
Since Patrick Bateman is an unreliable narrator, and it is unclear at the end, have you ever decided whether or not he actually is a killer?
No, I’ve never made a decision. And when I was writing the book, I couldn’t make a decision. That was what was so interesting to me about it. You can read the book either way. He’s telling you these things are happening, and yet things are contradicting him throughout the book, so I don’t know.
I think it's great that we are still having discussions about it.
I don't really know what I think. I do prefer to think that he actually has killed some people, because there are so many real serial killers that live among us and we don't know it. Like the neighbours saying, "He seemed like such a nice normal guy"
There is a misconception that movies and television are works with a single vision like books but that's not true. This movie had 2 screenwriters, a director, producers, set designers, and the actors all interpreting the the material; in the end a movie has many sources of creative input and has to be taken as its own work.
shareI agree. Mary Harron has said that she made a mistake with the ending and didn't mean to go so far with the ambiguity. Personally I like the ambiguity, and I like that we are still discussing the whole "did he, didn't he"
I think that although books and movies are different entities, the original author saying that he is an unreliable narrator does hold, as I think that the movie keeps that.
He's definitely an unreliable narrator which is part of what makes the movie so fun.
shareperfect post
exactly what i was looking for
unfortunately, i was hoping for evidence telling me what was 100% real :(
sounds more fantasy than reality to me
Wow, that is stupid.
The book is the same story as the movie.
The author wrote the story symbolically about himself.
We aren't discussing the book and your characterization of what happened in the movie was wrong. If your next reply isn't something substantive, I'm going to ignore you.
shareI certainly don't care.
You haven't read the book and you don't care what the author said he wrote it about.
You ignore the scene in the apartment where the woman has no idea who he is and there's no evidence. An ATM talks to him. He has a perfect one shot where he blows up cop cars. None of the people he kills are actually dead, and so forth.
All of it was caused by insane avarice.
The comment is about rich people and what goes on in their heads and how it plays out in real life. That is caused by "America" and isn't about murder.
I don't think you've seen the movie. I think you've only read the book and you're extrapolating under the assumption that the movie is exactly the same. but none of the people that he kill come back in the movie so as far as we know they are all dead. The real estate woman was definitely acting sketchy. and read my link reply on why movies have to be interpreted for what they are.
https://moviechat.org/tt0144084/American-Psycho/5d02af1b13b84f2637adb3ec/Soit-was-all-in-his-head?reply=5db62fbaee5209591021d98f
Moronic.
shareNo doubt that stretched the breadth of your intellect.
shareSorry Adlerian is just insulting and not listening to you.
But I also think he imagined everything.
I know the movie is not clear either way.
The director is not very capable: I think she wanted a Schrodinger cat like movie, but she messed up.
There is overwhelming proof his world is not real, while the proof for it being real is only the real eastate agent acting a tiny bit weird, the murdered people not appearing in the movie again, and the names confusion.
Not enough to balance all the evidence this was not real.
What is this overwhelming proof? I don't believe there is any proof at all but I'm open to having my mind changed.
shareWell just to name a few, the ATM, the police work, other people's reaction to the situation, every homicide he committed is unreal...I think the real world is how Chloe Sevigny talks to him on their date, she means getting hurt emotionally, but in his mind there's all this gruesome world that doesn't really exist.
That's like an objective world, opposed to his subjective visions.
It's suggestive, but not proof. Patrick Bateman is an unreliable narrator so nothing can be taken for granted, it's up to the viewer to decide what was real.
share>the real estate agent had no idea what he was talking about
Uhh.. the real estate agent seemed like she knew exactly what happened in that apartment and she wanted him to get the hell out of there so she could sell that super expensive apartment without anyone knowing murder happened there.
That's the most ridiculous explanation i've heard yet and lazy scrip-writing if it's true. As if the owners of the property would risk becoming an accomplice to murder by hiding dead bodies for the sake of saving some money. Not to mention they have no idea who committed these murders and why.
shareThe idea is that the property company found it more convenient to ‘tidy it up’ rather than reduce the value of the property by associating it with serial murders, which plays into the message that ‘the world is even crazier than Bateman’ that is implied by the ending.
shareYeah. If it was all in his head, it would kind of undermine what the entire movie was about.
shareWell, the movie is a left-wing critique of the 80s. That is the real point, not his "murders".
shareThat's like saying Dr. Strangelove is about the madness of war and mutually assured destruction, not a mad general who is trying to bring about a nuclear apocalypse. The creators of American Psycho make those points largely through the story of the murders and the reasons he's able to get away with them. Of course there's other ways they do that, like the scene with Bateman obsessing over the other mens' business cards, but most of the movie deals with Bateman's life as a serial killer. He's actually able to get away with murder.
If the murders were just delusions, then he never got away with anything. It had nothing to do with who he was, his appearance and connections because those crimes never happened.
Director knows shit. Ask the Author.
shareI believe the director said that her intention WAS to raise doubt. She considered the ending a failure because it wasn't ambiguous enough. I could be remembering it wrong since it's been some time since I've seen that commentary.
share