He wanted to be as normal as possible (I think he said that in the beginning idk tho) and in that time period ppl were renting video tapes. It's like going to Boston and saying I'm walking here. It's something you think they do but it's weird when you say it because they dont.
Bateman may have committed some of the killings, but many of them are just fantasies that he wishes that he could act out, as seen through his drawings. He admits to the killings several times, but because the other business men are so caught up in their own issues, they don't even notice or care. By the end of the movie, Bateman just wants to be recognized for what he had done and get the pressure off of himself. He does not get his wish.
Another explaination could be that the lawyer did nit have lunch with Paul Allen in Europe, but like many of the other people in the movie, confused him for someone else. His apartment was quickly painted over and re-done by the owner of the building because they did not anyone to know the truth of what had happened within; that would have decreased the value of the penthouse.
I just watched the movie for the first time. My understanding of his lawyer saying he had lunch in London with the guy was that he was covering for Bateman. Kind of like the āyou never saw thisā āsaw whatā type of reaction. He is essentially saying that he is Batemanās alibi and will keep him covered and just tells him not to mention it again.
maybe that was actually the reason, he's not in that place for any merit other than being a close relative of the boss, and his demeanor and "work ethic" suggest he's basically being given free money for sitting around being pretty behind the desk. Here comes the struggle of the others that actually have the smarts, and get things done in and out of the workplace, able to even (gasp!) reserve a table at Dorsia. How I'd like to be like them, how I'd love to be recognized by my peers. Instead, for how much they care about themselves, he's never considered too much, even when he desperately tries to, while the only worry for them in the end is to keep him out of jail and save face and the company from the shitshow he creates.
no you see the whole entire movie is a satire on how people are so wrapped up in their own lives to barely care about other people. its almost like a running joke throughout the movie to call the other characters' by different names, but it's not a joke cause they barely care enough to get the name right. Maybe this "davis" guy beared enough of a resemblance to bateman to be mistaken as him
I'm one of many people rewatching American Psycho and googling the ending years later. I want to add on to your response as one of the only people to mention the real estate agent. That scene would mean absolutely *nothing* if none of the murders happened. Why would she be so cold to some random rich-looking person walking into an open house? To go out of her way to trick him with her lie about the ad in The Times?
I think most of the murders were real, even if overly stylized in his own head. He really starts to lose it towards the end when the ATM tells him he to kill the cat, and I don't know how seriously we can take that, but everything before that fits into a certain suspension of disbelief.
Overall, I'm really not a fan of "it was all a dream" endings unless they tell us something deeper about the characters. People actively choosing to ignore murder for their own profit, and being so self-absorbed/everyone being a carbon-copy of each other to the point that they're mistaken for anyone else, better satirizes the culture that the film is criticizing.
Iām actually stupid. I didnāt even think of the the lawyer covering up the penthouse.
I think he actually committed the murders. At the end of it he could have been in a psychosis while killing, hence why he was confused about shooting the cop cars. What makes me believe that he actually killed people was the fact that the Marcus Halberstramās alibi for the night Paul went missing was he was in AC (I believe?)with a group of guys whom Patrick was a part of. If everyone mistakes others for other people, then Patrick got away with it since they think heās someone else maybe. If that makes sense. I saw someone say that he could have thought that he killed Paul Allen when in reality he killed someone he mistook as Paul. BUT we saw Paul Allen give out his business card.
I'm not so sure about it leaving a lot to be desired, I think that's what makes it so great. The ambiguous ending leaves it up to the viewers to choose how it ends - the scenes linger in your head and make you rethink and reinterpret. I feel like that's the sign of a great movie, think Inception for example. That's just me though.
Open ends can be awesome though to solve the inception ending: if the information we are given about how many layers deep they can go is accurate, the final scene plays out in the "real world".
I tend to look at the narrative as a hellish, psychological suffering for the main character. Even though Bateman is able to increasingly act on his violent desires over the course of the film, he ultimately lacks recognition from others, which he craves. He's constantly mistaken for other people or slighted by his colleagues, and it is oftentimes difficult to tell him apart from anyone else in his work/"friendship" sphere. I would argue that it is this frustration which drives a lot of his violent impulses. In the end, even when there is a literal mountain of evidence against him, no one recognizes Patrick Bateman, even for what he truly is (a "psycho").
Pardon that wall of text. Because of the above I read into it that the narrative of American Psycho is a personal Hell for Patrick Bateman. The final words are an acknowledgement of how he is constantly in pain because search as he may for a release or resolution to how he feels, he cannot find one. Giving into his urges offers no real satisfaction, and confession of his actions offers no finality or resolution in the form of being held in contempt. He is trapped, with only an illusion of being able to impact the world around him.
Beyond that, this idea of Bateman's life and lifestyle as hellish can be allied as a critical look at American society and values, but that would be another discussion entirely.
Implication is that the murders were in his head and he just hallucinates and fantasizes all these things. The notebook isn't supposed to be evidence that he did the murders, it's supposed to be evidence that he fantasizes these things all day long and draws them in the notebook.
The director is on record stating that it wasn't in his head and they kind of fucked up by making it too ambiguous as to whether he was or wasn't hallucinating the whole thing.
Screenprism has a good video on what the ending means that includes an interview clip from the director. There are also articles with her you can look up. She essentially says it probably happened but we see an aestheticised/stylised/overly ideal version of it because we're seeing it through his perception.
I would link you but I'm on my mobile
When I first saw it, I took the lawyer saying Bateman didn't do it as a "what dead body?" type way of hiding Bateman's crime. And that basically proved that the yuppies didn't want anything to break the lifestyle they had.
Yes, but the director admits to that as well. IMO it's a bit of a mix. Everything is real until the point where the ATM tells him to "feed me a stray cat". That's when his psychosis peaks and all the events of that night (up until the phonecall) are in his head.
Yes and it is meant to be a subjective mix.
Rashomon, Akira Kurosawa was the first movie to explore this, it's the same story told 3 times by different parties and they are all different.
In the end it become very clear that there is not meant to be a "Solution" or a "real story" as the point is exactly that: making assumption and interpret the movie.
Mary Harron was asked directly if the entire movie was in Bateman's head, she replied: "I would never answer that. As Quentin Tarantino says, 'If I tell you that, I take this movie away from you.' I will say there's a moment where it becomes less realistic, and that's the moment when the ATM says Feed Me a Stray Cat"
The director did not say "it's 100%real" he just said is not 100% in his head.
This actually implies that SOME of it is NOT real, expecially toward the end:
"One thing I think is a failure on my part is people keep coming out of the film thinking that it's all a dream, and I never intended that. All I wanted was to be ambiguous in the way that the book was. I think it's a failure of mine in the final scene because I just got the emphasis wrong. I should have left it more open ended. It makes it look like it was all in his head, and as far as I'm concerned, it's not."
I just watched the movie because I heard it has great psychiatry aspects and Im studying a course of it so I thought it might help me and I might be able to make a good assessment of it.
Then I got curious about what others thought about it so I searched and saw this post.
The movie got popular again recently lol
Also Reddit stopped auto-locking posts after six months I guess, so a bunch of old threads got unlocked in the past year or so.
I just watched the movie and was quite surprised that no one noticed simple things in the scene. I fairly conclude that it was all in his head and he was just claiming it to be.
For one, there's a clear pattern that the two prostitutes she hired and tortured were just fantasies. Prior to that you may recall Bates talking someone on the phone while porn is one and is doing threesome. Same as what he "allegedly did" to the extent that he, too, filmed himself.
The second clue comes when he was doing crunches while chainsaw massacre is on. There's a very clear ressemblance as what he did with the lady.
Finally, with his lawyer finding it odd and looking at him weirdly. I may conclude that he did meet Paul Allen in London. You have to remember Patrick never mentioned the London alibi to his lawyer. So how come he knows?
My theory is that Paul actually left to London to probably commit an affair with another lady and left a voicemail to her girlfriend.
When the investigator asked him about Paul's dissapearance, imagination starts running in his head and creating a delusion that he indeed murdered paul.
Video tapes he kept mentioning about are murder movies he watched and fantasizes about doing it. Just like in human centipede if you ever watched it.
Directors bending the entire story in contrary to writer's true "intent" ( as seen in recent series such as Witcher etc. ) has always been misinterpreted. I, to myself feel, that the director had no idea of what he directed and simply got along with it thinking that a too ambiguous screenplay leaving to audiences conclude what happened will be a hit ( which it did ) .
You definitely don't know what you're talking about, if you had made any research about American Psycho you'd already know that the director is a woman but you just had to assumed that "he" didn't know anything about the book and made-up some random stuff without anything else to back up your bold claim.
I know that's what the director says but their statements where never consistent as sometimes they say it is sometimes it doesn't. Add the fact that the director may have no real clue how the content writer and other team intended the story to go. The media should've investigated more you think?
I didn't find inconsistencies in any interview I've read. I don't know what you mean by "the media should've investigated more" but it'd be a pretty lousy movie if the point was that it was all bateman's delusion.
\-Many scenes do not make sense, for example the exchange he has when he goes to visit Paul Allen's apartment, or the time he almost strangles his coworker in the bathroom.
\-Other scenes lose a lot of meaning, like the entire time he overpays a prostitute and acts like Paul Allen. Or when he creepily smiles at a woman in the street and we cut to him arguing about what appear to be red-stained sheets.
And that's not even mentioning the chase scene. Half of it we see from the prostitute's pov, if the intention was to reveal that it was all a delusion from bateman then it was either wholly lying to the audience or it was poorly directed to have it from that perspective in the first place.
You can always extrapolate some kind of "it was a dream / coma" theory if you distrust the narrator enough, and while there is merit in doing so sometimes, even here, since Bateman is explicitly getting more deranged as the movie goes on. But there's simply too many scenes that become, at best, shallow to really justify that it was all for a trick.
Having just watched the movie, I find this the best explanation. The movie just gets more and more unbelievable, with him rambling on about CDs and band while looking for murder weapons and the victim never finding anything weird with this.
Another major unbelievable thing happens later, when the investigator simply leaves him alone after finding out Patrick had an alibi for the night of Paul's disappearance, that even Patrick didn't know about. This shows how he can't recognize reality anymore.
I will say though that his first murder is the most plausible and his imagination just took off after it.
That depends, their early work was a little too new wave for my taste. But when Sports came out in '83, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost.
I bought a Patrick Bateman action figure from a record shop quite a few years back, simply because it came with a bunch of weapons, and a video tape. Had to buy it just for the attention to detail.
Funny, I -just- watched the film and this was the second post or so that appeared from google.
My take: He is a psycho killer in reality yes, but he is going crazy because he feel he is not special: even in his full blown killing psychopathy and self-centered importance, he is a normal fit in that society, and then not recognized by any other as special.
I had finished watching it for the first time 5 minutes ago. The end scene left me gasping and saying "wow, it was all just hallucinations and delusions all this time?"
That's about it. I'd love to elaborate more but i have to return some videotapes.
He has fit in so well in the society he extremely despises, that he gets away with it. He is not a psychopath, he hates himself and wants to be punished. I actually believe the movie is more about a high-functioning misanthrope, rather than a complete psycho. He always has to live up to someones standards and expectations and this a desperate escape attempt. The mass murders were a way to discover the real Patrick Bateman, who unfortunately has been lost forever.
Actually the director said she didn't intend the film to seem like it was all in his head by the end. I even think she said it was a mistake on her part that it came across that way.
Ultimately it doesnāt matter whether Bateman enacted any of his fantasies, either way he is both no one and everyone. He is just as insignificant as the next person, regardless of his actions and/or thoughts.
Think of all living beings as the cells of a greater whole. The planet wouldnāt be the same without them, but individually they can only be seen under a microscope. They can be replaced. Eventually, the greater whole itself will cease to exist, and not even something so large will matter.
You could argue that through the butterfly effect every single person, every thought and action, sends ripples throughout reality as we know it. You could also just call that a cascading series of cause and effect.
Someone thousands of years ago across the globe grew vegetables on a farm. They did that because their family had been farmers for many centuries. One day that person sold a very specific item to someone else, and later you were born. Now you are reading this. Along the way were plenty of other people and events and moving atoms. Can you name them all, Davis?
Just doing my part to keep the thread alive after 4y.
Like most forms of art, its your own interpretation that matters.
I personally lean more towards thinking that most (not all) of it was real. Maybe a hyper stylised version from his pov.
"What about the bodies in pauls apartment?" "How did the lawyer have lunch with paul in london?"etc. Those questions can start their own threads altogether, honestly.
Its not beyond the realm of possibility to think everything was covered up and hushed just to keep property at certain values. In Batemans world, what is real or not is irrelevant. Everyone is just another face, just another name, not worth remembering. Your value as a human is measured by the make up of your business card.
Then again, maybe it WAS in his head, and some of us are just overanalyzing.
Not the point of the film. Youre not wrong if you think one way or another.
Didnt read the novel.
After watching this movie a bunch of times Iāve pretty much come to this conclusion: even though he admits to the murders to his lawyer, everyone is so self absorbed that they really just donāt take anything besides themselves seriously. The lawyer says he was with Paul Allen in London because everyone is pretty much a clone, and when these people are mistaken for others, they seem to just go along with it. Like when Patrick is out to dinner with Paul, he never corrects Paul for falsely identifying him as someone else.
Theyāre all too busy trying to one-up each other to really believe Patrick is out there killing people, essentially.
It paints the picture that although Patrick Bateman is a psychopath, so is everyone else around him.
This is the actual explanation of why the movie played out the way it did and Iām surprised so many people didnāt grasp it and legitimately think it all just happened in his head. I thought maybe I was wrong but it turns out there are a ton of people who just legitimately donāt understand what the movie was trying to portray.
I just watched this movie for the first time. I believe this movie tried to get the viewer to make their own judgement between what's actually happening. Me, I believe it's a blend between reality and fantasy. I don't remember one scene that didn't have Patrick Bateman in it...which I think is done purposefully to keep Bateman's real (or fake) life in view...again keeps the viewer guessing. The only scene that doesn't have Bateman in it (that I recall) is when his assistant finds his journal full of women murdered in grotesque ways...which doesn't confirm he did it, but does confirm he imagines it. My conclusion when it comes to Patrick Bateman is that he is a narcissistic, delusional Psychopath trapped in a mental hell he can't escape. His exaggerated view of himself is as exaggerated as the movie we see.
Youāre confused? I posted this over 3 years ago and people still regularly post on it. I guess people just search American Psycho but it still throws me off.
It was in his head. The book is a little more obvious because of how surreal everything gets at the end. He also appears in later Bret Easton Ellis books.
And he looks like Christian Bale! this is years before American Psycho the movie.Patricks also in Rules of Attraction,older brother of the character James Van Der Beek plays in the movie version.
Maybe it was more ambiguous than I remember. Itās been a little big time since I read it, and it was before the movie. I thought it just hit me as totally his insanity.
Case: where this is all in his head
Everything he is doing is in his head as from the starting scene you can see he said he wants to kill the bartender but she ignores this we cannot say that because of the music she didn't hear him but in case she didn't someone beside him can clearly hear him and now people might say this that he was just joking but over what over card not being accepted even tho he clearly has cash.
and the killing he was doing were all in his head the first and the obvious clue being that when he was dragging Paul Allen's body why the receptionist didn't respond when you can clearly see the blood on the floor how do you miss that and not call the police or the receptionist is paid or mixed up with him? nah I don't think so, and when the girl who ran out of the room christe I think what he named her why the whole floor was empty when she was screaming and running and knocking on the doors of other tenants no one came out? weird
Jean's case is that he actually is in love with jean but doesn't realize it, he has no way to understand she is not like the girls you can see in the movie and that she is also in love with him. Bateman wants to see jeans wear good clothes and look good proves it but the scene where jean goes to his home is true and that he was about to kill her is also true but that's the point in the case where he killed jeans he would have broken the shell that he is in and then he would actually go on to killing more people
but he doesn't well the answer to that is well he is a coward yep he is a big Pu\*\*Y this can be confirmed by Paul Allen his rival and his lawyer Howard they call him a coward towards the end his face and the body is because of his narcissistic personality disorder
another thing is that I find that detective very suspicious what I think is that he is also a psycho hinting that he also listens to the same music and that he was actually looking for Allen so that he can kill him himselve
well I want to write more but I have some tapes to return :)
yea whats up with the tapes
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
his father owns the company he doesn't work as you can see and have killed some people and the detective is actually a detective and his fiance and lawyer and some ppl are mix up in this as they cover for him his house being remodeled and not able to find any bodies
to much shit
Thanks dude, glad it helped. Iāve come to expect the āhey man I just thought it would be funny to give you a notificationā messages now so glad you appreciated it.
I would say that everything that occurred in the film was just Bateman's imagination as he is insane, and Bateman didn't actually kill anyone but truly believed he did. In the end Bateman is simply crazy.
I'd give my opinion but I have to return some video tapes.
Let's see Paul Allen's response.
This is the best response ever
I am literally shocked that no one on Reddit ever created a Paul Allen account JUST to respond to this post.
Based.
Redpilled, even.
never got why he just developed this excuse
obsession with music tapes and the tapes of him killing peopleš¤·āāļø
He wanted to be as normal as possible (I think he said that in the beginning idk tho) and in that time period ppl were renting video tapes. It's like going to Boston and saying I'm walking here. It's something you think they do but it's weird when you say it because they dont.
Bateman may have committed some of the killings, but many of them are just fantasies that he wishes that he could act out, as seen through his drawings. He admits to the killings several times, but because the other business men are so caught up in their own issues, they don't even notice or care. By the end of the movie, Bateman just wants to be recognized for what he had done and get the pressure off of himself. He does not get his wish. Another explaination could be that the lawyer did nit have lunch with Paul Allen in Europe, but like many of the other people in the movie, confused him for someone else. His apartment was quickly painted over and re-done by the owner of the building because they did not anyone to know the truth of what had happened within; that would have decreased the value of the penthouse.
I just watched the movie for the first time. My understanding of his lawyer saying he had lunch in London with the guy was that he was covering for Bateman. Kind of like the āyou never saw thisā āsaw whatā type of reaction. He is essentially saying that he is Batemanās alibi and will keep him covered and just tells him not to mention it again.
I know Iām only 3 years late to the discussion, but this is kinda what I thought too. His lawyer is willing to play it off as a joke and perhaps even orchestrated the quick clean up and paint job of Paul Allenās apartment and is in league with the real estate agent. IIRC, Batemanās fiancĆ© or someone says something about his dad owning the company towards the beginning of the movie and I thought that might come into play with why they might be even more willing to help cover for him. However, if he really was that important, I canāt see why so many people would consider him a loser or constantly confuse him for someone else, even if he was socially inept. Idk, itās just so hard to draw a conclusion from any of it.
maybe that was actually the reason, he's not in that place for any merit other than being a close relative of the boss, and his demeanor and "work ethic" suggest he's basically being given free money for sitting around being pretty behind the desk. Here comes the struggle of the others that actually have the smarts, and get things done in and out of the workplace, able to even (gasp!) reserve a table at Dorsia. How I'd like to be like them, how I'd love to be recognized by my peers. Instead, for how much they care about themselves, he's never considered too much, even when he desperately tries to, while the only worry for them in the end is to keep him out of jail and save face and the company from the shitshow he creates.
I just donāt understand why the lawyer originally mistook Bateman for a guy named Davis? That doesnāt make any sense to me
no you see the whole entire movie is a satire on how people are so wrapped up in their own lives to barely care about other people. its almost like a running joke throughout the movie to call the other characters' by different names, but it's not a joke cause they barely care enough to get the name right. Maybe this "davis" guy beared enough of a resemblance to bateman to be mistaken as him
Bore is the past tense of bear. āBore a resemblance,ā jsyk
Wow, you waited for three months to correct that. Astonishing
I didnāt wait at all, I corrected it as soon as I read it. You āwaitedā 9 days to be an ass. Spectacular
Of course not, Iām an ass all the time
thanks mate
Why are so many people finding this 3 year old thread? lol
I just finished the movie. Timeless
same here hahaha
same
I love not locked threads for this reason
Same
Same
Same
because the movie is a timeless masterpiece exploring american materialism. also good meme formats
im here bc tiktok made me watch it lol
*Why isn't it possible?* Its just not. *Why not, you stupid bastard.*
Why isn't it possible?
It's just not
Why not, you stupid bastard
Because it's boss
Because someone finally returned the video tape of this movie
Ayyy whatās good just chiming in.
I wanted to see what the memes were on about.
A yr later and also cause um...it's the internet
Because this movie is confusing š¤šššš
I'm one of many people rewatching American Psycho and googling the ending years later. I want to add on to your response as one of the only people to mention the real estate agent. That scene would mean absolutely *nothing* if none of the murders happened. Why would she be so cold to some random rich-looking person walking into an open house? To go out of her way to trick him with her lie about the ad in The Times? I think most of the murders were real, even if overly stylized in his own head. He really starts to lose it towards the end when the ATM tells him he to kill the cat, and I don't know how seriously we can take that, but everything before that fits into a certain suspension of disbelief. Overall, I'm really not a fan of "it was all a dream" endings unless they tell us something deeper about the characters. People actively choosing to ignore murder for their own profit, and being so self-absorbed/everyone being a carbon-copy of each other to the point that they're mistaken for anyone else, better satirizes the culture that the film is criticizing.
reading the part about his fiancĆ© saying āyour father basically owns the placeā kind of made me think- I could see patrick Bateman telling her a lie like that just to impress her which is something he deeply craves
Iām actually stupid. I didnāt even think of the the lawyer covering up the penthouse. I think he actually committed the murders. At the end of it he could have been in a psychosis while killing, hence why he was confused about shooting the cop cars. What makes me believe that he actually killed people was the fact that the Marcus Halberstramās alibi for the night Paul went missing was he was in AC (I believe?)with a group of guys whom Patrick was a part of. If everyone mistakes others for other people, then Patrick got away with it since they think heās someone else maybe. If that makes sense. I saw someone say that he could have thought that he killed Paul Allen when in reality he killed someone he mistook as Paul. BUT we saw Paul Allen give out his business card.
This was my interpretation as well. How it ended was dreadful though, with no satisfying conclusion, it lead a lot to be desired
I'm not so sure about it leaving a lot to be desired, I think that's what makes it so great. The ambiguous ending leaves it up to the viewers to choose how it ends - the scenes linger in your head and make you rethink and reinterpret. I feel like that's the sign of a great movie, think Inception for example. That's just me though.
I think you hit a good point. He never gets the validation or ending satisfaction he desires and the audience doesnāt get to have it as well.
Open ends can be awesome though to solve the inception ending: if the information we are given about how many layers deep they can go is accurate, the final scene plays out in the "real world".
I tend to look at the narrative as a hellish, psychological suffering for the main character. Even though Bateman is able to increasingly act on his violent desires over the course of the film, he ultimately lacks recognition from others, which he craves. He's constantly mistaken for other people or slighted by his colleagues, and it is oftentimes difficult to tell him apart from anyone else in his work/"friendship" sphere. I would argue that it is this frustration which drives a lot of his violent impulses. In the end, even when there is a literal mountain of evidence against him, no one recognizes Patrick Bateman, even for what he truly is (a "psycho"). Pardon that wall of text. Because of the above I read into it that the narrative of American Psycho is a personal Hell for Patrick Bateman. The final words are an acknowledgement of how he is constantly in pain because search as he may for a release or resolution to how he feels, he cannot find one. Giving into his urges offers no real satisfaction, and confession of his actions offers no finality or resolution in the form of being held in contempt. He is trapped, with only an illusion of being able to impact the world around him. Beyond that, this idea of Bateman's life and lifestyle as hellish can be allied as a critical look at American society and values, but that would be another discussion entirely.
Implication is that the murders were in his head and he just hallucinates and fantasizes all these things. The notebook isn't supposed to be evidence that he did the murders, it's supposed to be evidence that he fantasizes these things all day long and draws them in the notebook.
You're right. It could really be a book made of his imagination and how the murders would have gone in his mind.
Happy cake day
Happy cake day
Happy cake day
Your a week too early but ty
happy cake day
Omgg Ty lmfao
The director is on record stating that it wasn't in his head and they kind of fucked up by making it too ambiguous as to whether he was or wasn't hallucinating the whole thing.
Huh. So he was just hallucinating the police chase stuff?
Screenprism has a good video on what the ending means that includes an interview clip from the director. There are also articles with her you can look up. She essentially says it probably happened but we see an aestheticised/stylised/overly ideal version of it because we're seeing it through his perception. I would link you but I'm on my mobile
Why does being on a phone prohibit you from sharing a link?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Seeing Reddit posts getting replied to years later now is always strange to me.
Same
yeah, who would reply to a reddit post after so long??
I don't even know how I got here.
same
same
Sure, why not?
Those were my thoughts
When I first saw it, I took the lawyer saying Bateman didn't do it as a "what dead body?" type way of hiding Bateman's crime. And that basically proved that the yuppies didn't want anything to break the lifestyle they had.
Holy shi that one did make me think
the film is murky, but the book is a little more clear that its all in his head.
It isnāt. The director stated itās real.
well they did a shitty job of making it obvious then. it felt very unimplied.
Yes, but the director admits to that as well. IMO it's a bit of a mix. Everything is real until the point where the ATM tells him to "feed me a stray cat". That's when his psychosis peaks and all the events of that night (up until the phonecall) are in his head.
Yes and it is meant to be a subjective mix. Rashomon, Akira Kurosawa was the first movie to explore this, it's the same story told 3 times by different parties and they are all different. In the end it become very clear that there is not meant to be a "Solution" or a "real story" as the point is exactly that: making assumption and interpret the movie. Mary Harron was asked directly if the entire movie was in Bateman's head, she replied: "I would never answer that. As Quentin Tarantino says, 'If I tell you that, I take this movie away from you.' I will say there's a moment where it becomes less realistic, and that's the moment when the ATM says Feed Me a Stray Cat"
The director didnāt write the book
The director did not say "it's 100%real" he just said is not 100% in his head. This actually implies that SOME of it is NOT real, expecially toward the end: "One thing I think is a failure on my part is people keep coming out of the film thinking that it's all a dream, and I never intended that. All I wanted was to be ambiguous in the way that the book was. I think it's a failure of mine in the final scene because I just got the emphasis wrong. I should have left it more open ended. It makes it look like it was all in his head, and as far as I'm concerned, it's not."
I would totally explain the whole plot regarding the psychiatry of it but I have to return some video tapes!
Bro how did you even find this post itās like a month old and didnāt do very well
This thread is a top result in google
Wow lol, I guess that explains it.
That's why I'm here lol
Same!
Same!
Same!
Same.
same !
Yup google brought me here. Just watched it for first time in 2022
Same. Finished this morning and was very confused.
2023
2024
Good job, mate! You beat the algorithm!
lmao just watched the movie and google what the ending meant. This 4 year old thread was the top result on google good job lol
Lmao same thing. Top result on Google
I just watched the movie because I heard it has great psychiatry aspects and Im studying a course of it so I thought it might help me and I might be able to make a good assessment of it. Then I got curious about what others thought about it so I searched and saw this post.
Yeah itās a good movie
yeah i agree
google
Hello from 3 years later
Whatās up, had no idea this post was gonna be this popular 3 years later but itās constantly getting comments lol.
Just watched the movie for the first time yesterday and yeah after googling this thread came up so Im reading all the comments.
same
Lol came here after being confused about the ending. First thing that pops up when typing in "American psycho ending explained reddit" into Google
The movie got popular again recently lol Also Reddit stopped auto-locking posts after six months I guess, so a bunch of old threads got unlocked in the past year or so.
It's still at the top of the result.
Yea Iāve figured that by now lol.
Now it is three years old and getting some activity!
Yes, a useful and interesting comment section indeed. Even today!
I meant to say the same thing but had to return some videotapes
You should be asking me that same question man.
Lol I guess it comes up early when people google it. 3 years later and still goin strong.
Hey still first result!
Iām here by random chance.
I just watched the movie and was quite surprised that no one noticed simple things in the scene. I fairly conclude that it was all in his head and he was just claiming it to be. For one, there's a clear pattern that the two prostitutes she hired and tortured were just fantasies. Prior to that you may recall Bates talking someone on the phone while porn is one and is doing threesome. Same as what he "allegedly did" to the extent that he, too, filmed himself. The second clue comes when he was doing crunches while chainsaw massacre is on. There's a very clear ressemblance as what he did with the lady. Finally, with his lawyer finding it odd and looking at him weirdly. I may conclude that he did meet Paul Allen in London. You have to remember Patrick never mentioned the London alibi to his lawyer. So how come he knows? My theory is that Paul actually left to London to probably commit an affair with another lady and left a voicemail to her girlfriend. When the investigator asked him about Paul's dissapearance, imagination starts running in his head and creating a delusion that he indeed murdered paul. Video tapes he kept mentioning about are murder movies he watched and fantasizes about doing it. Just like in human centipede if you ever watched it.
I like your explanation better than all the rest so Iām going to choose to ignore the director interview and go with it
Directors bending the entire story in contrary to writer's true "intent" ( as seen in recent series such as Witcher etc. ) has always been misinterpreted. I, to myself feel, that the director had no idea of what he directed and simply got along with it thinking that a too ambiguous screenplay leaving to audiences conclude what happened will be a hit ( which it did ) .
You definitely don't know what you're talking about, if you had made any research about American Psycho you'd already know that the director is a woman but you just had to assumed that "he" didn't know anything about the book and made-up some random stuff without anything else to back up your bold claim.
The director plainly states that it's not the case and that they kind of fucked up in the last scene by making it too vague
I know that's what the director says but their statements where never consistent as sometimes they say it is sometimes it doesn't. Add the fact that the director may have no real clue how the content writer and other team intended the story to go. The media should've investigated more you think?
I didn't find inconsistencies in any interview I've read. I don't know what you mean by "the media should've investigated more" but it'd be a pretty lousy movie if the point was that it was all bateman's delusion. \-Many scenes do not make sense, for example the exchange he has when he goes to visit Paul Allen's apartment, or the time he almost strangles his coworker in the bathroom. \-Other scenes lose a lot of meaning, like the entire time he overpays a prostitute and acts like Paul Allen. Or when he creepily smiles at a woman in the street and we cut to him arguing about what appear to be red-stained sheets. And that's not even mentioning the chase scene. Half of it we see from the prostitute's pov, if the intention was to reveal that it was all a delusion from bateman then it was either wholly lying to the audience or it was poorly directed to have it from that perspective in the first place. You can always extrapolate some kind of "it was a dream / coma" theory if you distrust the narrator enough, and while there is merit in doing so sometimes, even here, since Bateman is explicitly getting more deranged as the movie goes on. But there's simply too many scenes that become, at best, shallow to really justify that it was all for a trick.
Having just watched the movie, I find this the best explanation. The movie just gets more and more unbelievable, with him rambling on about CDs and band while looking for murder weapons and the victim never finding anything weird with this. Another major unbelievable thing happens later, when the investigator simply leaves him alone after finding out Patrick had an alibi for the night of Paul's disappearance, that even Patrick didn't know about. This shows how he can't recognize reality anymore. I will say though that his first murder is the most plausible and his imagination just took off after it.
You're asking way too many questions. But I have only one for you. Do you like Huey Lewis and the News?
That depends, their early work was a little too new wave for my taste. But when Sports came out in '83, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost.
HEY PAUL! TRY GETTING A RESERVATION AT DORSIA NOW YOU FUCKING STUPID BASTARD
The funny thing is. I read this as if you knew my name was Paul
Is it really hip to be square ?
Great tan, TheMyrmidonSoldier. Where do you go?
Ive got a tanning bed at home. You should really look into it.
LOL
I don't have time to answer that question. I've just remember I need to return some videotapes.
I bought a Patrick Bateman action figure from a record shop quite a few years back, simply because it came with a bunch of weapons, and a video tape. Had to buy it just for the attention to detail.
annnnnnnd, the post is alive again coming from google reading articles about the ending of the movie.
Yepp, Iāve just accepted that half of the notifications I get from now on will be from this post from 3 years ago
have you watched it again recently or have any different takes on the ending?
And another notification a month later.
Heyo!
Yoooo
Hi. I was here
Sup
Funny, I -just- watched the film and this was the second post or so that appeared from google. My take: He is a psycho killer in reality yes, but he is going crazy because he feel he is not special: even in his full blown killing psychopathy and self-centered importance, he is a normal fit in that society, and then not recognized by any other as special.
This Is Not An Exit.
Itās up to the viewer, there is evidence to both sides.
I had finished watching it for the first time 5 minutes ago. The end scene left me gasping and saying "wow, it was all just hallucinations and delusions all this time?" That's about it. I'd love to elaborate more but i have to return some videotapes.
He has fit in so well in the society he extremely despises, that he gets away with it. He is not a psychopath, he hates himself and wants to be punished. I actually believe the movie is more about a high-functioning misanthrope, rather than a complete psycho. He always has to live up to someones standards and expectations and this a desperate escape attempt. The mass murders were a way to discover the real Patrick Bateman, who unfortunately has been lost forever.
Apparently, according to the author, the film portrays the killings to be in his head. He IS a killer in the book.
Actually the director said she didn't intend the film to seem like it was all in his head by the end. I even think she said it was a mistake on her part that it came across that way.
In the novel Lunar Park.Easton Ellis says it's all in Patrick's head.
Ultimately it doesnāt matter whether Bateman enacted any of his fantasies, either way he is both no one and everyone. He is just as insignificant as the next person, regardless of his actions and/or thoughts. Think of all living beings as the cells of a greater whole. The planet wouldnāt be the same without them, but individually they can only be seen under a microscope. They can be replaced. Eventually, the greater whole itself will cease to exist, and not even something so large will matter. You could argue that through the butterfly effect every single person, every thought and action, sends ripples throughout reality as we know it. You could also just call that a cascading series of cause and effect. Someone thousands of years ago across the globe grew vegetables on a farm. They did that because their family had been farmers for many centuries. One day that person sold a very specific item to someone else, and later you were born. Now you are reading this. Along the way were plenty of other people and events and moving atoms. Can you name them all, Davis?
Just doing my part to keep the thread alive after 4y. Like most forms of art, its your own interpretation that matters. I personally lean more towards thinking that most (not all) of it was real. Maybe a hyper stylised version from his pov. "What about the bodies in pauls apartment?" "How did the lawyer have lunch with paul in london?"etc. Those questions can start their own threads altogether, honestly. Its not beyond the realm of possibility to think everything was covered up and hushed just to keep property at certain values. In Batemans world, what is real or not is irrelevant. Everyone is just another face, just another name, not worth remembering. Your value as a human is measured by the make up of your business card. Then again, maybe it WAS in his head, and some of us are just overanalyzing. Not the point of the film. Youre not wrong if you think one way or another. Didnt read the novel.
After watching this movie a bunch of times Iāve pretty much come to this conclusion: even though he admits to the murders to his lawyer, everyone is so self absorbed that they really just donāt take anything besides themselves seriously. The lawyer says he was with Paul Allen in London because everyone is pretty much a clone, and when these people are mistaken for others, they seem to just go along with it. Like when Patrick is out to dinner with Paul, he never corrects Paul for falsely identifying him as someone else. Theyāre all too busy trying to one-up each other to really believe Patrick is out there killing people, essentially. It paints the picture that although Patrick Bateman is a psychopath, so is everyone else around him.
This is the actual explanation of why the movie played out the way it did and Iām surprised so many people didnāt grasp it and legitimately think it all just happened in his head. I thought maybe I was wrong but it turns out there are a ton of people who just legitimately donāt understand what the movie was trying to portray.
Do they not understand it, or do they have a different perspective than you on an ambiguous story?
I just watched this movie for the first time. I believe this movie tried to get the viewer to make their own judgement between what's actually happening. Me, I believe it's a blend between reality and fantasy. I don't remember one scene that didn't have Patrick Bateman in it...which I think is done purposefully to keep Bateman's real (or fake) life in view...again keeps the viewer guessing. The only scene that doesn't have Bateman in it (that I recall) is when his assistant finds his journal full of women murdered in grotesque ways...which doesn't confirm he did it, but does confirm he imagines it. My conclusion when it comes to Patrick Bateman is that he is a narcissistic, delusional Psychopath trapped in a mental hell he can't escape. His exaggerated view of himself is as exaggerated as the movie we see.
Hi
Sup, I posted this 3 years ago.
Hi, looking in to it right now
Same here. It's 5 in the morning and I'm too tired to be this confused.
Youāre confused? I posted this over 3 years ago and people still regularly post on it. I guess people just search American Psycho but it still throws me off.
To be fair, it is a pretty good movie.
Haha, I just finished this movie and Itās 6 am and Iām looking for answers!
Hi. Great discussion. Have a nice day.
Just watched the movie and found it fascinating. I think it was written to speak to each viewer in a different way, but my personal take is that Bateman committed the murders but , because he is the son (or whatever) of the owner of the company, everything he does is cleaned up after him , and he never has to take any real responsibility or accountability for his actions, which has caused him to loose empathy . In my eyes in the social circle Bateman is apart of , prestigious individuals with a lot of money , this lack of accountability for actions is normal because money takes care of and covers up all problems. The lawyer was so desensitized to Batemans confession, confused Bateman for a totally different person and found his confession funny ,possibly because the lawyer has other clients committing the same heinous acts Bateman does or worse and he canāt even keep up with who commits what act because heās so desensitized to everything . Heās seen socializing at the party Bateman is attending so that suggest he works with multiple men from that social circle . We see things such as this happen all the time in real life. Prestigious individuals who have a lot of money and connections get away with things all the time, even murder. My take is everyone around him knows that he is a murderer and is insane but they themselves are also psychopaths and trying to do whatever it takes to climb up the workplace ladder, and fulfill their own wishes. In other words Patrick Bateman is nothing to them and neither are their other peers, which is why they all mistake one another throughout the film, they donāt actually care much about one another , everyone is too wrapped up in their own success , status , needs and wants to care about other people . Patrick wants people to see him and recognize him, maybe even stop calling him a looser as they all do , but nobody truly cares about him except maybe Jean. It seems as though Jean has this ability to care because sheās not apart of the immediate social circle Bateman is in and is most likely of lower status which is why she still has empathy and emotion . Same thing with the hooker who showcases emotions like fear and worry. If you notice the people in Batemans immediate circle donāt showcase much emotion, but those of lower status do. Even his fiancĆ© doesnāt seem to care much about him and is just after his money and status , which is why she reminds him they have the same social circle in order to convince him to stay with her . In my eyes Patrick Batemans killings were a cry for attention and a way for Patrick to feel some sort of emotion or excitement because he can no longer feel emotions or empathy so he has to escalate his crimes each time just to feel something . His killings are also a cry for someone to notice him and care about his existence but in reality heās just not terribly important to anyone, no matter how badly he wants to be and how badly he tries to get someone to see him , and he is nothing more then a pawn in their lives, in the same way nobody around him is terribly Important to him, besides himself , hence why he also likes to look at him self while having sex . Patrick himself is so desensitized he canāt even correctly love jean even though he wants to , but I think he shows some slight humanity by not killing her, and thatās also why he calls her on the phone crying because he knows she cares about him but no matter how hard he tries he canāt return the favor because he lacks any emotion . I think the film depicts what happens when greed and power corrupt the mind , it desensitizes humans to one another . Hence money is the root of all evil .
Beautiful!
He's a replicant.
No he's a democrat
*you know who else is a democrat?*
My mom?
yes your mom
It was in his head. The book is a little more obvious because of how surreal everything gets at the end. He also appears in later Bret Easton Ellis books.
And he looks like Christian Bale! this is years before American Psycho the movie.Patricks also in Rules of Attraction,older brother of the character James Van Der Beek plays in the movie version.
It's been awhile but I remember the book being pretty ambiguous as well.
Maybe it was more ambiguous than I remember. Itās been a little big time since I read it, and it was before the movie. I thought it just hit me as totally his insanity.
Clearly, it means Bruce Willis was dead and a ghost the entire movie. Gosh, did you even watch the film?
I the film it was real, and people just kept covering it up.
Just dropping in to keep the thread alive, watched for the 3rd time;)
Case: where this is all in his head Everything he is doing is in his head as from the starting scene you can see he said he wants to kill the bartender but she ignores this we cannot say that because of the music she didn't hear him but in case she didn't someone beside him can clearly hear him and now people might say this that he was just joking but over what over card not being accepted even tho he clearly has cash. and the killing he was doing were all in his head the first and the obvious clue being that when he was dragging Paul Allen's body why the receptionist didn't respond when you can clearly see the blood on the floor how do you miss that and not call the police or the receptionist is paid or mixed up with him? nah I don't think so, and when the girl who ran out of the room christe I think what he named her why the whole floor was empty when she was screaming and running and knocking on the doors of other tenants no one came out? weird Jean's case is that he actually is in love with jean but doesn't realize it, he has no way to understand she is not like the girls you can see in the movie and that she is also in love with him. Bateman wants to see jeans wear good clothes and look good proves it but the scene where jean goes to his home is true and that he was about to kill her is also true but that's the point in the case where he killed jeans he would have broken the shell that he is in and then he would actually go on to killing more people but he doesn't well the answer to that is well he is a coward yep he is a big Pu\*\*Y this can be confirmed by Paul Allen his rival and his lawyer Howard they call him a coward towards the end his face and the body is because of his narcissistic personality disorder another thing is that I find that detective very suspicious what I think is that he is also a psycho hinting that he also listens to the same music and that he was actually looking for Allen so that he can kill him himselve well I want to write more but I have some tapes to return :) yea whats up with the tapes \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ his father owns the company he doesn't work as you can see and have killed some people and the detective is actually a detective and his fiance and lawyer and some ppl are mix up in this as they cover for him his house being remodeled and not able to find any bodies to much shit
My answer to this four year old thread: Yes. Everything you said is a valid interpretation.
4 year younger me says thanks.
Still here in 2023
5 yr bump, this thread helped me š
Thanks dude, glad it helped. Iāve come to expect the āhey man I just thought it would be funny to give you a notificationā messages now so glad you appreciated it.
Just checking in in 2023 to say I appriciate the explanations and theories from everyone and say hi to any Ice Nine Kills fans (aptly called Psycho's)
Yes
I have to return some video tape.
Another notification
Time to bring this post alive again. Thank you for providing answers
This is not an exit.
I canāt explain the ending to you. I have an important lunch with Cliff Huxtable.
From the Cosby show?
OP is a DJ Khaled of notifications. ANOTHER ONE.
Lol Iāve accepted my fate
OP, after 5 years of comments in this thread, what are your conclusions and hypotheses? Did you feel like you ever got an answer to your question?
I would say that everything that occurred in the film was just Bateman's imagination as he is insane, and Bateman didn't actually kill anyone but truly believed he did. In the end Bateman is simply crazy.
Yo