@JustinJackFlash said:

There is discussion over whether Bateman did actually commit any murders or if he imagined everything, and doodled his ideas in the sketchbook that his secretary finds at the end. Harron regrets this, and has said he did commit the murders, and that the reason his confession means nothing to anyone at the end is because the entire system is as deranged as he is.

It is much higher art, in my mind, that indeed the madness of the vanity and shallowness of the age had gotten to Bateman's character and he was on the verge of snapping...it's a fine critique of the vapid horror of what we had to endure of the 80s

Art is often intentionally written in such a way so as to convey multiple meanings. I assume this is what Ellis intended. Harron should embrace this. And though I haven't read the book in a long time, i'm sure it was written with a clear suggestion that it could be all in his head.

But the revelation at the end that it was all in his head is catastrophic to him because he realises he isn't special, unique or boundary breaking. He's just like all the others. But this also suggests that some sort of screwed up thoughts and fantasies also exist in the repressed minds of all the others too. Hence it's criticism of greed and capitalism and why it's so unhealthy for humanity.

The fact that you can read it the way you want is what makes it such an interesting film/book.

@JustinJackFlash Well said.

@Renovatio said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@Renovatio For me, it is either/or. I think it loses some craft if it's both, and the logic as far as I can follow it, falls apart beyond story.

However, I see that I'm in the minority and that many - including yourself - prefer the story in which all those gruesome killings actually happened.

I actually agree with you and think he's hallucinating all of the killings, but I like that it's open to interpretation... I don't know what Ellis intended...

Certainly makes for interesting discussions like these!

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@JustinJackFlash Well said.

Cheers, Dude.

@FatDrunkAndStupid said:

@ana catarina fontes said:

@Renovatio said:

This movie has aged beautifully. Here we are, years later and it's still watchable and iconic.

Indeed. I rewatched it recently and thought the same. Must read the book, though I'm a little afraid it's too unsettling.

The book is a million times funnier than the movie. When you are finished you should read Glamorama as well, which is similar

I will. I am actually reading Less Than Zero currently, if I get in the mood maybe I'll read American Psycho next :) I remember there was a project for a movie adaptation of Glamorama, can't remember who was supposed to direct it though.

@ana catarina fontes said:

I will. I am actually reading Less Than Zero currently, if I get in the mood maybe I'll read American Psycho next :) I remember there was a project for a movie adaptation of Glamorama, can't remember who was supposed to direct it though.

It was Roger Avery. He directed The Rules of Attraction. The protagonist of Glamorama was in Rules of Attraction, played by Kip Pardue, so I think he was going to be the main star of Glamorama. I don't know why it never happened, but it was probably a hard film to get funding for. The book is like an ultraviolent, depraved version of Zoolander.

Ok, I just looked it up. Apparently it never happened because Avery went to jail for causing a car crash while driving intoxicated. It ended his career.

@JustinJackFlash said:

Ok, I just looked it up. Apparently it never happened because Avery went to jail for causing a car crash while driving intoxicated. It ended his career.

What!? That's lame, and sort of dramatically ironic.. that sounds exactly like something that could happen to any character in a BEE book. Too bad though. I liked Rules of Attraction, actually that was my introduction to BEE :)

Haha. It does! And I bet the film industry is pretty similar to Ellis' worlds. I think he should write a novel set in the film industry.

I love The Rules of Attraction. I actually think it's the only Ellis film that improves on the book. I think it has more to say. I don't think it gets the recognition it deserves.

it would be interesting to see nicholas w. refn directing a movie based on one of ellis' books (i'm thinking neon demon meets lunar park and i must say it got chilly in here). i agree about rules of attraction (the movie). the bathtub suicide scene is beautiful. and it has a fantastic soundtrack. now i must rewatch it.

@ana catarina fontes said:

it would be interesting to see nicholas w. refn directing a movie based on one of ellis' books (i'm thinking neon demon meets lunar park and i must say it got chilly in here).

That sounds like a blast. Especially with that kind of 80's synth score. I liked Neon Demon. Thought the reviews underrated it a bit.

i agree about rules of attraction (the movie). the bathtub suicide scene is beautiful. and it has a fantastic soundtrack. now i must rewatch it.

On the DVD release over here in the UK they cut the suicide scene, which was annoying. Not the whole thing, but when she actually cuts her wrists it cuts away. A shame as I really appreciated that scene in the cinema. It was art.

@Renovatio said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@Renovatio For me, it is either/or. I think it loses some craft if it's both, and the logic as far as I can follow it, falls apart beyond story.

However, I see that I'm in the minority and that many - including yourself - prefer the story in which all those gruesome killings actually happened.

I actually agree with you and think he's hallucinating all of the killings, but I like that it's open to interpretation... I don't know what Ellis intended...

All the killings? But there's a a police investigation and people do disappear.

I had dinner with Paul Allen, twice, in London, just ten days ago.

@Halberstram said:

I had dinner with Paul Allen, twice, in London, just ten days ago.

LOL!

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@Drooch said:

There is discussion over whether Bateman did actually commit any murders or if he imagined everything, and doodled his ideas in the sketchbook that his secretary finds at the end. Harron regrets this, and has said he did commit the murders, and that the reason his confession means nothing to anyone at the end is because the entire system is as deranged as he is.

I've always regreted that Harron took this position. It becomes absurd to think no one in the apartment heard a woman screaming, a chainsaw running (it's a condo in the city, not a barn in the woods); absurd that the chainsaw should fall straight down the middle of a flight of stairs and kill a woman at the bottom, absurd that he shot at the cops and blew the cars up and ran down the middle of the street...and...and...and...and if the cop was suspicious of him and he confessed, why would the cop all of a sudden then just not charge him? I think it was because the guy they thought was dead was not dead, nor were any other of the people he imagined himself killing were dead (if I recall correctly how the ending went).

It is much higher art, in my mind, that indeed the madness of the vanity and shallowness of the age had gotten to Bateman's character and he was on the verge of snapping...it's a fine critique of the vapid horror of what we had to endure of the 80s - the latch key kids with two income parents chasing materialism and vanity, the rise of the affluent suburban kids who shotgun their parents to death and have a party in the house before cops are called in (I knew someone who was one of the kids at a party in a house where the kid had killed his parents, and that was Toronto, nevermind the USA)....

Nah, to assert that he really did what we saw is to focus too much on the acts themselves, the torture porn of it all. Not very compelling, to me anyway.

Harron took that position because the book doesn't really have that ambiguity in terms of whether he actually "did" it or not. The book is a pretty straightforward satire about a serial killer yuppie. Harron even took the line "this confession has meant nothing", which in the book Bateman is saying in the sense that the confession means nothing to him and places it in a completely different context. In the book, the "this confession has meant nothing" line takes doesn't take place at the end and is found in the context of a romantic dinner between Patrick and Jean where she finally tells him she loves him (their relationship in the book is more developed than the film- indeed he's still with her at the end) and he responds by trying to explain about himself and his views on humanity.

…there is an idea of a Patrick Bateman, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I simply am not there. It is hard for me to make sense on any given level. Myself is fabricated, an aberration. I am a noncontingent human being. My personality is sketchy and unformed, my heartlessness goes deep and is persistent. My conscience, my pity, my hopes disappeared a long time ago (probably at Harvard) if they ever did exist. There are no more barriers to cross. All I have in common with the uncontrollable and the insane, the vicious and the evil, all the mayhem I have caused and my utter indifference toward it, I have now surpassed. I still, though, hold on to one single bleak truth: no one is safe, nothing is redeemed. Yet I am blameless. Each model of human behavior must be assumed to have some validity. Is evil something you are? Or is it something you do? My pain is constant and sharp and I do not hope for a better world for anyone. In fact I want my pain to be inflicted on others. I want no one to escape. But even after admitting this—and I have, countless times, in just about every act I’ve committed—and coming face-to-face with these truths, there is no catharsis. I gain no deeper knowledge about myself, no new understanding can be extracted from my telling. There has been no reason for me to tell you any of this. This confession has meant nothing ….

I hear that!

So, indeed, we agree that, while there is less/no ambiguity in the book, there is ambiguity introduced into the film. Perhaps, then, "the book" is what it is, but the movie, while ostensibly claiming to try to adhere to it, added a layer of ambiguity that may actually challenge the story of the book. It's not hard to make a movie that sticks to a book and has no ambiguity as to whether this character did what the book says was done. The ambiguity in the film, then, seems intentional and, for me, more interesting than the regurgitations of an insane killer's mind (of course, I haven't read the book - maybe, if I did, I might appreciate whatever story it was trying to tell).