American Psycho Ending (Spoilers)

[HMMurdock]

Ok...maybe someone can help me with the ending of "American Psycho". I just finished watching it & I'm very drunk & watched it on USA, which obviously cut a lot out.

Obviously, Bateman imagined all of the killings. At least I think that's what happened. Can someone confirm this for me? I'm guessing the different names (Patrick, Marcus, Mr. Smith) he used throughout the film were all a part of his fantasy? Using different names in different apartments, offices, etc.? In other words, his fantasy was so well thought out that he took different aliases in his own fantasy?

I'd appreciate your thoughts.

[Messiahman]

When I interviewed her four years ago, director Mary Harron claimed that Bateman did NOT imagine the killings, but that the ending speaks of the purely impersonal nature of the 80s -- Paul Allen is indeed dead, but no one knew him well enough to even recognize him, hence the lawyer's case of mistaken identity. Bateman's point of view during the final setpiece is hyper-real, but he is still killing folks and evading the cops. The novel supports this, although Brett Easton Ellis did joke a while back that the whole thing was imagined (but confirmed that he was joking).

[Wetbones]

Both the film and the novel are rather ambiguous about wether or not he really killed people and it's definitely open to interpretation. Personally I've always thought that Patrick lives in a fantasy world. His fantasies may lead him to kill occasionally but it's hard to tell because the film and the book are basically his point of view of the world, so what is or may be real gets tangled up in his fantasies and delusions. The film is kind of restrained but some of the more outrageous stuff in the novel is just obviously fantasy. Like jamming a glass pipe up some girl's cunt, then letting rats crawl up that pipe and have them eat all the way through her in a few minutes.

[Johnny Butane]

Why is that obviously fantasy? I mean, considering all the sick shit he does to other leading up to that point, I think it's resonable, consdering his complete and utter lack of humanity, that he would try something like that to get a thrill from it. Which, of course, he does not.

And the pipe was plastic, by the way. :D

[Guttenberg Fan Club]

It's not fantasy, but satire. It's supposed to be symbolic of the upper-classes of the 80's rape of the downtrodden (as if that doesn't happen every decade). So in the world of the book/movie, these things actually happened. The murder of the homeless man is the most obvious case of pointing this out (I want to help you...how can I help you you fucking slob...*stab*). Also, the last couple minutes, when one of his friends is talking about Reagan while he's giving a speech pretty much sums up the whole movie. No one could believe that this nice little man could be fucking people over. His facade hid his true intentions, just like Pat Bateman. And those who knew the truth, helped cover it up & helped their own kind.

If the murders were just fantasy, then the satiric nature of the book wouldn't have any meaning. It would be essentially saying that the rich didn't try to kill the poor, only fantasized about it. Not what Ellis had in mind.

[Wetbones]

Why is that obviously fantasy?

Because a rat cannot eat through a woman in a few minutes. So he must've imagined that part at the very least.

[Void]

The rat did not eat through her at all. It ate the cheese that Patrick shoved up the girl's cunt. The only reason the rat got out is because Patrick cut the girl in half with a chainsaw. I found the following chapter where Patrick fed Evelyn a chocolate covered urinal cake far more entertaining.

I believe that some of the murders were real and some weren't. I think he tortured more than he killed. When he did kill, he imagined his kills to be more in depth than they really were. Bateman just had no seperation of fantasy and reality, and he didn't realize it.

[SPEEDRAZOR]

When I interviewed her four years ago, director Mary Harron claimed that Bateman did NOT imagine the killings, but that the ending speaks of the purely impersonal nature of the 80s -- Paul Allen is indeed dead, but no one knew him well enough to even recognize him, hence the lawyer's case of mistaken identity. Bateman's point of view during the final setpiece is hyper-real, but he is still killing folks and evading the cops. The novel supports this, although Brett Easton Ellis did joke a while back that the whole thing was imagined (but confirmed that he was joking).

couldnt have said it better myself. ive read an interview with mary saying that and ive believed it to this day, so any further discussing on the subject ive always considered pointless, as i know what the answer is.

[Wetbones]

ive read an interview with mary saying that and ive believed it to this day, so any further discussing on the subject ive always considered pointless, as i know what the answer is.

She may have made the movie but that hardly makes her the absolute and unquestionable authority on the subject. Her film (or rather the screenplay she wrote with Guinevre Turner) is strictly her interpretation of Ellis' book and character and only because someone threw the money and equipment at her to make her point of view public doesn't make her opinion any more relevant that anybody else's.

It has always been my belief that a story, be it told through film, a novel, a painting or a song, stops belonging to the artist as soon as it finds an audience. After that moment it belongs to those who find value in it and their interpretations are every bit as valid as the author's intention.

It strikes me as quite amusing that we're even discussing this. If Ellis didn't intend the whole thing to be open to interpretation I'm sure he would have had the writing skills to make it 100 per cent clear. But he didn't. And it's much more fun that way.

[Chowyunfrag]

The rat did not eat through her at all. It ate the cheese that Patrick shoved up the girl's cunt. The only reason the rat got out is because Patrick cut the girl in half with a chainsaw. I found the following chapter where Patrick fed Evelyn a chocolate covered urinal cake far more entertaining.

Damn I hate when they leave the good parts out of the theatrical adaption.

[the gomez]

I believe that some of the murders were real and some weren't. I think he tortured more than he killed. When he did kill, he imagined his kills to be more in depth than they really were. Bateman just had no seperation of fantasy and reality, and he didn't realize it.

Couldn't have said it any better than that.

I just started reading this book last night. From what I hear, it should be an interesting read.

[Wetbones]

From what I hear, it should be an interesting read.

It definitely is. One of the few books that had me constantly laughing out load because it's so funny. I also could totally identify with Patrick Bateman. I started reading the book in early 2000, a few weeks after seeing FIGHT CLUB in the teater. Pat and Tyler were my heroes that year. GLAMOURAMA, Ellis' latest novel, while not nearly as violent, is my favourite of his books, though. LESS THAN ZERO, RULES OF ATTRACTION and THE INFORMERS are brilliant as well. The man can do no wrong. I wish he'd hurry up with his new book, he's been working on it forever ... :(

[Barkatthemoon]

I subscribe to the theory that Patrick was merely insane, and never killed anyone. A theory debunked by American Psycho II. A movie I will never see. EVER.

[Guttenberg Fan Club]

To the people who think he was just insane, what do you think the movie is about? What is its purpose?

[Barkatthemoon]

The same as The Sixth Sense, or Planet of the Apes. GOTCHA! Ha Ha Ha.

[Void]

To the people who think he was just insane, what do you think the movie is about? What is its purpose?

I don't think he was insane, he just couldn't tell what was reality and what was not. Patrick was somone who loved the lifestyle he lived, yet at the same time despised everything about it. He was looking for an escape from it. Whether it was through his words, his actions, or his altered view on reality, he tried to break free but was always drawn back in. He could never find the exit he was searching for. But at the same time, he did not want to change his lifestyle. He enjoyed the excesses that went along with his social status, he wouldn't have it any other way.

Then there is the satire. The book and the movie show how out there the 80s yuppie lifestyle could be. The metrosexualism, arguing over restaurants, no one having their own identity, and so on just shows how shallow people used to be (and still are) about the most insignificant things.

[Happy Boy]

are you guys commenting on the book or the movie?

have you actually READ the book?

because this is a case where the subject matter of the book was controversial enough that movie felt compelled to change it quite a bit.

the movie definitely leans towards the idea that it was all fantasy but the book doesn't open that door at all. it's a allegorical commentary of the misogonistic predatory amoral nature of 80's NYC. all the phyisical narcissism lovingly detailed by ellis is bookened by the sadism inflicted on others

i remember that a female book editor quit while working on the book and that Psycho purists were all up in arms when the movie was released about the changed, "copped out" "balled out" ending.

I think in viewing the movie asserts it's all a fantasy. maybe the "not-fantasy" comments made at the time were a reaction to that

both the book and the movie have DIE HARD followers but I dont particularly think much of the book or the movie

[SPEEDRAZOR]

She may have made the movie but that hardly makes her the absolute and unquestionable authority on the subject. Her film (or rather the screenplay she wrote with Guinevre Turner) is strictly her interpretation of Ellis' book and character and only because someone threw the money and equipment at her to make her point of view public doesn't make her opinion any more relevant that anybody else's.

thats what we are talking about though. the ending to the movie. not the book.

[chrisberez]

It definitely is. One of the few books that had me constantly laughing out load because it's so funny. I also could totally identify with Patrick Bateman. I started reading the book in early 2000, a few weeks after seeing FIGHT CLUB in the teater. Pat and Tyler were my heroes that year. GLAMOURAMA, Ellis' latest novel, while not nearly as violent, is my favourite of his books, though. LESS THAN ZERO, RULES OF ATTRACTION and THE INFORMERS are brilliant as well. The man can do no wrong. I wish he'd hurry up with his new book, he's been working on it forever ... :(

I agree. I am a huge fan of Ellis' work (Glammorama is my fav too, btw). But as far as hurrying up with his new novel, I wouldn't hold my breath. Ellis spent ten years on Glamorama, so god only knows when his next book might be out.

[billylove]

I think in viewing the movie asserts it's all a fantasy

I haven't read the book. But based on viewing the movie many times, I do believe that he killed all those people.

[Schwartz]

I don't think he was insane, he just couldn't tell what was reality and what was not.

Uh, what?

Whether or not the murders were a fantasy, Bateman's nuts. Convincing yourself that your homicidal fantasies actually happened still qualifies as crazy in my book. And it is called American Psycho, after all...