Movies News Talk
Many times cited as a difficult and perplexing movie is American Psycho. But the film's uncertain ending causes many to misread its meaning. What therefore does American Psycho really mean? The very psychotic protagonist of the movie and its dubious ending complicate the overall meaning of the work.
American Psycho tracks Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale), a New York investment banker living a double life as a serial killer, based on the 1991 Bret Easton Ellis book. With his legendary performance as Patrick Bateman, Christian Bale guaranteed American Psycho a cult following spanning two decades.
In American Psycho, Bateman satisfies his most violent impulses by acting on every sadistic impulse without thinking through consequences in his Wall Street life. This emphasizes the main point of the movie: it's a remark on the natural violence of corporate avarice.
The American Psycho explained metaphor—violence as a stand-in for Corporate Greed—is directly reflected in the carnage Bateman generates in the movie. Bateman is selective and deliberate at first, but the murder spree in American Psycho intensifies for ever more minor motives.
This exactly matches the callous corporate violence Bateman performs daily on Wall Street out of whimsy. To show off in the boardroom, he makes decisions that bring others financial disaster. American Psycho clarified that its violence captures sharply spiraling ambition. Bateman's bloodlust is as ravenous as those of his associates driven by profit.
Key evidence for this is Bateman's murder of fellow investment banker Paul Allen. Bateman's willingness to advance by killing his colleagues is best shown by this murder. By his actions, he proves the apathy people in his social circles experience toward such degree of violence.
Less clear is that American Psycho is really about Patrick Bateman acquiring rather than losing his moral clarity. Bateman's hold on his double life starts to fall apart after killing Paul Allen as the layer separating his two personas starts to slinkers.
American Psycho ends with Bateman trying to make others answerable for his deeds since he seems to be totally consumed. The narrative of the movie centers Bateman as he starts to understand the person he has evolved into.
His life starts to collapse when he can no longer hide the casual violence of his hidden character. Given none of his colleagues seem to care, underlining the issue of corporate callousness becomes even more important.
The bodies vanishing from Paul Allen's American Psycho apartment explained that, even as Patrick tries to come clean, the environment he lives in doesn't give a damn about his activities. Bateman gets his senses while the world stays blind to its own corruption and avarice.
The film's ending is meant to be quite vague. If American Psycho wasn't, after all, then its hidden meaning wouldn't be such a hot topic for discussion. But Bateman's intentions are what are meant to be questioned, not his actions.
One of the reasons American Psycho improves upon rewatching is that the finer elements point to a far more satisfying conclusion: the uncertainty of the ending is exactly the point.
Patrick Bateman is an unreliable narrator, as American Psycho clarified, thus one can easily believe that the murders never happened. Rather, the ending should challenge why no one else is addressing Bateman's provocative remarks, so highlighting its true uncertainty.
Bateman's friends and colleagues' unwillingness to accept his admission of guilt as serious is proof that they are all as unreliable as he is and that all of American Psycho's characters are every bit as guilty as Bateman.
The popularity of American Psycho begs issues about whether Patrick Bateman's character truly stoked extremism—a topic of frequent debate when a film deftly explores morality via violence.
American Psycho came out back in 2000, and it's interesting how decades later films like the divisive 2010s movie Joker still have to address the same problems (and reject the same criticism).
Like Joker director Todd Phillips, American Psycho director Mary Harron has had to deal with not only the contentious audience and critical reception but also the possibility that misreading of the movie could be supporting anti-social movements and ideas. Harron clarified (via Vulture) why Bateman and the Joker, both very violent psychopaths, are so powerful since they inevitably make viewers uncomfortable.
" Even though I think the movie is pretty clear — this guy is psycho — you’ve followed him through his vulnerability and his being humiliated and neglected and used by the world and the people around him," Harron said. And there is a component where you are relating to him. As movies are and do, the same dialogue occurs repeatedly every so often over a film that is upsetting or disturbing. Then everything slows down. It's insane to me that everyone speaks of American Psycho in such respectful terms."
Although American Psycho and related films like Joker and Fight Club expose masculine toxicity, it's clear they unintentionally encourage similar anti-social elements in society. American Psycho sadly seems to have explained Patrick Bateman's psychotic nihilism as endearing by some very lost people — an aspiration rather than a warning.
That said, the social criticisms of American Psycho serve the same purpose as the debate on Joker and Fight Club, which really helped boost these films.
Although the legendary reputation of these films is well-earned, especially considering how closely their respective controversies expose how profoundly they appeal to human nature, it's still important to look at how profoundly these very powerful cultural products might affect people's behavior and viewpoint. Maybe next films like American Psycho should include a clear disclaimer stating it's a critique of the shown behaviors rather than an endorsement. Though Patrick Batman has encouraged actual extremism, the blame does not rest with director Mary Harron or the film itself since no movie causes real-life violence.
American Psycho clarified some of Bateman's most depraved beliefs and behaviors, but what does Christian Bale consider of his responsibility as the iconic character?
Bale sat down with GQ and went over some of his most prolific acting parts when Patrick Bateman came up. Bale spent some time on Wall Street at the NYC stock exchange to get ready for the post and got to see what it was like on the trading floor. He spoke with the men American Psycho was meant to be depicting, and some of their remarks proved concerning.
Bale said: " [...] but the guys on the trading floor, when I arrived there before making the film, I got there and a bunch of 'em, they were going 'oh yeah, we love Patrick Bateman." And I was like, "yes, ironically, right?" and they were like, "what do you mean?"
The comments of these people are definitely alarming. Patrick Bateman was never meant to be a sympathetic character; American Psycho was meant to expose poisonous masculinity. Bateman's character shows that there is a more general issue under the surface since those in positions of wealth and power could relate and even "love" his character. At least The Dark Knight actor knows what Patrick Bateman from American Psycho was meant to represent, even if the people on the trading floor Bale met might find something positive in Bateman's character.
The American Psycho book and film differed in a number of ways, some of which altered the meaning of the work. The murders in the film mostly limited Patrick Bateman's personal life and the business sector.
Bateman kills more mercilessly in the book, though, and he will frequently murder people unrelated to his own isolation or corporate avarice. He murders a man that strikes on him in Central Park at one point in the book. Along with killing the man for his sexuality, he kills his dog as well.
Changing the American Psycho significance to something even darker, he killed over 50 in the book and 23 people in the movie. The book features one unsettling scenario in which a small child is killed in a zoo. Bateman slices the young lad's neck in the book, savoring the instant. Later on, though, he regrets it and believes he killed someone with no actual faults to cover. This made him seem as someone killing someone who deserved it, and it demonstrated that he broke that whole ethos when he came to regret a kill.
There was a little-seen American Psycho sequel that arrived in 2002, just two years after the first movie was a huge success. The second movie was a cash grab, as it went straight to video, had nothing to do with Patrick Bateman, and was denounced by author Bret Easton Ellis. It starred Mila Kunis as the new killer, and while the movie referenced Patrick Bateman, it mostly has been forgotten over time. Mila Kunis even seems embarrassed by the movie and has since ridiculed it.
Kunis said: “When I did the second one, I didn't know it would be American Psycho II. It was supposed to be a different project, and it was re-edited, but, ooh ... I don't know. Bad.”
This clearly means that Mila Kunis was making a standalone thriller movie, and the producers decided to throw the American Psycho name on it and advertise it as a sequel — after the fact. So, what does this mean for Patrick Bateman? This movie destroys the ambiguous ending of the first American Psycho and says that Patrick Bateman was a serial killer all along.
In a flashback scene, Patrick Bateman kills the babysitter of Kunis's character and dissects her corpse. Kunis's character escapes and grows up to be a serial killer, too. This moment actually harms Patrick Bateman's character. He killed people based on the yuppie business-centric storylines from that first movie. This shows he was just a basic serial killer who even targeted babysitters, which is not what Bateman was about.
Sadly, Lionsgate said that the movie is an officially licensed sequel, so that makes this canon, and it also completely ruins American Psycho's ending and the character arc of its killer, Patrick Bateman.