MovieChat Forums > American Psycho (2000) Discussion > Movie explained for the confused

Movie explained for the confused

posted 2 years ago by clickbait (193)
11 replies | jump to latest

It wasnt a dream but all in his head, sick fantasies if you like, everything we see him do are just drawings in his notebook that his secretary finds in the end when he breaks completely, he didnt kill Paul Allen cause he really was in London, the lawyer had met him twice, he didnt chase the girl with the chainsaw either because then the neighbours wouldve been opening their doors, he couldnt clean all that mess up in a real event and even when he dragged Paul Allens body out to the taxi there was blood on the floor and no one noticing, not even the doorman or one shotting cops etc because it was just all in his head of what he wanted to do but never did, in the end he became so crazy that he actually thought that he did everything that he was fantasizing about, but it was just in his mind and in his notebook.

[–] DancingintheDark (1609) 2 years ago

Given that people have been/are brutally murdered in broad day light, in a public, crowded setting and instead of helping people just pull out the phones and start filming, I feel that it is a very real possibility that at least some of it happened, sometimes, more often times than naught, people would rather not get involved.

[–] c64 (12) 2 years ago

DancingintheDark, how thought-provoking.

[–] sslssg (34211) 2 years ago

That is your interpretation.

The movie, and book, are left ambiguous. There isn't a "this is what actually happened" answer.

[–] DancingintheDark (1609) 2 years ago

Agreed, and I feel the ambiguity is one of the reasons that the book as well as the movie are held in such acclaim. Ellis isn’t holding our hands and walking us through the conclusion, wrapping everything up and spoon feeding us what we want or don’t want, he leaves us with questions and feelings and subjective interpretations that make for excellent discussion.

[–] janelsenor (2044) 2 years ago

The book is ambiguous.

The director stated the intent with the movie was that the murders were all real, albeit we're seeing it through Bateman's warped reality.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Nope, the director says it all happened.

[–] KaiMaster (902) 9 months ago

It would be one great twist if it was all in his head.

[–] spurtle467 (1546) 8 months ago

I agree I don't think it happened and was just imagined in Bateman's head, at least a large chunk of it was. Straight off the bat, the whole section from the card machine to the call to his lawyer was obviously a fantasy. The machine saying to feed it the stray cat is already a dead giveaway and he couldn't create that sort of mess and not face the repercussions. Similar to the killing of the prostitute with the chainsaw. He can't magically make all that go away. The only thing that could really remotely suggest some might be real, and probably why the director put it in here, is the reaction of the estate agent at Paul Allen's apartment. She seems a little too disturbed by Bateman's presence, like more than from his acting all paranoid and almost as if she's seen something or is aware of something. Doubtful she would have seen bodies or body parts but could have been something else.

[–] pepetoony (1744) 6 months ago

I believe Bateman really did kill Paul Allen and then went down a dark rabbit hole in his mind after that. If you pay attention, the streets of NYC look "normal" up until the point he kills Paul. They're populated with the hustle and bustle you'd expect in NYC. After Paul is murdered, the city streets become completely desolate and devoid of any city life which makes everything feel surreal. It's not until Patrick has his mental breakdown on the payphone with his assistant Jean towards the end of the movie that we again see "normal" NYC life resume in the background. This is when Patrick emerges from his mental rabbit hole IMO.

[–] liscarkat (18367) 3 months ago

Who's confused?

It's funny when people watch a movie, then make up their own story and act like it's definitive.

[–] Zarkoff (1853) 3 months ago

I thought the murders were real, but there clearly was some kind of cover up. Bateman starts killing people and storing bodies there after he kills Allen. When he goes back, the bodies are gone and the walls of Allen's apartment are freshly painted white and there's white paint still sitting in the closet. Whitewash. A little symbolism. When Bateman is hanging out with friends at the end of the movie, they are watching Reagan give a speech reacting to the Iran - Contra affair. Another hint, I think.

What really convinced me, though, is the weird reaction Bateman gets from the woman showing the apartment later and from his lawyer when he brings up Allen. They are both very cold, almost hostile, and it's pretty clear they don't want to talk about him. My guess, people thought Allen committed the murders and decided to cover it up.