American Psycho

[Leigha]

So, a friend of mine was surprised to hear that I had never seen the movie, American Psycho.''Omg, you have to see it; it's a cult classic!'' he said. For those who are unaware, it's a film about a Wallstreet investment banker named Patrick Bateman, who is a serial killer at night. The movie takes place in the 80's, and is based on a book with the same name. So, I decided to watch it over the weekend.

At first, I found the film to be cold, creepy...then, violent and sad. Yet, it flowed like a parody. I got to thinking...is it meant to be a dark comedy? 

Christian Bale's performance is quite brilliant, in the role of Bateman. But, I found myself wanting to feel sorry for the villain...as everyone tends to have a backstory, and reading between the lines, it sounds like his father may have been the reason for his psychotic thoughts. His father owned the company in which Bateman worked, and his obsessive, compulsive behaviors, almost anal and perfectionist, probably were stemming from childhood. (I wonder if the book fleshes out this aspect of the character.)

Okay, as the film plods on, Bateman's antics start to become ridiculous. His thoughts, actions and conversations are not at all believable. So, I look up a few recent reviews from critics, and basically...Bateman imagined all of the killings. What? He didn't kill anyone, nor did any of the violence depicted in the film, really happen. I suppose that's a relief, but it didn't exactly spell it out for the viewer. I had to watch the ending a second time to ultimately catch it.

But, the killings are actually carried out in the book, supposedly. 

Have you seen this? What was your take on it? Is it appropriate to bring comedy, even if it's dark, into topics like sexual assault, murder, and psychopathy? In reading a few feminist reviews of the movie, they believe it was a great depiction of ''toxic masculinity,'' misogyny, and what corporate culture was like before #metoo.

Interesting.

I'm torn, because on the one hand, it's art. Do you believe that ''anything goes'' when it comes to art and fictional writing? I don't think that the film did a thorough enough job of explaining why Bateman is a psychopath with anti-social disorder, and that would have been helpful. I think that was my main problem with it. That, and the scene where he's running down his apartment hall, naked...holding a chainsaw, chasing a prostitute that he had hired. And no one in the building woke up, so that's when I was like...hmm, is this really happening? lol

But, in the end, we are still left with the gross, violent images that were part of Bateman's everyday thought process. Perhaps, that is what the director's desire was with this film - to make viewers feel uncomfortable to laugh at its absurdity, because in such a violent world as the one we live in - someone is actually thinking those things. Even carrying them out. And that's not funny at all.

[C C]

. . . Okay, as the film plods on, Bateman's antics start to become ridiculous. His thoughts, actions and conversations are not at all believable. So, I look up a few recent reviews from critics, and basically...Bateman imagined all of the killings. What? He didn't kill anyone, nor did any of the violence depicted in the film, really happen. I suppose that's a relief, but it didn't exactly spell it out for the viewer. I had to watch the ending a second time to ultimately catch it.

But, the killings are actually carried out in the book, supposedly. 

Ellis, the author, supposedly said in an interview that Bateman was portrayed as an unreliable narrator in the book -- so much so that even he (Ellis) didn't know whether Bateman was describing real events, or lying or hallucinating. But the film did not convey that as satisfactorily (until the end, apparently).

Have you seen this? What was your take on it? Is it appropriate to bring comedy, even if it's dark, into topics like sexual assault, murder, and psychopathy? [...] I'm torn, because on the one hand, it's art. Do you believe that ''anything goes'' when it comes to art and fictional writing? I don't think that the film did a thorough enough job of explaining why Bateman is a psychopath with anti-social disorder, and that would have been helpful. I think that was my main problem with it. That, and the scene where he's running down his apartment hall, naked...holding a chainsaw, chasing a prostitute that he had hired. And no one in the building woke up, so that's when I was like...hmm, is this really happening? lol

I've never seen it. Natural Born Killers is an earlier one that comes to mind, that even a conservative talk-show host once excused because he thought it was funny. But it probably wasn't as explicit and realistic with the FX. (I only watched part of it once -- actually found it boring more than either hilarious or appalling, though much to do to with the sadistic, sophomoric characters having no appeal.)

There are so many "uncensored" television shows made since then (2000 for AP) which cavort in elements of malevolent humor and shock-value type parody, that it's akin to being a norm now in entertainment, for better or worse. Whatever is incoherent and left puzzling about them (we'll call those the surreal aspects) probably assists their creators wanting to blunt the venom in them and avoid viewers and critics from evaluating them with overly sober standards.

Dexter was a tad more on the serious/civilized side and probably wasn't as graphic back in its heyday as today's examples, like say, Preacher or American Horror Story. But I guess the surreal and tongue-in-cheek nature of them does somehow alleviate scenes and behavior which would have absolutely horrified and disgusted an average audience viewing such back in most decades of the 20th-century. Anyway, they don't generate the degree of outrage and controversy that the original "Last House on the Left" did back in the '70s -- a "brutal" cheap, clumsy, and offensive for that day film that would be tame compared to programming on the mere flat home screen today.

But, in the end, we are still left with the gross, violent images that were part of Bateman's everyday thought process. Perhaps, that is what the director's desire was with this film - to make viewers feel uncomfortable to laugh at its absurdity, because in such a violent world as the one we live in - someone is actually thinking those things. Even carrying them out. And that's not funny at all.

There may be horror and gruesome-crime genre writers of fiction that have similar "day-dreaming" episodes through a day -- though vicariously performing evil deeds as other characters rather than themselves. Whereas imagination seems to be enough to appease their dark inventiveness, simulated reality is insufficient for those that go homicidal. Bizarrely, pathological serial killers might actually belong to the majority of people in purely that limited sense, as the latter aren't much content with merely dreaming about their interests, either. Whether it's visiting exotic travel spots, having a lover, acquiring a collection of vintage automobiles, or owning a residence beside the lake.

[Leigha]

Ah, Dexter! That is a great series, and while quirky at times, it definitely felt creepy and sinister. This movie felt like a dark comedy that wasn't summarized correctly. lol (Netflix's lead in to describe it ,is very misleading) I was half-expecting a Dexter-esque type plot, but as the film carried on, it definitely felt like I was watching a lopsided comedy built around an exaggerated depiction of corporate America, masculinity, and capitalism. (those were the comical parts) Dexter on the other hand, offers a crafty look into a psychopathic mind, without it slipping into the ''Slasher'' genre. Obviously, two very different film styles, so maybe comparing them is pointless.

The violence against women in American Psycho, even the bits that were ''supposed'' to be funny, wasn't. I don't find violence against anyone, funny. That's just me. Interestingly, what I found the most intriguing about the movie is how Bateman carried himself  - always seeking attention, always needing to ''be seen.'' But, the irony was that his coworkers and acquaintances could never get his name right. He was called by other names, to the point that Bateman didn't correct them. His identity seemed at times, non-existent. Here is a guy desperately looking to be the center of attention (a classic narcissistic trait, not necessarily a psychopath's) and hardly anyone could remember his name. He would watch porn, but only to study it. He would dine in fancy restaurants, but never eat. He would share trivial knowledge about various music artists, but never really seemed to listen to the music, himself. This was all in an attempt to appear cool and ''fit in,'' but he never quite did. His chiseled good looks didn't seem to help him much either, as his demeanor seemed awkward and uncomfortable.

Reminds me of the book, The Psychopath Next Door. Most psychopaths aren't violent, and are nothing like Bateman.

All in all, I can see why this film has been tagged a ''cult classic,'' but Dexter is better.