American Psycho

[Josh]

I have a question for those of you who have read the book and seen the movie. My question is this, did Bateman really kill the people shown in both versions? This has left me puzzled as I am 2/3 through the book and have examined the movie on numerous occasions. Does anyone have any input on this?

[wr975]

I don't know if you want an answer to this question. If you don't want to spoil the book or movie, you should continue reading/watching.

SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS

Spoiler

I've only seen the movie but it's pretty clear Bateman killed no person. He's only day dreaming about it, that's why his "killing rampages" get wilder and wilder, yet he never has to deal with cleaning up the mess (like in "Sopranos" it's a major problem to get rid of corpses).

The second part of American Psycho (the movie) is just bad. It pretends Bateman actually killed people. Avoid at all costs.

[Josh]

You see, the thing is this, in the movie people confuse bateman for several different people (Davis, Halberstram, etc). This leads me to believe that he very well could have killed all the people, however, no one would recognize him due to the fact that they are always confusing him for other people. His own lawyer confused him for a guy named davis. Paul Allen (Owen in the book) confused him for halberstram. So, I think he could have killed the people and can probably get away with it due to the fact that everyone confuses him for other people. Heck, his own lawyer said he had dinner with owen/allen in london which leads me to believe he also confused the man he had dinner with for paul owen/allen.

[nosh]

I read the book years back so the details are very foggy but I was left with the impression that he did actually kill his victims. I just regarded the movie as a (disappointing) adaptation of the book so didn't give it much thought when I watched it.

[mwb1100]

I haven't read the book, yet, but here's my take on the movie...

But first a little bit of Roger Ebert's take:

All of the murders are equally real or unreal, and that isn't the point: The function of the murders is to make visible the frenzy of the territorial male when his will is frustrated. The movie gives shape and form to road rage, golf course rage, family abuse and some of the scarier behavior patterns of sports fans.

I think that while Ebert is right that an important point of the murder frenzy is to take to the extreme the various rage scenarios that we might see in everyday life, I believe that attempting to determine what's real or unreal is also an important point. One of the key aspects of the movie is that it leaves the true extent of Bateman's crimes ambiguous.  I think it's important for the viewer to try to figure out where the line of reality falls, and I'd be surprised if the director (Mary Harron) did not expect that.

I consider the movie to be outstanding (but it's definitely not something for everyone).  I particularly like the scenes with Dafoe and the shootout with the cops.  Bateman's reaction when the car explodes is worth the price of admission alone.

[nudone]

as i understand it, in the original novel, whether the murders are real or not is deliberately ambiguous. as is Bateman's sanity.

which means you may not wish to read the remainder of the novel. whoops.

so, it's entirely up to you whether he did or not.