Here's a quote from screenwriter/actress Guinevere Turner from a 2000 magazine interview:

"When we wrote the script, we wanted it to be absolutely clear that he is actually killing people...and that's not what people are coming away with. They think it's all a dream, or all a fantasy. I was doing a roundtable discussion with a bunch of journalists, and this guy's first question was, 'So did he do it or didn't he?' And I said he was really doing it, so he turns to the woman next to him and says, 'See?'"

But I think the one of the best aspects of the movie is that it inspires this sort of "lady or the tiger" speculation so many years after its release.

It had to be real, they said so in American Psycho 2!

This is it. I thought this when I first saw it, The irony is that he is crazy, and he's the only one paying attention to anyone. Everyone else is very superficial. Then the Spec. ed. came out and the director confirms it. I felt smart that day

He means PAUL ALLEN. Anyhow, to RT, your second post is insane - earlier this year my sister watched American Psycho for a film class - it's now one of her favourite movies - EVER.

Yeah, all the interviews I've read with the director and writer confirm that (aside form the fantasy sequence in the middle; ATM, exploding cop car...) everything actually happened and he really did kill all those people, but no one really notices or cares because they're too wrapped up in their own selves.

The fantasy sequence is arguably the place where the writer and director "screwed up" (if you want to call it that) in making it clear to the audience that he was actually killing people. It throws doubt into what's actually real for almost the entire movie ("Hey, no one could possibly have that great of an aim with a chainsaw; I guess that was a fantasy too").

The other problem is that the scenes that the writer and director thought were incontrovertible "proof" that the killings were real could be interpreted in the completely opposite way: The real estate agent's reaction to Bateman suggests something did happen in the apartment, but the fact that it's completely clean could lead viewers to think otherwise. Chloe finding the sketches could be interpreted as proof of the crimes, or just how everything was a product of his imagination.

Personally, I always liked the slight ambiguity of it and thought it was intentional. Hearing the writer and director state that, yes, it did all happen, kinda disappointed me. In a weird way, their failure to make it completely clear made the film more interesting, imo.

Zing!

That has to be one of my favorite scenes in the film.

I know the film's supposed to be a satire and Bateman really committed the murders...but I think it's more interesting if you think he didn't. During the director's commentary (when she confirmed that he didn't, even though the film's somewhat ambiguous about it), I was all, "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!".

I confess I never listened to the commentary track.

I can tell you this for sure... If the director intended it to be clear that he was actually killing people she kind of sucks as a director, and the movie isn't nearly as good that way. As compared to what the film is for a person who sees clearly the murders are all fantasy.

The killings are all fantasy and it's a really good movie, surprising in it's subtlety for a movie of that type.

The killings are real and it's rather stupid in it's own self-opposition and contradictions, and quite a few scenes become outright stupid. It also fails as a satire above only the most basic levels, a few steps above a 'Mad TV' skit maybe.

The 'chainsaw kill' becomes an amateurish 'like wow that was a cool kill' moment out of a freaking B horror movie, for one example, when he is actually killing people.

Luckily art is about perception and reception, not about intention and motivation. I see a very good movie when I watch it. Not some form of 'did you see that chainsaw kill?' B movie that's trying to be clever.

I had thought I read somewhere that Ellis said the killings were all in Bateman's head.

Personally, I have no problem with either explanation. If he wasn't doing it I love that he had this vivid imagination that was unbeknownst to his faceless co-workers. If he was doing it I love how everyone is so absorbed in their own self-interests that they barely notice people are dying all around them. I think it's a fantastic film and it's my favorite performance from Bale.

But see, if everything was in Bateman's head, then the thesis that drives the movie (everyone being too wrapped up in their own shit to notice or care about anything else) gets too muddled, if not entirely lost.

This.

That segment, yes, but not everything. Of course that part of the movie, including the ATM asking him to feed it a cat, is imaginary, but that doesn't mean everything else is.

Let's see how the upcoming musical will interpret the material!

Here's hoping they include the hungry rat in the vagina scene from the book!!

Personally, I think he did kill Paul Allen. The cop car/ATM sequence is clearly a fantasy. The hookers I can go either way on. I don't think the movie is as interesting if the Paul Allen killing is in his head. There's no tension if every single one of the killings is imaginary. If some were real and some imagined, it gives a different level to the movie entirely, imo.

And the little boy being stabbed too!

I'd suggest you watch The Rules of Attraction. Also written by Bret Easton Ellis and is about similar social/relationship themes, but set in a College.

The main character in Rules of Attraction is Patrick Bateman's younger brother. There's a scene in the film where the main character gets a phone call, and when he picks it up, he asks, "Patrick?"

There is an idea of a patrick bateman but in the end its still just an idea. he says this at the begining of the flim when he peels off the mask. HE IS NOT REAL!!! "I think therefore i am" patrick bateman doesnt even think that there is a patrick bateman. think about it haha

wow, thanks for clearing that up for me!

Ok, I've not seen this flick in a couple years. Time to break it back out.

I just got the book from Hastings yesterday. Can't wait to read it. Reading Rules right now.

Dr Mabuse summed it up pretty well, at least for how I see the film.

I think that American Psycho is similar to Blade Runner The Final Cut. There's 2 different endings depending on how you want to see it.

One way, is that he's so insecure and petty that he dreams up the sick fantasies.

The other is that he did do it, and yet, even he is amazed at how the world reacts to it. He wants people to know how he really is and he leaves behind plenty of hints but they don't pick up on it. When he finally confesses he still doesn't get what he wants. It only confuses him more to realize that the world is as crazy as he is, like when he finds out that the realtor covered up the crime just to sell the apartment or when his lawyer covers for him.

When I first saw the movie I was really disappointed and hated it. I thought it was going to be a supspense thriller. Some other people I know felt the same way. I think it's because the strane things that happen are done very subtle. You start to appreciate those little things with repeated viewings. The whole whole initial Kimble meeting is really great.