A Psychotic Novel

An Interpretation of the Novel American Psycho by Brett Easton Ellis.

Most fans of the horror genre have seen American Psycho. For me, when it was released for home viewing I raced to Blockbuster with a note from my parents conceding to let me rent the VHS. I brought it home and probably watched it ten times over the weekend before I needed to return it. I got to school Monday morning with the skinny for everyone else on a movie that nobody else's parents would let them see. For once, I was the cool kid. Then, shortly thereafter I entered an interesting phase in my life and became obsessed with reading. I might thank Stephen King with his short stories where I discovered his written version of "Children of the Corn". I think I read "The Shining" in about five days and discovered a very wide creative spectrum from King's writing to Kubrick's directing. I learned that if one was to get the full story about a tale of fiction, if there was a novel preceding the film, you might want to start with the version on paper. To get a full view of the story of Jack Torrence and his time at The Overlook hotel, I needed to start with a study of Torrence as his creator described what happened. The film, of course, is iconic. It bases the breakdown of it's main antagonist from the isolation he experiences while caring for a haunted hotel in the Colorado Rockies. He sees ghosts, cabin fever sets in, his wife finds his novel in the iconic scene that takes the film from a calm atmosphere to a tense and horrific lock in with a maniac. Then comes the end with the close-up of a picture taken at a New Years Eve Ball in 1902 and there, standing in front of the crowd is Jack Torrence. He was always there, just as Lloyd the bartender had mentioned at the bar. After the film, the book had never become so popular. For some, it was just something to have to solidify their collection, but to others the novel was a case-study. There are many differences between the novel and the movie; differences that King criticized Kubrick for when asked because he believed that it took from the intended character development that could have explained more to the audience and not appeared so "cheap and minimalistic". It is a great unsung debate between artists that to this day resonates with fans. Some like the book, some like the movie. As a person who tends to wonder if we can all just get along I reached the opinion that the book explains the movie. A fantastic example of this is "American Psycho". It leaves the reader, as well as the viewer in a state of confusion at the end...and if you don't want the story spoiled, I suggest you just turn away now. At the end of the film, as well as the novel we find that Patrick Bateman has done nothing wrong at all, it was all in his head and every terrible thing that he thinks he spent his time doing never happened. Bateman is a sociopath, desensitized by his privileged life in modern urban America. He works for his father's firm and is one of the top ranked in the company. He describes himself as "an idea" and through this mindset, a different and far simpler reason for his madness arises. He is schizophrenic and emotionless making him a vessel of evil thus completing the circle that is "the idea of Patrick Bateman". The differences between the novel and the film here seem really to only exist because of how graphic and disturbing Ellis' work is. If you replaced the film's script with the book, even an NC-17 rating would be hard to come by. In the end though we find ourselves struggling with the question, "what was the point of all of it then?", and maybe even accepting that in the end it was all just in his crazy, coked out head. Then another movie came out, "American Psycho 2". As a society, we dismissed it as a folly of the film industry. It wasn't very well received by critics and it didn't exactly break any box-office records. But, if you look closely, it explains literally everything. In the first movie we meet Paul Allen, (in the book his name is Paul Owen) who frequently mistakes Patrick Bateman for someone else who works there, Marcus Halberstram. Not a noticeable situation unless you go back to the movie, take a good look at the two seconds Halberstram is on camera and then flip over to the sequel where "Patrick Bateman" gets an equal amount of screen time in the form of a picture on the local news. In the picture, it's Halberstram.

So, what is my explanation for American Psycho? Bateman is obsessed with Halberstram. He begins to stalk him and witnesses him commit horrible acts of violence including murdering Paul Allen (Owen). Due to Bateman's schizophrenia coupled with the traumatic things he witnesses Halberstram doing, he begins to believe that he, himself is committing all of these atrocities. In the end we find that Paul Allen isn't dead at all and that Patrick is just having a mental breakdown and had been having one the entire time since the board meeting with the "business card incident". In other words, it was all a dream. Now, this is only a fan theory of mine and leaves open several other questions and topics more than up for debate. Most people look at me funny for even bringing it up, but then I thought, "hey, it's something to write about".