I think it’s simpler than this: Christian Bale portrays Bateman as (1) confident and sure of himself and (2) fitting in perfectly with his culture, but secretly (3) hates his culture and yearns for something else and (4) harbors deeply antisocial desires that he believes would get him kicked out if others knew. Plus handsome like an angel and funny as shit. So: the way everyone WANTS to think of themselves.
That “want” is the important thing. We all think of ourselves as marginalized rebels, never as one bougie in a crowd.
I don’t think it really has anything to do with disaffected young men or anything like that. It’s a dude movie; there are plenty of chick flicks with unappealing main characters that girls nonetheless identify with. I think the important thing here is that nobody identifies with Patrick Bateman in the novel. They identify with Christian Bale in the movie.
I knew this movie escaped containment when a frat at my college made t-shirts for a party with a Warhol-esque Bateman image on the back. This was around 2006, so well before the rise of Twitter or any other meme marketplace we're familiar with today. Something about Bale's performance just draws people in and makes you relate to him in a half serious, half ironic hyperbole sort of way.
The discourse around this movie is fascinating. I was in college when it came out and we watched it a lot. Nobody identified with Patrick Bateman at the time, and we all recognized the movie as a critique of the 80s and consumerist America broadly. But 25 years ago might as well be a different planet. Things chance.
I agree there are some shocking scenes of violence, but someone pointed out to me a while ago that the violence is quick and that it isn't the violent *act* that's shown onscreen, but the violent *situation*. The revving of the chainsaw, the screaming, the chaos, the mess. It creates a feeling of shock/unease--but not the easily-dismissable grossout, where you can just look away and it's over.
Unlike a slasher movie, we don't really see blades on skin, or close-ups of people getting skewered, etc.
Not sure what to make of that, but it was an interesting observation.
The movie definitely feels more artful as time goes by. Delighted by the appreciation here and lowkey shocked at how old this movie became.
I think it’s simpler than this: Christian Bale portrays Bateman as (1) confident and sure of himself and (2) fitting in perfectly with his culture, but secretly (3) hates his culture and yearns for something else and (4) harbors deeply antisocial desires that he believes would get him kicked out if others knew. Plus handsome like an angel and funny as shit. So: the way everyone WANTS to think of themselves.
That “want” is the important thing. We all think of ourselves as marginalized rebels, never as one bougie in a crowd.
I don’t think it really has anything to do with disaffected young men or anything like that. It’s a dude movie; there are plenty of chick flicks with unappealing main characters that girls nonetheless identify with. I think the important thing here is that nobody identifies with Patrick Bateman in the novel. They identify with Christian Bale in the movie.
I knew this movie escaped containment when a frat at my college made t-shirts for a party with a Warhol-esque Bateman image on the back. This was around 2006, so well before the rise of Twitter or any other meme marketplace we're familiar with today. Something about Bale's performance just draws people in and makes you relate to him in a half serious, half ironic hyperbole sort of way.
The discourse around this movie is fascinating. I was in college when it came out and we watched it a lot. Nobody identified with Patrick Bateman at the time, and we all recognized the movie as a critique of the 80s and consumerist America broadly. But 25 years ago might as well be a different planet. Things chance.
Great write-up gentlemen.
I agree there are some shocking scenes of violence, but someone pointed out to me a while ago that the violence is quick and that it isn't the violent *act* that's shown onscreen, but the violent *situation*. The revving of the chainsaw, the screaming, the chaos, the mess. It creates a feeling of shock/unease--but not the easily-dismissable grossout, where you can just look away and it's over.
Unlike a slasher movie, we don't really see blades on skin, or close-ups of people getting skewered, etc.
Not sure what to make of that, but it was an interesting observation.
The movie definitely feels more artful as time goes by. Delighted by the appreciation here and lowkey shocked at how old this movie became.
I write my MA dissertation on the novel - was a blast.
the 'literally me' thing is pure ironic humor used by lone freaks online and is not reflective of empathy with an actual serial killer imo