FAQ for
American Psycho (2000) More at IMDbPro »

In part, yes. The main character, Patrick Bateman, has appeared in numerous novels by Ellis, including "The Rules of Attraction," which was made into a feature film in 2002 by director Roger Avary. Avary initially had Christian Bale set up to do a cameo in the film (as he makes a brief appearance in the book), but plans fell through. As such, the only real link between the two films is the fact that the main character of "Rules of Attraction" is still supposed to be Patrick's brother, and there is a brief reference in the dialogue of the movie.

Yes. Bale's father married Gloria Steinem in 2000. She was very active in protesting the novel by Bret Easton Ellis, and was at the forefront of the movement to keep the book from being published. In an interview for "GQ" in 2007, Bale was asked whether he intentionally took on the role in the film due to resentment against his stepmother. He said that this was not the case, and that people only find these links between his career and personal life because they want to.

Part of the promotion for this movie featured a series of emails approved by the creators of the movie that supposedly took place between Patrick Bateman and his therapist that could be requested by fans. Said emails offer an insight into the mind of the movie's protagonist. Those emails are collected here:

http://www.briankotek.com/psycho/movie/am2000.cfm

Yes. There are two instances in which animals are involved. The first is a dog owned by a homeless man, Al, who is stomped on, although the dog itself is off-camera. The second one is near the end, when an ATM requests that Bateman feed a stray cat to it. Bateman picks up a cat and lifts it up to the ATM slot before pointing his pistol at its head, although he is stopped by a nice old woman before he does any harm. He shoots the old lady and releases the cat.

While discussing the music of the pop band Genesis, Patrick Bateman undresses and makes sexual demands of the two prostitutes. He then has sex with them.

The scene cuts, and we see Bateman opening a drawer containing a number of sharp metal items. He pulls out a coathanger and tells the prostitutes they can not go yet.

The scene cuts again, and Sabrina and Christie are shown walking out of Bateman's apartment, limping, bruised and bleeding. Bateman gives them money, and they leave.

As for what happens between these cuts:

It is left to the imagination of the audience. The book too omits what Patrick does to them specifically which means the director didn't leave out anything as many people believe.

The answer remains still ambiguous,

Bret Easton Ellis, the author of the original book, argues that if none of the murders actually happened, that the entire point of the novel would be rendered moot. He has stated that the novel was intended to satirize the shallow, impersonal mindset of yuppie America in the late 1980s.

However in a interview in The Guardian in 2001 and later in his last book Lunar Park, Bret Easton Ellis stated the murders were only dreams.

Director Mary Harron (in a Charlie Rose interview) stated that she failed with the end because she led audiences to believe the murders were only dreams although she tried to be as ambiguous as the book was.

Some would say that the novel on which this movie is based, written by Brent Easton Ellis, does or does not make the "actual" events of the movie (that is, whether or not the murders were real or not real) much clearer. This is definitely open for interpretation, but there are some problems with trying to understand a movie by searching for clues in the novel on which it is based.

First of all, the novel is not the movie, and the movie is not the novel. They are more or less the same story, but one is based on the other; the movie is not every scene and event in the novel played out word-for-word and action-for-action on the screen. When a novel is adapted for the screen, a screenwriter and the director (and, to some extent, the actors) will completely re-write and sometimes re-interpret the events and themes of the original source. In other words, even if it was Bret Easton Ellis's intent that the murders were imaginary in the novel, in the movie--created more or less completely without Ellis's supervision by the screenwriter, director, and actors--the intent may very well be that the murders are real.

Second, deciding that the novel will make the movie clearer is just bad business. Producers don't make money on movies that require the reading of a novel to understand them. Movies are compact, stories by themselves; those movies that necessitate the witness of story elements from other movies or other story-based mediums will probably not be financially successful.

Harron's declarations in the charlie rose interview were clear : she failed with the end because she let the audience to believe the murders were just dreams although she wanted the movie to be as ambiguous as the book was. She never stated the murders were real, however, it's clear that her declaration can be source of confusion.

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2000/04/13/2/a-conversation-about-american-psycho

The answers given are one individuals interpretation and opinion of the movie and should not be taken as facts.

When Bateman says vile or controversial things, why don't people seem to notice? Doesn't this indicate that such lines are in his head?

Most of the dialogue that Bateman speaks that indicates violent desires and intentions are, in fact, ignored by the characters that they are directed toward. Now this could very well indicate that such rantings are in Bateman's head, but they could also go to reinforce the idea that nobody in Bateman's world is really paying attention to those around them.

Examples include:

At a nightclub early in the movie, Bateman snaps at a bartender, saying "You're a fucking ugly bitch. I want to stab you to death, and play around with your blood." The fact that she doesn't give him a large reaction could be because she can't hear him correctly (it is, after all, a club, meaning the environment is full of noise). Given that the bartender is a young woman in New York City working at a club where some of the richest snobs in the city frequent, she is probably used to hearing much worse and has learned to tune out comments like that. Additionally, close inspection to the scene does show a slight, possible reaction, seen in her facial expression. Either way, why would someone in her position, after hearing that comment, immediately call the police and inform them that she just served a serial killer?

Later, when Bateman is dining with Paul Allen, he tells him "I like to dissect girls. Did you know I'm utterly insane?" In this case, Allen does apparently hear him, but he's drunk and seems to assume that Bateman is joking. Again, why would someone in his position immediately call the police and tell them that he's having dinner with a serial killer?

In reality, when people like Bateman make such comments, people do not immediately inform the local authorities. Serial killers are rare to begin with, and most people would prefer not to believe that they are in the presence of one. Add to this human tendency the fact that Bateman lives in a world of wealth and perceived perfection, chances are that even someone who witnessed one of his murders might just pretend they didn't.

Not all of Bateman's threats and comments go ignored or misheard, either. When he tells the Korean woman at the drycleaners "If you don't shut your mouth, I will fucking kill you," she clearly does hear him and reacts in shock and disbelief. Additionally, when Christie witnesses Bateman actually killing a woman, she also reacts and flees for her life, only to get killed by a dropped chainsaw.

Using explicit violence as a means of gaining attention is a strong theme presented within this film, so Bateman may possibly have specifically chosen the situations (and those involved) where he would say such things. This way, not only could he admit to his acts, but also not have to deal with any true reciprocation.

Bateman often draws or sketches events from his murders; isn't this an indication that Bateman is imagining things?

If Patrick Bateman is a serial killer, well serial killers have been known to draw and sketch events from their own atrocities. Either way, it supports just how disturbed this man is on the inside.

Surely the scene when the ATM prints "Feed Me a Stray Cat" was an hallucination, and we all know that police cars don't explode when shot with a handgun. Isn't this an indication that ALL of the murders are imaginary?

Well, like most of the movie, this is left to the audience's interpretation.

Yes, few would contest that the ATM's request to be fed a stray cat was an hallucination. There is not much to say about that.

He is caught in the act by an old woman, whom he shoots. He looks around and makes a run for it, only to be blocked by the cops (it is probable that the police witnessed the shooting). After some gunfire, Bateman shoots a cop, then shoots the car, which then causes a massive explosion. He looks at his gun in disbelief, and runs further, into a building. A doorman calls him Mr. Smith and asks him to sign in, and Bateman shoots the doorman and runs. A cleaning man is seen entering the hall, Bateman circles back through a revolving door, and shoots him too. He then runs into another building with another doorman, and he signs in and goes up the elevator. From an office, he sees a spotlight coming in through the window and hears a helicopter. This prompts him to call his lawyer and confess as many of his murders as he can remember.

This is an important scene in terms of the plot in that Bateman's homicidal impulses have gotten so out of control that even he can't believe he's getting away with his crimes. Probably feeling like he has absolutely no other option--he does, after all, have the police actively looking for him this time, hence the helicopter and spotlight--he confesses his crimes.

The call itself can go either way, independently of whether the actual crimes are believed to be a fantasy. In Bateman's superficial high-class society, the fact that even his open confession to many, horrible murders is ignored could be another useful plot device used to reinforce the idea of being lost in such a world as that of Bateman's.

Many disputes come into place in reference to the police cars exploding, as it has been demonstrated repeatedly and to a wide audience that a bullet hitting a car's gas tank cannot cause it to explode in flames. Therefore, this is most likely a hallucinatory scene and the fact that it immediately follows the ATM scene gives this argument some weight, as does Bateman's look of disbelief. It is possible that this is used as a form of satire similar to such scenes in various episodes of The Simpsons in which unlikely objects burst into flame and explosion upon crashing, such as a little red wagon or a bicycle. Still, Bateman's shocked look could also very possibly indicate that his fantasies have run so askew that even he is becoming dettached.[/i]

Why was Paul Allen's apartment empty at the end?

Near the end of the film, Patrick Bateman stops by Paul Allen's apartment wearing a painter's mask. When he arrives, the apartment is empty, cleaned out of all possessions and the gruesome mess seen when last we saw the place has vanished. He is approached by an older woman, probably a real estate agent, who inquires if he saw the advertisement in the New York Times. Patrick says no at first, then says yes. She responds by telling him there was no ad in the Times, and that he should go, stating that she doesn't want trouble.

This appears to be the smoking gun for some people, proving that Bateman imagined the murders. However, it is possible that this scene took place some time after the alleged murder of Paul Allen.

The movie, in certain instances, does jump through time in a certain fashion, with each scene giving cues approximating how much time has passed. For example, during the scene at the Christmas Party, in which Bateman meets with Paul Allen (who keeps calling him "Halberstram"), they talk about getting together sometime. The scene immediately following this is when Bateman and Allen meet for dinner, the night Bateman kills him. Time jumped forward, and only a few cues are given to indicate this. It is probable that director Mary Harron felt the fact that the apartment was cleaned out might indicate, by itself, that time had moved forward more than just one day.

As for why the apartment could be clean, in believing that Bateman did in fact kill Paul: the realtor seen at the apartment, working with her company, could have decided that after a period of time had passed with no rent being paid on the apartment and nobody being able to directly reach Paul Allen (he would be, after all, dead), it was time to check things out. They would find the gorey mess and, rather than call the police--which would seriously devalue a prime piece of real estate--they could have cleaned things up themselves and removed Allen's possessions, possibly with or without the knowledge of his family. This is could be why the woman at the apartment told Bateman to leave, adding that they didn't want trouble--she probably suspected he had something to do with the bodies, and made a silent agreement of I can keep a secret if you can.

Why does Bateman's lawyer claim that Paul Allen cannot be dead, because he (the lawyer) just had lunch with him twice in London just last week?

One of the running themes in this movie is that of mistaken identity. Everyone looks like everyone else; they all dress in the same upper-class fashions, listen to the same popular music, have similar jobs, go to the same clubs and hairstylists, etc. They literally cannot tell each other apart. This is why Paul Allen referred to McDermott as "Baxter" and kept calling Bateman "Halberstram." This is also why Bateman's lawyer referred to him as "Davies," called Patrick Bateman a "dork" right to his face in third person, and could be the only reason he believed to have had lunch with Paul Allen.

There is a possiblility that Bateman's lawyer had lunch with someone he thought was Paul Allen but was, in reality, someone else, another carbon-copy clone of the 80's upper-class culture.

Remember, after Bateman allegedly kills Allen, he disposes of the body and goes to Allen's apartment, using the key he took from Allen's body. He packs up a few things, then leaves a message on Allen's answering machine that Allen had been called away to London for a few days. Chances are that, for weeks or months, people called Allen's phone and received that same message. This is reinforced later when Detective Donald Kimball visits Bateman in his office, shortly after Allen's murder:

---

Bateman: Do you have any witnesses or fingerprints?

Kimball: Well, theres a message on his - answering machine? - that says he went to London.

Bateman: Maybe he did, huh?

Kimball: His girlfriend doesnt think so.

Bateman: But has anyone seen him in London?

Kimball: Actually, yes.

Bateman: Hm.

Kimball: But Ive had a hard time getting actual verification. A Stephen Hughes said he saw him at a restaurant there, but I checked it out and what happened is he mistook a Herbert Ainsworth for Paul, so...

---

This might also be why Bateman's lawyer specifically mentioned that he had lunch with Paul while in London--he might have believed that Paul Allen was in London, went there for business or something, ran into someone he thought was Paul Allen, and had lunch with him twice.

It is also possible from the knowing look the lawyer gives to Bateman that he was covering for him by saying he'd had lunch with him twice, because if any police lead back to Patrick, the lawyer could play an eye witness to say Allen had been in London.

Either way, the phone message is a confusing event. Had this all been a fantasy, did Bateman just imagine himself leaving that message? Did Bateman just steal Paul Allen's keys while he was drunk and leave that message in accordance with hearing Paul Allen was in fact leaving for London? This could be considering that Bateman was extremely concerned with Paul's apartment, being very competitive when it came to material and financial possession. Bateman's mind may have interperted this as a means to pretend that he had killed Paul Allen, a sort of sick way of satisfying Bateman's horrible, yet purely delusional thirst for blood.

Before hitting the cinemas in the USA, "American Psycho" had to be cut down slightly. The reason, like many times before and after, was a sex scene too explicit for the R-Rating. When the DVD hit the stores a few months later, two different versions were released: The slightly censored theatrical version (R-Rated) and the uncensored unrated version including the missing scenes. A detailed comparison between both versions can be found here.

All the songs in the film were obtained legally, however Huey Lewis was angry over the scene in which his song was used. 'Hip to Be Square' was used in the axe murdering scene, and he was unaware this scene would accompany his song. The movie featured a great soundtrack and the rest of songs with their corresponding scenes can be found here.