Comparison between book and film “American Psycho”

director Maria Harron leafed through the blood-soaked pages of Bret Easton-Ellis‘ novel into the satirical, cinematic masterpiece, American Psychowhich is now available to stream on Netflix. As a companion film to this summer thriller, fans can look back to its source for gory entertainment and some much-needed goosebumps moments. The novel is actually much more cruel than the filmbut the film and the book work better in tandem than individually to provide thought-provoking entertainment. With the help of Christian Bales With a convincing (terrifying?) performance, Harron highlighted the comic nature of Patrick Bateman’s superficial, consumerist character. She turned the psychological book into a feminist satire on the excessive materialism of the 1980s. Unforgettable moments include the scene with the mythical business card and Bateman’s infamous morning routine.

In an interview with LondonReviewHarron gave insight into the method behind bringing the book to the screen by focusing on the book’s latent humorand not the gruesome violence. The book takes readers deep into Bateman’s twisted mind – embodied by his cannibalistic slaughter. Chapters that didn’t quite make it into the film include a rat crawling inside a woman and another that deals with jumper cables and… the human anatomy. Harron’s film dramatizes Bateman’s superficiality to the point of comic absurdity, while Ellis’ novel draws attention to the shortcomings of consumerism by comparing it to cannibalism. Viewers and readers should consider the film and book together as a shocking satire on the flaws of consumer culture.

American Psycho

In 1987 New York, Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale), a handsome young urban professional, leads a second life as a vicious serial killer by night. The cast includes the detective (Willem Dafoe), fiancée (Reese Witherspoon), lover (Samantha Mathis), colleague (Jared Leto) and secretary (Chloë Sevigny). This is a biting, ironic comedy that examines the elements that make a man a monster.

Release date

13 April 2000

director

Maria Harron

Duration

102

Main genre

crime

Authors

Bret Easton Ellis, Mary Harron, Guinevere Turner

Studio

Lionsgate Movies

slogan

Stunning looks.

Expand

The novel is not an easy read. Anyone who has read it might be familiar with the ultra-brutal Clockwork Orange (another gory book translated into a monumental film). Simon & Schuster actually refused to release the film. The film certainly doesn’t paint a flattering portrait of Bateman, but in the book he hacks women to pieces and compares their body parts to pieces of meat – details that Harron deliberately left out. The violence isn’t simply gratuitous, though. A careful reading of the book makes it clear that the violence embodied by cannibalism shocks readers and causes them to confront consumer issues they might otherwise ignore. Throughout the book, Bateman focuses on superficial details, from clothing to skin care products. These are the qualities on which he bases his understanding of human nature. Everything that surrounds the human body defines it. Bateman believes he has “all the qualities of a human being – Flesh, blood, skin, hair…” but that he only bears “a rough resemblance to a human being.” He must consume humans (to be clear – eat them), just like any other product, in order to understand his own nature.

In a moment of self-reflection, Bateman thinks, “Open the hood of a car and you’ll learn something about the people who designed it.” He applies this logic to his dismemberment of women to understand human nature. In one particularly gory moment (though, admittedly, determining which chapter is the “bloodiest” becomes pointless once the story gets rolling), Bateman rips two women apart “with a steak knife, tearing out chunks of flesh” while filming the process. “in an attempt to understand them”. At the same time, he reflects on the furnishings of the apartment and remembers details from his last bar. There is no distinction between people and other goods that he consumes for his entertainment; for him they are just meat. Maybe he and Hannibal Lecter should have dinner sometime.

Readers were not receptive to the violence in “American Psycho” – even if it had a purpose

Not all readers appreciated (or tolerated) the symbolic violence when the novel was published. Richard Bernstein wrote in the New York Times that the book “raises some profound questions about the ability of a cultural product to shock and disturb.” There is probably no more shocking moment than a chapter titled “Girls.” The chapter begins with Bateman having sex with a woman, whom he suddenly attacks until she is unconscious. She wakes up to watch footage from home of Bateman eating another woman’s brain, “spreading Grey Poupon over chunks of the pink, fleshy flesh.” Perhaps eating a human brain is Bateman’s attempt at Freudian analysis. He then runs a rat into her through a plastic habitrail system and finally bakes part of her body in an oven. This is not light reading, not at all. Moments like this in the book, where Bateman’s savagery is cannibalistic, prove Bernstein’s point. The disturbing shock does serve a purpose, though. Bateman is a nightmarish vision of the end consumerfor whom people are nothing more than objects that they can consume in the truest sense of the word.

Bateman’s life experience is purely superficial. There is a moment when Jean kisses Bateman and he thinks, “She hugs me, this time radiating a warmth I don’t know… but my embrace is frozen.” Intimate human contact means nothing to him. In the chapter “Girls,” Bateman jumpers one woman’s breasts and gouges out another woman’s eyeballs. After surveying the carnage, he realizes that he has “a lunch appointment… which is very important” to him. Bateman equates this excruciating intimate “contact” with lunch. It is more meaningful to him than Jean’s healthy attempt to hug him. It is quite understandable why readers focus more on Ellis’ questionable use of violence than on the symbolism it represents. As a director Harron retained the symbolic criticism of consumer excesses, but balanced the bloodshed with satire This may have escaped readers unsettled by the horrific violence in the book.

How Mary Harron and Guinevere Turner made fun of a psychotic killer

It is fitting that a book that describes such cruel violence against women has been adapted into a film by two women: author/director Mary Harron and her co-screenwriter Guinevere Turner. Perhaps it couldn’t have happened any other way. Harron told the London Review of Books: “I had a lot of thoughts about the 1980s and a lot of things I wanted to criticize and make fun of about the 1980s. And I thought that this film could be something interesting that had nothing to do with violence.” She made Bateman a parody of the yuppie culture of the 1980s and his minions while criticizing consumerism through cinematic symbolism. The film begins with Bateman and his Wall Street clones, er, friends, having lunch at a high-end restaurant. This initiates the motif of foodie culture that runs throughout the film, which reminiscent of the cannibalism in the book, albeit in a less cruel way. They split the bill by putting almost identical cards on the table after exchanging anti-Semitic jokes and complaining about there being no toilet to do coke in. They are one-dimensional to the point of comic absurdity. In Harron’s own words to the London Review, her film “makes fun of the yuppies in New York.” From the beginning of the film, the audience is invited to laugh at the characters.

Harron’s film is not without its visceral violence. The first murder the audience witnesses occurs right after the fabled business card scene, where Bateman first reveals his fragile insecurity. He kills a homeless man shortly after saying, “I have nothing in common with you.” The next scene shows Bateman receiving a spa treatment, telling him that he has “all the qualities of a human being – flesh, blood, skin, hair,” but nothing internal like emotions. These three scenes, taken together, are symbolic. They show the superficial nature of Bateman’s character and his inability to connect with other people. The violence shocks the audience and makes them realize how damaging such consumerist values ​​can be. Compared to the novel, however, it is harmless.

Related

Explaining the ending of ‘American Psycho’: Was it all just imagination?

Did Bateman really kill Paul Allen?

Mary Harron invited the audience to laugh at a psychotic serial killer

By omitting the novel’s detailed depictions of dismemberment and torture, Harron made Bateman’s murderous tendencies more palatable. The saga of Paul Allen (played by Jared Leto) underscores the film’s ability to both shock and amuse. After inviting Allen to dinner under the guise of being Marcus Halberstram, Bateman lures him to his apartment. He plays Huey Lewis and the News and muses about their artistic integrity before hacking at Allen with an axe—though the audience only sees Bateman splattered with blood. The contrast between Bateman’s seemingly sincere enthusiasm for music and his psychotic murder is absurdist humor. This confirms Harron’s desire to retain “one of the most surprising and disturbing things about the book, which is the way it switches very abruptly and without warning from a scene of social comedy to a scene of gruesome violence.” Unlike Ellis’ novel, which depicts murder in meticulous detail, the film turns it into a satire.

Harron’s film allows the audience to laugh at Bateman’s superficiality. He only understands the things that people surround themselves with. he can’t understand anything within the body, but only outside it. Cannibalism shocks readers of the book and makes them confront the problems of consumerism because Bateman chops people up like meat. The film is more of a satire on this topic than a brutal shock. The book and film work well together by giving people an amusing critique of the problems of consumerism – even if they are still consumers.

American Psycho can be streamed on Netflix in the US

Watch on Netflix