Patrick Bateman has emerged as a figurehead for hyper-masculine “sigma males” as well as the self-identified “feral coquettes” or “free girls.” So why does such a character permeated in toxic masculinity resonate with female audiences?
It's interesting how American Psycho's rep keeps changing, especially how pragmatic changes between the book and movie are now seen as symbolic and not because the book is borderline unfilmable. But I agree that the above interpretation makes sense.
I would add, though, that the gender angle was not the intent of the work. It's an overall social commentary, done in the tradition of Notes From The Underground, and (I suspect) influenced deeply by Barbarians At The Gate.
However, the movie is very different to the book in several aspects and I can totally see other symbolisms arise. It's just the nature of adapting what is a complex novel that isn't interested in wooing its audience (just like Notes). Though I disagree that the novel or movie was an analysis of the male gaze. I think that's something imposed by the audience (though that then still makes it a relevant symbolism).
I'm a bit shocked though that some groups idolise Bateman. Now that is totally missing the point of the work. Like people who fixate on the Brass Balls speech in Glengarry Glenn Ross. If you think Bateman should be a role model, you really need to check your values.
It’s very post-modernist, drawing deeply from Notes From The Underground, so it’s incredibly self-reflective and has an unreliable narrator. It’s also obsessed about detail - the business card scene in the movie is a tiny taste of the manic detail the character goes into about material things.
It’s very wrapped in the character’s head - one chapter is practically just a non-stop sentence. And then there is the question of whether all of it is real or just a delusion.
On top of that, it is violent - much more than the movie reveals.
Overall, the movie catches the vibe of the book pretty well, but it sticks to the most coherent plot points. The book is a tough head. I enjoyed it, but a lot of people hate it because it’s a bit of an assault on the reader.
The book and the movie aren't that different: they're both a depiction of the numbing shallowness of Wall Street life and the imagined escapism that ensued in the head of Bateman. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to return some video tapes.
You know, I have to admit, the shift in reputation for American Psycho from "lacerating critique of Reagan-era masculinity" into "aspirational" kind of caught me on guard. Glad someone's here to walk me through this, it's bewildering. Great post!
I think it’s crazy that feminists can hail this movie as a triumph against mysogyny, and not see the blatant fact that the mysogony is made at least partially possible by prostitution😭 like commodification of the female body is a symptom of prostitution and pornaugraphy, not the cause of it’s existence.
It's interesting how American Psycho's rep keeps changing, especially how pragmatic changes between the book and movie are now seen as symbolic and not because the book is borderline unfilmable. But I agree that the above interpretation makes sense.
I would add, though, that the gender angle was not the intent of the work. It's an overall social commentary, done in the tradition of Notes From The Underground, and (I suspect) influenced deeply by Barbarians At The Gate.
However, the movie is very different to the book in several aspects and I can totally see other symbolisms arise. It's just the nature of adapting what is a complex novel that isn't interested in wooing its audience (just like Notes). Though I disagree that the novel or movie was an analysis of the male gaze. I think that's something imposed by the audience (though that then still makes it a relevant symbolism).
I'm a bit shocked though that some groups idolise Bateman. Now that is totally missing the point of the work. Like people who fixate on the Brass Balls speech in Glengarry Glenn Ross. If you think Bateman should be a role model, you really need to check your values.
Why do you say that about the book? Is it too violent?
Before I answer that, I need some context. Have you read the book?
No but I vaguely recall it’s particularly violent? Not sure though which was why I wanted some insight
Sure, happy to elaborate!
It’s very post-modernist, drawing deeply from Notes From The Underground, so it’s incredibly self-reflective and has an unreliable narrator. It’s also obsessed about detail - the business card scene in the movie is a tiny taste of the manic detail the character goes into about material things.
It’s very wrapped in the character’s head - one chapter is practically just a non-stop sentence. And then there is the question of whether all of it is real or just a delusion.
On top of that, it is violent - much more than the movie reveals.
Overall, the movie catches the vibe of the book pretty well, but it sticks to the most coherent plot points. The book is a tough head. I enjoyed it, but a lot of people hate it because it’s a bit of an assault on the reader.
The book and the movie aren't that different: they're both a depiction of the numbing shallowness of Wall Street life and the imagined escapism that ensued in the head of Bateman. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to return some video tapes.
You know, I have to admit, the shift in reputation for American Psycho from "lacerating critique of Reagan-era masculinity" into "aspirational" kind of caught me on guard. Glad someone's here to walk me through this, it's bewildering. Great post!
Fromtheyardtothearthouse.substack.com
classifying the beginning of the movie as a #GRWM makes it so much funnier
I think it’s crazy that feminists can hail this movie as a triumph against mysogyny, and not see the blatant fact that the mysogony is made at least partially possible by prostitution😭 like commodification of the female body is a symptom of prostitution and pornaugraphy, not the cause of it’s existence.