Maybe I didn’t understand the scene, when I watched it I assumed he had planned to kill the guy all along and that was just stuff Bateman was saying to make him think everything was normal
He did obviously plan the murder ahead, seeing as the room is covered in newspapers and plastic. But the theme of Bateman’s vanity and cluelessness runs throughout the film and especially, much more so, the novel.
Bateman later goes to Allen’s apartment, iirc to make it look like Allen went away on a trip. The book has this passage, that afaik didn’t make it to the film: “I have a mild panic attack seeing that Allen’s apartment is nicer than mine.”
You know how he occasionally cites the brands of clothes he’s wearing, or whatever else? The novel is pretty much half endless brand-dropping, interspersed with the gore. After a while on that merry-go-round, the reader is equally nauseous from both.
Funny thing, someone once noted in a discussion like this, that if the reader actually knows eighties’ fashion brands, it’s clear that all the VPs in the book dress like clowns. Specifically, if it was reflected in the film, all of them would look like Luis Carruthers (the gay guy).
I don’t disagree, that is the more direct way to understand the scene from uh… like a perspective of ‘what is happening, why is it happening’, in relation to how the plot functions and progresses.
But if you go a bit deeper, into ‘why is the author having the plot work like this, why has the author used/created this kind of a character, what, if anything, is the message or lesson or moral they are trying to convey’… I guess my first comment is how I answer those kinds of questions.
Writing a plot that makes sense and is at least logically consistent, possible/plausible, that’s one thing.
Another thing is to do that, but in such a way that the specific plot beats, character decisions, they’re all designed to ultimately convey a more complex idea by illustrating an engaging scenario that demonstrates it, as opposed to just directly stating that moral or lesson.
Of course, media analysis/critique is always subjective.
I just didn’t preface my entire first comment with ‘Well, I think that…’ or ‘In my opinion…’, partially because I am autistic and tend to be blunt, but also partially because it comes across as more certain and confident, and is thus slightly more convincing, rhetorically.
So that right there is me trying to demonstrate my kind of analysis of author intent… on myself.
Makes sense, I overall agree, I’m mostly just unsure about the idea of a “snap”, “break” or gaining self awareness, as opposed to something more passive. It’s been a while since I saw the movie though and I didn’t read the book so I can’t make much of an argument about it.
Oh I’m not trying to say that the book/movie is trying to say everyone will go through a kind of violent psychosis upon gaining enough self awareness… just that its a potential.
Kinda like stochastic terrorism… stochastic psychopathic terroristic burnout?
Maybe I didn’t understand the scene, when I watched it I assumed he had planned to kill the guy all along and that was just stuff Bateman was saying to make him think everything was normal
He did obviously plan the murder ahead, seeing as the room is covered in newspapers and plastic. But the theme of Bateman’s vanity and cluelessness runs throughout the film and especially, much more so, the novel.
Bateman later goes to Allen’s apartment, iirc to make it look like Allen went away on a trip. The book has this passage, that afaik didn’t make it to the film: “I have a mild panic attack seeing that Allen’s apartment is nicer than mine.”
You know how he occasionally cites the brands of clothes he’s wearing, or whatever else? The novel is pretty much half endless brand-dropping, interspersed with the gore. After a while on that merry-go-round, the reader is equally nauseous from both.
Funny thing, someone once noted in a discussion like this, that if the reader actually knows eighties’ fashion brands, it’s clear that all the VPs in the book dress like clowns. Specifically, if it was reflected in the film, all of them would look like Luis Carruthers (the gay guy).
I don’t disagree, that is the more direct way to understand the scene from uh… like a perspective of ‘what is happening, why is it happening’, in relation to how the plot functions and progresses.
But if you go a bit deeper, into ‘why is the author having the plot work like this, why has the author used/created this kind of a character, what, if anything, is the message or lesson or moral they are trying to convey’… I guess my first comment is how I answer those kinds of questions.
Writing a plot that makes sense and is at least logically consistent, possible/plausible, that’s one thing.
Another thing is to do that, but in such a way that the specific plot beats, character decisions, they’re all designed to ultimately convey a more complex idea by illustrating an engaging scenario that demonstrates it, as opposed to just directly stating that moral or lesson.
Of course, media analysis/critique is always subjective.
I just didn’t preface my entire first comment with ‘Well, I think that…’ or ‘In my opinion…’, partially because I am autistic and tend to be blunt, but also partially because it comes across as more certain and confident, and is thus slightly more convincing, rhetorically.
So that right there is me trying to demonstrate my kind of analysis of author intent… on myself.
Makes sense, I overall agree, I’m mostly just unsure about the idea of a “snap”, “break” or gaining self awareness, as opposed to something more passive. It’s been a while since I saw the movie though and I didn’t read the book so I can’t make much of an argument about it.
Oh I’m not trying to say that the book/movie is trying to say everyone will go through a kind of violent psychosis upon gaining enough self awareness… just that its a potential.
Kinda like stochastic terrorism… stochastic psychopathic terroristic burnout?