American Psycho Ending Explained | Insane Fan Theory
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лют 2025
- SPOILER WARNING! NSFW
I feel like I have finally cracked the puzzle of the ending of American Psycho, or at the very least added a whole other piece to the overall explanation.
The ending is one of the greatest ambiguous endings of film ever, at least in my eyes.
The main question is whether or not all of the murders and atrocities that Patrick Bateman does are real. Or is it all in his head?
Well in order to answer this question, I find it best not to trust Bateman, cause he is very unreliable, but you know who does have some answers? His lawyer...
American Psycho is a 2000 American black comedy-horror film set in 1987, co-written and directed by Mary Harron, based on Bret Easton Ellis's 1991 novel of the same name. It stars Christian Bale, Willem Dafoe, Jared Leto
Outro Song:
Dragon and Toast by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (creativecommon...)
Source: incompetech.com...
Artist: incompetech.com/
=D Like us on Facebook and Twitter
/ shotanastudios
/ shotanastudios
The realtor scene was the one that got me. She looked like she knew what happened.
Me too. She looked afraid and judgemental. She trips him up to figure out he did it. It goes with the theme of self absorption ans that she would rather make a huge commission than ruin it by it becoming a crime scene .
She did. Paul Allen’s family hired the Detective to find Paul Allen because they found the bodies in
Paul Allen’s apt and Paul took the Fall for the murders.
I always thought that it was Paul Allen's family that had covered up the apartment murders because they thought it was Paul that had committed them.
it could be one of three things: Bateman's father covered it up, Paul Allen's family covered it up, or the realtor covered it up to keep real estate value.
Interesting. I never thought of that. And Paul Allen could be on the lamb b/c of it. Never trust a guy with 2 first names.
@@CrusaderLogan you forget the fourth option: it was all in le head
The director is an idiot, to think it was not all in his head? Okay let’s gun down a few police officer ? And still roam the streets? Nah
one of the first scenes he imagines what he would say to the bartender which never happened, indicating he is imagining it.
He’s under Psychosis and can’t determine what’s real and what’s not.
Also you never ever see the driver of the limousine which makes me believe it was definitely imagined.
I can’t describe why but I almost find both the scenes w the realtor toward the end and the conversation with his lawyer to be more eerie than anything else that cane before it. Haunting
The man was clearly insane. Nobody would think the 80's Genesis albums are superior to their 70's music!
trmblingblustar That was a brutal chapter to read in the book. Actually, although I like the book, there is a lot of pointless filler. At least 25% of the book is the author describing all the fancy things everyone has. It really dates the book too as it’s all real stuff, but if you aren’t rich you won’t recognize most of the things he’s talking about. Which is a strange decision. I think the author had a novella and he stretched all the details to make it a novel.
He's not a Genesis fan, he only pretends to be because Genesis is what's in at the time. It reminds me of this guy I knew back in high school who was a long time Extreme fan, but hated the song "More than Words" when it became a hit. That's because a lot of people who knew the group only for that song were suddenly calling themselves long time fans, when the song itself didn't represent the band's typical sound.
fuck you! all of genesis is great. btw, duke is the best album
@ the chapter where he is describing all his audio equipment really just felt like filler. Just went on and on and on.
@@newguy90 So basically like all the people who call themselves Metallica fans but don’t listen to anything pre Black Album, even tho that’s the real Metallica that the fans know and love.
Great video... I have to return some videotapes.
return videotapes joke.. check
It's a satire. Bear that in mind above everything else. The rich can get away with anything.
American Bernie.
@Nate T. Every once in a while the rich will sacrifice one of their own to the law as to keep the facade that is "even the rich get punished". And this simple tactic fools the general public every single time.
@Nate T. only what you see on the surface. A few rich are thrown under the bus by the rest when it becomes too obvious. Such as Jeffrey Epstein killed to protect the elites.
@Nate T.
You do realize this isnt some conspiracy theory right? History has too many to count examples of the rich getting away with crime. I mean jesus christ, all of 2008 is a perfect example of that. Open a history book...
@Nate T. Odd you find these so called "conspiracy theories" preposterous and unintelligent without offering a counter argument to my own example of Epstein. Allow me to counter your insultingly dismissive take if you're even true to a word of an actual multilayered discussion or if you're just ironically touting to whom you think can't make a discussion.
Beyond lawyers, corruption is a reality. The justice system, law enforcement and the media. It's not farfetched at all, it's been shown to happen more than it should, so how can it not be systemic when money is involved into the equation?
Do you dismiss the idea that Jeffrey Epstein's death was to protect the people he was involved with? How about Epstein himself who up until recently was proof that the rich could get away with it for many decades if not most of their lifetime?
Or Weinstein case that ousted ABC and their sister companies protecting him as they were holding back reports from victims for many years promising to report on it. Each connection of his was a working gear to this whole blockade. It took a whole damn movement for the traditional media to nudge or in reality of it, concede.
Panama papers showed what the rich could have gotten away with if not for a whistleblower who risked his life. One rich guy on the papers list made a hit on the journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, got caught, was sloppy, some politicians too. But what about the rest on the list that haven't even been given closer inspection?
These instances where we know it because people were able to come out, but what about those who haven't? These instances aren't even perfect because there are lists of those we know should be investigated on but haven't yet. Takes longer than an R. Kelly trial if at all.
Hell do you even have a take on the thematic satire of American Pyscho considering you bothered even commenting here? The decadence, greed, nepotism and even corruption that Ellis and Harron wanted to emphasis?
So it baffles me you categorize this as conspiracy theory when there's evidence a sources all around you.
Also the foreshadowing of his fiancee at the beginning. 'Your father practically owns the company. You can do anything you want."
That combined with the two interactions at the end all point to him doing it and speaks to the insane amount of privilege that is a theme of the film too
i like the theory that Patrick is actually Marcus Halberstram and he has created this Bateman character to empower himself. I believe he was some loner who imagined his friends and these murders but in truth was the guy at the office who has no friends and everybody talks about behind his back. even the book kind of gives that vibe. who knows though !
Well in both the book and the film; Bateman himself is clearly someone whom others regard as a creep, despite his obsession with image. Paul Allen (thinking he's talking to Halberstram) even calls him a loser. Bateman isn't actually that self-aware.
No idea how people think that in the movie it's all in his head. The lawyer he's talking to doesn't get his name right so why would you expect him to get Paul Allen's name right? The paint in the apartment with the woman who seems to know what he did. The only scene that is completely in his head is when he's walking out with the body in the bag and the blood disappears. The whole movie is about how self involved everybody is and how little they care about each other. Almost every single person in the film is the same and if we were listening to their inner voice, they would be very similar.
The director actually isn't saying that it wasn't in Bateman's head but merely it was not her intention for people to definitively read it that way. She says she wanted it to be open ended, meaning both options are equally plausible and no matter what the "truth" is the themes of the book and film are reinforced regardless. That is the beauty of this story
A thing you could add to this is that he was not significant enough to get caught or even credit for his murders and that completely undermines his need to be the best and his need to be noticed
In the beginning of the film Evelyn states how he can pretty much do whatever he wants. And he replies by saying ‘ I don’t wanna talk about it.’
Also when he is near the end of voice message he’s leaving his lawyer he says, I don’t think I can get away with it this time.
I totally agree with your theory
Here's my take. Bateman is the mentally derranged son of a rich business owner who must love him very much or feels guilty about not being in his life more - perhaps that's one of the sources of what made him insane in the first place. He gets his son on meds and puts him in the one environment that he can completely control, his own business. He's provided with a lifesytle that suits him and he's placed in a position where he really doesn't need to do much at all, or is given low level accounts. He's even assigned an entry level secretary. A professional at his level would interview and choose his own secretary, most likely one that is very attractive and very experienced. This was done because if she ever did find out anything about Patrick no one would believe her and she could quickly be handled. His father owns the building Patrick lives in as well and if anyone else does live in it they are obviously aware or have been warned about "Partrick's issues" and are handled just like everyone else in his company. I think there is a chance that he was the only one in that building. I couldn't imagine with his issues and habits he would tolerate any distrubance. He sees things, the ATM, shooting at the police, and is certainly a nut case, but I think all those murders are real and his father pays everyone to cover it up. That being said I don't think his father thought Patrick's issues would escalate the murder but once it did what was the father to do? Especailly if he felt guilt about possibly being a source of Patrick's issues? Bateman feels invisble, perhaps after growing up and being ignored by his father who was too busy building a company to care.
the movie should be titled "American Psychos"
The answer: it doesn't matter.
P.S. but it totally happened
None of it happened.
If you read the book it says at the beginning; "all ye who enter here, abandon all hope," which means he's actually in hell and at the end the sign on the door says "this is not an exit" meaning he cannot escape
our obsession to seek answer is another form of self-satisfaction which may lead to paranoia
Ight bro
I like the theory and it makes a lot of sense. But, the consider this, the fiancé says your dad practically owns the firm. Why practically? So if his dad was that high up, wouldn’t Paul Allen and every one else that works for the firm know this? Of course they would. And they wouldn’t keep confusing Patrick for someone else. There’s something to that name Bate-man (classic that he becomes Batman). And there’s something to him saying in the beginning “…. I simply am not there.”
i dont think he committed the murders but those drawings were real
She does. She cleaned out the apartment of his mess and kept quiet because no one would want to rent a room where all these bodies of people he murdered where at. It's basically about greed. Everyone for themselves..
I tried to watch this video but I had to go return some video tapes
While I do agree that the movie is meant to be ambiguous in regards to what is real or imaginary, I don't believe for a second that Bateman got away with anything.
His actions become so over the top to the end of the movie that if anybody were to let him get away with it for real, it would not just be ignorance. it would at best be incompetence or at worse a disturbing lack of self preservation.
I personally think thats the point. People are so self absorbed that he gets away with it
One clue of many was his confession. He didn't even know how many people he killed for sure. Some could be in his mind and some could be real. He is crazy, hence American Psycho, lol. He's just not sure which one's were real murders.
But you did a very good explanation of the lawyer scene, I have to watch this movie again. Love this movie. Awesome flick. :D
Well yah, usually a serial killer would know his victims and keep them in his mind as trophies that he killed them. In my theory he killed some and hallucinated some.
Psychopaths are not crazy
@@viking2q319 Right, but he is probably also schizophrenic
After watching this movie I am shocked that people interpreted the end lawyer scene as that the lawyer really didnt remember him. They made it pretty obvious that the lawyer was lying to save his butt, hes a lawyer.
The trail of blood after Bateman leaves the apartments with Paul's body disappears after he exits the door. You can also clearly see the receptionist look at the trail of blood and not even react, as if it's not there. It's pretty obvious. To me the film is about his fantasies, it's also possible that certain murders happened and others didn't (I don't think the Paul Allen murder happened, I think it could have been a potential alter-ego of Patrick).
I bet the ending is supposed to be ambiguous because we see everything through Patrick's eyes, and he doesn't even know what's real or not
I think people like to think it is in his head a way to comfort themselves.
The way people would never hear him when he would say insane things to them made me think it was in his head. However the real estate agent and cab driver parts in the book made me think otherwise.
They heard him but chose not to acknowledge it.
That's it. I'm not going to look for any other theory. This is it. It's perfect. Now let me get my brains from the floor...
I assume this is sarcasm?
legofan370 It's really not.
After watching this movie the first time, I sat on it for a couple of days. Then I began to look for theories on what it could have meant, because even though I got some of the themes the movie dealt with, I still couldn't see the bigger picture.
This is the one video that satisfied my needs. It's the clearest, most convincing one, and it made my next watches of American Psycho a helluva lot more interesting.
Gleidston Filipe Well, great then! The whole, brain on the floor, thing confused me, and because of that I thought you were being sarcastic. But, glad you like the video.
legofan370 That was my way of saying my mind was blown without straight up saying it. But yeah. Boom!
Lol.
Actually after finishing the movie I thought it all happened, because how his lawyer acted. To me it looked like: because of the phone call the lawyer found out about the bodies that are in Paul Allens apartment and he arranged for it to be cleaned up; filled in the woman that there may be a guy coming over the place. To me it feels like it all came down to money. Cause he is a son of such a rich guy. They tried to create an alibi and all sorts of things to cover everything up. It did happen the next day after his phone call after all. The ONLY thing that makes it a fiction is: how is he not taken in by the police when he killed the dude at the reception in an office building. Usually those buildings have security cameras (especially of such high caliber that have such rich companies in there) and he managed to live through the day with no witnesses and no single camera catching him? Also how is he better at using the gun than policeman? What if he did some things for real, but some of them were hallucinated because he was going crazier. What if the ATM message was a hint: From here he is going natso hallucination mode. Which causes him to confess to his lawyer, about REAL murders.
WhiteKana Thats exactly what I think happened, he got a good old mobster type clean up at the end, since he’s dad owns the company, that lawyer works for the dad knowing his mental condition. And simply when he called the lawyer the lawyer immediately called the “cleaning service” like we’ve seen in movies like John Wick, and at the end, the lawyer and the lady at the flat played the “I wasn’t here” “ this never happened” card... but i believe that he committed some murders, not all of them. Some stuff was hallucinations.
Did you read the book? I read it some years ago. I am pretty sure there’s one of his nights out at a restaurant where he is very physically sick from being intoxicated and having a nervous breakdown and says at one point:” It really doesn’t matter, since I am just dreaming all of this”...?
I love how the realtor's clothes go to show the duel nature of her in the same way the film presents Batemen's duel nature by the right and left sides of his face.
I always wondered if Patrick Bateman also originally confused jared leto 'Paul Allen' just like everyone else confused him for someone else, and that the business card scene was shown from his perspective (where he was clearly more interested in the type/style of the card rather than the name on the card). Which also explains why at the end the lawyer REALLY did have dinner with paul Allen, and Bateman confessed to killing someone else who he thought was paul allen.
I watched this film for the first time in my films study class and I immediately came to this conclusion at the end with his lawyer. I looked all over and couldn't find a video supporting it. Thank you!
I like your theory about the lawyer, I had the same feeling as I watched the scene for the first time. But the floor scene makes no sense. Allen did certainly not own a whole building in NY and just lived in one apartment, while every other one is empty. (What a waste of space and money and just this single apartment is for sale later not the whole building.)
Nobody cared makes more sense for Ellis picture of the rich American society but still, its a huge building in the city which never sleeps, he runs around with a chain saw and managed to kill her and clean everything up and nobody noticed.
Patrick also didn't kill everybody in the building, he has a hard time covering the disappearance of Allen Price, I think the police of New York would surveille the shit out of it after every single person disappeared there. On top of that we have the police scene and the cat scene and countless other scenes from the book which simply cannot be real.
Now that I look back, the apartment makes more sense to what you are saying of it all being real. It is not a coincidence that after he confesses to his lawyer, his apartment gets cleaned and covered up, if you think about it his lawyer might have been the one to call in the cleaning crew, after patricks dad owned a giant company and public image is all.
I'm assuming every murder after the "Feed Me A Stray Cat" is all in his head.
You pretty much hit the nail on the head with my thoughts. The lawyer scene is what made me question it too.
1st off...good job...2nd..everything you said were my thoughts on this...and to add,Bret Easton Elis said that he was setting it in the "shallow 80's" and it was all real due to Patrick Bateman's character in the books shows up in RULES OF ATTRACTION(He's Sean's older brother and is referenced in the movie briefly) and is one of the story plots in THE INFORMANTS(his parts were removed from the film)...these events in the books go on to confirm that even after the events of both the book and film...he goes on to continue killing.
Maybe he's really Davis, and he for some reason, thought he was Patrick.
Fair theory, but the police officer/detective didn't have an incentive to pardon Bateman of his crimes, he was intent on capturing him. He dissapeared by the end, and maybe that was Bateman's doing. I like this movie because a lot is left for the watcher to interpret and decide, it shows a level of respect towards the audience. That being said, a detective dissapearing surely wouldn't go unnoticed, so why would it be dropped right as Bateman was about to be captured? If you are going for the interpretation that everything happened, then there are a lot of things that start adding up against that theory. The mentioned explosion caused by a handgun or "feed me a stray cat", displayed by the ATM, for example.
+TheAwesomoe
Detective Kimball had no evidence. He didnt pardon him, he just couldn't arrest him. Bateman didn't get rid of him.
Also the gun and feed me a stray cat, go perfectly with the theory. Bateman is insane.
Yes, he was insane, but you open the can of jar of exactly how much was in his head. My point was that it's weird for his days to be filled with such unlikely events, yet the killings remain real. Him walking around with bloody sheets to a dry-cleaner, and an acquaintance even seeing those, is an example of those unlikely things. The movie makes huge leaps, storywise, maybe that's how his mind works as well. That would leave most (but not all) murders ambiguous.
"The lawyer was blowing smoke" That's fucking genius!!
I think you need to explain one of the most confusing trilogy's of all time: The Matrix
since you've done a pretty good job with this one.
I dont think the director said she failed because it didn't look like he actually committed the murders. I think she said she failed because it didn't look ambiguous and showed that it was all in his head and she got that impression from the majority of the people who watched it and told her about it. I think if the majority of the people she talked to told her the complete opposite, she still would have failed in what she was trying to do. I think if you come away thinking it all happened then you are "wrong" because the ending was meant to convey a more questionable take. So really we're not supposed to know if he did it or not. It's like angrogonry in a sense. It is both, and it is neither. Or better yet it's like an Escher drawing where you can't tell the ceiling from the porch.
Maybe she didn’t fail b/c we’re still not certain. This lawyer analysis is good and it adds another dimension. Some of the events are obviously outlandish, like the pistol shots blowing up the car and the ATM cat scene. Also the helicopter search lighting his office is ridiculous. Shows the level of his paranoia.
Another thing I found particularly interesting that I have not heard anyone talking about is the film sequence where Patrick just killed the police officers and is going to kill the receptionist. The hotels he goes to looks exactly alike. However in one he kills everyone whereas in the other he leaves them alive. Could this mark the difference between reality and what Patrick wishes or imagines he was doing? I'm not sure. Maybe I am misinterpreting it, but it is interesting.
Out of all the other explanations ... this one is the most helpful. Job well done mate.
for me part of the thing that makes me lean more towards it was in his head is honestly just the scene where he blows up one or two of the cop cars with a few bullets, it just makes it look so movie (or dream..) it just looked out of place with the rest of the movie
Before I watched this video, my interpretation was that it was all in his head. I really strongly believed that because it was what made the most sense to me. But after watching your video, I’m questioning whether or not it really was all in his head. You made some very valid points and now I’m torn. I do love this theory though! Amazing job sir!
Not to mention the fact that it is much more interesting to write a social commentary on a society in which a psychotic murderer can blossom since no one care about anything below the surface level. Rather than "just" writing about a psychopath.
I think maybe most of it happened, but maybe the rampage scene at the end was in his head....very mysterious
Jon B Baca that’s what I thought
When I read the book; I walked away thinking that Bateman did murder people (including Paul Allen), but that he was insane, possibly schizophrenic, and was clearly also confused and hallucinating.
When I saw the film the first time; I assumed it was all his fantasy.
However; l the second time I watched it a few years later I realised that it's a mix of fantasy and reality just like in the book. Obviously; he didn't really do that shooting spree at the end and the scene with the dinner date and Prostitute (for the second time) possibly wasn't entirely real either. But I think he definitely murdered Paul Allen and probably the homeless person and some women.
I mistook the real estate agent scene when I first saw it. I thought it showed that it was all a fantasy. However; the second time it was clear to me that the owners of the apartment discovered the macabre interior and decided to cover it up to prevent financial loss and that the real estate agent knows the back story and realises that Bateman was there for activities related to the discovered murders. And it's clear to me that the Lawyer at the end suspects there's something to the murder confession and Allen's disappearance but just isn't interested in bothering with it.
Director: its not all a dream
Everyone: hmm, what does it mean...
What about when he's dragging that body out and there's blood on the ground in the lobby and no ones notices
+AJ Games
Nobody cares...
Everyone is so self absorbed.
Mind blown bro, I'll never watch this movie the same.
That's the thing about this movie. We don't know if it actually happened or not. He either killed all those people and nobody cared, or it was all in his head. For example in this scene 11:03 Patrick walks out dragging a heavy bag leaving a trail of blood behind him. And the guy at the door doesn't even blink. and when he walks out and puts the bag in the trunk of a cab, some of his friends show up, and again, doesn't at all react to it. All of these scenes could easily be explained by either of these two possibilities. It was all his imagination, or everyone were so egocentric that they simply didn't care.
In the book it's explained that the pills he takes are Valium. A common prescribed drug for panic attacks
In the movie, they use Librium capsules which is a benzodiazepine just a tad less powerful than Valium. They were big in the late 80s and early 90s. Now doctors today wouldn't know what they were if you mentioned it...unless your a Psychiatrist or Neurologist.
Pretty cool theory, but I DO NOT AGREE. It could be true, though, but clearly if you watch every "murder" scene or his confession, you know it's all in his head.
1. He couldn't have killed Paul since Kimball knew he was at dinner with other colleagues AND when Pat carried the overnight bag with "Paul's body", in one shot you can see blood on the floor, in second we don't see blood anymore. Maybe a fail at editing, maybe not. Still, if Pat was at dinner with other guys, who knows if he was EVER in Texarkana with Paul.
2. I don't believe that building, where he was with Christie and Elizabeth, was empty. Someone would definitely open the door if they heard screaming and a chainsaw. And hitting Christie with the chainsaw is probably impossible from that distance. All in his head? YES.
3. Seeing FEED ME A STRAY CAT sign, it is OBVIOUS everything after that - killing an old lady, cops, explosion by a gun... it was all clearly in his head.
For me, where Pat was really close to actually kill someone, was when he invited Jean in his apartment. I think he was really holding that nail gun, trying to kill her, but couldn't. If he killed others easily, why couldn't he do it again? I think that was the first time he almost killed his first victim ever.
Let's say that Mary Harron played around with "director's imagination" while bringing the book on small screens (which every director does no matter what), don't forget that Patrick Bateman is unreliable narrator. That's the main focus in the plot all the time.
I just finished watching it and I feel more confused than ever! Please explain this crazy movie to me!
People get hung up on the "was it all in his head or did he really kill" it can be both..he killed but also spent his time fantasizing about killing..at the end when he is told his confession means nothing..there by meaning the realtorw cleaned up the evidence...so he has killed but left in a scenario identical as if he hadnt have killed...leaving him in even more of a tortured state of mind
There are a few possibilities of what Bateman could be. First that he does do exactly what is shown and said and he is a serial killer psychopath etc. Second that he does none of what is shown and it is all in his head, and is very mental ill possibly schizophrenic. Third that he is somewhere in between, committing some murders but exaggerating the amount and the violence of his doings in his head. Whatever Bateman is the point is that the world he is living in fails to recognise him. Either The law fails to arrest such an evil man or everyone fails to recognise that he is seriously mentally ill. This to me is the point of the film. That the culture of that period is so self obsessed that they fail to recognise the problems in someone else (batemans) life
If I remember correctly, the art in his apartment contains an image of a headless man.
When he carried out Paul´s body it left a trace of blood(and we can clearly see it) but when comes out the building the blood is gone, there is no way NO ONE noticed it, so therefore i belive that at least that part was in his head.
Both the movie and the book deserves more recognition than it gets. The whole movie to me shows that all of us has a little Bateman. It just takes a little push. In so far as the story I do believe that Patrick did commit the murders. This fan theory proves it. The movie takes wack at your own sanity as well, leaving you confused, and can also make you question if anything that is happening right now at this moment, is even real, or if it’s just an interpretation of what you think is real 🤔...
Batemans father used his influence and power to cover for his son. The filmmakers would not have included the line about his father essentially owning the company if it did not serve a purpose. The the alibi of Paul Allen in London had already been constructed and circulated before the meeting with the Lawyer. It was first mentioned by the detective in Batman's office. This shows that others were already aware of Paul Allens death, and also aware of who did it. In this society, no one can remember who is who. In this society, no one cares if someone dies. The scene with the realtor is the key reinforcement in this theory. The acting is so brilliant, that you can basically read their minds, and see the internal motivators for each line, and each movement. Patrick Batemans insanity is the result of a lifetime of absurd privilege. He can get whatever he wants, when he wants. Can he even get away with murder? I guess so.
U know i really thought that the lawyer was really creating an alibi
I think that lawyer believed bateman but didnt wanna defend a physco so he laughs to get out of it.
Would you be interested in a follow up video? I have some interesting thoughts to mull over if you're open for dialogue. Consider this. What If both sides (believing he did or did not) are particularly correct? What if Bateman, consumed in feeding his desire kills the homeless man. Feeling unsatisfied and jealous he kills Allen. After killing Allen all seems well until the detective questions him. He sweats very nervously and is too suspicious. His actions are not of a normal person and the detective knows this. This causes him to crack and enter a dangerous state of mind. I dont think he killed the hooker with the chain saw. I believe he fantasizes about this. I back that on the movie, the drawing and of his lack of bruising from a kick to the face. He may have killed all those people. OR, just Allen. And when going back to the apartment, Allen may have been left there dead. (He goes directly there after his death and only says he dumped the body.) When Bateman mentions Allen, the realtor denies it either due to the other people in the house or because she knows that Allen's death in the apartment wasnt reported in the media and she knows it him or she thinks hes a scum coming in from a unknown reason (reporter, nosey neighbor whatever the case may be.) This movie could be Batemans break down over guilt, the only emotion he doesn't show because as he says, he lacks emotions. But his conscience doesn't. He confesses to the lawyer who doesn't take him seriously because the majority is fake. And doesn't believe anything, EXCEPT for Allen which is why he makes the statenant that he saw Allen In London and then leaves the conversation there not to draw attention. Idk, Very sporadic but it was the best that I could do typing on a phone without rambling on.
The book makes it a point to make it hard to tell the difference between anybody in the story.
after watching this my headcannon is this: every time he says something he wishes he could say is in his head "youre an ugly bithhh" when he kills people its real. but then he has a break and "feed me a stray cat" marks that. his rampage is imagined or at least partially (i think the cop car exploding is meant to show us this isnt real) and maybe you're right about the lawyer
Well another thing to note is Bateman appears in other books one where they say he has a strange stain on his suit and in another it notes a serial killer was killed in a fire and the person who died in that fire was Patrick Bateman
At first I thought it was all just in his head, but actually I think it’s more about the self absorbed individuals in the yuppie culture and that he can commit and confess to crimes and basically no one cares.
I get that the lawyer could be keeping patrick out of jail, but he confesses to evelyn as well, earlier also drawing the graphic image of the the chainsaw in the back of the woman. Is this just another case of self absorption? Cause I don't think so
+greta miller
He never confesses to Evelyn his crimes, also the drawing, I dont understand how that goes against anything I said.
To be honest I wouldnt have open the damn door either if I heard a man chasing a woman with a chain saw and not because Idc but because Id be scared shitless
Great analysis of the lawyer scene, completely flew over my head upon first watch 🤯🤯🤯
I think he did most of the murders but his insanity emphasised the intensity of them and they weren’t as dramatic as he perceived them as. People like the lawyer and the realtor tried to hide his murders to protect themselves, this expresses the extents people will go to keep their place in society which is also shown through Bateman’s rage with the business cards and ability to make a reservation. He even killed Pat Allen because he felt threatened by him (or maybe he thought he killed him/wanted to kill him and imagined all of it), I really do not know if he did or not ughhh?!! Just watched the film for the first time and aghh it was so good!!!
I agree. In general I believe the film/book is basically saying this man, these yuppies, are so privileged that even if they try to sabotage it all, they cant. They all participate in something messed up, but Bateman's psychosis made him lose all sense of reality and not realize what's real anymore. His lawyers reaction, along with everyone else, is basically them living in a dont ask dont tell class, it will just be dealt with.
I prefer the "it all happened in his head" analogy. Showing the intense delusions of a completely insane person.
Nah, the whole indicator that it’s all in his head, is the fact that it’s all disjointed, illogical and discontinuous - just like in a dream. Remember what he said in the beginning: “I am not there”.
And what if he actually didn't kill Paul Allen, but did kill those girls. So the lawyer had to cover it up, by getting Paul's apartment cleaned up.
Love your videos! Keep em coming...
Thanks for watching!
The gun scene was unrealistic, how he got the gun, unlimited ammo, shooting spree and no one cares. No one chasing him.
He took the gun out of his pocket. Those guns can hold more than 10 rounds, shooting sprees happen all the time, literal cops and a helicopter chase him.
But what about the time he dragged the body through the lobby and there was a giant blood trail?
Its inconsistent. One moment the trail is there, the next its gone. Also Luis sees him load the body in a trunk. That one is up in the air.
Outstanding explanation! Just watched this movie because it is now playing on Amazon Prime. Afterwards, I watched and read a bunch of theories about what really happened, but none of them sat right with me because they all contained elements that didnt jibe with certain scenes. But your theory was spot on in my book. You managed to explain everything in a totally convincing manner and addressed every "but what about" thought that had been running through my head. Great job!
Maybe the lawyer had dinner with someone else thinking him as Paul? They all get easily mistaken easily. It's in the movie.
Did you not watch the full video? I said this...
Spot on. LIsten, you'll excuse me, I have a lunch meeting with Cliff Huxtable at the Four Seasons in 20 minutes.
I basically had the same interpretation, but I'm glad I watched because I hadn't heard the premise that the lawyer's comment isn't based only on anonymity but also on his motive to keep him out of jail.
Why is it so hard to accept that people like this truly exist? When you have money and power to such a degree that business cards become a competition for me when he goes back to the apartment and has the conversation with the old lady she clearly states “don’t come back” knowing what he did and he sets him up asking “did you see the add?” To which he says “yes” and she reply’s “there was no add” and also the final scene the conversation with the lawyer who is clearly covering him up giving the protagonist hints to shut the fuck up basically, as to the drawings he just can’t handle it anymore causing him clear sings of regret and pain because of the atrocities he committed having only that form of expression the only illusion on the movie it’s the ATM screen saying “Feed me stray cat” and the police car explosion. I completely agree idk why people think the protagonist dream it.
well at the end of the book, bateman is described to be in a restaurant 'Harry's' and in a very similar situation to the beginning of the novel. It is as if the mundanity of his life augmented his insanity, it's as if he has to look at people's clothes and his environment in immense detail because that is the only thing that gives him that change as eating out, gold diggers, etc is so repetitive. For me, it is as if due to the relentless cyclical nature of his life he does not know where he truly is. He hears Paul Owen goes to London so he fabricates a scene in his head where he killed Paul Owen. He didn't kill Jean because Jean was so different, Jean wanted to know about Batemen so there was no point in killing Jean because Jean provides change for him. Who cares about killing Paul Owen, there are thousands of Paul Owen's in his building and in Wall Street.
Don’t take these scenes as totally literate. These Wall Street types exist, they’re everywhere. The only thing that keeps them from murder is they’re afraid they’ll be caught.
Hey man, I absolutely loved this particular vid in comparison with all the others. You covered most of the big things and what I liked particulary is that you tried to find a certain answer to an ending which is not only ambiguous but can be interpreted in so many ways which was the goal of the producer. I know we can never be sure 100% but I like the idea of creating an opinion on which most people can agree on that's ofc created on much research and thought investment.
Now I really hope you see this comment and answer it because I'm about to point out sth that NO ONE else seemed to notice EVER! I searched for it on the internet to see if some1 else might've noticed it but nothing
Here it is: Patrick made contact with his lawyer twice in the movie. First time over the phone from his office and the second time in that bar/restaurant in the end. However... those two times he contacted him, he called him differently. I think over the phone he called him "Howard" and in the bar he called him "Harold". This was kind of insane to me because throuhout the film other characters kept confusing people and misnaming them but this was the first time PATRICK was the one who misnamed someone. It doesn't imply much but since you've given this a lot of thought, what do you think this could mean for a movie as a whole.
I got chills. thank you for giving me some closure.
Great video and take!!!
My question about the realtor and the selling of Allen’s apartment is.... how was she just up and selling his apartment without him? I don’t understand that part
You can do anything with money and connections in a city. Plus a crooked lawyer can fill out any document and make it look legal. Oh of course, this guy wants to sell his apartment and get it remodled. I have the paperwork signed and date right here.
Finally a great explanation
The lawyer scene is also Fantasy.It is Not possible that a lawyer doesnt know who is clients are. That is only in a weird dream possible.
Great analysis 👌
I think at this point I’ve read or heard every possible theory but I just thought of one. That being was Paul Allen even Paul Allen? Remember Bateman intentionally allows “Allen” to mistake him for someone else the whole time, what if he was just like everyone else and was mistaking Allen for another person and “allen” was doing the same thing as Bateman. If this were the case, that would mean the detective and his lawyer were being serious about Paul allen being alive in London. Forgive me if there’s any points in the movie that would make this theory incorrect as I haven’t seen it in a while. I think it’s really impossible to determine if all of it was real or none of it, or even if all of it was real but whatever his mental problem is just made some parts exaggerated. An example of all of it being real but some just being exaggerated would be the whole scene whrrr he’s on the run starting with the machine saying it needs a cat. I think another possibility is that hardly anything was real and every time there was murder, it was all imagined and while he was having these mental breakdowns that we see as him committing the murders, he was expressing those imaginations in that scrapbook. So his mind is so warped that when he comes out of those trances, he thinks they happened and he was using that scrapbook his plans or representations of the murders, but in reality it was just what he had imagined happened but he just couldn’t tell that was the case. If that makes any sense lol
I wondered if it was his old man bailing his crazy son out of trouble
genius interpretations about the paul allen one ...
You forgot one thing...
"Confession didn't matter"
Can't explain the realtor scene if it's all in his head.
Great review