1 Scene in ‘American Psycho’ That I Didn’t Understand at First
‘American Psycho’ is one of my favorite movies. Unfortunately, that opinion can give off odd connotations in this day in age. Not because there’s anything particularly wrong with watching the film or that it’s aged poorly in some regard.
Instead, it’s because a select group of online weirdos has adopted the film, and its main character of Patrick Bateman, as reactionary darlings. It’s similar to how people have watched ‘Breaking Bad,’ ‘Joker,’ and ‘Fight Club,’ and somehow found its warped but compelling main characters to be near-aspirational figures. In doing so, these “fans” have missed much of the work’s actual characterization, themes, messaging, and satire.
To be fair, there are also plenty of films where I missed the message on the first watch. For some creative works, it’s just that I was too young at the time. Still, for others, I feel completely stupid figuring it out a long time after.
Viewers, including myself, need to learn how to better decode a film’s messaging beyond a character turning to the camera and spelling it out to the audience. A lack of this ability has caused plenty of people to think ‘Midsommar’ is a feminist work instead of about the process of cult selection and indoctrination, and has driven an economy of ‘Ending Explained!’ videos on YouTube about movies and TV shows that wildly miss the point.
Class, Consumerism, and the Corporate Ladder
Regarding ‘American Psycho,’ which I probably watched when I was around 16 or 17, I’m not sure I got the film’s entire messaging on a first watch. Although, unlike some people, I at least understood that Patrick Bateman wasn’t cool. In its critique of consumerism, capitalism, classism, and the ideology of an endless grind up the corporate ladder, I saw him as a detestable figure.
Patrick Bateman is rich yet empty. Despite his job as an investment banker and the status of success that brings him being the crux of his identity, we only see him perform work in a handful of vapid meetings and phone calls. Part of this choice is likely because audiences aren’t interested in watching an actor perform office work, but it’s also because, like the audience, Bateman is also bored by his job. It’s a distraction, or a means to an end.
So, instead, we mostly see his activities outside his job. Those not involving killings (or the clean-up of killings) involve keeping up his image of being young, successful, and desirable. He has a beautiful girlfriend he shows no interest in, attends parties and galas just to show that he belongs there or because it’s expected of him, fills his apartment with high-priced products (much like the protagonist of ‘Fight Club’) to keep up with the latest trends, and spends plenty of time and money keeping himself fit and beautiful with exercise, haircuts, suit shopping, and skin products.
Society has told Patrick Bateman (and many in our real world) that doing all these things (being rich, getting a good job, getting married, keeping yourself beautiful, etc.) will make him happy. However, despite Bateman thinking and caring about only himself, none of these actions of ordinary people satisfy him. In fact, he can only look higher up the chain and sulk.
We never see Patrick Bateman content, but we do see him angry and envious of what others have, most explicitly in the case of Paul Allen. Allen has a better business card than him, a better account he manages at work, and better connections to get a reservation at the prized Dorsia restaurant. Paul Allen being perceived as better than him, as doing things he cannot, angers him. So, he kills him. Yet, this act of revenge and jealousy doesn’t bring Bateman happiness but only further problems.
Then there are the other murders, which Bateman indulges in either as stress management or to chase a thread of happiness (or at least thrill) missing elsewhere in his life. A sense of fulfillment many assume would come from his status in life. Here too, I was aware in my initial viewing of ‘American Psycho,’ that Bateman’s position in life helped to protect him. After all, why would police consider a wealthy, white, charming banker to be a mass murderer? Despite being interviewed by a detective throughout the film regarding Paul Allen’s disappearance, he’s never suspected.
So, what about that particular scene I couldn’t wrap my brain around on first viewing?
‘American Psycho’ and the Unreliable Narrator
On my first watch of ‘American Psycho’ I don’t think I was aware of the term ‘unreliable narrator,’ but that’s what I assumed Patrick Bateman to be. And he is, to an extent. After all, in the film’s one bombastic action sequence, Bateman has an ATM tell him to feed it a cat and then proceeds to kill multiple policemen and civilians in a shootout and chase. Did all of that really happen?
So, after seeing that scene for the first time, I told myself something like the following: “Oh, he’s just crazy. None of that really happened.” Furthermore, I figured that if that scene was fiction in the head of Patrick Bateman, maybe other scenes were too.
That leads to the next scene in question. Bateman heads back to the apartment of Paul Allen, which he has used for several murders and the stashing of bodies. Donning a mask and gloves with the intent to clean out the apartment of evidence, he enters and is surprised.
The apartment is repainted and populated with a realtor and a couple of prospective renters. When the realtor asks Bateman if he’s her next appointment to view the apartment, he’s dumbstruck. When he asks about Paul Allen, she seems not to know what he’s talking about and, viewing him as a confused and erratic man that might do something dangerous, asks him to leave.
Viewing this scene shortly after the crime spree, I figured this was another case of Patrick Bateman being an unreliable narrator and a big twist on the entire movie. Did he ever kill Paul Allen or any of the victims he stored there? What’s going on? Is he losing his mind?
But that’s not what actually happened. I was just young and stupid.
While I’m not here to dismiss certain interpretations, a second viewing provided a more satisfying analysis of the scene and one that fits better with its themes. Sure, you can believe that this scene is just more of Bateman losing his mind…
The other way to look at it is this. After dying, Paul Allen stopped paying his rent. Eventually, the realty company checked in on him and found the apartment as Patrick Bateman had left it — a crime scene littered with DNA evidence and bodies. And then, the realty company made its next move.
The realty company could’ve called the police and reported the crime. But that would be bad for business. It would create a media frenzy, take the apartment off the market, probably cause other tenants to vacate, and significantly devalue all of the rooms in the building.
So, instead, the realty company just covered it up. They cleaned the apartment, disposed of the bodies, gave it a new coat of paint, and put the apartment right back on the market. That way, they could get a new tenant and start making money again as soon as possible.
This then leads to the end of the film, where Bateman goes to his lawyer, having left him a voicemail confessing to being a murderer. But his lawyer plays dumb. Again, we could read this as the main character having lost his marbles. However, the more sinister and satisfying answer is the same as with the realtor.
The lawyer got the message. The lawyer listened to the message. The lawyer understood the message. And then the lawyer pretended it never happened.
Turning Bateman in to the authorities would lose him a client, cause an investigation, and damage his reputation. Meanwhile, pretending he never received a voicemail means going about business as usual. It’s simpler, and more beneficial to all parties involved.
In this world, Patrick Bateman isn’t crazy because he kills people. As a moneymaker and member of high society, that can be tolerated and covered up. But wanting to turn himself in and tell the truth? Now, that’s crazy. That puts the livelihoods of others at risk. That stops the perpetual churn of money in the system. And that can’t be allowed.
(place ironic ‘We Live in a Society’ joke here)
