MovieChat Forums > American Psycho (2000) Discussion > Theory: He wasn't that rich and he wasn'...

Theory: He wasn't that rich and he wasn't that successful

posted 7 months ago by holly61 (929)
7 replies | jump to latest

His Dad had money but wasn't giving it out to him so easily. He was renting a nice apartment but doesn't own it nor does he own any property.

He doesn't seem to be particularly successful in his job and he's not hard working. This is why he hates Paul - Paul in my opinion is much wealthier, self made wealth. He is hard working, engaging and has made a name for his self around town which is why he's able to get into "Dorcia". Paul is basically on his way to the top, becoming a millionaire.

Patrick can not stand him for this reason. Patrick isn't anything like Paul, he's a guy who's Daddy got him a job and will never be more than his father's son.

[–] daveyh (617) 7 months ago

thing is, if the murders are a fantasy, you've got to wonder what other aspects of his life/identity are also only in his head. He could not be rich or successful, either in his own right or through family money, or be the well dressed, athletic handsome guy he projects to be - it would have been funny if he'd looked in a mirror of his American Gardens building appartment towards the end of the movie and the audience could see an overweight, pasty-faced slob staring back , with what appeared to be a scruffy cramped garret in the background.

[–] holly61 (929) 7 months ago

The movie is deceptive. We're not watching what we think we are. He may look like an attractive man to us the audience but could look like something else very different...

So I would say you are right. Most of the movie is fantasy and aspiration from an insecure person.

[–] liscarkat (17811) a month ago

"We're not watching what we think we are."

There is nothing in the movie to indicate that. You are just making it up.

[–] CountJohn (592) a month ago

Agree with this interpretation but disagree that it should have been blatantly spelled out like that. Just let the audience infer it on their own and show the whole movie from Bateman's deluded POV.

[–] Saenzwa9 (477) 4 months ago

you pretty much just described my life

[–] ShogunofYonkers (76101) a month ago

This is not actually a bad theory, I think you may have hit the nail on the head. Most narcissists are wannabes, grandiose fools with a huge leaning toward self delusion and very little gumption to actually get anything done.

That’s Bateman to a tee.

[–] TheCatman (92) a month ago

Good theory, but that's not solid according to the author.

The author wrote the story about himself.

He was a writer and then Hollywood got very interested in his books. That caused him to get rich and be involved in the Hollywood crowd of rich people who could do anything they wanted to.

He said he got obsessed with competition, fashion, and so on. So, Bateman is the author and the author experienced nearly psychotic fantasies of power. His mind was occupied with success, more success, sex, and having the finest of everything.

Meanwhile, when people looked at him they saw a composed guy, wearing great clothes, and saying PC talking points to virtue signal.

Once he snapped out of it, he wrote the book.

The book is worth a read.

It's disjointed scenes of Bateman obsessing about clothes, sex, music, etc. The movie is more of a story with parts of the book included. So, the books is like reading the mind of an obsessed person while the movie is like a mystery, so that confuses what the story is about a bit.

I found articles from the author online years ago and found out what I reported here.