I honestly think that’s part of the appeal for those who idolize Bateman. He’s particular and vane and envious. We are led to see his flaws as he sees them: extensions of justified righteous indignation at the world’s resistance to his perfection, all. His narcissism fueling disgust for the world and everyone in it.
The jilted pampered white boy is exactly what they identify with.
Evaluate the comparison drawn in the final scene of the film. Bateman confesses again, in-person this time, to his lawyer who blows him off for reasons that could be debated within the narrative. The important bit for our discussion is that, regardless of the reasons for dismissal, the lawyer simply doesn’t believe Bateman is capable of the crimes he confesses to.
Not even recognizing Bateman and mistaking Bateman for someone else the lawyer says:
“Bateman’s such a dork, such a boring, spineless lightweight…” “…Oh Christ. He can barely pick up an escort girl, let alone… What was it you said he did to her?”
After some more back and forth Bateman returns to his friend’s table and finds his friends discussing Ronald Reagan’s address regarding the Iran-Contra scandal. The sentiment is how unbelievable it is that someone so unassuming could do something so vile, brazenly lie about it, and almost get away with it.
To be dismissed as incapable while believing oneself cunning and depraved and wholly underestimated. To act on that depravity and take by brutal force. To confess vile crimes that go unpunished because no believes you capable of them… It’s a twisted diamond in the rough story.
That’s not the gritty visual masculinity we normally think of, as you say, but Bateman is rape culture personified and adorned in every tropey “high-class” commecialization of masculinity at the time. Couple that with anemoia for the eighties in a generation raised on algorithmically tuned psychological traps which weaponized toxic masculinity for profit and… Tada!
We strike resonance with a certain brand both of internet-raised narcissist and naive, disaffected, emotionally-immature manchild. Especially young men who’ve been emotionally manipulated into believing alt-right propaganda makes sense of a world they’ve been stymied from understanding.
I don’t think it’s because he doesn’t think Bateman is capable of committing those crimes - far from it. Almost everyone in the film is a psychopath in their way (the sex workers are notable exceptions).
Nobody wants to deal with the consequences because it would upset the gravy train they’re on. The lawyer doesn’t want to hear a confession, the real estate agent doesn’t want to acknowledge that crimes took place there etc. The world is built on ignoring things that distract from money. Everyone will lie to keep things rolling.
Eta: that’s the joke in the book and movie title - Bateman is the psycho because he feels some remorse. Everyone just wants to carry on with their lives.
Possibly! A lot is left to interpretation in the film. I agree with your take though. More or less. I feel there’s enough presented after the initial twist (was he just imagining it all?!) to suggest an additional turn. That being the horror of a society built on such incredible self-absorbtion (and cocaine) is the real bogeyman.
The lack of comprehension from some reminds me of a certain type of Fight Club fan on whom the film is wasted entirely.
My framing in the previous comment is meant to highlight how Bateman’s story seems to resonate with the disaffected and media illiterate as I understand them. It seems much of the subtext intended to catch the viewer’s attention and request a critical eye fails to register with that crowd. My aim was answering the implied question “How could take seriously Bateman as peak masculinity?” of the comment I initially responded to.
I could have made that more clear in the perspective I used to convey the point. Note taken. 🙂
The film is so much clearer than the book 😄 Even Ellis said that Bateman is such an unreliable narrator that it’s not clear that any of the events happened at all. But I think you are 100% correct in that lead characters will always have a fandom that identifies with them no matter how repulsive the character is.
Up thread I made a joke about Marty Supreme. There is a character who is an unrepentant piece of shit who manipulates, steals from, and headlights every other character in the movie. I already hear people saying it’s inspirational because he followed his heart. No matter that he ruined the lives of every person around him.
Every comment about batman I see is either from the perspective of the arkham video games or the campy west series. It seems like there is no in between.
Patrick Bateman was the satirization of a metrosexual if anything.
He was not masculine at all in the rugged manly sense of the term.
Compare Rambo to Bateman. Rambo is the stereotypical manly man, who burns his own wound with a hot knife or gunpowder.
Patrick Bateman would scream like a little girl and freak out over his body being ruined and scarred.
I honestly think that’s part of the appeal for those who idolize Bateman. He’s particular and vane and envious. We are led to see his flaws as he sees them: extensions of justified righteous indignation at the world’s resistance to his perfection, all. His narcissism fueling disgust for the world and everyone in it.
The jilted pampered white boy is exactly what they identify with.
Evaluate the comparison drawn in the final scene of the film. Bateman confesses again, in-person this time, to his lawyer who blows him off for reasons that could be debated within the narrative. The important bit for our discussion is that, regardless of the reasons for dismissal, the lawyer simply doesn’t believe Bateman is capable of the crimes he confesses to.
Not even recognizing Bateman and mistaking Bateman for someone else the lawyer says: “Bateman’s such a dork, such a boring, spineless lightweight…” “…Oh Christ. He can barely pick up an escort girl, let alone… What was it you said he did to her?”
After some more back and forth Bateman returns to his friend’s table and finds his friends discussing Ronald Reagan’s address regarding the Iran-Contra scandal. The sentiment is how unbelievable it is that someone so unassuming could do something so vile, brazenly lie about it, and almost get away with it.
To be dismissed as incapable while believing oneself cunning and depraved and wholly underestimated. To act on that depravity and take by brutal force. To confess vile crimes that go unpunished because no believes you capable of them… It’s a twisted diamond in the rough story.
That’s not the gritty visual masculinity we normally think of, as you say, but Bateman is rape culture personified and adorned in every tropey “high-class” commecialization of masculinity at the time. Couple that with anemoia for the eighties in a generation raised on algorithmically tuned psychological traps which weaponized toxic masculinity for profit and… Tada!
We strike resonance with a certain brand both of internet-raised narcissist and naive, disaffected, emotionally-immature manchild. Especially young men who’ve been emotionally manipulated into believing alt-right propaganda makes sense of a world they’ve been stymied from understanding.
I don’t think it’s because he doesn’t think Bateman is capable of committing those crimes - far from it. Almost everyone in the film is a psychopath in their way (the sex workers are notable exceptions).
Nobody wants to deal with the consequences because it would upset the gravy train they’re on. The lawyer doesn’t want to hear a confession, the real estate agent doesn’t want to acknowledge that crimes took place there etc. The world is built on ignoring things that distract from money. Everyone will lie to keep things rolling.
Eta: that’s the joke in the book and movie title - Bateman is the psycho because he feels some remorse. Everyone just wants to carry on with their lives.
Possibly! A lot is left to interpretation in the film. I agree with your take though. More or less. I feel there’s enough presented after the initial twist (was he just imagining it all?!) to suggest an additional turn. That being the horror of a society built on such incredible self-absorbtion (and cocaine) is the real bogeyman.
The lack of comprehension from some reminds me of a certain type of Fight Club fan on whom the film is wasted entirely.
My framing in the previous comment is meant to highlight how Bateman’s story seems to resonate with the disaffected and media illiterate as I understand them. It seems much of the subtext intended to catch the viewer’s attention and request a critical eye fails to register with that crowd. My aim was answering the implied question “How could take seriously Bateman as peak masculinity?” of the comment I initially responded to.
I could have made that more clear in the perspective I used to convey the point. Note taken. 🙂
The film is so much clearer than the book 😄 Even Ellis said that Bateman is such an unreliable narrator that it’s not clear that any of the events happened at all. But I think you are 100% correct in that lead characters will always have a fandom that identifies with them no matter how repulsive the character is.
Up thread I made a joke about Marty Supreme. There is a character who is an unrepentant piece of shit who manipulates, steals from, and headlights every other character in the movie. I already hear people saying it’s inspirational because he followed his heart. No matter that he ruined the lives of every person around him.
Not satirizing metrosexual at all. He is the counterpoint to Gordon Gecko.
Why compare Bateman to Rambo, when Batman is sitting right there? Twice.
not a lot of people on lemmy really know batman, if youve seen the takes they parrot
Every comment about batman I see is either from the perspective of the arkham video games or the campy west series. It seems like there is no in between.