I’m still waiting for a good corollary to movies like American Psycho, that instead of playing up any awesome feeling of these tilted psychos, exposes how pathetic and illogical they are.
No Country for Old Men came close when the woman rejected the coin toss.
Except that was the whole point of American Psycho. People miss the subtext (not that it’s subtle) and think it’s about glorifying Patrick Bateman, but the whole point is that he’s pathetic and overestimates his own importance on every possible level.
I agree that people that see obviously evil protagonists as antiheros need to be given a reality check, but American Psycho is a weird film to use as an example of “glorifying psychos.” Joker would have been a better example, IMHO.
I agree. I think that filmmakers should have an understanding of how their work may be interpreted. American Psycho is a great example.
My go to examples are Fight Club, in which the protagonist is seen as a hero, and American History X, which is seen by the white power community as a justification of their viewpoint. In the former case, the misinterpretation is possibly more common than the intended portrayal of mental illness. In the latter case, it’s more of a phenomenon restricted to the already converted. The film Wall Street is another one.
I’m really on the fence about this. On the one hand, I love and respect art and how it reflects society. On the other hand, if A Modest Proposal actually resulted in people eating Irish babies, that would have been horrible.
Where’s the dividing line between something like that and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Is it the intent of the author, or is it the consequences of the publication? If Fight Club resulted in an increase in misogyny and inceldom, does the creator bear some responsibility? I find that the fanbase spoils a movie like Fight Club for me, at least a bit. AHX, though, is so blatant in its message that I find it hard to reject.
I actually agree with you, and yet I still see so much merchandising and celebration around Patrick Bateman. I think visually, they didn’t quite land that impact they wanted on audience impressions.
Kind of like how Pyramid Head has somehow outlived his role as James Sunderland’s fractured psyche for the sake of stardom.
Javier Bardem’s role as Anton Chigurh is often cited as the best portrayal of as the most realistic move psychopathic killer in films. The extremely uncaring way Chigurh is shown is one of the defining features. Along with how he has no need for validation, he never does anything he doesn’t have to and never lets anything distract him be it pretty girls or injury.
I’m still waiting for a good corollary to movies like American Psycho, that instead of playing up any awesome feeling of these tilted psychos, exposes how pathetic and illogical they are.
No Country for Old Men came close when the woman rejected the coin toss.
Except that was the whole point of American Psycho. People miss the subtext (not that it’s subtle) and think it’s about glorifying Patrick Bateman, but the whole point is that he’s pathetic and overestimates his own importance on every possible level.
I agree that people that see obviously evil protagonists as antiheros need to be given a reality check, but American Psycho is a weird film to use as an example of “glorifying psychos.” Joker would have been a better example, IMHO.
I agree. I think that filmmakers should have an understanding of how their work may be interpreted. American Psycho is a great example.
My go to examples are Fight Club, in which the protagonist is seen as a hero, and American History X, which is seen by the white power community as a justification of their viewpoint. In the former case, the misinterpretation is possibly more common than the intended portrayal of mental illness. In the latter case, it’s more of a phenomenon restricted to the already converted. The film Wall Street is another one.
I’m really on the fence about this. On the one hand, I love and respect art and how it reflects society. On the other hand, if A Modest Proposal actually resulted in people eating Irish babies, that would have been horrible.
Where’s the dividing line between something like that and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Is it the intent of the author, or is it the consequences of the publication? If Fight Club resulted in an increase in misogyny and inceldom, does the creator bear some responsibility? I find that the fanbase spoils a movie like Fight Club for me, at least a bit. AHX, though, is so blatant in its message that I find it hard to reject.
I actually agree with you, and yet I still see so much merchandising and celebration around Patrick Bateman. I think visually, they didn’t quite land that impact they wanted on audience impressions.
Kind of like how Pyramid Head has somehow outlived his role as James Sunderland’s fractured psyche for the sake of stardom.
Removed by mod
I’d say Joker was sympathizing more than glorifying.
To-may-to, to-mah-to
Javier Bardem’s role as Anton Chigurh is often cited as the best portrayal of as the most realistic move psychopathic killer in films. The extremely uncaring way Chigurh is shown is one of the defining features. Along with how he has no need for validation, he never does anything he doesn’t have to and never lets anything distract him be it pretty girls or injury.
One of my favorite serial killer movies is Serial Mom.
I love how it’s all goofy except for one moment in the movie where it’s serious and horrifying, then goes back to goofy.