American Psycho and movies based on novels.

Rating: 7/10 (18 April 2004)

I'm a movie guy, what can I say. I wish I were `well read', I'm just not a book guy. That's not to say I'm an illiterate boob. I enjoy a good novel every now and then. But usually I rely on the printed page for books of the non-fiction variety. I'm almost always irritated when I hear some snob complaining how the movie they just saw wasn't as good as the book. You know what I'm talking about. At one point in you life you have been on one side of one of those kinds of conversations. I'm usually on the side that says.'well I don't know about the book but the movie was swell' or `well I don't know about the book but the movie sucked' Either way I feel that a movie should be judged on its own merits. The two art forms, novels and films, are completely different. At least I that's how I felt before I read Bret Easton Ellis's novel `American Psycho'. I picked it up because I was in love with the film. I sorta went into the whole experience of reading the novel expecting it to be a sort of `un-cut' version of the film. This intrigued me a great deal. Needless to say upon reading this great novel I came away less a fan of the film and more a fan of the printed work. The novel sort of ruined the film for me. And I in subsequent conversations with my pals I ended up on the other side of that afore mentioned book to film comparison conversation. I remember viewing my DVD of American Psycho right after I completed the novel and being completely disappointed. It now seemed that so much of Patrick's character arc was just ignored. His relationship with Jean his secretary was entirely ignored. Characters names were seemingly arbitrarily changed. There wasn't enough narration, after the entire book was told almost completely from Patrick's narration. And that one scene in the film where Jean reads his journal and finds the macabre sketches seemed a complete betrayal of the story's first person nature. My problem at the time was that I was making all the comparisons that I think shouldn't be made when a film is adapted from a novel. The theatrical film medium is extremely limited in the narrative it is capable in bringing forth to the audience. Traditionally you get 2 to 3 hours and you have to rely on what is primarily a visual medium to adapt a written one. That is one thing most filmmakers and audiences forget. Filmmakers rarely utilize the picture tells a thousands words school of filmmaking and stoop to cheesy music and bad dialogue to get the point across. This is true for most films nowadays let alone those based on novels. And audiences foolishly expect a scene-by-scene adaptation of their favorite literary work. Once I re-examined my criticism I viewed the film sever times over. I came to the conclusion that it is indeed a good adaptation. It is brilliant how they incorporated the music review chapters. I also realized its not that the violence in the film is a watered down version from the book. It's more that those ultra-violent scenes are simply not in the film. When you think about its amazing how much of the book Marry Haron and Guinevere Turner managed to fit into their script. The answering scene confession stands out as one of the best scenes in recent memory. Bale deserved some recognition for this scene alone.
So what we are left with is a good film with a verry Kubrick like feel. A film with amazing performances and witty dialogue, much of which was lifted strait from the novel. Though many of my complaints still stand, they don't ruin what is otherwise a worthwhile movie experience. One could do much worse when choosing a Friday night rental.