Red Mosquito

American Psycho is like Fight Club for people who think they're too smart for Fight Club but really aren't.

Part of the fun of Lunar Park is for fans of BEE's work over the years, it's a fun read for sure but not what I would select for someone having only read American Psycho. What didn't you love about American Psycho the novel? The answer to this will probably help me understand how you thought the film was brilliant.

just listened to the podcast with brownstein and armisen. bret easton ellis does not know how to conduct an interview (or a conversation).

meanwhile, American Psycho is a terrific book.

oasisfan35 wrote:Part of the fun of Lunar Park is for fans of BEE's work over the years, it's a fun read for sure but not what I would select for someone having only read American Psycho. What didn't you love about American Psycho the novel? The answer to this will probably help me understand how you thought the film was brilliant.

I saw the film first, so that might be part of it.

Mostly it's the ending. The film is much more ambiguous, to me. The book is pretty clear. And I really don't like that. I also think the book is too graphic and extreme. The over-the-top-ness dampens the satire. It became unreadable at times. I had to put it down for a few weeks and take a break.

There's quite a lot to like about the book. It's hilarious, for one. And I like the juxtaposition of humor and horror. But the film does a better job with the satire and the balance. I also think BEE thinks he's cleverer than he is. There's a fair amount of masturbation going on in the prose. That, by virtue of the medium, gets removed from the film. I can separate the story and themes and all of that from the author himself.

I agree that seeing the film first is probably a big part.

I can see how you'd be drawn more to the amiguity than finality, though the ambiguity of the film along with the content left out from the book made for far too clean a picture that was far too shallow for my own real enjoyment.

Sure the book is graphic and just about to the point of over the top, but Ellis seemed to be taking the pain that Bateman experienced/was experiencing and exposing it through very visceral violence toward others. Bateman had relationships with people in the book and his father was one of the focal points; nonexistent in the film which along with the dialed down violence borders camp. I'm not particularly slagging the film but they are two very different projects. Agreed, the book surely has some great moments of humor.

I'll add, Ellis has stated (possibly more so now than then) that the book was far more personal than he let on and not particularly caring for how the film turned out. That being said, I can see how the inundation of descriptions of all things shadowed a lot of the content and came off as mastubatory... and simply was. There were some demons exorcised though those words, somewhere.

I watched the film for the first time in a while about a year ago and didn't make it all the way through. I haven't read the book in a very, very long time either over ten years I'm sure.

My favorite Ellis book is Glamorama but if you want to pursue his work I would suggest The Rules of Attraction.

oasisfan35 wrote:I agree that seeing the film first is probably a big part.

I can see how you'd be drawn more to the amiguity than finality, though the ambiguity of the film along with the content left out from the book made for far too clean a picture that was far too shallow for my own real enjoyment.

Sure the book is graphic and just about to the point of over the top, but Ellis seemed to be taking the pain that Bateman experienced/was experiencing and exposing it through very visceral violence toward others. Bateman had relationships with people in the book and his father was one of the focal points; nonexistent in the film which along with the dialed down violence borders camp. I'm not particularly slagging the film but they are two very different projects. Agreed, the book surely has some great moments of humor.

I'll add, Ellis has stated (possibly more so now than then) that the book was far more personal than he let on and not particularly caring for how the film turned out. That being said, I can see how the inundation of descriptions of all things shadowed a lot of the content and came off as mastubatory... and simply was. There were some demons exorcised though those words, somewhere.

I watched the film for the first time in a while about a year ago and didn't make it all the way through. I haven't read the book in a very, very long time either over ten years I'm sure.

My favorite Ellis book is Glamorama but if you want to pursue his work I would suggest The Rules of Attraction.

Thanks for the reply. I hadn't heard about the more personal aspects, the demons, as you say, before. That actually makes a lot of sense. And explains why it comes off as masturbatory.

I should watch the film again. It's been a long, long time. Probably a good 8 to 10 years or so. I wonder if it's a film that ages well. I can totally understand why BEE wouldn't like the film. I would've been surprised if he did.

I've seen the Rules of Attraction film as well. And I really like it. It's nowhere near as good as American Psycho, but it's solid. I'd love to read the book. Which, I'm told, is very very different.

durdencommatyler wrote:

oasisfan35 wrote:I agree that seeing the film first is probably a big part.

I can see how you'd be drawn more to the amiguity than finality, though the ambiguity of the film along with the content left out from the book made for far too clean a picture that was far too shallow for my own real enjoyment.

Sure the book is graphic and just about to the point of over the top, but Ellis seemed to be taking the pain that Bateman experienced/was experiencing and exposing it through very visceral violence toward others. Bateman had relationships with people in the book and his father was one of the focal points; nonexistent in the film which along with the dialed down violence borders camp. I'm not particularly slagging the film but they are two very different projects. Agreed, the book surely has some great moments of humor.

I'll add, Ellis has stated (possibly more so now than then) that the book was far more personal than he let on and not particularly caring for how the film turned out. That being said, I can see how the inundation of descriptions of all things shadowed a lot of the content and came off as mastubatory... and simply was. There were some demons exorcised though those words, somewhere.

I watched the film for the first time in a while about a year ago and didn't make it all the way through. I haven't read the book in a very, very long time either over ten years I'm sure.

My favorite Ellis book is Glamorama but if you want to pursue his work I would suggest The Rules of Attraction.

Thanks for the reply. I hadn't heard about the more personal aspects, the demons, as you say, before. That actually makes a lot of sense. And explains why it comes off as masturbatory.

I should watch the film again. It's been a long, long time. Probably a good 8 to 10 years or so. I wonder if it's a film that ages well. I can totally understand why BEE wouldn't like the film. I would've been surprised if he did.

I've seen the Rules of Attraction film as well. And I really like it. It's nowhere near as good as American Psycho, but it's solid. I'd love to read the book. Which, I'm told, is very very different.

The Rules Of Attraction film doesn't deviate too far from the book, Avary actually does fairly good job; but as with any adaptation plenty is lost. It's short as well and I feel stands the test of time a bit more than Less Than Zero which I tend to have to be in a certain headspace to thoroughly enjoy (the novel, god not the film).

Avary is a huge BEE fan and wanted to turn Glamorama in to a film from the get-go. Funnily I felt BEE wrote Glamorama as audaciously as he did simply so that couldn't heppen, especially after his response to the already filmed adaptations. I never got through The Informers film and probably never will.

oasisfan35 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

oasisfan35 wrote:I agree that seeing the film first is probably a big part.

I can see how you'd be drawn more to the amiguity than finality, though the ambiguity of the film along with the content left out from the book made for far too clean a picture that was far too shallow for my own real enjoyment.

Sure the book is graphic and just about to the point of over the top, but Ellis seemed to be taking the pain that Bateman experienced/was experiencing and exposing it through very visceral violence toward others. Bateman had relationships with people in the book and his father was one of the focal points; nonexistent in the film which along with the dialed down violence borders camp. I'm not particularly slagging the film but they are two very different projects. Agreed, the book surely has some great moments of humor.

I'll add, Ellis has stated (possibly more so now than then) that the book was far more personal than he let on and not particularly caring for how the film turned out. That being said, I can see how the inundation of descriptions of all things shadowed a lot of the content and came off as mastubatory... and simply was. There were some demons exorcised though those words, somewhere.

I watched the film for the first time in a while about a year ago and didn't make it all the way through. I haven't read the book in a very, very long time either over ten years I'm sure.

My favorite Ellis book is Glamorama but if you want to pursue his work I would suggest The Rules of Attraction.

Thanks for the reply. I hadn't heard about the more personal aspects, the demons, as you say, before. That actually makes a lot of sense. And explains why it comes off as masturbatory.

I should watch the film again. It's been a long, long time. Probably a good 8 to 10 years or so. I wonder if it's a film that ages well. I can totally understand why BEE wouldn't like the film. I would've been surprised if he did.

I've seen the Rules of Attraction film as well. And I really like it. It's nowhere near as good as American Psycho, but it's solid. I'd love to read the book. Which, I'm told, is very very different.

The Rules Of Attraction film doesn't deviate too far from the book, Avary actually does fairly good job; but as with any adaptation plenty is lost. It's short as well and I feel stands the test of time a bit more than Less Than Zero which I tend to have to be in a certain headspace to thoroughly enjoy (the novel, god not the film).

Avary is a huge BEE fan and wanted to turn Glamorama in to a film from the get-go. Funnily I felt BEE wrote Glamorama as audaciously as he did simply so that couldn't heppen, especially after his response to the already filmed adaptations. I never got through The Informers film and probably never will.

You've got me seriously wanting to dive deeper into his catalog. Thanks for that.

I wonder why I was under the impression that the RoA film is drastically different from the book. Weird. Whatever. Good to know that it's fairly faithful. I liked it quite a bit and have wanted to check out the book ever since.

durdencommatyler wrote:I wonder why I was under the impression that the RoA film is drastically different from the book. Weird. Whatever. Good to know that it's fairly faithful. I liked it quite a bit and have wanted to check out the book ever since.

Perhaps you were thinking of the Less Than Zero film? (Which is garbage.)

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:I wonder why I was under the impression that the RoA film is drastically different from the book. Weird. Whatever. Good to know that it's fairly faithful. I liked it quite a bit and have wanted to check out the book ever since.

Perhaps you were thinking of the Less Than Zero film? (Which is garbage.)

Maybe.

I haven't seen that or read the book. But I've definitely heard the film isn't worth it.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:I wonder why I was under the impression that the RoA film is drastically different from the book. Weird. Whatever. Good to know that it's fairly faithful. I liked it quite a bit and have wanted to check out the book ever since.

Perhaps you were thinking of the Less Than Zero film? (Which is garbage.)

Maybe.

I haven't seen that or read the book. But I've definitely heard the film isn't worth it.

It is worth the viewing for Downey Jr's performance but that is actually tinged with plenty of sadness given his difficulties with substance abuse, especially what came to be post Chaplin.

And don't pass on the book by any means, I'd probably put it after Rules as a recommendation depending on what you enjoy of that one.

i really love the kurt vile interview

Never made time for the podcasts before... the Rob Zombie one was interesting since Aquarius is hitting the screen soon, just flipped on the Van Der Beek ep to run over RoA fun.

BEE likes the mic close to him it seems.

Edit: Good lord, BEE is a terrible speaker in the human sense.

Edit 2: The Van Ber Beek episode was fun, tossing on RoA now.

The Dawson one was cool...and yes, lots of cool info on Rules Of Attraction.

The Kevin Smith one was great too...Also, MM and Ti West...great podcast.

Holy hell, the monologue at the beginning of the Gerard Way episode is amazing. The "warm water" anecdote about 9/11...Jesus Christ.

ill listen to that one today....

Also, the ivan reitman one is pure gold. Specially the part were he refers about the Fred Armisen disaster.

Listening to the Matthew Weiner episode now. Holy shit, this guy is hopelessly clueless. How the fuck could anyone seriously believe that fucking Boardwalk Empire has more "visual texture" than any movie and that the concept of a director being the author of a movie is an arbitrary marketing decision? I mean...goddamit. There is no hope for this guy.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Listening to the Matthew Weiner episode now. Holy shit, this guy is hopelessly clueless. How the fuck could anyone seriously believe that fucking Boardwalk Empire has more "visual texture" than any movie and that the concept of a director being the author of a movie is an arbitrary marketing decision? I mean...goddamit. There is no hope for this guy.

ill listen to that one...Both of the Judd Apatow ones are great. Loved the Girls Discussion.

"I'm kind of not really a follower."

Oh my god, this guy is such a douchebag.

A douchebag, maybe. Never met him. But if he is, he's a douchebag that's responsible for one of greatest, if not the single greatest, television show in history. And what I would personally consider one of the few contenders for the greatest American artistic achievement since Angels in America.