|
Cavenagh posted:That probably comes from the book, where there is a passage detailing his first murder as a college boy (I think he left his girlfriends decapitated head swinging from a rope over a river), which was covered up by his rich and important father. Though skimming through my copy, I naturally cannot find the passage. Yeah, pretty much this. There are also less explicit remarks by characters in the book (like Bethany, his college girlfriend) that imply his lack of accountability for anything because of his rich father. Medium Style posted:I have no idea where the "cover-up because he's the son of an important person" theory comes from, though. I don't see anything in the movie that hints at this and it's been mentioned on the forums before. Patrick's lack of accountability is only suggested once in the movie, by Evelyn, when she remarks that Patrick's father pretty much owns Pierce & Pierce, and that he doesn't have to take his job seriously at all. I could see one interpreting this later as evidence of powerful figures that have a vested interest in covering up Patrick's misdeeds. It makes sense given Mary Harron's intent (that the murders were real), that Patrick's society had become so impersonal and sociopathic that morality, accountability, and the interruption of their lifestyle aren't worth rocking the boat. However, I don't understand how Mary Harron could've intended for the murders to be real given everything else at the end of the movie...it's just so clear that the most logical explanation is that Patrick's insane and could no longer divorce his fantasies from reality. The scene where he cracks up and has a panic attack, calling Jean and then hanging up on her was transplanted from the middle of the book to the end of the movie, prompting Jean to look into his desk and find sketches of dismembered women, doodles of the things he thought he had done, within his polished, leather planner...an obvious suggestion that his violent fantasies are simply inside him. She is the only non-superficial character with a genuine gauge for or interest in his mental state, so I understand why she'd be the only one who cares about his thoughts divorced from action. This is echoed in the final narration, which Pedro De Heredia discussed earlier in this thread, that to Patrick and his friends, inside doesn't matter...all that matters is representation and externally manifested actions. Also, I assumed that the irony at the end of the movie was that despite characters constantly confusing each other for the wrong person, Patrick's lawyer wasn't mistaken when he claimed to have had dinner with Paul Owen in London. I just don't see how Harron could've decided to include these things in the end of the film if her desire was to suggest that the murders happened and weren't the idly sadistic fantasies of a bored rich man.
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2008 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 19:35 |
|