Why remaking American Psycho is a good idea
LionsgateThe news that Luca Guadagnino is about to shoot his own adaptation of American Psycho was met with both criticism and skepticism last week. But there’s room for a fresh take on Bret Easton Ellis’s notorious novel.
American Psycho has always been controversial. Indeed, the story of a Wall Street banker who happens to be a serial killer very nearly didn’t make it to book stands.
Publisher Simon & Schuster dropped the novel due to “aesthetic differences,” resulting in Vantage Books buying the rights, and making a fortune when it became a bestseller in 1991.
Still, the graphic sadism within those pages meant American Psycho became one of the most banned books in the world, while it was deemed “harmful to minors” in Germany and couldn’t be sold to anyone under 18 in Australia.
Adapting American Psycho
Mary Harron co-wrote and directed a movie adaptation in 2000 that starred Christian Bale as the titular psychopath. But there were problems from the outset, with anti-violence protestors trying to shut the Toronto shoot down.
Those issues continued after the movie had wrapped, with American Psycho very nearly receiving a potentially disastrous NC-17 certificate in the US, until producers removed 18 seconds from an explicit sex scene.
Despite the best attempts of protestors and censors, the movie was a hit, grossing $34 million from a $7 million budget. While a cult has built around the title through the intervening years, one that’s been fuelled by memes and GIFs, and resulted in Harron’s adaptation now being more popular than ever.
Which is why fans were less than pleased that the director of Call Me By Your Name and Challengers would be tackling the material.
Criticism of the announcement
“Leave American Psycho we do not need a remake,” bemoaned one, while another said: “I wrote my dissertation on Mary Harron’s American Psycho and I am SO against this.” A third added: “They need to stop remaking iconic movies. This does not need to be remade.”
To be fair to Lionsgate – the studio behind both versions – they’re calling Guadagnino’s film a “new adaptation” of the material, with sources stating it isn’t a remake.
Plus the director has form on this front, having put his own very specific spin on horror classic Suspiria in 2018, through which he managed to craft something that was suitably divergent, while remaining faithful to Dario Argento’s core vision.
“Luca is a brilliant artist,” Lionsgate’s Adam Fogelson told Deadline, “and the perfect visionary to create a whole new interpretation of this potent and classic IP.”
Love for Mary Harron
There’s also been lots of love directed towards the woman responsible for that first iteration, with one commentator writing: “Mary Harron’s American Psycho is perfect,” and another claiming, “No one will ever out-do Mary Herron.”
But as far as author Bret Easton Ellis is concerned, there’s room for improvement. In an interview with Film School Rejects (via Far Out), Ellis said: “I don’t really think it works as a film. The movie is fine, but I think that book is unadaptable because it’s about consciousness, and you can’t really shoot that sensibility.”
There’s also the question of whether Patrick Bateman is really committing the atrocities described, or if it’s all in his head. Ellis believes that’s something that Harron got wrong, which means it’s also something that Guadagnino could potentially put right.
As the author explains: “The book itself doesn’t really answer a lot of the questions it poses, but by the very nature of the medium of a movie, you kind of have to answer those questions.
“And a movie automatically says, ‘It’s real.’ Then, at the end, it tries to have it both ways by suggesting that it wasn’t. Which you could argue is interesting, but I think it basically confused a lot of people, and I think even Mary would admit that.”
More to be mined from the novel
Vantage BooksThe 2000 film also omitted some of the book’s most graphic moments, including a sequence that recently inspired Terrifier 3’s most shocking scene.
So in terms of adaptation, there’s certainly opportunity to shoot a more faithful film. Though one that would doubtless encounter even movie issues with the US ratings board.
However, the real reason for making a new version of American Psycho is to see a fresh interpretation of Patrick Bateman on-screen.
The character at the heart of American Psycho is a modern-day boogeyman who’s cast a shadow over culture for the last few decades, influencing everything from Dexter and Joker to Barney in How I Met Your Mother and Dennis in It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
Re-imagining Patrick Bateman
Matt Smith got to inhabit his Bateman in a well-received stage musical in 2013, while Benjamin Walker played Patrick in the same show on Broadway. So why not let another young actor craft their own American Psycho in a new movie?
After all, if the industry stopped at Nosferatu in 1922, we’d have lost Bela Lugosi’s devilish Dracula, as well as what Christopher Lee and Gary Oldman did with the Prince of Darkness.
Similarly, Tim Curry’s performance as Pennywise is one of the greatest in all of horror. But then Bill Skarsgård brought something dark and twisted and, above all, different to the character in Andy Mushietti’s It movies.
Fans loved how he played the killer clown, while knowing they could return to Curry’s version should they so desire.
This proves that the best movie literary monsters deserve – and frequently demand – to be reimagined by new generations, and to say otherwise is the most primitive form of gatekeeping. Which is why I can’t wait to see what Luca Guadagnino does with his version of American Psycho.
For more messed up movies, check out our list of the best horror films of all time.