1. The greed expressed in the film makes people break away from people's social obligations.
This is reflected in plot settings such as the characters' obsessive positioning, frequent identification of the wrong person, and comparison of small business cards. This is what the film itself wants to express: in a place full of malicious intent, how bad it is to fight, and how bad people can be.
2. The film itself is about the separation of expression. At this point, "dissociation" seems to be a more suitable term. First, the most basic. In the story, there is no answer to whether the protagonist kills or not, but he lingers in the reality;
secondly, the attitude In the above, the film did not give the protagonist a judgment of good and evil (due to the lack of contrast: also in a realistic sense, is it not bad for a prostitute to be willing to be beaten for money?), he is another victim swallowed by the vortex of evil, or full of evil ultimate? In terms of the definition of the protagonist's good and bad, the film is ambiguous (he is only a bad person in terms of morality off-screen). After the protagonist enters a surreal serial killing scene, I even think that he is not a real person. It is a metaphysical representation of evil that is breaking through the margin (maliciousness finally breaks through the margin of limitation);
third, in terms of the protagonist’s motivation, the whole film describes how the protagonist does bad things one by one, but Did not give the basis for doing bad things, such as reasons, rules, etc., raised a question about why the protagonist did not kill him because of the business card strangling the homosexual, but did not solve it (unless the intention is to extend the homophobia off-screen), so It seems that the protagonist is performing some affairs meaninglessly, and then using these bizarre behaviors to darken some of the shortcomings of our human nature. This is a single-layer metaphor. From A→B, this expression will undoubtedly gradually appear as time goes by. The story is thin, after all, there is no basis in reality. It is difficult for the characters in it to find many roughly similar correspondences in the real world. Perhaps the real Wall Street florists will see this movie as if on pins and needles, but the rest of the ordinary audience is just watching one. People who are true and false repeatedly kill.
I think this would be better:
Either let the story be true-let the protagonist really do financial work, and then kill at night. The audience recognizes that he is a person who contributes to society, but has its dark side of horror. The whole set is told into a story, allowing the drama of the story to complete the metaphorical expression.
Either make this fable complete-simplify the foreshadowing of the story to reduce the authenticity, such as don't show the victims in the order of the protagonist's murder, in short, don't have too many stories, the surreal and reality are too deeply intertwined, and rely too much on off-screen value Judgment (wow, dignified and dignified also kills), letting the audience become a part of the script is always bad for expression.
View more about American Psycho reviews
