Untitled - Sexey's School Moodle

she chooses to be atypical by censuring it. Nevertheless, Abel also makes the astute
observation that Harron’s version is both a “response” and the product of critical
discourses that characterized the reception of the novel since its release (141). As
Holden comments, “[Harron’s film] salvages a novel widely loathed for its putative
misogyny and gruesome torture scenes.” This comment adequately echoes an
observation made previously on how criticism may affect a novel’s reputation and how
critical responses can “defend” (or as Holden puts it, “salvage”) a work. Interestingly
enough, Abel considers that, by making judgments, certain responses such as Harron’s
film actually “attack” a work by emphasizing certain aspects while undermining others
(139). In sum, in order to avoid a negative response and get what the director perceived
to be the point of the novel across (its “meaning”), Harron decided to emphasize the
satire and diminish the transgressive aspect. Yet this could easily be interpreted as a lack
of commitment on the part of the director and her refusal to accept the level of
responsibility that a transgressive work like American Psycho requires. Hence, one could
wonder whether Harron’s satire contributes to the status quo or whether it also aims to
subvert ideologies and topple hierarchies? As Ellis argued in an interview for
MetroWeekly:
I just thought it didn’t really capture the sensibility of the novel. It
was too chilly, too elegant. I thought the novel itself was a lot
wilder and crazier. Director Mary Harron placed the movie within
a feminist context and put quotation marks around it and I don’t
think the movie needed that.
In a way, Harron’s American Psycho corresponds to Radcliffe’s rewriting of The Monk,
for both “adaptations” can be considered a diffusion of the transgressions of Lewis’ and
Ellis’ respective texts
181