AMERICAN PSYCHO Previews- Page 9

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 10:48am

Well, I think most importantly, AMERICAN PSYCHO must find a way to tell its story for the musical theatre. Perhaps they are trying to be too faithful to the film, book or people's memories of it.  SWEENEY TODD was a 'cult' piece too when Sondheim adapted it - freely - from its source material.

 

The Alice Ripley issue is interesting. You know I really feel for any actor in the business - particularly one who has won a Tony Award because it puts them on a pedestal. You've won a Tony Award - now what?  I'm sure these actors still want to work - they want to be creative - they still need to pay bills, and what's Alice supposed to do - go work at Hallmark until another star vehicle for a 50 year old woman opens up on Broadway? There are so few opportunities like that for a woman her age.  I remember an interview where she said she wanted to audition for the 'understudy' in the last revival of WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF and her agents wouldn't let her.  But I really respected her for that.   I'm sure she's overqualified for the role in PSYCHO -- and it would be nice  if the part could be refocused to showcase her talent - but only if its appropriate for the show as a whole.  But I don't begrudge the creative team for hiring her or the actor for accepting the small part.

Updated On: 3/29/16 at 10:48 AM

[Alex10]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 10:51am

wish i were here2 said: "I just had one question for WizzerMarvin or anyone. My friend and I did not really get the ending, could someone explain what happened. He did kill all those people right? 

 

"

The ending is very much up for interpretation. Some people think it means that all the murders just happened in Bateman's head, while others (myself included) think that the murders really did happen and the superficiality and indifference of Bateman's world keep him from getting caught. Bret Easton Ellis, who wrote the novel, hasn't elaborated on this, but the creative team of the 2000 film have stated that they believe the murders did happen.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 10:56am

Brett Easton Ellis refuses to answer the question whether the murders actually happened or not.  In one of the interviews on the musical's youtube channel, Duncan Shiek says he tried to coddle Ellis into giving him that answer and Ellis refused to give it.

 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread -- at least as far as literary goes - Ellis brings back a couple of the 'murdered characters' later in other works (which take place years after PSYCHO) which infers that at least some of the murders are fantasies.

Updated On: 3/29/16 at 10:56 AM

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 11:17am

I personally believe none of the murders ever happened. I like that Ellis refuses to answer the question and has left the ending open to interpretation.

 

I think having one of the murder sprees turn Grand Guignol would be perfect.

 

I also think it's bad thing if the audiences don't feel alienated by Patrick's actions. As it plays out now there is a high body count, but Patrick is basically your run of the mill serial killer that you can find on any episode of Criminal Minds or Chicago PD. There isn't anything that distinguishes him as any more evil or sadistic than these TV villains, and that is wrong. Patrick Bateman is one of the most depraved individuals I've ever encountered in fiction and to make him feel like any old killer doesn't do him justice. 

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 11:24am

Now that is a VERY interesting point. The book pre-dates SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (the film) and Dexter and the seriel-killer phenom we see on television regularly these days.  Odd to think we've probably become desensitized to this kind of violence and sadistic personality, so perhaps what is happening on stage in PSYCHO now seems pedestrian in comparison.

 

It sounds like the creatives should give more blood and violence a try. Why not? It's preview period -- you can always take it out if it doesn't work or becomes too alienating.

 

And I think the gore is a big part of the story.  When I saw CARRIE in Los Angeles last year I thought they found the right balance of blood and violence appropriate for that story. But unlike PSYCHO, Carrie is also very moving as a musical (at least it was in that staging).  Unless they want to try to make PSYCHO a morality tale and can supplement more emotion for the red stuff -- they should go for more of the red stuff.

Updated On: 3/29/16 at 11:24 AM

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 11:45am

WhizzerMarvin said: "Let me explain better where I was coming from with wanting more explicit violence in the musical.

 

I would argue that there is very little over the top violence (or violence at all) in the film. It's pretty tame compared to most horror flicks like Scream which came out four years earlier and had much more gore. When Christie starts running through Paul's apartment and starts finding all those dead bodies I thought, "Why didn't we get to see all these murders?!" I know they had to work with censors to get the film an R rating as opposed to NC-17 and I personally think the rating board had it out for the film because of all the controversy surrounding the violence in the novel.

 

I guess I used a little hyperbole saying the audience members should all be vomiting, but I do think they should have their stomachs turned a bit. Put us through a little true discomfort, even if for 2-3 minutes. Like I said, they don't need to show us the violence; I actually think it would be more chilling to hear Walker matter or factly narrate what he is doing to his victims during one of the sprees rather than to attempt to enact the violence on stage.

 

Walker is very sexy (as is the ensemble) and the show is highly erotic. I think this is a good thing, but I think it's easy to start to be seduced by Patrick and even start admiring and rooting for him. I don't think Patrick is an anti-hero- he's not exactly killing with a purpose (vengeance) like Sweeney Todd. Patrick is just bored and disgusted with everyone around him. He is a psychopath after all, as the title suggests.  I think it would be wise to snap the audience back to reality by truly illuminating his actions late in the show, whether you feel like they're actually happening or merely taking place in his imagination.  The scene with the rat is depravity at its lowest depths, but it shows us what Patrick's mind is truly capable of. I'm not arguing that the rat scene in particular needs to be narrated, but something along its line should be to give us an insight into what a monstrous, sick mind he has. "

 

Ah! I get what you're saying now and I agree. Thanks for clarifying. Good call on seducing with Bateman's body only to reveal how sick he is.

 

[ChiTheaterFan]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 11:52am

This thread makes me want to read the book. (I already knew about the ending because someone explained the movie to me to tell me why he hated it, and I've never seen the movie.). I am not seeing this until the end of April. Would those of you who have both read the book and seen the show recommend reading the book before or after (bearing in mind that I know the ending but not many other details)?

 

Thanks for any suggestions. 

[theatreguy12]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 11:56am

I am sorry I missed this show.  My five days in the city were locked in with show after show and the only time I had reserved to see this was the Saturday matinee.  Which I planned to do.  

Because Audra McDonald got sick and I had tickets for Shuffle Along on Wednesday night, I had my tickets moved to Saturday afternoon, which meant no American Psycho.  Never having seen Audra, I really wanted to see that one!

And I'm REALLY glad to have seen Shuffle Along as I thought it was great!  

But I was bummed I had to sacrifice American Psycho too.  It left a little emptiness since I had planned to see it.  

Now, hearing that the gore wasn't the centerpiece of the show makes me miss it even more. For me, the psychological, the thoughts are what get me the most.  I don't have to actually see gore to be entertained or fulfilled by the story line.  

I was simply hoping to see something stylish, with an 80s music edge, and yes, an ever so slightly disturbing storyline to accompany.  But that's the only thing I would have needed to be entertained by such a show.

Unfortunately I didn't get the opportunity, but maybe it will still be running next time I'm in the city.

What do you all think is the longevity of this show?  I know that's always a loaded question and an impossible one to answer,  but does this have the stuff to keep it going for a while?  

Or will the initial excitement wear off quicker than others?

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 12:05pm

I don't think we can say for sure until the production opens; but the word of mouth seems to be largely positive, and it seems to be selling well, and the producers were smart to open this at a time where the Tony nominations will come right on the heels of its opening.

 

And It's not hard for me to imagine this getting several nominations including score, actor and maybe musical (it's just unique enough).  So, that could all help give it a run of a year or more.

Updated On: 3/29/16 at 12:05 PM

[theatreguy12]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 12:08pm

Thanks, QueenAlice!  Sorry I missed it.

 

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 12:12pm

Chi, I would recommend readng the book before. It's not a requirement by any means, but I think it will enhance your enjoyment of the piece. Just a warning that the violence in the book is extremely disturbing and goes on and on for pages in excruciating clinical detail. (There are also sections of the book that aren't violent at all, but don't read the gruesome chapters on a full stomach.) 

 

 


Dexter is a good example of a much more violent show that didn't alienate people from liking the lead character. The Patrick Bateman of the musical comes off as a fluffy ****cat compared to Dexter, or even some Dexter's foes like John Lithgow's character in season four. Of course Dexter doesn't have anything on the novel's Bateman.

 

 

Updated On: 3/29/16 at 12:12 PM

[Addendum]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 12:16pm

wish i were here2 said: "BIG shout out, to Alex Michael Stoll, who I pretty much gawked at throughout the entire show"

You should have seen the view from the front row!  Dave Thomas Brown's ass was hanging out for most of the work out scenes.  The straps to his jock or dance belt were on full display as was his taint during the thrusting....someone needs to tape those shorts down! (or not)

"

 

Updated On: 3/29/16 at 12:16 PM

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 12:25pm

My interpretation of the ending has always been that, no, Bateman did not kill all those people, and the real horror is that he's denied judgement for his fantasies, which is what the "this is not an exit" sign means. He knows, on the inside, that he cannot be allowed to continue, that he must be punished for being so awful, and he takes a huge step and admits it, but the judgement is denied and so he's forced to live with himself, and what he knows about himself, and continue onwards, trapped.

 

QueenAlice said: "Now that is a VERY interesting point. The book pre-dates SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (the film) and Dexter and the seriel-killer phenom we see on television regularly these days.  Odd to think we've probably become desensitized to this kind of violence and sadistic personality, so perhaps what is happening on stage in PSYCHO now seems pedestrian in comparison."

 

I haven't seen the show so I can't attest to the level of violence and gore on-stage but the violence and gore in the book is some of the most extreme I've ever seen in a book. The bit where he clips jumper cable's to a woman's nipples and describes, in detail, the smell of burning fat as her breasts explode made me put the book down and go find something more pedestrian to do because my stomach was turning. It's all part of the hazy, dense swirl of his perspective, which Ellis lays out in such vivid, clear prose that, despite the agony of the violence and the (purposeful) monotony of Bateman's shallowness, is as readable and funny as a good airport fiction novel.

[ChiTheaterFan]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 12:29pm

Thanks, Whizzer!  Going to try to read the book before. Thanks for the heads up about the violence in the book. I will be sure to mentally prepare myself. 

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 12:42pm

I'm re-reading the novel now in anticipation for seeing the musical, and I still can't get through the violence sections. It's basically the most grotesque and horrifying things Ellis could possibly imagine thrown onto the page.  At first blush, I'd say none of that could be depicted on stage -- but if they did try, most of it would be greeted with laughter -- nervous or otherwise -- so perhaps its all so absurd it would actually work in some stylistic way.  But the audience would absolutely laugh.

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 12:43pm

Sorry if this has been covered, but how much of a sure bet are we saying Benjamin Walker is for a Tony nod? Lord knows Best Actor is crowded this year—going up against Burstein, Odom, Miranda, Levi, Keenan-Bolger, McKenzie, Shuffle Along dudes... What kind of chance do we think he has?

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 12:44pm

From what I've seen here, no, none of the killings on stage are as detailed as in the novel -- but I didn't feel like they were missing detail either.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 12:45pm

I think the audience would laugh too if they tried to show it in too much graphic detail because the torture is so obscene that it almost becomes ridiculous. I think hearing it described by Bateman, in the same detailed, clinical way that he describes his clothing, food and beauty regiments before it would be the most chilling and effective way to go.

Lizzie, if you decide to read the novel you will definitely see just how much detail they are missing! Bateman barely ever just quickly killed his victims as he does in the musical (hence my comments of making him a run of the mill killer). He tortures them in the most awful ways that you can't even imagine until you've read the book. I think to deprive Bateman of this sadistic level of evil that sets him apart from all other fictional characters I've encountered does a disservice to the character and story.

Updated On: 3/29/16 at 12:45 PM

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 12:51pm

I like your suggestion Whizzer. That does sound like a way that (like the novel) the graphic particulars  of his unique sadistic violence can be expressed but also left to the imagination of the audience.

Updated On: 3/29/16 at 12:51 PM

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 1:07pm

WhizzerMarvin said: "Lizzie, if you decide to read the novel you will definitely see just how much detail they are missing! Bateman barely ever just quickly killed his victims as he does in the musical (hence my comments of making him a run of the mill killer). He tortures them in the most awful ways that you can't even imagine until you've read the book. I think to deprive Bateman of this sadistic level of evil that sets him apart from all other fictional characters I've encountered does a disservice to the character and story. "

 

 

 

Thanks! I read for a living so I generally don't read books for pleasure, but I'll think about it. However, the portrayal of the murders nor Bateman's depravity were what I had issue with, with this show -- and if in that sense, an adaptation works for someone unfamiliar with the source material, then it should be fine. Though I know that the novel's been around/popular enough where my expectations may have been different than many audience members last night and for nights to come.

[TerrenceIsTheMann]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 1:23pm

Concierge... I have to say it is looking more and more likely that Miranda won't be nominated for Hamilton. I think that the nominees that are 100% are Leslie Odom Jr., Danny Burstein, Ben Walker and Alex Brightman. The other candidates will compete for the 5th spot. I am VERY curious to see who it is.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 1:37pm

Terrence, it's those four plus Miranda. There's your five. All sure bets.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 2:21pm

I want to reaffirm that although I feel strongly about the importance of conveying completely the depths of Patrick's depravity, I did think many of the other aspects of the show were in good shape. I guess to make an analogy, if you are trying to make some cookies and you have basically the right amounts of flour, sugar, eggs, etc but forget to add that tsp of baking powder it might seem like an error you can live with until you pull the cookie sheet out of the oven and realize that little teaspoon was responsible for making the cookies rise and not remain flat. Right now I think American Psycho is a flat cookie. It's still more than edible, but a pinch of the needed ingredient could transform it into some amazing. 

[SueBee06]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 2:26pm

wish i were here2 said: "My friend and I saw the show last night too and we walked out expecting a little more gore. Neither of us has read the book or watched the movie, so we legit walked in only knowing it was about killing. As a whole, I think the musical played more on the black comedy side and didn't really go to the gore. I mean we didn't want like every single murder to be constant bloody murder or anything, but I feel like some parts just needed a bit more, since it would have shown more of Patrick's sadistic qualities, I think. 
 

"

I expected more too, especially with how the show starts and ends the first act. I almost felt like the top of the show misrepresented what was to follow tonally. I thought there would be more violence and I found I missed it, which is a bizarre thing I never thought I'd type. I came out of the show with mixed feelings on the whole thing (except the design elements which I thought were stunning).

 

On a side note, I happened to be sitting where I was surrounded by guys who I imagine Patrick Bateman would be like now. That definitely gave me pause. LOL  

[sundaymourning6am]

Posted: 3/29/16 at 3:23pm

I'm reading the book now, seeing the show next Tuesday. The book is ROUGH to get through. Holy ****. I'm excited for Tuesday night though!