The Text:<\/strong> Bret Easton Ellis has only got to open his mouth for the cry-babies of the world to crawl out and start berating him for being a morally depraved chancer. Back in the 80s and 90s, you could sympathise with people getting offended by his books if they hadn\u2019t spent much time around hedge-fund managers or fashion world dickheads. If they had, they\u2019d realise that American Psycho and Glamorama are in essence works of journalism \u2013 dressed up in Valentino and splattered with blood, yes, but documentaries of a certain moment in history all the same. \u201cThe six or seven books add up as a sort of autobiography,” he says. “When I look at them I think, ‘Oh, that\u2019s where I was in \u201991. That\u2019s where I was in \u201988. Okay, I got it.’\u201d<\/p>\nNow he has moved into film, as well as writing screenplays for TV and delivering his own weekly podcast. Which, among other highlights, has featured Kanye West and Marilyn Manson. Yet still he has repeatedly faced accusations of “douchery” from bloggers and a general outcry every time he criticises anything on Twitter.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
When I called his house in LA last week, Bret talked passionately about his frustration with what he’s dubbed “Generation Wuss” \u2013 you, me, everyone else who’s young, hyper-sensitive and grown up with the internet, basically. (Though admittedly we may be witnessing the emergence of a new internet generation that takes pride in being anything but hyper-sensitive.) Over the course of a few hours, I was genuinely impressed by the amount of interest he takes in the lives of people who’ve grown up reading his books, the technology they use and the way they consume culture. His annoyance seems to come from a place of concern rather than misanthropy. <\/p>\n
So, why all the pant-wetting?<\/p>\n
VICE: Why have you termed me and my contemporaries “Generation Wuss”?<\/strong><\/p>\nBret Easton Ellis: You have to understand that I\u2019m coming to these things as a member of the most pessimistic and ironic generation that has ever roamed the earth. When I hear millennials getting hurt by “cyber bullying”, or it being a gateway to suicide, it\u2019s difficult for me to process. A little less so for my boyfriend, who happens to be a millennial of that age, but even he somewhat agrees with the sensitivity of Generation Wuss. It\u2019s very difficult for them to take criticism, and because of that a lot of the content produced is kind of shitty. And when someone is criticised for their content, they seem to collapse, or the person criticising them is called a hater, a contrarian, a troll.<\/p>\n
In a way it\u2019s down to the generation that raised them, who cocooned them in praise \u2013 four stars for showing up, you know? But eventually everyone has to hit the dark side of life; someone doesn\u2019t like you, someone doesn\u2019t like your work, someone doesn\u2019t love you back\u2026 people die. What we have is a generation who are super-confident and super-positive about things, but when the least bit of darkness enters their lives, they\u2019re paralysed.<\/p>\n
I realised the other day that I\u2019m around the same age as Patrick Bateman. His existence was fairly typical of a 27-year-old living in New York at the time you wrote American Psycho, but it couldn\u2019t be further away from my reality.
\nNot to reference the 27-year-old [Bret’s boyfriend] too often, but he would completely agree with you. American Psycho is about a world that is as alien to him as Saturn.<\/p>\n
I think it was a world we were promised, though.<\/strong>
\nThere was a certain point where we realised the promises were lies and that we were going to be economically adrift. It\u2019s the fault of the baby boomer generation for raising their kids at the highest peak of the empire, in a complete fantasy world. My generation, Gen X, realised that, like most fantasies, it was somewhat dissatisfying, and we rebelled with irony, negativity and attitude because we had the luxury to do that. Our reality wasn\u2019t an economic hardship.<\/p>\nRight \u2013 which is what The Wolf of Wall Street is all about. Is that why you like it so much?<\/strong>
\nI never like a movie because of its subject matter. I liked it because it wasn\u2019t an op-ed piece and it wasn\u2019t concerned with another thing that so many movies are concerned with today, which is decency: decent people under stress or hardship.<\/p>\nTo me, it\u2019s a classic young man story, like Barry Lyndon. Nine times out of ten they blow it, they fuck up, they spend all the money, they let their id run wild, don\u2019t check themselves, don\u2019t look towards the future and\u2026 it crashes. Also, I just thought it was hilarious, and Leonardo delivered a transfixing performance. And the fact that he\u2019s not going to win an Academy Award this year is a real bummer.<\/p>\n
Seeing him in that film, do you wish he’d played Patrick Bateman?<\/strong>
\nI was really not involved in the making of that movie. All I know was that it was an offer made to Leo after Christian Bale. It would have been the start of erasing something that was probably quite embarrassing for him, being known for the rest of his life as Jack from Titanic. I don\u2019t know exactly what happened. I also didn\u2019t know how far along Christian was in preparing American Psycho, so my endorsing Leo might have looked insensitive. But yes \u2013 in answer to your question, I would have liked to see him in the role. But it was probably a lot better at that time and less distracting to have a relatively unknown actor.<\/p>\nYou said Terrence Malick was a big inspiration.<\/strong>
\nOne of the key moments in my young movie-going life was watching Days of Heaven and realising that film was an art form. I\u2019d been leading up to that epiphany, growing up in LA and being very aware of the film industry. But in 1978, that\u2019s when I got it. That\u2019s why I have such a tie to that film and why I watch it every two years. It takes me back.<\/p>\nIs it a style you\u2019d like to recreate in your own films?<\/strong>
\nI don\u2019t know about that. Part of the problem I had with The Canyons was that I would have directed it faster. I don\u2019t have the Asian mindset that Paul Schrader does, which is steeped in [Yasujiro] Ozu and the great Japanese directors from the 50s and 60s. That\u2019s his way of pacing a movie.<\/p>\nThat sounds like a pretty massive disparity in your vision for the film.<\/strong>
\nIt seems more massive than it really was. The Canyons was guerrilla film making. We were going to make it for no money and put it on iTunes. We didn\u2019t think it was going to turn into this notorious, cultural event in the US.<\/p>\nSurely you knew that casting Lindsay Lohan would have that kind of effect?<\/strong>
\nNo, but it was a $150,000 (\u00a389,000) movie. We were sitting in friends\u2019 bedrooms; we weren\u2019t trying to create The Godfather. I wrote the script \u2013 I think it was one of only two scripts in Schrader\u2019s career that he didn\u2019t touch, the other being a script written by Harold Pinter for a film called The Comfort of Strangers, which is a movie that influenced The Canyons \u2013 and Schrader wanted it shot the way he shoots. And I thought, ‘You know, this will be faster after we\u2019ve edited it.’ And it did [get faster], to a degree.<\/p>\nLook, 20 percent of people I know like the movie; 80 percent don\u2019t like the movie. But the sketchiness of it \u2013 the sleazy, cold aspect of it \u2013 what can I say? It speaks to me.<\/p>\n
The sinister portrait of LA that you paint in Less Than Zero \u2013 with howling coyotes and dead bodies littering alleyways \u2013 is that a realistic depiction of the place? Or has your view of it changed as you\u2019ve grown older?<\/strong>
\nI think it\u2019s a bit of both. I do think my southern California childhood was very idyllic. Yes, there was a bad marriage going down in the house and I suffered from a little bit of depression, but there was the beach, there were the malls, a lot of my friends drove around in convertibles. I mean, how bad is it?<\/p>\nI wasn\u2019t an unpopular kid. I had a lot of friends, I threw parties, I had a\u2026 girlfriend. But writing all the time alienated me from the crowd slightly, and because of that I did tend to look at the world with a more jaundiced eye.<\/p>\n
Okay. Is it true that you\u2019re writing a TV series about the Manson murders?<\/strong>
\nYes, although I wouldn\u2019t say it\u2019s about the Manson murders. It\u2019s about the two years surrounding the Manson murders in LA. The show starts about a year before the Manson murders. I\u2019m just beginning to plan it. It\u2019s in the beginning stages.<\/p>\nAnd are you writing a new book?<\/strong>
\nYes, but I wish it wasn\u2019t important to people that I am. I had a bit of a breakdown in January of 2013. I did more writing in 2012 than I\u2019d ever done in my life \u2013 a series of movies, two of which got made, and countless television pilots. By January of 2013 I was exhausted. I found myself hungry to write prose, so I started working on this book. Every now and then it comes alive and I work on it until I get distracted by something else. It\u2019s on my desk, along with a play that I\u2019m writing.<\/p>\nWhat made you want to do the podcast?<\/strong>
\nI published a very long, 4,000 word piece for Out Magazine. It got a lot of attention here in the US, and reading articles written in response to it, I realised people had stopped reading halfway through.<\/p>\nThat\u2019s the internet.<\/strong>
\nWell, there\u2019s a positive myth that the internet is great for writing long-form pieces and you can publish 11,000 words, but it doesn\u2019t mean people will necessarily read the whole thing. So I thought, if I had a podcast, I could have my say over it. I wasn\u2019t into the idea of a talk radio show at first, but it\u2019s been really interesting. I don\u2019t understand this idea of the novelist being locked in the top of a tower. I\u2019ve seen people respond negatively to the fact I\u2019m on Twitter and have opinions about pop culture. I like it. It fucks with people\u2019s idea of what I\u2019m really like.<\/p>\nIs this one of the problems you had with David Foster Wallace \u2013 that he played up to the almighty author thing?<\/strong>
\nI think David Foster Wallace is a complete fraud. I\u2019m really shocked that people take him seriously. People say the same thing about me of course, and I\u2019ve been criticised for saying these things about Wallace due to the very sentimental narrative attached to him since he killed himself.<\/p>\nBut it all ties into Generation Wuss and its wussy influence on social media to a degree; if you have a snarky opinion about anything, you\u2019re a douche. To me, that\u2019s problematic. It limits discourse. If you just like everything, what are we going to talk about? How great everything is? How often I\u2019ve pushed the Like button on my Facebook page?<\/p>\n
Is it BuzzFeed who said they\u2019re not going to run any negative reviews any more? Really, guys? What\u2019s going to happen to culture then? What\u2019s going to happen to conversation? It\u2019s going to die.<\/p>\n
Yeah. But I suppose now, in place of money, we have a currency of popularity, and the main pay-off is thousands of people liking your shit on Facebook. In that climate, how do you create vital work?<\/strong>
\nI agree with you, and it\u2019s kind of touching to me that there isn\u2019t an economic way of elevating yourself, and the only way to do that is through your brand, your profile and your social media presence. I think I might be too old to consciously use Instagram or Tumblr to my advantage. I don\u2019t even use Twitter correctly. But living with someone who\u2019s 27, I think the way you described it is perfectly accurate: online presence is the currency.<\/p>\nWhile my boyfriend and his friends can be really quite biting and mean at times, overall they really do want to put out a more gentle, amiable persona.<\/p>\n
But I wouldn\u2019t say your work in the 80s and 90s was particularly amoral. American Psycho did carry a kind of moral message. It might not have been stated explicitly, but it was there.<\/strong>
\nYou need to feel that, though. I got shit for American Psycho, with people saying it was calculated to offend people. If that was true, I wouldn\u2019t have spent three to four years on it, and I would have just filled every page with horrible descriptions. I was writing about my life. I was writing about being Patrick Bateman \u2013 a young man in New York during that era \u2013 and being lost in that yuppie culture, which is really just consumerist culture. Feeling that I had to have all of the things that a young man had at that time and hating myself for not having them and hating society and not wanting to grow up. That\u2019s really what American Psycho was. It was a very personal novel.<\/p>\nAlso, like a lot of men, I had a pretty tawdry fantasy world, and if any man really wants to admit that, they’re going to be attacked for it.<\/p>\n
When people accuse you of misogyny, I\u2019m always like, ‘Oh right, because the men come off so well in those books.’<\/strong>
\nWell, look. [Laughs] This is exactly the kind of thing a misogynist would say, but I\u2019ve never felt like a misogynist. Yet, it has been interesting to look back at myself when I’ve been accused of that and to understand why someone would say it. For example, I don\u2019t think American Psycho is a misogynist text at all; I think misogyny is part of the picture. But, like I said in the Wolf of Wall Street podcast, a depiction is not endorsement.<\/p>\nI was criticised for speaking about Kathryn Bigelow on Twitter [Ellis said that her being “a hot woman” had led to her being “overrated” as a director]. First of all, I thought that was an aesthetic thing and a comment about Hollywood and reverse sexism, but it came out in a way that annoyed people who are very sensitive about those things. I got it when I said Alice Munro was overrated, too, without people acknowledging that I\u2019ve criticised a lot of male authors I don\u2019t like, and I\u2019ve celebrated a lot about female writers I love. My friend Donna Tartt, for instance \u2013 her new novel, The Goldfinch, is really good and I\u2019m in awe of someone who can do that.<\/p>\n
And you\u2019ve made no secret of how much you love Joan Didion.<\/strong>
\nWell, every now and then someone comes along who changes your perception. Before Didion, it was Hemingway \u2013 that was when I was 12 or 13. Didion was later, in high school, and it was more personal because she was writing about southern California and referencing streets I had driven on. She was describing a sensibility about women that jibed with what I was noticing in my mum\u2019s friends. I tried writing Less Than Zero maybe two times before what was ultimately published, and Joan Didion played a big part in shaping it.<\/p>\nDo you ever feel as though feminism is slipping into a blame culture?<\/strong>
\nYears ago, I found Jezebel.com very ominous and worrying. I mean, not that I care that much, but now it really has come full circle. I think the Lena Dunham bullying thing \u2013 and I don\u2019t want to toe the party line and say, “Oh, it was so shitty of Jezebel to do that” \u2013 but it was indicative of where a kind of feminism is right now.<\/p>\nI keep thinking that feminism is getting to a place that\u2019s cool, mostly because women that I know just want to be real and they want to be sexual and they want to be pretty. Meeting James Deen, being immersed in his world, meeting a lot of women who worked in porn and seeing how cool they were with it gave me a different view.<\/p>\n
You don’t think it’s fucked them up?<\/strong>
\nNo, they\u2019re not fucked up by it. James Deen\u2019s girlfriend [VICE columnist Stoya] is a huge performer and, like James, doesn\u2019t look like a traditional pornstar. She also has a blog where she writes about feminist porn and how she\u2019s in control.<\/p>\nCan you tell me about the Kanye film collaboration?<\/strong>
\nYou know what, I can\u2019t. It\u2019s in Kanye-land and that\u2019s subject to a whole other timeframe. He came and asked me to write the film. I didn\u2019t want to at first. Then I listened to Yeezus. It was early summer last year and I was driving in my car. He\u2019d given me an advance copy and I thought, regardless of whether I\u2019m right for this project, I want to work with whoever made this. So fuck it, I said yes. And that\u2019s how it happened. That was seven or eight months ago. We\u2019ll see what happens.<\/p>\nI really like him as a person. I know he comes off in this performance art way in the press, but if you\u2019re just alone with him in a room talking for three hours, it\u2019s kind of mind-blowing.<\/p>\n
I think he just broke the golden rule of admitting to being a narcissist, and that\u2019s what people can\u2019t handle.<\/strong>
\nWhy is that rule there, though?<\/p>\nRight, because if you\u2019re working in the media or entertainment industry, chances are, you\u2019re a narcissist.<\/strong>
\nYeah, you\u2019re right. We all are. We\u2019re all here. And he\u2019s one of the few people who will admit it, and I like him for that and I wish more people would follow suit. I think that\u2019s what makes Jennifer Lawrence so appealing. She\u2019s the future of Hollywood personas. I don\u2019t know where the \u201cold rules\u201d of the empire \u2013 about showing your best self on the red carpet \u2013 gets anyone. It suggests an unfree society.<\/p>\nCan you explain this empire and post-empire distinction? Because you refer to it a lot.<\/strong>
\nEmpire is the US from roughly WWII to a little after 9\/11. It was at the height of its power, its prestige and its economic worth. Then it lost a lot of those things. In the face of technology and social media, the mask of pride has been slowly eradicated. That empirical attitude of believing you\u2019re better than everyone \u2013 that you\u2019re above everything \u2013 and trying to give the impression that you have no problems. Post-empire is just about being yourself. It\u2019s showing the reality rather than obscuring things in reams and reams of meaning.<\/p>\nBut can you ever present a “real” version of yourself online?<\/strong>
\nWell, turning yourself into an avatar, at least, is post-empire. That\u2019s a new kind of mask. It\u2019s more playful than hiding your feelings, presenting your best self and lying if you have to. Unless, of course, you argue that that\u2019s just a whole new form of empire in itself.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Article: BRET EASTON ELLIS SAYS WE’RE ALL A BUNCH OF CRY-BABIES by Nathalie Olah in VICE. The Text: Bret Easton Ellis has only got to open his mouth for the cry-babies of the world to crawl out and start berating him for being a morally depraved chancer. Back in the 80s and 90s, you […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[259],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Bret Easton Ellis On "Generation Wuss"<\/title>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n