LogFAQs > #968439054

Squall28 posted...

It's very likely he had lunch in london with somebody else he mistook for Paul Allen.

I don't think so, he takes the moment far too seriously and the moment of being given evidence Paul is alive seems to sway Patrick. It's specifically setup that Paul Allen claimed to go to London before disappearing too, so it would be a pretty big coincidence in a medium where there's no such thing as coincidences.

Paul Allen is also pretty high on the yuppie totem pole, the kind of guy who can get reservations at Dorsia. He's not like Patrick Bateman who's true form is described as a "dork, such a boring spineless lightweight", ie not someone you just mistakenly think you had dinner with TWICE. I agree a theme of the move is the superficiality and indistinguishable nature of everyone, but I think the directing of the "I had dinner with him twice in London" is too forceful to write it off as the lawyer's error.

And the scene of the lawyer denying it's possible is immediately proceeded by the secretary looking through Patrick's calendar and seeing all his fantasy drawings including depictions of what supposedly happened in the movie. As though not just the audience but Patrick himself is realizing those sequences were just his imagination.