Advertisement
Other stories by ChrisFaile
RSS Feed - ReviewsThe Rules of Attraction
By ChrisFaile
September 27th, 2002
In introducing the film The Rules of Attraction at New York City's Film Book Festival on September 26, author Bret Easton Ellis acknowledged that of his three novels adapted to the big screen, he was "most happy" with this film, one he believes shows the most heart and humor of his works.
Given his film canon, which includes 1999's American Psycho, it’s an extremely easy bar to hurdle.
Ellis believed that there was something missing from American Psycho, which the scribe later ascribed to "feminist choices" made by those involved with the project, while he believes that the watered-downLess than Zero would have been a far better movie had it waited two years until what he termed the "advent of independent cinema." He forthrightly admits that he has disparaged the latter film’s adaptation a great deal in recent years— he still feels the two leads were miscast, making a crack at Jami Gertz's expense still today, calling her effort in the film a "hilarious performance." Having watched the 1987 film again the previous week, Ellis now says he didn’t "believe it was a bad film. It just wasn’t my film— there’s absolutely nothing from the book."
One can easily see why Ellis is happy with The Rules of Attraction. This film is extremely faithful to the spirit of the 1987 novel— he made a point to mention several times that it was three-quarters accurate, which he seemed ecstatic about, despite some of his favorite scenes not making the jump from the 150-minute rough cut to the 110-minute theatrical release— with the script having been tweaked to make the film clip forward at a more brisk pace than the source material was able to provide.
With Attraction, Roger Avary has done a masterful job of adapting a book that doesn't allow itself to be easily shifted to celluloid, showcasing his capacities as both a screenwriter and a director. Narratives are perhaps the hardest to translate to this medium, and Ellis' "Attraction" brings together many different characters, some of which appear in the opening sequence and mysertiously re-appear later. This is tough to do, yet Avary makes it work.
That said, the films is not perfect, by any means—there are some parts that do not work, which Ellis forthrightly pointed out prior to the first scene being unveiled. The strengths of the film lie in its counter-intuitive casting, something I described in my earlier look at the film in my December "From Book to Screen" column.
Updating the setting of the book to the current day, Attraction focuses on the love triangle between three students at the fictional Camden College. At the center is Sean Bateman (portrayed by James Van Der Beek in a tour de force performance), a student/drug dealer who can’t remember the last time he "f***ed when he was sober." Sean is pining for Lauren (Shannon Sossamon), who he believes is penning him love letters, while he himself is being pursued by the openly-bisexual Paul Denton (Ian Somerhalder). Complicating this triangle is that Lauren and Paul use to go out as well, although this revelation doesn’t impact itself here all that much as this revelation could have, given the set-up.
The film begins with a device utilized in other recent films in a novel way— think of the opening part ofMemento. It both shows Avary's command of the camera and his good instincts there after some time away from directing, and heightens expectations for some other unique shots employed later in the film. We are introduced to each of the three leads during an "End of the World" party, with the camera first following Lauren as she is in the process of losing her virginity to a townie in the most horrible of ways. The then film stops and literally rewind itself (think of the opening part of Memento) as we are brought back to the main party floor to meet Paul Denton, while the viewers are still able to see Lauren in the peripheral scene. Repeat this again as we then meet, finally, Sean. It's such a neat little device that is used one more time in the picture, not counting the opening credits that immediately follow the three character introductions. The closing credits are also done in reverse as well.
A neat split-screen shot is also utilized that shows Sean and Lauren meeting for the first time is also used to good effect.
But there are four scenes that stand out in the film, the majority of which don’t even happen on the college campus.
• The successful suicide attempt by Sean’s would-be paramour: Although I knew this was coming, I was still one of many that watched these scenes with my hands covering my eyes— it's painful to watch, especially with my having lost a friend in a similar manner in the recent past. At this scene, several people walked out of the theater— I’m guessing it cut too close to the bone for some, pun unintended. Also resonant was a scene a few minutes later that showed who this heretofore-anonymous woman was, through flashbacks— this will be a bonus for repeat viewers who will try to spot her in the background in several earlier scenes.
• Paul’s journey to Boston and the subsequent dinner he has with his mother and their family's friends, the Jareds: Richard Jared, whom Paul has had a previous relationship with, has an incredible falling out with his mother during dinner— Russell Sams makes a tremendous mark with the role, although it would have had an even greater effect had it been more muted. Ellis believed this scene didn’t work, but I would disagree. As I had said in my earlier column, "If there’s any moment in the book that is the train wreck’s point of impact, it is here. It makes you wince— we have all borne witness to moments like these." It certainly lives up to that, although the scene directly preceding it, of Somerhalder and Sams dancing to George Michael's "Faith," seems vastly out of place.
• Harry and Paul visit the hospital: Harry, a friend of Paul's, overdoses early in the film as Paul is getting ready for his first quasi-date with Sean (the latter doesn't know it’s a date, he later doesn’t even remember agreeing to it). Paul's swishy friends bring them to the nearby emergency room, where the doctor tells them that their friend is dead. Less than a minute later, Harry is up and about, while the doctor tries to convince them he is indeed dead. The set-up to this joke is amazingly done, especially the scenes in the car as they drive him to the HR, but what should have been the punchline falls flat. This was one of the best parts of the novel, but doesn’t work here due to a horrible casting choice of the physician attending to Harry.
• The introduction of Victor: Played by Kip Pardue, Victor spends the beginning of the film in Europe and is represented by only a picture on Lauren’s desk. But the introduction to the character, which follows him through his travails in Europe and was shot by Avary over a two-week period, is amazingly-done. Given that Avary has signed on to do Ellis' "Glamorama," of which Victor is the lead, this was an important choice for him to push for doing. It’s going to be hard to picture Pardue as a viable lead there, but this helped to set the table for that. He still comes across as a more athletic version of Matthew Lillard.
Among the leads, Van Der Beek turns in an amazing performance that was originally to have gone to Ryan Phillippe. In my earlier column, I had doubts as to how effective he can be here as Sean, a character whose older brother is the focus of American Psycho— I felt the common viewer would have trouble seeing him beyond the character of Dawson Leary of "Dawson’s Creek." For me, this was settled within the first few minutes—this is a light’s-out performance. Because of the content of the film, I doubt he will receive an Oscar nomination, but this will help supplant him in the minds of casting directors as a viable choice for lead roles in the coming years. This is especially fortuitous as the television series comes to a close in May. Van Der Beek's first glare into the camera showed it all—he is ready for the next step beyond Dawson. Ellis echoed something like that as well, calling his performance "exciting," noting dourly a few minutes later that was a compliment he never thought he would make.
Somerhalder does a good job as well, although his role feels as those is has been reduced from that of the book— and he is fifth-billed in the film, behind Jessica Biel and Kip Pardue. He shows some great acting ability in the above scenes, as well as when he comes on to the Handsome Dunce early on in the film. I'm not as enthralled with Sossamon, who walks through her role here— there are a few glimmers of acting ability, but she pales next to Van Der Beek and Somerhalder. Biel, as Lauren's roommate, gets some great lines, but is ill-utilized.
From there, it’s a mix of secondary characters, who perform to varying degrees. Thomas Ian Nicholas, Clair Kramer (best known as the fifth season villain Glory on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"), Eric Stoltz, Swoosie Kurtz and Faye Dunaway all do well with their small roles, while Clifton Collins, Jr., does a disservice to the film as drug dealer Rupert. Distracting is perhaps the best way to put the use of Fred Savage as Marc, a student in heavy debt to Sean.
The film excels in its visuals—there are some wonderful shots here, especially in the third act's scenes outdoors, which was filmed in Redlands, CA. I should also note the fantastic score. tomandandy, who I am not familiar with, do an amazing job here—this is probably the best cinematic score work I have heard since David Holmes' work on Out of Sight. Their mix of thematic music and pop songs gives other depths to the film, and help to propel it along, especially in the opening minutes.
There is no discernable beginning and end to this film, and it suffers from this— the book begins in mid-sentence and the film ends in the same manner. The end result here, though, is a satisfying film that will reward its more patient viewers, and should still manage to attract a good-sized audience once it sees its official release on October 11. It will be hindered by opening on one of the most busy weekend in recent memory, with nine major releases fighting for screens and media attention (can you imagine what the "Life" section of USA Today will look like on that day with that many films to review?).
This will undoubtedly be one of my top ten films of the year—make sure to check it out, despite its flaws.
My rating: B+