FilmFemme

Less Than Zero and Rules of Attraction

I’ m going to do my very best to keep these two movies from running together in my head because despite their differences they are both about (1)Rich attractive kids (2) who like sex (3) and drugs (4) and do both a lot.

In Less Than Zero, a young and pouty Robert Downey, Jr. plays Julian, a recent high school graduate and drug addict with a rich father.  His two best friends are Clay, an adorable Andrew McCarthy in pushed up sleeves and Blair (of course her name is Blair), a perpetually astonished Jami “can’t spare a square” Gertz.  Clay and Blair are dating right up until they graduate from their posh Los Angeles high school when Clay goes off to college and Blair stays behind to pursue her modeling career.  Of course, as soon as Clay crosses the city limits, Julian and Blair fall into bed together and it’s all fucked.

In Rules of Attraction, Jami Gertz’ wide-eyed insecurities are replaced with the slouching bohemian elegance of a pixie/punk Shannyn Sossamon who plays Lauren.  Lauren is student at Camden College, of many deciduous trees and picturesque snowfall — not to mention all the glory of liberal arts decadence and indulgence.  However, she is determined to stay pure, despite the urgings of her loose roommate Lara (Jessica Biel).  That is, until a fateful encounter in a hallway with Sean Bateman, a brooding and sinister looking James Van Der Beek.  Sean likes Lauren, too, but with one manipulative and untruthful word, Sean and Lara fall into bed together and it’s all fucked.

Do you see how I might get these two a little bit confused?

In Less Than Zero, director Marek Kanievska (you wouldn’t  recognize any of his other work if I put it in these parentheses) goes out of his way to indulge in the decadence  and pace of the 80s with over the top theme parties, towering hairsprayed bangs, and frenetic, amoral sexual encounters.  Though Roger Avary certainly appreciates the excess of Ellis’ novel in Rules of Attraction, he goes much further in creating an atmosphere and pace of tragic self-indulgence.  Though this works in some key scenes, I got particularly annoyed by the gimmick where the film ran backwards and then forwards again in order to make way for the multiple narrative lines.  It was interesting one, maybe two times, then I desperately just wanted the movie to move forward.  I felt the same way about the fact that the narrative was framed with the end at the beginning and then back to the beginning and then all the way through forward.  I will give credit that I was never confused by the jumping around, but that’s hardly an endorsement of the choice.  I also very much disliked the 5 minute interlude of a peripheral character’s trip to Europe in which he narrated quickly while we see him meet and hook up with many beautiful European women.  It comes back to be a little meaningful to the central story, but I didn’t like it.  It was weird.

Thematically, I struggle to grasp the same key point in both movies, which is: Um, why?  Namely, why is this person soooo into that other person?  In the case of Clay and Blair — Andrew McCarthy is at the peak of his charms.  This isn’t to say that he could do better than Jami Gertz…but maybe he could do better than Jami Gertz who fucked his drug addict best friend.  We’re never allowed any glimpses into why the relationship even existed.  Instead, Blair just kind of blinks at everything and speaks gently and then does another line of blow.

Similarly, we get to know why Lauren likes Sean (it’s because he made her “zhing” — an inexplicable chemistry that, I don’t know, it made sense to me) but never why Sean likes Lauren.  They barely speak and suddenly he is desperate to be with her.  Again, she is beautiful and she smiles at him and maybe we are meant to see this as an insight into his character (read: KIND OF CRAZY)  but it always bugs me, this love at first sight stuff.    Especially since the rest of his character is made out to not give a fuck about anyone else or anything for the rest of the movie.

Watching both of these films in a short time span was really interesting since their themes are so similar but they are from different eras and subject to different interpretations.  I wasn’t particularly taken with either one but neither were they wholly disappointing.  Both had their aesthetic charms and interesting if not Oscar-worthy performances.  It’s not shocking to see Robert Downey, Jr. give a good performance as a tortured drug addict…it’s slightly more compelling to watch Dawson as a sociopathic, suicidal drug dealer.  James Spader as a menacing kingpin trying to collect his money in Less Than Zero is again not surprising, but Jessica Biel as a coke whore is nothing if not interesting.

Where Less Than Zero exists firmly in this 1980s era, both in the world of the film and with casting choices, Rules of Attraction is much more open to interpretation.  Surely fashion seems to imply a place in the 90s but the characters and their portrayals are more timeless.  This is due in part to the fact that none of them have gone on to continued success like Downey and Spader have for the last 2 decades.  Therefore, watching the performances in Rules of Attraction is untainted by other roles and sustained fame.  Unfortunately, this doesn’t help the fact that some of the performances (ahem – Ms. Biel) are a little bit weak and distracting.  So we’re left to wonder – did they just do decadence better in the 80s, before grunge and disaffected teenagers were the norm?  When the kids in Rules of Attraction are doing blow and fucking, I kind of wonder why they weren’t just smoking pot and falling asleep.

3 Responses to “Bret Easton Ellis Double Feature”