Film Review: Ruby Sparks

Directed by: Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris. Written by: Zoe Kazan. Stars: Paul Dano, Zoe Kazan, Chris Messina, Annette Benning, Antonio Banderas, Elliott Gould. Released: 2012

Have you ever read a book where you wished and desired that somehow, somewhere, a character was real? What if you had the power to write your dream girl or boy and they became real? Including the power through your writing to control that person? Would you want that power?

What if that perfect person wasn’t perfect for you?

That is what is so wonderfully explored in Ruby Sparks.

I didn’t expect to enjoy this film as much as I did. I guess I should have expected this since it is the same directing team that also brought us Little Miss Sunshine. It is not completely melodramatic or overly saccharine in that lovely combination of comedy and drama, known as the dramedy. You can guess fairly well where the film is going, but a turn or two is thrown your way to keep you engaged enough and caring about the characters and what is happening.

Another important aspect that helps to keep the viewer engaged is the acing and characterization. Yes, the socially awkward, geeky, skinny boy/man genius who falls for the quirky, free spirited, doe eyed, colourful dressing female has been done before, but the acting, the writing and the characterization; and perhaps even the real life relationship between Paul Dano and Zoe Kazan all come together to ground it in a realism that you may actually know these two people, along with the other characters.

It has the same tone and feel to the recent 500 Days of Summer, so if you liked that film, you most likely will also like Ruby Sparks.  The difference may be in that with 500 Days of Summer, it was more about a relationship and dealing with the end of the relationship. I have also heard arguments that Summer herself wasn’t exactly a likeable character, especially towards the end. With Ruby Sparks, the story is more about Calvin and his dealing with the past and his personal issues, including his own celebrity, in order to be able to move on to a healthy future, and the relationship with Ruby is a catalyst for that. Ruby herself, being a creation of Calvin’s is essentially a blank canvas.

Calvin, a writer who in his early 20’s was considered a genius,  and compared to the likes of J.D Salinger and F. Scott Fitzgerald after the release of his first novel. Despite a few short stories and novellas, he suffers from a 10 year drought of writers block as the public awaits his second novel.  Calvin is also suffering from personal issues that steam from his family and a previous relationship. 

Played by Paul Dano, he shows once again that he is a talented young actor with a great career ahead of him. Dano may not be the first actor that comes to producers and casting director’s minds when thinking of a romantic lead, but as mentioned, this is more than a romance. Dano plays Calvin with so much heart and a sense of honesty, even in his clueless or meaner moments; you can’t help but understand where his character is coming from and why he is doing it. You care and feel for him. This is highlighted the best in the climatic and emotional scene of a confrontation between Calvin and Ruby.

Zoe Kazan, who plays the perfect creation of Ruby Sparks (and who wrote the script) adds an edge and sense of realism to the quirky, free spirited, doe eyed, colourful dressing female. She feels like someone you may actually know. The character of Ruby goes through a gamut of emotions (she is essentially a literary character) and Zoe does it all with a sense of ease.

With a solid supporting cast that includes Elliott Gould who plays Calvin's therapist.  Annette Benning and Antonio Banderas as Calvin’s creative and hippie mother and step father. They may not be in the film for long, but Calivn’s issues with his parents and his past are made clear in the few scenes with them.

Even the sets and locations, such a Calvin’s house is done to make you feel that yes, this is a writers house. Along with a soundtrack that all works together.

If you are tired of superheroes and action films this summer and looking for solid and smart storytelling, acting and a movie that in the end makes you feel good, check out Ruby Sparks. 

Film Review: Bel Ami

Directed by Declan Donnellen and Nick Ormerod. Written by: Rachel Bennette. Adapted from the novel by Guy De Maupassant. Stars: Robert Pattinson, Uma Thurmon, Kristen Scott Thomas, and Christina Ricci. Released: 2012

Bel Ami was originally published in France in 1885, and quickly became controversial for its critical look at the upper class, media (newspapers) and politics of the day (The novel has a general setting of the same time, the film’s setting is Paris, 1890). Today it is still considered one of the great classics of French literature.

Wait a minute! A scathing look at high society, rich people, politicians and journalists acting self serving and less than honourable...say it ain’t so! Bel Ami’s themes and characters still resonate 127 years later.

I must also admit that I read the book about three years ago, so my memory of it may not be all that fresh.  My biggest criticism of the recent adaptation when compared with the the novel is that it is fairly watered down, in particular the character of Georges Duroy (Pattinson).

But this is not a critique about the book, but a streamlined film adaptation.

The cinematography is very lovely and lush, it reflects the era and represents the opulent way the upper class lived at the time. Along with beautiful, well tailored period costumes and rich sets that help to recreate Paris before the turn of the century.

Co –directors Declan Donellen and Nick Ormerod are known and respected in the UK for their theatre work and Donnellen has written books on theatre acting as well. This is their first feature film, and there is promise if they wish to continue. At times during Bel Ami due to the blocking of the actors, it made it feel that I was watching a play. This is isn’t necessarily a bad thing and I think it was more of a natural fallback for the directors.

The core of Bel Ami’s ruthless world is the French occupation of Morocco, so there is a political and historical aspect as well. The media, (in this day newspapers) are able to bring down governments and ruin reputations and lives with a print of an article. Back door wheelings and dealings are rampant. Everyone is ambitious; everyone lies and cheats to get what they want and sex is a tool used by men and women. The title of Bel Ami or beautiful friend is ironic, since there are very little friendly and beautiful people. We see early on the three powerful females Georges seduces and uses and manipulates for their influence and connections to powerful men to get ahead. They are the movers and shakers. As Georges is told early on, “The most important people in Paris are not the men, but their wives.” He ends up hating what the women become to represent, especially Madeleine Forestier who his is closest equal. What exactly is it about George, besides that he’s good looking, young and charming that makes these women fall for him? Or is it simply that?  That is something not shown in the film.

The acting by Pattinson who gives a good performance (although his greenness at times does come across by falling back on looking angry) and shows his promise, brings Georges’ loathing for poverty and his hatred and disgust for those around him and their mocking of him the strongest. Greatly symbolized in a scene of Georges killing a cockroach with excessive blows and force. He is cunning, greedy and manipulative. He just somehow ends up playing the game better than everyone. Georges is not a likeable man (even less likeable in the book) and not a character that many young actors might be keen to play. He manages to move up in society with these talents, along with his fake charm and good looks.  To sum up Georges as said by Madeleine “I didn’t realize how empty you are and only filled with rage. I should have chained you. Like an animal! That is what you are.”

As mentioned Georges is less likable in the book, and part of the watering down I mentioned is with his characterization. There is a scene near the end where he feels pity for himself and calls himself a fool, while talking to Clotilde (Ricci) after once again making a spectacle and showing his impulsiveness. Again I’ll admit my memory is a little fuzzy remembering the book, but from what I remember, George never wanted pity from others, he hated pity and at this point in the book, he only feels rage, feeling he has been wronged too many times. I feel this is an attempt, maybe by some studio head or a poor direction/writing/editing choice. As if today’s audience couldn’t handle a completely un-redeeming character.  It would have been better to stay how it was in the novel and Maupassant’s spirit and characterization. Keep George un-redeeming and filled with rage and only wanting revenge, money and power. It also makes it worse that this scene has a romantic undertone between George and Clotilde to add to his sympathy.  He tells he is sorry for hurting her and then asks “Why do you come back to me?”, “I don’t know. Because you never expect me to.” Responds Clotilde.

In the end though, Georges gets his revenge, money and power.

 It is not a perfect film, but not as bad as some critics made it out to be. If you are like me a fan of period films and ruthless characters, give Bel Ami a try. 

Film Review: Detention

Director: Joesph Khan: Stars: Josh Hutcherson, Shanely Caswell, Spencer Locke,  Dane Cook. Released April 2012. 

I wouldn’t call Detention a cinematic masterpiece, and there is a chance down the line I won’t remember much of the film, but there is something witty, cleaver and enjoyable that will stay with me.

The hybrid of teen comedy and horror film genre has been done before and it doesn’t always work. I wonder if this film would have worked without the slasher film element and better off as a straightforward satire on teen film, pop culture and modern youth society. I don’t think many changes would have been needed, but in the end the story is built on the horror film foundation.

Right away I must say that this is not a movie for everyone. This may be said in reference to many films, but it truly is a love it or hate it type film. This is in part a horror film, so there is some gory moments, but in my opinion nothing that hasn’t been seen already. I think that the actual story and especially the fast paced,  hard at times to understand dialogue will turn many off. It feels like everyone is a character from Gilmore Girls and suffering from being high on caffeine. This actually has a negative effect in fully understanding some of dialogue and crucial plot points and explanations, especially towards the end when everything should be coming together and falling into place.

Another element that may turn viewers off (but what I enjoyed) is how HIGHY entrenched in popular culture and references (including a Perfect Strangers reference!) from the 1980’s, 1990’s, early 2000’s all the way to today. So many that a second viewing to catch them all would be needed, I got many, but I’m sure there are some that I missed. This is actually crucial to understanding the plot and majority of the jokes in the film. So if you are not up to date on music, movies, fashion, TV, slang from the past 20 plus years, you will not really appreciate this film.  The fun soundtrack also goes hand in hand with the film.

As harsh as that may sound, understanding the pop culture references is the key to satire that this film attempts to make. Now, my understanding of satire (like with Family Guy, Talk Soup, The Simpsons) is to point out obvious (or maybe not obvious) flaws and problems in society and in our culture that it is suppose to prompt us to think about these issues. This is where Detention also falls short. All the film does in the end is show the viewer that yes, youth/pop culture is crazy these days, principals and teachers are miserable,  teens are self centered and that there is life beyond high school, so don’t worry.  The final line of the film is “it's not the end of the world, it’s just high school.”  That some people are not what they seem to be and the message of be happy with yourself has all been done before and is not unique.

Another element that I enjoyed about this film is how self reflexive it is. Detention knows it is a film and addresses that multiple times. It doesn’t take itself too seriously. The characters break the fourth wall and seem to talk to the audience. There is even a reference to the director’s previous film (Torque) and how bad it was.  The film is based on and plays with films genres (horror, rom-com, teen comedy) and stereotypes of those genres and the stereotypes of the types of personalities you would find in a typical high school. I would normally argue that there is no character development, maybe a little with Riley (Caswell) and Clapton (Hutcherson), but I’m going to say that due to the satire and self reflexive nature of the film, the characters are more like caricatures. I have a feeling this would have been a fun movie to make.

Finally, props to Josh Hutcherson on being one of the producers of the film, whether or not he had a hand in financing the film, getting it greenlight or just a credit for no  real reason, it is still cool and not many 20 somethings in Hollywood can claim that.

So if you are looking for a fun, non serious movie to get a break from all the summer blockbusters and are up to date on popular culture and enjoy satire, Detention may be for you.