Attraction of Dawson

What a great film to get me kick started back into blog life. That was sarcasm, can you smell it? So the other night I was on my way to bed and thought I would peruse TV to see what interesting show could put me to sleep. I flipped to IFC and to my surprise caught The Rules of Attraction just beginning. Now I have viewed this film before, so it was a no-brainer for inducing sleep. An hour and a half later my eyes shut as the final credits rolled. So why am I writing this review (or watching the entire film at one in them morning). Mostly because I enjoy seeing Dawson tell me to “rock and roll.”

What initially drew me to this film was the book by Brett Easton Ellis, which I have never read. I did read American Psycho and loved it, so it was a matter of consequence that I should see The Rules of Attraction. I might add that I have watched American Psycho but I honestly will just get into a debate about how books are better than films. I have to begin by saying that The Rules of Attraction is by no means a great film, but it has its moments.

One thing that struck me as funny was watching the “young” actors. I still chuckle when I see the enraged Sean Bateman (James Van Der Beek) taking a swig of Jack and looking like not only I ran over his cat but I then took his lunch money. Yes it was corny, but it was effective. Each of the actors fits the needed role for over the top college student. If this movie is anything, it is a study of stereotype and personal uniqueness. I still get a kick out of Mr. Lance Lawson (Eric Stoltz) playing the typical college professor who likes to smoke dope and bed his students. Not that the stereotype actually exists, but seeing Stoltz takes me back to Killing Zoe and Pulp Fiction. The cast does come off as a novelty, as if the casting agents offered them all a chance to break free from their teenage careers. As a collective cast they are not bad, just overplayed. You can imagine the shouts of the director, “James, try to not be Dawson, in fact be the anti-Dawson.”

The story is convoluted and told in a novel way, but by the end it is all a play of circumstance when it’s trying to be cause and effect. Sean has his secret admirer, that he believes is Lauren Hynde (Shannyn Sossamon) but it isn’t and his actions cause a suicide even though there is no real payoff in the revelation except for the audience. I buy the film as a snapshot of life realist play, but not as a well imagined narrative. Part of the reason for the negativity is the use of a very annoying editing tactic.

So here is The Rules of Attraction look at me I’m cool editing tactic. You show a scene and then play it all backwards to set-up story. Very long backwards moments that reappear throughout the entire opening of the film. At first I thought it was a great idea, until it kept happening. You have one of those please stop moments about 25 minutes into the film. I can’t stress how innovative it feels at first and then how cheesy it feels later. Here is an example of where subtlety should have been the word of the day instead of annoying. I can’t fault Roger Avary for his experimentation, but I can fault him for overusing it.

This is not one of those films that I want to own on DVD, nor will I actively watch again. But it was fun to catch on TV. For me it was about effort. The less effort I have to put into watching The Rules of Attraction the better it is. I have viewed films that were much worse, and films much better. So if you get a chance to see this film, please do. It does have its moments.