Released: July 25th,
2012
Rated: R
Distributor: Fox Searchlight
Starring: Paul Dano, Zoe Kazan, Chris Messina,
Annette Bening, Antonio Banderas
Directed by: Jonathan Dayton,
Valerie Faris
Written by: Zoe Kazan
Personal Bias Alert: loved Little Miss Sunshine,
likes mixed tones
4.8 of 10
The
central conceit of Ruby Sparks is
that an author can create a person, and not in a metaphorical sense. A flesh-and-blood Ruby (Zoe Kazan) manifests
after Paul Dano’s Calvin writers her up on a typewriter. Strangely, accepting this phenomenon is the
least problematic aspect of Ruby Sparks,
which plays as haphazardly with its ideas and tones as Calvin does with his
newfound creation.
Calvin,
we quickly learn, is the type of sensitive man that’s as fake as his imagined
manic pixie dream girl. He treads
lightly and fumbles over words but quickly reveals a domineering, petulant
side. The pairing of the two archetypes
in their meticulously postured home (Calvin has made quite a bit of money from
a book years earlier) is as twee as it gets.
Those in tune with this aesthetic will likely find Ruby Sparks’ romantic meanderings endearing, as much time is spent
watching the couple, or more specifically Calvin, traverse the ups and downs of
the relationship. However, nothing much
is narratively gained during this time, leaving your enjoyment entirely
dependent on how much you like being around these two people.
For
such a high-concept pitch, it’s disappointing how much Ruby Sparks leans on aesthetic.
There’s a real sense that Kazan, who also wrote the screenplay, was
hesitant to dive into everything the material has to offer. The film flits around ideas of idealization,
relationship expectations, and the ramifications of free will without ever
really exploring them. It seems that
Kazan was content with planting an interesting idea inside a charming rom-com,
which is sure to frustrate anyone who either yearns for something more or is bothered
by the horrify things going on just beneath the surface.
It’s
those horrifying things that stood in the way for me, namely the complete
imbalance of power between Calvin and Ruby.
In real life, a relationship that is controlled through physical or
emotional methods is considered abusive, and Calvin’s complete control of Ruby always
has that lingering feel. How, then, are
we supposed to find delight in their happy moments? This may be a low blow, but I imagine that the
movie has gotten a pass because it was written by a woman. A man writing about a woman being used would invite
knee-jerk accusations of sexism. A woman
writing about this is assumed to be giving some sort of commentary, except
Kazan avoids commentary throughout most of the film. Any intellectual debates the film might
incite will come from the person reading into the film’s backstory, not from anything
that Kazan put in. Therefore, why shouldn’t
Kazan be taken to task for so flippantly using a disturbing setup in the same
way that any man would be?
By
the time the film begins to take itself seriously, those not buying into Dano
and Kazan’s admittedly sincere efforts will find it all to be too little too
late. Two scenes towards the end provide
tantalizing hints at what Ruby Sparks could
have been, and the exhilaration of these scenes, particularly a remarkably
staged and acted confrontation between Ruby and Calvin, reveals just what was
missing throughout the entire film:
confrontation. Calvin never has
anyone to question what he’s doing nor anything to put his cushy lifestyle into
jeopardy. It’s a rookie mistake from a
rookie screenwriter, and three years on with no follow-up, it seems like one
that’s unlikely to be learned from.
Other Notes:
Ø Calvin
totally would leave his Jonathan Franzen novels laying conspicuously around.
Ø Dano
and Kazan are a real-life couple, and that translates convincingly onscreen.
Ø Oh,
how I hated Calvin’s cliché-ridden parents.
No comments:
Post a Comment