Ruby Sparks

Released:  July 25^th, 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.

The Kids Are All Right (2010)

Released:  July 9^th, 2010

Rated:  R

Studio:  Focus Features

Starring:  Annette Bening, Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo, Mia Wasikowska, Josh Hutcherson, Yaya DaCosta

Directed by:  Lisa Cholodenko 

Written by:  Lisa Cholodenko, Stuart Blumberg

Personal Bias Alert:  liked High Art, excited by the praise the movie received

4.5 of 10

            Writer/director Lisa Cholodenko seems very interested in the fluidity of life.  In the two films I’ve seen of hers, this and 1998’s “High Art,” love, sexuality, profession, and addiction are explored, and the boundaries that come with each are pushed.  Where is the line between recreational user and drug addict, hobbyist and professional, cheater and strayer?  People like their boxes, but Cholodenko brings the blurriness of life into her films, often making it the most interesting aspect of the story.  “The Kids Are All Right” draws from these questions, which only serves to amplify how pat and familiar everything else in the film is.

            At its core, this is a story about a nuclear family:  two parents, two kids, all that’s missing is the dog.  The kids are in their late teens, and are the usual angsty but decent suburbanites.  The hook is that the parents are two women, Nic (Annette Bening) and Jules (Julianne Moore).  The kids, curious about their sperm donor father, contact the sperm bank and set up a meeting with their donor, Paul (Mark Ruffalo).  Paul’s sudden presence shakes the family, and their functional little unit becomes threatened from several angles.

            This could have been a fun little movie.  It’s a solid setup for the low-budget dramedy it is, but it never quite comes together.  Individual scenes are good, including a standout conversation between Nic, Jules, and son Laser (Josh Hutcherson).  It’s funny and smart and honest and it made me wish so much that the rest of the movie was like that.  Unfortunately, it too often falls back on clichés and easy answers to have any true emotional resonance.

            Undoubtedly, the weakest link in the whole movie is the characters.  It feels like writers Stuart Blumberg and Cholodenko never expanded upon them from their initial pitch.  Everyone fits into their little boxes and can be easily summarized in one sentence.  Nic is an uptight career woman.  Jules is a spineless wanderer.  Joni is a pleaser who always does what she’s told.  And Laser is, well, simply undeveloped.  They do point out that he’s not very in touch with his emotions, which lets them slip in some clichéd jokes about men (and gay men).  But let’s focus in on the worst offender:  Paul.  He’s a laid-back, plaid-wearing, organic and local gardener/restaurateur.  Of course Mia Wasikowska’s Joni thinks he’s cool, because that’s all he’s trying to be.  Nic detests him, and I’ve got to say that that drew me closer to her.  I never understood why everyone was so interested in him.  He is nice, and I guess Nic’s abrasiveness makes everyone want someone like him, someone who will just tell them that everything’s fine and they’re fine and whatever.  That still doesn’t make him an interesting character.

            As I said, Cholodenko is very interested in blurred boundaries.  Here, alcoholism and love is challenged, with Nic being a borderline alcoholic and Jules cheating.  Jules is the more interesting example, with her fling being based more on the need for support than a lack of love for Nic.  The boundary between straying and outright cheating is different for everyone, with many people claiming that a physical act isn’t cheating as long as your heart remains focused on your long-term partner.  Then there’s another version of straying, which I think the line “I’m not unfaithful but I’ll stray” from the song “Back in Your Head” by Tegan and Sara describes best.  I’ve always thought that this refers to the ebb and flow of a relationship and being honest about the fact that there will be times when your interest in the other person wanes.  In these instances, you become more interested in something or someone else, but you always come back to your partner.  Jules’s cheating falls at an intersection between all these definitions, and that makes it particularly challenging to figure out just how bad her actions are.

            These complications are interesting, but they never hide the fact that the characters are thin and the plot is stale.  I don’t understand why this script got such high praise, and I can’t help but feel that this film seemed more interesting to people simply because the home was headed by two women.  Of course two women can form a family, and of course they can have the same problems as heterosexual couples.  I don’t think that’s a novel idea, even way back in 2010.

            Other Notes:

Ø  The dialogue is clunky, especially early on.  There are exchanges that, while natural, are boring to watch.

Ø  The kid’s friends are clichés, and boring ones at that

Ø  Like Paul, this movie seemed a little self-satisfied.