What
is the responsibility of a writer towards a character that he creates? To what
extent can his taking liberties with a character of his own creation be
considered within the bounds of acceptable morality? What if, one day, a writer
woke up to find that the character he had written, of the most perfect girl he
could imagine, had come alive and was living, and was madly in love, with him?
What would the situation be like?
The
film starts off with a wonderful premise, which looks nothing, if not idyllic.
Calvin Wier-Fields is a young teen literary prodigy whose first novel
HEARTBROKEN OLD TIMES was a critical as well as commercial smash hit, and who
is now consulting a therapist about his writers’ block, several years later,
unable to come up with a follow-up. Working on an assignment from his
therapist, Calvin begins to write about an imaginary girl called Ruby Sparks
and slowly starts falling in love with her. Then one day, he wakes up to find
Ruby in his kitchen—a walking, talking human being who is the same person as
the character he wrote and who, he finds, he can alter however he wishes by
just writing more about her on his typewriter, and who has no idea she is a
fictional character.
Taking
a premise which looks like the wet dream of any guy on the planet, the film
turns the concept on its head and turns it into a powerful, deeply disturbing
account of the differences between love and the ideal of love. This is mainly
the work of writer and star Zoe Kazan, grand-daughter of the legendary Elia
Kazan. The film is not just a magic-realist romcom, but a magnificent treatment
of the troubled relationship between the creator and the creation. Someone once
said that it was impossible to make a film about a writer, because you can’t
just show him writing all the time. RUBY SPARKS turns this liability into an
asset and beautifully evocates the joy and despair of the creative process.
The
film is directed by the husband-wife directorial duo of Jonathan Dayton and
Valerie Faris, six years after their first film, the 2006 indie stunner LITTLE
MISS SUNSHINE, one of my personal all-time favorites. Their long hiatus can be
forgiven, in light of this wonderful comeback. The film is not the equal of
LMS, but neither does it try to be. It is a different kind of film altogether.
RUBY SPARKS is nowhere near as funny as LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE was, but it has
far more pathos, more depth, and deals with a significantly more complicated
topic. It is to the infinite credit of the directors and Kazan, that they prevent
anyone in the film from becoming a villain. The use of music, composed by Nick
Urata of DeVotchKa (whose film scores I have always been a fan of, from
EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED to YOU KILL ME), is exquisite, helping the emotions
to build upon themselves.
The
acting by the two leads is fantastic. Paul Dano amazes yet again, with his
versatility, moving between love-struck idealist to bitter sadist with
effortless ease. Zoe Kazan is flawless as the enigmatic but very, very real
Ruby, dancing helplessly like a puppet to every literary whim of Calvin.
To
try and discuss individual scenes in the film, would be to divulge inevitable
spoilers, because in a film like this which can go any which way it wants to,
free of any and all movie clichés, the character arc and the direction that the
story takes is a major part of the film’s charm. However, there is one scene in
this film, near the end, of such mesmerizing power and brutality, that it will
knock your socks off.
The
film suffers from its lack of time devoted to the other characters apart from
the two leads, and leaves Dano and Kazan floating in a sea of one-dimensional
extras. Another obvious shortcoming in the film is its lack of humor, which can
be very damaging in a romcom. The film is saved by its originality, its insight
and the excellent directing and acting.
A
delectably fresh film, which works on many levels, and is written and directed
with compassion, care and insight, a must-watch for fans of literature and
romance films.
No comments:
Post a Comment