Ruby Sparks

Rewriting Life

The worst thing about Ruby Sparks is the title. I had heard of it a while back, but had never seen a trailer nor knew what it was about. I'd just read the title, and was immediately not very interested. It sounded like either a) a movie about a stripper, which ironically I should be curious about or b) a movie based on some book aimed at tweenage girls (don't ask me why I thought this). Not to mention, it doesn't convey any sort of proper vibe or tone that fits the film to which it belongs, and doesn't speak to any sort of theme (in my opinion, the best titles convey some sort of theme, like Sideways, No Country For Old Men, or Shame). Anyway, a friend recommended Ruby Sparks to me and from there I discovered it starred Paul Dano (already interested) as a writer (sold!).

Paul Dano is a great actor, whom I first saw in The Girl Next Door, an admittedly (self-objectively) not-so-great film, but one that I still love to watch as it was one of my favorites when I was 15 (I mean, come on, what 15 year old heterosexual male would not like that movie?). Then I saw him in Little Miss Sunshine, where he didn't speak much, and then in There Will Be Blood, where he was phenomenal, though couldn't compare to the brilliance of Day-Lewis (few, if any, can). Since then, I think he's only gotten better, appearing in Meek's Cutoff, Looper, and Being Flynn (among others), the latter of which also came out in 2012 and also stars Dano as a writer. I loved Being Flynn, which I found a thoughtful, interesting study of a tumultuous father-son relationship with a great chemistry between Dano and de Niro. I am looking forward to this year's For Ellen, based only on the trailer. 2012 has been a prolific year for Dano, and I firmly believe that it won't be too long before he gets the right role with the right director and scores an Oscar nomination. He's getting better. And he was damn good over a decade ago in L.I.E.

Onto the poorly titled Ruby Sparks. I will admit: films of this nature and topic automatically appeal to me. I love films about writers. Writers love to write films about writers. It's what they know best. But the general populace probably doesn't give as much of a shit as people like me, and probably don't connect with the material as well as I (and other writers) can or do. Adaptation was hardly a box office hit. Barton Fink failed to earn back it's $9 million budget at the box office. Ruby Sparks hasn't even amassed a $5 million gross. But they're all, including Ruby Sparks, great films that I love.

Ruby Sparks regards writer Calvin Weir-Fields, a young writer who wrote his first book in high school and it became an instant hit. Years later, he's struggling to recreate that success. The sophomore slump. He sees a therapist (most writers either do or should). He lives alone in Los Angeles, with the exception of his canine companion, Scotty. His therapist gives him an assignment: to write one page about somebody who he meets and likes Scotty. So he has a dream where he meets a beautiful girl, Ruby Sparks (Zoe Kazan, who previously acted with Dano in Meek's Cutoff), and writes about her. I should also note Kazan is the writer of this film. Anyway, after writing about Ruby, shortly after he finds her in his house. Believing he is going legitimately insane, he calls his brother who comes over. Turns out, his brother can see Ruby too. Everyone can. She actually exists.

Not only does Ruby exist, but Calvin can manipulate her in any way he wants. Anything he writes about her immediately becomes reality. He can make her speak French. He can make her never want to leave his side. He can make her miserable. He can do anything, which raises fascinating questions of moral ambiguity. It also brings up the question: what would it be liked to be loved by someone who, essentially, you have forced to love you. They have no choice. There's an old Klingon proverb that says "to love and be loved is to feel the sun from both sides"(just kidding, that's a David Viscott quote). But what if there is no choice on behalf of the one who loves you? I feel that Kazan and I share a similar feeling on that issue (based on the plot progression of the film): it would be very nice at first, and then quickly fade. In a way, this is a retooling of the mythical "love potion" (that, apparently, some people actually believe in?). Though, to be clear, Calvin doesn't purposefully create Ruby. But he does purposefully manipulate her once she exists.

This is a concept that could have gone dreadfully wrong. It could have been dead in the water after about 50 minutes. Like one of those one-joke Adam Sandler films (though those never last til the 50 minute mark). But Kazan is careful in her approach, and that is one of the film's greatest pleasures. It embellishes in the concept, enjoyably so, but also doesn't fear to ask questions and deny answers. At least not simple answers.

Dano is wonderful, as always. Zoe Kazan not only gets the opportunity to truly be in the spotlight, which she seldom has (aside from her wonderful performance in The Exploding Girl), but she also does fantastic work with the character, which can jump from one emotional pole to the other in seconds. I would like to see her in more movies, and more movies written by her.

This is the one of the best films of the year, one that is likely to make my end of the year top 10 list. I probably like it more than others would because of the nature of its main character, but I also think this is a film that anybody can enjoy and find something to relate to, because it isn't about writing. It's about rewriting. And everybody rewrites, not just writers.

****/****