DIRECTOR
Marek Kanievska
SCREENWRITER
Harley
Peyton
based
on the novel by
Bret
Easton Ellis
PRODUCERS
Jon Avnet
Jordan Kerner
CINEMATOGRAPHER
Edward Lachman
MUSIC
Thomas Newman
EDITORS
Peter E. Berger
Michael Tronick
CAST
Andrew McCarthy (Clay)
Jami Gertz (Blair)
Robert Downey Jr. (Julian)
James Spader (Rip)
Tony Bill (Bradford Easton)
Nicholas Pryor (Benjamin Wells)
Donna Mitchell (Elaine Easton)
Michael Bowen (Hop)
MPAA rating: R
Running
time: 98m
U.S. release: November 8, 1987
Video availability: VHS - DVD
See also:
- American
Psycho
- The
Rules of Attraction
|
Note: The review you're about to read was written almost
half my lifetime ago. I was seventeen (and a half!), writing
for my high school newspaper -- the Spray -- as well as
for a town newspaper that reprinted my Spray reviews.
My underwhelmed take on Less Than Zero was one of them.
I decided to revisit this justifiably derided 1987 melodrama
on DVD the day after seeing The
Rules of Attraction, a much more successful adaptation
of Bret Easton Ellis. I found the film as dull as I had as a
teenager, and on a whim I dug through my old reviews to see how
the 17-year-old me had tackled the movie. Though cringe-inducing
in spots -- I'm not sure "partyhouse" is a word, or
if it is, it shouldn't be -- it's actually one of the least terrible
of my teen reviews (though way too heavily influenced
by Roger Ebert's writing style, and more or less maladroit in
aping it), and so I'll let my younger self speak for himself.
He had some decent points, and having just seen the film again,
I agree with him; after the review I'll tack on some newer thoughts.
Less Than Zero is a pale and bloodless little movie
that requires loud party scenes, drug use, and bizarrely-lit
sex scenes to get your attention. For a movie whose ads warn
you to "Brace yourself," it sure is unimpressive. This
is a film that wants to be an indictment of the loose lifestyles
of the teens of Beverly Hills, yet it has an amazing number of
scenes that seem to condone those lifestyles. I'll get
back to that point in a minute.
The movie is based on the 1985
novel Less Than Zero by Bret Easton Ellis. If we're to
believe the ads, the mere fact that the film is even loosely
based on the book should indicate the film's impending controversy.
You may be reminded of those old ads for "adult films"
in the 50s that read "See it before the courts decide!"
I understand that the novel, which I haven't read but intend
to, did honestly earn the label "controversial" and
included many scenes that would probably constitute cinematic
firsts in a mainstream major motion picture. You won't find many
scenes like that in the film Less Than Zero. About the
only "controversial" aspect of this film is one of
the characters' performing homosexual acts for money to pay off
drug debts. Hardly Disney Sunday Movie material, but in
this day and age, are we really expected to have to "brace
ourselves" for it?
The plot of Less Than Zero
follows a small group of friends six months after their graduation
from high school. One guy, Clay (Andrew McCarthy), has gone on
to college and seems to be the one who's most closely walked
the straight and narrow. Another, Julian (Robert Downey Jr.),
tried and failed to get a record company going and is now a drug
addict. Clay's former girlfriend Blair (Jami Gertz) has foregone
college and seems to have a successful career in modelling. This
happy group is rounded out by Rip (James Spader), a slimy drug
dealer who is owed $50,000 by Julian.
The film revolves around Clay's
rekindling of his romance with Blair and his attempts to help
Julian out of his addiction and huge debt. I just described the
film in a nutshell, minus all the sleaziness and general depravity
of the whole mess. Whenever the audience is about to fall asleep,
the director throws in another deafening party scene or titillating
sexual encounter. At times you have to deal with both at once.
Less Than Zero is also virtually humorless. When
will writers and directors learn that if you don't provide the
audience with some comic relief now and then, especially in such
a heavy-handed mess as this film, they'll find something else
to laugh at ... and usually it's at something they're not supposed
to laugh at? Take Julian's withdrawal scene. It's supposed to
be emotionally shattering and a palpable victory for Julian.
The audience I saw this with could only laugh at the sight of
Julian sticking his face in his own vomit to vomit again.
Also, what are we supposed
to make of a movie in which the only interesting characters are
either scumwads or screwed up? You can feel a marked awakening
of interest in the audience when Julian stumbles onto the screen,
or Rip slides on with his "I'm giving you a break"
routine. As I've said, you only really pay attention to the excessive
scenes in this movie, where the director takes you and throws
you into a house shaking with loud music and passion in the hallways.
Depravity is glamorized in this film.
When Clay has to go into one
of these partyhouses, he doesn't want to be there. We don't either,
really. And if the film had been designed to promote disgust
and anger in its primarily young audience, rather than the obvious
awe and envy I could sense being felt in the theater ... in short,
if the film had maybe followed the book more closely, and shown
more explicit depravity, then we'd have something here. Instead,
we have a film that describes a problem it chooses to be a part
of. Clay had a choice. He could, and does, walk out of those
partyhouses. You have an easier choice: avoid Less Than Zero.
...Boy. Bossy little fucker,
wasn't I? I should also note that the main reason I emphasized
the movie's glamorization of its flashy, empty milieu was to
refute the few critics who took the movie as a somber excoriation
of the drug lifestyle, like Roger Ebert, who actually gave it
four stars. I was spot-on about the less squeaky-clean characters
being more interesting, but that's no doubt because of three
factors I didn't mention above:
(1) Andrew McCarthy is one
of the most boring actors on the planet
(2) Jami Gertz was, is, and
ever shall be one of the most egregious actresses in the history
of film
(3) Robert Downey Jr. and James
Spader guarantee interest in whatever they're doing. They have
a few scenes together, and in the middle of this pallid cautionary
tale you get to watch two young masters working on instinct and
playing fabulous duets of need and loathing. Of course, watching
Downey going through drug anguish years before his life imitated
his art carries an extra frisson in 2002. Spader, for
his part, is never less than riveting despite hardly ever telegraphing
menace. You look at him and you know he's bad news even when
he's being amiable. Especially when he's being amiable.
I didn't mention the director,
Marek Kanievska, who hasn't worked much since (he took 13 years
to direct his next feature, 2000's Where the Money Is
with Paul Newman). I can see why: every scene that doesn't
unfold in a place (club, party, poolside at night) that allows
über-moody lighting plays out like an especially draggy
ABC After-School Special. Cinematographer Edward Lachman,
who goes hog-wild with his neon palette whenever the script justifies
it, should probably get the true directing credit here.
Finally, Less Than Zero
has the dubious distinction of now being the worst film of two
unofficial movie trilogies: the late-'80s adaptations of Brat
Pack authors Tama Janowitz (Slaves of New York) and Jay
McInerney (Bright Lights, Big City), and the three adaptations
of Ellis (Rules of Attraction and American
Psycho being the others). It's also reportedly the only
place you're going to see Anthony Kiedis, Flea, and Brad
Pitt in the same movie; they all have bit roles, supposedly,
though I didn't spot them -- feel free to rent the video to confirm
it.
|
