The Shape of Things (2003) XX/XY (2003)
Lodger's
Note: Some spoilers. I saw both of these films within
an hour of each other in May (at different venues)
because they were about to finish their runs in Austin.
The fact that they were similar was coincidental but
nonetheless lead me to writing about them together.
Movies about male/female relationships
are often a mystery to me. Some modern problems of
couples (sounds like an Elvis Costello album title
- which is odd because Costello does the music for
"Shape.." Anyway...) Where was I - oh yeah - Some
modern problems of young heterosexual couples are
so alien to me, an aging gay man, that I cannot begin
to comprehend them. Jealousy, in particular, is a
totally weird thing. Sure, in the mediocre and fleeting
relationships I've been engaged in jealousy has certainly
reared its ugly head, but it has never seemed as profound
and as deeply hurtful as it seems to most couples
in modern relationship films, especially heterosexual
ones. And jealousy plays an important role in both
"XX/XY" and "The Shape of Things" as both deal in
hetero relationships.
"XX/XY" is a totally engrossing
film with fleeting comedic moments which is best described
as a drama whereas "Shape," while loaded with drama
and relationship issues, is best described as a romantic
black comedy (or a black romantic comedy). Where both
films deal with a male protagonist who is wishy-washy,
the former treats his lot as, eventually, a gapping
flaw and a personality trait that keeps him from happiness.
He also allows himself to be manipulated somewhat
by the women in his life. The protagonist in "Shape
of Things," while also weak-willed, is only dealing
with one strong female influence. She does, however,
totally remake him into a new person.
"XX/XY" is a low-budg arthouse flick
that found its way to release via strong showings
at film festivals. While the trailer for the film
sets it up as the story of three friends, one male,
two female, who meet in college, have a three-way
and then meet up again several years later, as more
mature adults, the film isn't quite so titillating.
The trailer also sets one up to believe this film
jumps about in time in its storytelling, when, in
fact, it is told in chronological order. Mark Ruffalo,
who was so awesome in "You Can Count on Me," gives
a strong performance as Coles, an animator and filmmaker
who ends up working mostly for inane advertising firms.
Coles meets Thea and Sam (Kathleen Robertson, Maya
Stange) at Sarah Lawrence College (wink, wink, nudge,
nudge) and they soon become the best of friends after
sharing a bed with typically disappointing consequences.
After spending half the movie in
this time setting, with Coles and Thea becoming more
emotionally closer while Coles and Sam seem ever so
eager to engage in more lustful activities, the film
fast forwards ten years in its second half to find
Coles living with Claire, a woman he met while making
his one and only film. When Sam and Thea come back
into his life, things begin to, once again, spiral
out of control.
While the set-up here is unique,
writer/director Austin Chick (sounds like a description
of someone I know but is instead a gender ambiguous
name of a new filmmaker) doesn't do much to propel
the story along. It often seems labored and beleaguered
by its typical approach to storytelling. While the
characters are somewhat unique and well played, the
dramatic tension that evolves from them seems rather
expected. The worst of all of this is Coles' inability
to express himself or clearly define his feelings.
It's as frustrating for us as it is for the woman
in his life. Granted, this agonizing character flaw
of indecisiveness has to exist for the whole point
of the film to occur, but it doesn't make it any easier
to sit through.(It's just as fr ustrating, too, that
he's a wannabe filmmaker. What a typical job profession
for indie film characters).
But Chick doesn't help the women
here either. His female antagonists, if you will,
never clearly define exactly what it is they want
either. This is all acceptable for the characters,
as they are young and in a notorious college for experimental
sexual relationships (especially among women - is
there a college more noted for its lesbianism?) Watching
these young people skirt around issues and never really
deal with their relationships is quite frustrating.
As time goes on, however, it is
Coles who remains stuck in this rut. As Thea grows
older, she establishes a relationship with a man and,
it is shown, molds him into a responsible, respectable
and successful businessman. Sam, meanwhile, the more
flighty and eccentric of the two, returns to America
from an excursion in Europe. The idea of the film,
and this is a big spoiler, is that Coles suffers because
he is never able to express his feelings or say strongly
and forcibly exactly what it is that he wants. He
ends up losing the love of his life forever because
he is never capable of this act.
Some may say that "XX/XY" is misanthropic
because it says that men are wishy-washy, don't know
how to express themselves, don't know what they want
in relationships and don't understand women. I find
it much more misogynistic because the women here all
USE Coles and yet never really allow him to speak
his mind or to have what he wants without freedom
from their own emotional issues. Perhaps it is both
as the film firmly says, in its own way, that communication
is the key. Watching these characters, who could be
having a terrific time sexually and cerebrally, who
could be establishing life-long bonds of an unbreakable
nature, who could all care for each other and love
one and other, instead fight, argue, get jealous and
hurt each other is often torturous.
Regardless, the film is well written
and features fine acting and is as often as riveting
as it is inherently frustrating. These are complex
characters engaged in relationships that are both
normal and fantastical and watching them struggle
to find themselves within these relationships is very
engrossing. The acting, in particular from Ruffalo,
is quite good.
While "The Shape of Things" is,
in many ways, light years away, on the other end of
the spectrum from "XX/XY," there are also many similar
themes at play. Here wishy-washy Paul Rudd, as Adam
(an appropriate name in many ways) is much stronger
as a person than Ruffalo's Coles, even though his
demeanor is, in many ways, much more pliable. The
script has Rudd's physical appearance become much
more pliable as well. (I warned you able spoilers
didn't I? Don't read this unless you want the film
spoiled for you). When Rudd hooks up with Rachael
Weisz's Evelyn, she soon subtly begins molding him
into the perfect boyfriend. But most of the changes
Evelyn helps undergo, in my opinion, are for the better.
She gives him more self-assuredness, more social skills,
a more forceful personality, and even helps him become
cuter, although taking it a bit to far by making him
have a nose job.
But, as we find out, Evelyn has
ulterior motives here. I find a basic flaw in the
film in the idea that Adam should be criticized, especially
in the end of the film, for many of the metamorphoses
he undergoes. He is a stronger, smarter, cuter, and
better person for having known her, no matter what
her motives were. The fact that she criticizes him
for changing to please her is ignorant on her part.
She misses the point, as does he due to his embarrassment
and hurt.
She is right to criticize his opting
to be with her rather than his friends when she eventually
issues him an ultimatum via the jealousy angle. This
scene rings false when played out because Evelyn is
too strong willed and intelligent to play the jealousy
card here as she does (but it becomes more clear when
she reveals she is tricking him). As with Ruffalo
in "XX/XY," the jealousy scene here is frustrating
because it seem dishonest and unrealistic. If men
do bend to the will and emotion of women after they
"cheat" on them, then they are fools. Now, I'll admit
that I am the last person in the world to ask about
healthy relationships and monogamy, but the way these
women use their hurt feelings and jealousy to manipulate
the men in their lives, whether purposeful or not,
is repulsive. A character in one of these films says,
"There's no room for honesty in a healthy relationship"
and, that seems to be all too true in these relationships.
(Albeit, they aren't really healthy).
"The Shape of Things" was written
and directed by Neil LaBute and made its first appearance
on stage. LaBute, who has made a name for himself
by producing plays, and then films,with brutal characters
who often engage in psychological game playing, continues
that trend here. His characters manipulate and use
others for their own personal gain or personal perspective.
(Granted, I've only seen "Nurse Betty" and his antonym
film "Posession"). This sort of misogynistic, misanthropic
work has quite a cult following but I find it crass
and vulgar. LaBute certainly comes up with some interesting
story ideas here, unique characters and a fascinating
plot twist, but he blows it by expanding his characters
to grotesque and unrealistic proportions. I r ealize
that this is his device, his point, if you will, but
that doesn't make it any less repulsive and unpalatable.
To the contrary, it seems to helps to make it all
the less engaging. LaBute is pointing out inequities
and falsehoods in the human condition by bloating
them to absurdist proportions, but it often doesn't
work because his characters come across as false.
LaBute often films "The Shape of
Things" as if it were a stage play. There are only
four speaking parts in the entire film and there is
very little action. A few times the film becomes claustrophobic
and visually tiresome. Of course, one could argue
that the film should feel this way. LaBute does open
the play up as much as possible by changing the locations
as often as possible in the film, but the psychologically
infused dialogue can often become annoying and make
it difficult to comprehend what is being said here.
Evelyn's long introduction to her "art piece" at the
end of the film is just boring as hell as we know
where she is going and want her to get to the point.
(It's almost like sitting through a pretentious performance
art piece at college). Also, the epilogue between
Adam and Evelyn goes on far too long. In other words,
the film is often a bit tiresome. It is nonetheless
challenging and interesting material. LaBute has made
a very unique film with an amazing plot twist at its
climax.
Modern heterosexual relationship
dramas can frustrate and bore me. "XX/XY" and "The
Shape of Things" each have things to help them overcome
these inherent (for me) problems and be worth watching.
Certainly the acting and the story in both film is
enough to keep you intrigued, but the frustration
of "XX/XY's" protagonist's inaction and terseness
makes the film difficult to accept as realistic. As
does LaButes hyper- intense misanthropy and misogyny
in "The Shape of Things."
Notes on XX/XY
With Kel O'Neill as Sid.
Filmed in New York.
Notes on The Shape of Things
Also with Gretchen Mol and Fred
Weller. (Weller starred in "The Business of Strangers"
which was considered the female version of LaBute's
"In the Company of Men."
The four principles also starred
in the stage play in London in 2001.
Weisz is also a producer here, as
is LaBute.
