tip off
2

Ruby Sparks movie review: sweet rays of rom-com from Little Miss Sunshine duo

Co-directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris follow-up their beautifully balanced 2006 crowd pleaser Little Miss Sunshine with a playful Woody Allen-esque rom-com, tightly framed around a neurotic upper class writer who struggles, in equal measure, to deal with girlfriend and his imagination. The Kaufman-like twist in Ruby Sparks is that they are in a sense one and the same.

Like Paul Giamiatti’s character in Sideways (2004) and Jeff Daniels’ in The Squid and the Whale (2005), Calvin (Paul Dano) is a talented writer struggling to shirk the weight of expectation heaped upon him. He’s young, a sort of JD Salinger type, regularly reminded of his brilliance despite having only written one novel. The juices aren’t flowing and his love life is dead in the water, until they unexpectedly come together.

For a new novel, Calvin creates a free-spirited character called Ruby (Zoe Kazan) and returns home one day to find her sitting on his couch.

Ruby is as real as he is but still obeys the strokes of his typewriter. If Calvin writes, for example, that Ruby is feeling sad, she mopes around the house crying; if he writes that she is infatuated with him, she won’t leave him alone, etcetera. There’s a great, borderline sadistic scene in which Colvin proves his powers as a puppet master.

A sharp toothsome screenplay from Zoe Kazan, who also stars as Ruby and plays her with honey-eyed cordiality, takes what could have been a simple gimmick and makes it a source of conundrums for Calvin, a way of stretching and exploring his character as he creates and tinkers with Ruby’s. Dayton, Faris and Karzan unfold the story with a playful mixture of knowing absurdity, sweet nothings and fantasy-tinted prosaic drama.

Ruby Sparks was partly inspired by Henry Koster’s 1950 masterstroke Harvey, which is mentioned in dialogue. A creation of someone’s imagination exists — in the case of Harvey, a giant rabbit — but other people inside the film’s reality can see it, proving it ‘true’ and broadening the surrounding playground into a semi-metaphysical context. In Ruby Sparks, like in Kaufmann scripts, the insertion of fiction into reality is a part of the film, as is the insertion itself.

If this sounds at all complicated, the film is executed with unprepossessing affection for its characters and the environments they inhabit, which isn’t to say it sugar coats the pill (Colvin is an obviously flawed individual). Ruby Sparks isn’t a circuit-breaker or a must-see; it’s quietly courageousness, if you like, in its efforts to find a different track to tinker with a familiar premise about an author’s incapacity to write.

Its crowning achievement is the creation of a sort of reversal of writer’s block fiction: the invention of a gap in the protagonist’s mind that cannot not create, producing quirky narrative bits and bobs that — like the film — have no profound bearing but provide a pleasant reprieve.

Ruby Sparks is playing at The Melbourne International Film Festival and will be released nationally September 20, 2012.  

 

2

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



  • 1
    Dale Leorke
    Posted August 17, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    An interesting literary comparison to this film might be J.M. Coetzee’s ‘Slow Man’, in which a man in his late sixties (who in some ways resembles the author) finds himself the subject of a novel-in-progress by a famous Australian novelist who shows up on his doorstop one day. I’d be interested to see if there are any overlaps between that book and this film, though the former sounds like it might be a bit more subtle in its ‘metafictional’ overtones.

  • 2
    downtown
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 7:55 am | Permalink

    I think it’s great that instead of whinging about the lack of work, an actor puts fingers on the keyboard and turns out a script for themselves, and the outcome can be brilliant like Bridesmaids.In Ruby Sparks it didn’t happen for me. I thought this film started well, and then became silly and tedious. Paul Dano, was irritating and after a while one dimensional, and no J. D. Salinger- just a cliche version. The film, written by Zoe Kazan, who plays the female lead, does a great job until a third of the way through the film you go “OK you wrote this to show us how many emotions you can do, how well you can speak french, how versatile you are as an actor” . It’s like adding too many ingredients to a dish-the law of diminishing returns. If my seat hadn’t been so comfortable I would have left.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Leading Company

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...