Hey folks Harry here... It is looking like RULES OF ATTRACTION is most likely going to be moved for the festival circuit and then a fall release. This isn't official yet, but it is very much looking like it as LIONSGATE has become very confident in the film, something that quite frankly was inevitable. The script really is that good. You'll see. Here's Massawyrm with his exhaustive two part report. Now let's get on with it...

Hola all. Everyone's favorite Chain-smoking, Dr. Pepper Swilling, indie schilling, set visiting bastard here with a look at the up coming Roger Avary film "Rules of Attraction". A few months back I got the chance to check out the set with Quint during a six-day visit to LA LA land, betwixt two press junkets for the DVD releases of "Boogiemen" and "The Mummy Returns". For those of you that read Quint's report of this film I have only this to say: To quote Mark Twain "The rumors of my death were, well, you know, complete horseshit." That Twain sure had a way with words.

However, if you're scratching your head, muttering to yourself and speaking in tongues about how you know nothing about any press junkets nor any set visits, check out these handy articles:
For Quint’s account of our first day in L.A., including a nearly entirely true account of my troubles with airport security click here Dammit, I mean here!

For Quint’s account of the happenings on-set, which includes an o’er hasty report of my death, click here I mean here

And for my report of the final day of this famed expedition, the Mummy Returns press junket, including my brief interview with The Rock click here actually here or you know, don’t. It’s your world.

Now that you know the how’s the when’s and the where's, lets dispense with all the opening pleasantries and get right down to the nitty gritty: What the hell is this "Rules of Attraction" anyway? Now since my return from the set I've read up on what I could find on this film, various tidbits here and there, from small little snippets to full blown analysis on the marketability of the film and I've found that many people just don't have a clue as to what this film is about. I've found that it's even possible to have read the script and still not know what the hell this is about.

"Why?" you may ask. Well, there are a couple reasons for this. Let's set casting aside for a moment, as this is a huge issue that I'll go into much deeper a little later. Right now let's cast some light on the book, the script, and the man behind the monitors, Roger Avary.

First and foremost, the book is just plain weird in construction. If you've read it you might say to yourself "How in God's name are they going to adapt this into a film?" Well, truth be told, it's loosely adapted and will have a life entirely it's own once its finished and glowing before you on 30 foot screens. There have been several modifications that continued well into shooting. Yes, it still exists in the "American Psycho" universe, and yes Patrick Bateman appears, but this is not a "Sequel". For all intents and purposes it's a prequel, but don't expect psychotic episodes or murder sprees. This film is about college, plain and simple.

No, not the college we're accustomed to seeing on film. This is not the kind of college that exists in a world where the geeks overcome the jocks with brilliant displays of ingenuity and panty raids; not the world where the lonely nerd girl finds out she's really pretty when somebody gives her a haircut and contacts; not the world where a bunch of beautiful friends hang out and solve each others problems through the power of love and understanding. This is not a dream world; this is not a "college was the best four years of my life" film. This is the college I remember, one full of angst, pain, psuedo-angst, self inflicted pain, unrequited love that continues to go unrequited and oh yes, sex. Lot's of sex. And not happy fun sex. Real sex. Gritty sex. Fucking. Banging her head into the headboard, putting a notch in the banister, getting her number and not calling her back again ever sex.

If that description of the act alone offends you, this is not the movie for you. This film is carnal, gritty, raw and just plain wrong at certain points. And yet, it’s never gratuitous. This isn't a James Toback's "Black and White" situation where we cut to sex any time things get slow, just to be edgy. Uh-uh. Every bit of sexuality in this film defines the characters in some way or another and works within the framework of the story.

Let's face it. Sex and College go hand in hand. This period of youth and freedom is an extremely formative period in our lives. Our sexual encounters, whether positive or negative, plentiful or absent, defines who we become in regards to our opinions, feelings and outlooks that foster the rest of our life. This is an issue that often gets whitewashed with nostalgia and positivity in most film. In Rules of Attraction it gets no such treatment. It is presented in a heartbreakingly real manner that is at times disturbing and yet hilariously funny.

There were several comments made in the talkbacks of Quint's report regarding the "fag" table. Anytime something like this is mentioned, there's bound to be a shitstorm of controversy over the handling of such a delicate issue. What's important to note is that the "fag" table in question is not derogatory in the way several people may take it. You see, as a large part of this film deals with various characters struggling with their own sexuality, and a good sized chunk of that is about several young men dealing with their newfound homosexuality, it is important to note that this issue is dealt with in the same manner, tone and sensitivity that the heterosexuality is dealt with. Brutally, truthfully and comically. All simultaneously. Again, these are not the typical stereotypes to which we are accustomed. These are realistic portrayals that often skirt the shores of parody, but never drop anchor. Several of these characters are flaming testaments to kids who have just recently come out. They are lost, confused and ultimately allow their sexuality to become their self-image. Anyone who has been involved with the gay community knows these people; many in the community have been these people. My best friend from High School was one of these souls, struggling to find himself amid the stigma of being different solely because of his sexuality. He clung to the only thing he was sure about and he wore it like a badge. Then he found the man of his dreams who essentially said, "Uh, you need to quit that. You're more than just gay. You're an individual." You see, the term "fag" isn't used like the derogatory way a heterosexual homophobe would use it, its used in the way a homosexual would use it, to characterize drama queens obsessed with being gay and not themselves. Is the characterization offensive? Yes, but only so far as every other characterization in the movie is offensive. Brutally, truthfully and comically.

Now, one of the most important things about this film in regards to the script is that the humor and the brilliance of it don’t totally shine through in the script. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that the script isn’t funny or brilliant, it is. What I’m saying is that the film relies on delivery and execution to convey it’s comedic flair. To use an example of what I mean, I’ll go to Avary’s award winning collaboration "Pulp Fiction" which I know you all have seen, and if somehow you haven’t get out, now, leave this place, go to your local video store, rent it, watch it and feel shame for having let over 7 years go by without it ever having graced your eyes. Losers. Anyhow, imagine reading the line "Shit Negro, that’s all you had to say." in a script without envisioning Sam Jackson saying it. Not a particularly stellar or brilliant line. Something you might hear everyday. But listen to Sam Jackson say it and try not to laugh or even chuckle. It’s just funny when you see it on the screen. This film is riddled with moments like that. Moments that shouldn’t really be funny, but they are.

The other reason this film doesn’t completely show through in the script is because, well, Avary’s not completely sticking to his script. This is truly a collaborative piece. He put quite a bit of well-deserved trust in his crew and his actors, allowing many aspects of the film to change as they’ve gone along. Hell, just read the script and try to find Eric Stoltz’s character. He’s there, but barely. Stoltz is almost entirely improv in this. But it works. As far as I saw, all of it worked out perfectly.

Avary spoke with both Quint and myself about this special moment he had, a moment that changes a section of the script entirely. A moment Avary regarded as magic. He confided to me that there had been a moment while shooting Killing Zoe that felt like pure magic, the type of moment that validated his being a director. It was as he described it, in essence, pure filmmaking joy. The gods of filmmaking smiled down and had delivered unto him a perfect moment. Roger honestly thought he would never experience a moment like that again. But he did, there on the set of Rules of Attraction. It was a moment while working with Shannyn Sossamon in which she questioned the actions of her character. She simply disagreed, saying that she didn’t feel her character would react the way she did to a certain situation. Now this is a common occurrence on sets, in fact one that is often parodied in films about making films. But Avary instead ran with it. He said Okay; we’ll try it your way. And they did. And Avary found his perfect moment. He knew what it was to completely love his job through and through again. I simply can’t convey how excited he was about this moment. It was obviously something very personal and special, so special that when he spoke of it, it was much like listening to a child go on about that one, perfect Christmas gift, the dirt bike, the Nintendo or the Red Rider BB Gun that made their entire season. And his excitement was infectious. I simply cannot wait to see the scene (he desperately wanted to show me the dailies of it, but they weren’t readily available.)

Roger Avary is just one cool cat, a perfect mix of vision, creativity and personality that blends together into a driving force of energy that whirls about his set with childlike glee, loving virtually every moment of the filmmaking process. There’s just something about him, maybe it’s in his candor, or perhaps his wicked sense of humor that immediately endears him to you. Perhaps it’s his goofy "I’m having so much fun" smile that he greets you with. He is simply instantly likeable. That, and well, he’s as big a Dr. Pepper fan as I am. We hit it off immediately.

Now what’s important to note about Quint’s and my visit to the set is that it was fairly out of the ordinary. Most often when you visit sets as a member of the press the crew is polite, your visit is at a prearranged time when it would be most conducive to see something impressive and the unit publicist makes sure you are happy and out of the way. You sit, you keep quiet and you don’t bug the talent. Avary gave a solid "Fuck all that" and gave us free reign of his set. Free Reign. We were allowed everywhere. Behind the monitors during shooting, on the actual sets between takes to get closer looks at everything, into Avary’s trailer to chill and watch dailies with him. We were invited to lunch with the cast. As long as the camera wasn’t rolling while we were in frame, it was cool for us to be there. It was obvious that Avary wasn’t trying to schmooze us. He was legitimately proud of what he was doing and was happy to let us experience it for ourselves. Harry trusted us and Roger trusted Harry’s judgment and that was that. We saw the production for what it was. Like a one night stand the next morning we were exposed to every blemish, every flaw, every possible nook and cranny of possibility where something negative could exist and it just simply wasn’t there. Avary had a lot to be proud of and he didn’t hide it. It’s just the kind of guy he is.

Avary’s directing style is very casual. He knows what he wants, but he surrounds himself with people whom he trusts to accomplish what he wants and that trust shows through. Even during moments of frustration, when something wasn’t going his way, he was cool and casual about it. He would simply take a deep breath, give a look to whoever was sitting beside him and patiently try to work through the problem. And it was obvious his crew loved him for it. As Quint stated in his report, there was a certain air about the set that relayed the sense that something special was going on. After spending just a bit of time on the set it was quite clear that it wasn’t just that everyone, cast and crew alike, bonded, but that it was Avary’s leadership that really brought the production together.

When asked about his directing his own script he said, "You have to approach it like a director and not like the writer. When you write something, you feel as if it was written by the hand of God himself, and well, it wasn’t." If something didn’t work, he changed it. He trusted his actors to exist in the moment and he trusted his crew to capture that moment.

So how about that cast and crew that he put so much faith in? What about them? Well, this is yet another bump in the road for anyone trying to analyze the marketability of this picture. Chiefly, the main concern I’ve seen is that the cast list reads like a who’s who of the WB’s weeknight line-up. James Van Der Beek (Dawson’s Creek), Jessica Beil (7th Heaven), Clare Kramer (Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Universal’s Bring it On), Ian Somerhalder and Kate Bosworth (both from the short lived Young Americans). Toss in Shannyn Sossamon (hot off from her motion picture debut in A Knight’s Tale), Jay Baruchal (Fox’s Undeclared), Thomas Ian Nicholas (American Pie), Fred Savage (The Wonder Years), Joel Michaely (Can’t Hardly Wait) and shake it up with a few seasoned veterans like Eric Stoltz, Faye Dunaway and Clifton Collins Jr. and you have what appears on the surface to be the makings of a teen oriented cast meant to draw in crowds for a PG-13 Cineplex darling that just happens to have a script that will ensure teen audiences can’t get in to see it. This has left many reporters and critics in a daze just trying to figure out if there’s a market for just such a movie. I’m sure many of you out there saw Van Der Beek’s name and immediately said "Forget that" or "Wait for video", assuming that no matter how dark we say this is, no matter how highly you may think of Avary’s previous works, you simply will think of this as a teen film or even more narrowly, a James Van Der Beek movie.

I’ve got three words for any and all of you out there thinking that right now. Fuck. All. That. This is far and away not the picture the cast list would lead you to believe it is. My fiancé heard all about my set visit, heard me talk about just how disturbed this film is at its core, heard me talk of how this will alter the careers of several of the cast members, and yet when she read the script she looked up at me, eyes so wide they almost fell out of their sockets, mouth agape in shock and simply whispered "This is fucked up." Uh-huh. "And James Van Der Beek is Sean?" Yup. "He is so fired." Maybe. "I thought you said this was a teen comedy, you know, like American Pie. I thought when you said this would destroy the teen movie, you meant that it was so over the top that no one could ever out do it." No, I said it was the Anti-American Pie, the movie that accomplishes everything a dozen American Pies never could. "Oh. And James Van Der Beek is in this?" Yes. "Wow. That is so fucked up."

I’m assuming this conversation will play itself out in various forms and dialects between audience members once the movie is released, but that no matter who has the conversation, the phrase "fucked up" will no doubt appear many times. The other phrase that will pop up will be Van Der Beek. Yes. Van Der Beek.

Now, when I was first making my way to the set, I did so with great trepidation. I simply had no clue as to what I was getting myself into. Here we have a film being directed by someone who hadn’t been behind the camera of a major motion picture in over 7 years and his title character was being played by James Van Der Beek. Of course I had my hopes but at the same time I had not read the script and had no clue what these guys were going to be like.

But I’ve had my eye on Van Der Beek for a while; curious to see where he was going to go. You see, I view teen films and pop teen oriented television a lot like baseball farm clubs. This is where the young, fresh talent makes their first showing if they don’t get drafted right off the bat for having done something really impressive early on. Right before your eyes you can watch the next generation of A-list talent and B-list has beens make their mark. Yes, its in fluff and often it just doesn’t have the staying power that other films might have, but there’s talent out there to be found if you look for it, and James Van Der Beek has had some potential. So while I was nervous about what I was going to see, I was also excited because I’d finally get to find out what this guy was made of.

Now I know many of you out there harbor some kind of demented, unwarranted film geek hatred for the guy because he’s a pretty boy who’s appeared almost exclusively in teen oriented material. But remember for a moment that just over a decade ago, there was a teen geared show on an upstart network featuring young actors that graced the pages of many a Tiger Beat. The show was about young looking cops sent undercover into high schools to make busts and it was called 21 Jump Street. Now there were two actors of note on that show the teetered on the big time. Johnny Depp and Richard Grieco. At the height of the show both were equally popular, but I recall my younger sister having many more pictures up of Grieco than Depp. Grieco went on to "If Looks Could Kill" a teen spy thriller comedy something or other (that I wish I could forget I had ever watched but just can’t forget about that damned French teacher gag) and the successful "Mobsters". Then he dropped into B-movie direct to video hell from which he has yet to ever return with such utter pieces of garbage under his belt as "Point Doom" and "Final Payback." Depp, on the other hand, showed himself to be one of the finest actors in Hollywood. By carefully selecting roles he has moved out of teen adulation and into the realm of the greats, working with the likes of Burton, Jarmusch and Polanski. He has become admired and respected, but most importantly we’ve all but forgotten his stint as a teen star. James Van Der Beek is currently walking that path.

Now it might seem weird now, but lets look at his history. His first major film was Angus, arguably one of the best teen films about adolescence to come out of the 90’s, where he played a detestable villain. Next he did I Love You, I love You Not. Okay, lets skip that. Then came his big break, his hit TV series that put him on the map: Dawson’s Creek. Regardless of what you think of the show, it got him the exposure he needed to take the next step: Starring roles. He did Varsity Blues, which happens to be a film I care for very much. Now I know many folks out there think its silly or downright terrible, but for me, having grown up here in Texas and having attended a high school that worshipped it’s football players and gave them slack above all else (and went to 5A State 4 times in 10 years) I found many elements of that film right on. And I found Van Der Beek’s portrayal of a Texan to be one of the most dead on, inoffensive performances a man who was not born on Texas soil could give (filmmakers more often than not make parodies of Texas when they think they’re making down home films that capture the spirit of what they believe Texas to be.) So okay, then he did Texas Rangers and Harvest (aka Cash Crop, where despite the fact that the distribution company put his face dead center on the box below the large print "And James Van Der Beek", as well as on every production still on the back, he actually only appears for about 2 minutes of the film. But then, if you will notice, there was a noticeable change in his career. Scary Movie, parodying Dawson. Then Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, parodying himself when Freddy Prinze Jr. dropped out because he just didn’t think it was funny to make fun of himself. Well, James did. This was actually the moment I first began to see what James was up to. With lines like "You watch that show?" he began to systematically tear down the image of "James Van Der Beek is Dawson" and showed that he could laugh at himself. A notable trait indeed. Then came his next two projects "Rules of Attraction" and Todd Solondz’ "Storytelling".

Now "Storytelling" was to be Van Der Beek’s big gamble. An edgy film by a disturbing filmmaker in which he is on the receiving end of anal sex. Quite a turn from prime time WB. Well, he was cut out. Now, don’t think it was just he who was cut out, but it was his entire segment. You see, as I hear it, Storytelling was two separate movies told as one about the same characters in college that follows up with the characters later in life in the second half of the film. Solendz’ first cut was rumored to be about 4 hours long. Something had to be cut. Well, the movie is now a scant 87 minutes long and gone is the segment of the early years and I assume everything later in the film that revolves around the first segment. Lord only knows how good it’s going to be, but after 187 votes on IMDB, Storytelling has netted a weak 6.6 out of 10. Storytelling is no longer even listed on Van Der Beek's IMDB page, although last I heard two minutes of his footage had remained. It’s entirely possible they’ve been removed completely since I last talked with him.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Hey, gang. "Moriarty" here. The above paragraph is, to put it politely, bullshit. The myth of the four hour cut of STORYTELLING needs to be killed like the lame duck it is. Even if they had cut an entire segment from the film (which they didn't), it would have been career suicide for Solondz to shoot a four-hour movie that he cut back to under an hour and a half. Just be logical for a moment. There's two and a half hours missing? Don't think so. And the initial reason given for the cutting (that Van Der Beek was uncomfortable with the anal sex scene and demanded that Solondz remove it) completely goes against the evidence of him following it up with this role. Sure, it made a great joke on SNL ("Says Van Der Beek about the anal sex scene that was cut, 'They were FILMING that?!'"), but it's not true. If he didn't want to ruin his squeaky clean TV star image, do you think he'd take the role of Sean Bateman? Or do you think he would have even agreed to the anal sex scene in the first place? It's not like he would have misread that and then realized when he saw it, "Oh, that's anal sex. I don't want to do that." The two segments in STORYTELLING are only about 20 minutes shorter total than they were originally. It was always just "Fiction" and "Non-fiction." Faber & Faber even published the screenplay. From the very first moment this film was discussed, it was TWO segments. There are scenes missing, yes. But just read the script and tell me how that translates to a four hour cut. Ever. In any world. Solondz squawked loud and long over the MPAA impositions on his film. Can anyone ANYWHERE quote me an actual interview with Solondz where he mentions even one single word about this alleged four-hour cut that was "butchered"? Of course not. Because it never happened. The version shown at Cannes was slightly different than the eventual theatrical release now playing, and the scenes with Heather Matarazzo and Van Der Beek were cut. But I've heard that they were minor at best. Again... we're talking about 20 minutes or so... not two and a half hours. Sorry to interject like this, but when I see someone on this site repeat a blatant falsehood after it's been discussed and debunked already, I feel the need to step in and bat cleanup. Back to Massawyrm's lengthy dissection of his manly love for Van Der Beek now, already in progress.