Rules of Attraction
December 02, 2003 12:58 p.m.

My parents got digital cable, and since I will only have it for a short while longer...I've been taking full advantage of the "on demand, subscriptions" feature.

Tonight, I watched Rules of Attraction.

I wanted to see in the theater, partly because I LOVE American Psycho, and plus it just looked like my type of film. .....I didn't because B saw it with some people and said it was horrible. ....I'm not sure why I listened the exception of a few, B does not like, in fact he hates most of the dark films I love. (Secretary, Fight Club).

At this point I can't say if I liked it, loved it, or disliked it. But I can tell you this it is a very profound film.

I've said for along time that Mulholand drive is the perfect example of Post Modernism in film. ...now...I think I want to pass that torch to ROA. ...Though I am not removing anything from MD...David Lynch in his out of this world, ahead of his time, brilliance had to pave the way for this film to walk down.

This film really is Amazing from an analytical point of view. It really is a perfect post modern satire of American youth culture.

Post modern in that it has very deconstructive elements! Critics say that Photography (referencing still photography) is the medium of Post Modernism. I disagree. I say it's film. Film moves.....most 2 dimensional art does not. Film can control how you view something, what you see and how you see it. It can force you to look at something backwards and then forwards. ....with pictures in a gallery the viewer chooses the order and direction which s/he views them. That of course is not all unlike Painting, or drawing or printmaking. the process of really watching film is really the opposite of viewing a painting, ....sitting, still, in the dark, while the image moves, in stead of standing in a brightly lit gallery moving around and looking at the image from different angles.

deconstructive in that (like in mulholland drive and Pulp Fiction before that, or even GO!) who says that a film has to follow an A-B-C-D-E narrative format. Why can't it be E-A-E-B-C-E-D-E-F? Who says that everything shown is real? or really happens...or could possibly happen? Why can't there be multiple interpretations, points of view?

Memento used this concept but with a bit more logic, and a lot more structure. Not saying structure is bad....but the fact the film does have a direction of flow doesn't make it entirely deconstructive. (yes it is the normal format reversed but it isn't quite the opposite.) why does a story have to contain certain elements? why does a film have to have a specific conclusion or climax? (this might sound like a contradiction of my review of Basic Instinct. ...the differences is that BI is trying to be Film Noir, which has a very ridged structure that BI failed to meet and there for was not successful ...where as this was an attempt at post modern satire and it was successful in that attempt for the reasons I'm explaining) .....This film was just a further exploration of exploring those theories.

Now enough structure, this film emotionally touched me in unexpected ways. Am I wrong in my enjoyment of seeing a beautiful, innocent, well respected, intelligent (for the most part)20 something Virgin being portrayed in a modern film?

I also have to add that the images regarding suicide were very powerful. Any romantic notion I've had with suicide (and I have to say I've thought about it my share of times) was dispensed upon my seeing the realism of it. The realization that, as obvious as it seems, that certain ways of killing yourself aren't instantaneous. When you slit you wrist you have to lie there and wait to die. What got me was that imagine getting the nerve to finally cut your wrists and in a manner that would kill you....most likely in a time and place where you won't be saved. .....Imagine the horrible thought as you wait to die that maybe you did the wrong thing and you can't get out of that now.....floating there fighting to keep hold of the life that you only moments gave up...and how horrifying the thought of dying would be after the romantic notion of it died away.

this film dealt with a lot of things, 1. The desire to love and to be loved by someone, and the pain of being rejected by that person where the person knew they were rejecting you or not.....for whatever the reasons.......the pain is still real. Also the way people use their bodies and sex as a tool, or rather as a weapon. ....killing not only others but also themselves.

....Drugs, Sex (as used in the film, Violence, eating disorders, indifference, ....blinded by the desire to feel good....to feel normal.... ......They same I'm a masochist because I like pain and domination ....but really, all those things are just as masochist, slowly destroying yourself or hiding from yourself. ...complicated people looking to be loved (or not rejected) though so many ways, willing do the most cruel, or horrible or absurd things to get it. The defense mechanisms....

Okay, now I'm rambling.

This film has a nice dark humor to it too. but I was a bit on edge since I was watching it in my parents house.....this is the type of film no parent was to know their child watches, now matter how old they are.