An article by Jamie Stuart
Paul Rudd plays Adam,
the loser, in Neil LaBute’s new college set film The Shape of Things.
“College is such an incredible time I think for everybody, cause they’re
leaving home for the first time and there are no rules. At the time I classified
myself as a ‘Cool Guy.’” Paul thinks for a moment, then offers, “Looking
back I realize that having Michael Hutchence wannabe hair and a painting on the
back of my acid-washed jean jacket really kinda made me fall more into the nerd
category. Michael Hutchence was great, but I wasn’t Michael Hutchence. I
wanted to be Michael Hutchence. But I actually fell somewhere between Michael
Hutchence and John Oats. He’s great, too. And I love Hall and Oats. But when
you’re looking at a Jewish kid in Kansas, at 18, trying to go for that...” A
sip of black coffee.
The Shape of Things is the film adaptation of the stage play that ran in
London and New York from 2001-2002. Starring Rudd, as well as Rachel Weisz,
Gretchen Mol, and Fred Weller, the picture is another exercise in Neil LaBute (In
the Company of Men) cruelty that always sharply divides audiences. It deals
with the way image controls so much of our confidence, and the blurring
boundaries between art and life. It also maintains its original 30-something
cast in this story set at college -- a format that was common throughout the
1980’s, though it now, in light of American Pie and Dawson’s Creek,
works more as a distancing device. Also, the theatrical performances haven’t
been toned down for the screen, so the audience is forced to step back and pay
attention to what’s going on rather than simply follow along for the ride.
I sat down recently in New York with Rudd, loaded on coffee, Mol (the dreamgirl),
a delicate, natural beauty, and Weisz (the artiste), who strangely seems
insidiously aware of her female power, yet genuinely clueless to it at the same
time. It was one of those rare occasions where everybody involved was truly
enthusiastic about their project, regardless of what anyone else thinks.
Gretchen chimes in,
“I think the enthusiasm comes from having so much history with it. But we were
actually always enthusiastic about it. It was probably one of the best things
I’ve ever been a part of. It was all so much in sync for me from the get go.
Starting off in London. Also, having no idea where it would go, that it would
end up being this little film.”
Rachel describes the experience as, “Fun! Like Heaven. As an actress, to play
somebody with a secret, that’s kind of the most fun thing you can do. Pretty
good trick she’s got up her sleeve. It was a very interesting, complex
character, and the play blew me away when I read it.”
Rachel, who also served as a producer, continues, “The whole play brings up
really huge issues about couples. How couples try to change each other. About
society’s obsession with appearance. Actually, women are usually more under
pressure to work on it, I guess. Now it’s happening to men, too. All these
very big, profound questions, but wrapped up in this sitcom piece, which kind of
goes dark at the end.”
The sitcom reference is to Paul’s reoccurring role on Friends. He dryly
responds by asserting, “Well, Matthew Perry was really nowhere to be seen.”
Paul was the first actor attached to the original stage play. He and Neil were
both in London working on different projects at the time. He explains the
process: “We had done Bash together. So, we had lunch and he had just
finished a play. He gave it to me to read and I was straight up. I said,
‘I’m really wanting to go back home...but I’ll definitely read it.’ I
really like his writing. I had a great experience with Bash. Yeah, as I
was reading it, I just thought, this is great! Looks like I’ll probably stay
in London a little longer.”
As for Gretchen, “The script was sent to me. I was so happy just to get a Neil
LaBute script, cause at the time I felt that I really felt that I hadn’t been
getting these very good projects. It was just such an opportunity to work with
someone great, and someone that I felt I would be in good hands with. Neil did
some research, called up and: ‘I’d like you to do it.’ I didn’t really
have much to think about. It was like, ‘Of course.’ It was great. It was
perfect. A perfect fit, I thought.”
Although Neil LaBute is an established filmmaker, the evolution from stage to
screen wasn’t inherent. “There was no intention of ever making this into a
movie,” observes Paul. “We signed on and knew we’d be doing this play for
a while in London. We hoped, if everything went well, we might be able to take
it to New York. But we didn’t know. We just enjoyed it so much. I mean,
that’s really where the film version was born. We just enjoyed each other’s
company and Neil.”
“Usually after you do a play the director leaves after opening night. Neil
hung out -- just the 5 of us hung out the whole time. It was great. It wasn’t
like, ‘Oh, Neil is still here!’ Well, I was. But I said that the second week
of rehearsals! (laughs) It was just really fun. When he brought up the idea of
making this into a film, he said, ‘What do you guys think about doing a film
version of this play?’ And we got really excited. It’d be great. Really,
really cool.”
When it came time for the film version Neil surprised Rachel by asking her to
help produce it. Best known for her starring role in The Mummy films, she
had no prior producing experience. “Initially, we were doing the play in
London, so I helped him set up the financing. I had done About a Boy with
Working Title and had a relationship there. So, I took Neil to meet Eric Fellner.
I kind of helped set up financing for the movie.”
She continues with
round unblinking eyes, “From there on in, for me, it was a learning
experience. It was very gracious of Neil for letting me come and be a producer.
I was hands on. I wasn’t number crunching the budget, but yeah, I was
involved.”
Gretchen sums up the experience for everybody by asserting, “You have 2 years
-- 200 performances of rehearsal time before you showed up on set. Then it
became this film and we shot in 18 days. It was kind of a full-circle thing. It
was really great. It’s one of those rare opportunities -- you know it could be
a while before you get this kind of opportunity again, so you really have to
savor it while it’s happening.”
Whether
audiences are as enthusiastic remains to be seen. So far, the critics have been
evenly divided. Roger Ebert, in a 3 1/2 star review declared: “LaBute has that
rarest of attributes, a distinctive voice. You know one of his scenes at once.
His dialogue is the dialogue overheard in trendy mid-scale restaurants, with the
words peeled back to suggest the venom beneath.” Meanwhile, David Edelstein,
at Slate.com, wrote, “Neil LaBute rehashes the motifs that made his abrasive
breakthrough, In the Company of Men (1997), and its even more toxic
follow-up, Your Friends and Neighbors (1998), the all-time-champion worst
dating movies.”
I suppose it’s impossible to take on any issue seriously and have everybody
offer a standing ovation. This one will be up to each individual audience member
to decide for themselves.
-Copyright
2003 by Jamie
Stuart