Rules of Attraction

[Duck Sauce]

We did a music video, for example, with an L.A. hip-hop group, and had them learn the song backward. They learned the lyrics phonetically backwards, then we filmed them walking backward and then we reversed the film, and had all these images sort of popping up off the ground."

Is he talking about the Pharcyde video?

[Ernie]

We did a music video, for example, with an L.A. hip-hop group, and had them learn the song backward. They learned the lyrics phonetically backwards, then we filmed them walking backward and then we reversed the film, and had all these images sort of popping up off the ground."

Is he talking about the Pharcyde video?

Yeah, "Drop" I think it's called. That's one of my favorite music videos. I didn't know that's the way they filmed it, that's fucking amazing. Spike always has made the best music videos.

[Ernie]

Yes, wesanderson.org is an excellent site. Their webmaster allowed us to put a link to Xixax from his site! I haven't checked lately to see if it was up yet or not. Nice guy though.

Yeah, it's a really great site. I can't believe how much information they already have on his next film. Are you involved with any other cool sites man? I've been meaning to ask you that. I was looking for a links section or something.

[Xixax]

Yes, wesanderson.org is an excellent site. Their webmaster allowed us to put a link to Xixax from his site! I haven't checked lately to see if it was up yet or not. Nice guy though.

Yeah, it's a really great site. I can't believe how much information they already have on his next film. Are you involved with any other cool sites man? I've been meaning to ask you that. I was looking for a links section or something.

Only other sites I have had the privilege of working with are ptanderson.com and theuncool.com, both run by Greg Mariotti.

I'd like to do more for the art of film, though... That's kinda why I started this place. To help out indie filmmakers. I wish I could do more.

[Ernie]

Yes, wesanderson.org is an excellent site. Their webmaster allowed us to put a link to Xixax from his site! I haven't checked lately to see if it was up yet or not. Nice guy though.

Yeah, it's a really great site. I can't believe how much information they already have on his next film. Are you involved with any other cool sites man? I've been meaning to ask you that. I was looking for a links section or something.

Only other sites I have had the privilege of working with are ptanderson.com and theuncool.com, both run by Greg Mariotti.

I'd like to do more for the art of film, though... That's kinda why I started this place. To help out indie filmmakers. I wish I could do more.

I had no idea Greg Mariotti ran theuncool, I love that site. I knew he ran ptanderson, which I also think is great....that's wild though. He's really great at what he does.

And hey man, for what it's worth...if you can make more sites half as great as this one, I would probably go to them all the time. This is already me favorite site of all time, seriously. I'm not trying to suck up.

[snaporaz]

i guess i'm a minority around here, but i absolutely loved the movie. i just got it on dvd too. saw it five times at the cinema [am i a fan boy?].

and believe me, i know what you guys mean by "mtv editing" and whatnot, but i really did not find this film to have that type of crap going on. sure, maybe the camerawork/editing were trying to make it look cool, but at least every single spilt screen and reverse shot served a purpose. they all helped structure a scene and/or setting. there was only one single instant where that isn't true - where lauren throws that v.d. book to the floor in reverse. big deal. everything else just worked. they were not useless by any means. and i always hear alot of people saying how the camera tricks got tiresome...ok...there was reverse motion for the introduction into the film....and there was a split screen a little later when sean meets lauren in the hallway...correct me if i'm wrong, but isnt that the only times in the entire movie [except the very very end, i think] where that took place? this fancy camera work that was "so psuedo-controversial" took up like...5% of the film?

however, as far as storylines go...well, the characters were shallow, so there's not much character study to be done, so...whatever. victor's european holiday...well, that didn't really add much to the real story, but it was in the book, so, blah. at least it had some cool glamorama references.

anyways. i know what mtv-editing stuff is like and i hate it as much as the rest of you guys, but i just don't consider this movie to have what i call "mtv". it's almost the antithesis of mtv. come on...at least it didn't have some flavour of the month/buzz clip soundtrack.

[Raikus]

I finally saw this last night and all I can say is that Avery tried to do too much with too little. The backwards theme was overused the second time it ran and was annoying from then on. All the characters were shallow and you really couldn't care less if they all offed themselves. In fact, I kind of felt like handing out phone coard to all of them. And the story was bad. It just was. The only thing I kind of liked was Van Der Beek's acting. The editing came off as a bastardization of Pulp Fiction, but without point.

All in all, very disappointed with it.

[snaporaz]

The editing came off as a bastardization of Pulp Fiction, but without point.

yeah. avary ripping off his own previous film is sooo bastardizing.

[snaporaz]

The editing came off as a bastardization of Pulp Fiction, but without point.

also, i'd like you to explain how pulp fiction's editing "had a point" and the rules of attraction didn't.

[Raikus]

Sorry to upset the fanboy.

yeah. avary ripping off his own previous film is sooo bastardizing.

Because co-writing and directing is the same thing, right? And let me define bastardization: "To lower in quality or character; debase." So yes, Avary bastardized Tarantino's style in Pulp Fiction in that it's lowering the quality of the same style used by Tarantino.

also, i'd like you to explain how pulp fiction's editing "had a point" and the rules of attraction didn't.

Well, I'll forgo the explanation of Pulp Fiction's point as I'm sure you already know that and were only using it as contrast. But Rules of Attraction had segways that were unneccessary (like the whole Paul/Dick thing). And the beginning, y'know, the bastardization of Pulp Fiction, wasn't even the right part of that movie to start from in my opinion. It didn't fit. It immediately took away the whole point of the movie: a villian's pining for a pure maiden, because the "pure maiden" is seen being raped within the first 10 minutes of the movie.

Maybe not having a point is a little incorrect. It had a point, I suppose, but that point wasn't interesting, or poignant, or really even relevant. It was a film done badly.

[Cecil]

blah, blah, blah...

i dont get the mtv editing comments either. was there a cut every 3 seconds? no.

[MacGuffin]

blah, blah, blah...

i dont get the mtv editing comments either. was there a cut every 3 seconds? no.

I agree. It's not like Michael Bay directed it. And what funny is all the complaints are about that, and yet:

BEST EDITING
Gangs of New York (Thelma Schoonmaker)
Lord of the Rings: Two Towers (D. Michael Horton & Jabez Olssen)
Minority Report (Michael Kahn)
Punch-Drunk Love (Leslie Jones)
The Rules of Attraction (Sharon Rutter)

[AlguienEstolamiPantalones]

oh well. i guess im the only moron that liked it  8)

but didnt anyone find it funny? even just a little bit?

the whole film should of been just walking around following that " dick" guy


now thats a star

[children with angels]

I haven't seen the film yet (it only just came out here) but I'm definitely going to, just because I'm a big Bret Easton Ellis fan. From what you guys are saying I'm kind of afraid that it's going to be too cool in its style, considering the whole thing is about the shallowness of the culture these guys inhabit. I thought American Psycho was a good adaptation because it was so wilfully uncool in its style: everything about it ridiculed Bateman rather than elevating him through flashy camerawork. Nevertheless, I'm guessing I'll probably enjoy the movie if it keeps to the book at all...

Glamorama: now that would make fucking AMAZING movie if it was done right...

[lamas]

On imdb.com is says the editing was done with Apple's Final Cut Pro on a Macintosh because it's cheaper.