In 1985, Bret Easton Ellis’
debut novel Less Than Zero was
published when he was only 20 and still in college. Its debauched tale of bored
and hedonistic Los Angeles rich kids became a hit with the novel selling
millions of copies. The Village Voice
included him as part of a new generation of writers labeled the “literary brat
pack” along with Jay McInerney (Bright
Lights, Big City) and Tama Janowitz (Slaves
of New York). It didn’t take long for Hollywood to come calling and the 1987
film version proceeded to neuter the source material by imposing a strong anti-drug
message and toning down the sexuality to the point that Ellis hated the film,
insisting that the end result resembled his novel in name only. Over the years,
the film has transcended its source material and works best as a snapshot of
the times and the social milieu it depicts.
Six months after graduating
from high school, Clay Easton (Andrew McCarthy) returns home from college to
L.A. for Christmas and is reunited with his ex-girlfriend Blair (Jami Gertz)
and his best friend Julian (Robert Downey Jr.). He arrives to the strains of
“Hazy Shade of Winter” by the Bangles, which instantly transports us back to
the mid-1980s. A lot has happened since graduation – Clay caught Blair and
Julian having sex, which put an understandable strain on their friendship.
Clay attends a party that
instantly transports one back to the ‘80s as he’s immediately greeted by a wall
of televisions, neon, big hair, jackets with shoulder pads, and skinny ties.
The first significant person he encounters is Rip (James Spader at his most
James Spader-ish), a drug dealer Clay used to buy cocaine from. The film comes
to life when James Spader first appears and exudes the kind of creepy charm
that made him the go-to guy to play douchebag preppies in films like Pretty in Pink (1986) and The Rachel Papers (1989). He oozes
insincere charisma and then as suddenly as he appears, Rip disappears back into
the party.
Spader has another nice
scene with Downey where Rip reminds Julian that he owes him $50,000, and the
latter, the eternal hustler, gets some coke from the former and promises to pay
him back only to take off. Once alone, Spader shows Rip thinking and then
looking back at where Julian had been. At that moment, it isn’t hard to imagine
that Rip is contemplating his next move, figuring out how to punish Julian.
Spader plays this scene so well, keeping his emotions contained under an icy
exterior. No one does calm, reptilian menace quite like Spader and it’s in the
way he talks and walks as well as how he carries himself that is unsettling in
an understated way.
Clay and Blair are reunited
in a room that has been production designed to death (in a good way),
resembling Antarctica, complete with fake icebergs and penguins. She is visibly
upset and tells Clay that Julian is in trouble. She won’t give specifics except
to say that he randomly disappears and is wasted all the time. Watching this
scene reminds one that 1987 was the height of Jami Gertz’s hotness. She looks
beautiful and also conveys the vacant jittery nature of her cokehead fashion
model character. The actress gets her moments, like when she watches Clay
dancing at a party and the camera gradually dollies in on her as she looks
away, tears streaming down her face with an expression that seems to say, “How
did I get here?” It’s a powerful bit of acting and a nice visual snapshot of
her character.
Clay finally encounters
Julian who is clearly coked to the gills, which Robert Downey Jr. conveys so
well, instilling his character with a wide-eyed intensity and head-bobbing
restlessness. Judging from the menacing look Rip gives Julian from across the
room, he is in some kind of trouble with the drug dealer and director Marek Kanievska conveys it visually, focusing on the facial expressions of Downey and
Spader to suggest the bad blood between them.
At one point Clay tells Blair,
“Well, you fucked up, you look like shit but hey, no problem all you need’s a
better cut of cocaine…Are we having fun? Is that what we’re doing? Let me know
– it doesn’t feel that way.” And so begins the overly preachy, “Just Say No”
segment of Less Than Zero as it
becomes less interesting than what came before. Thank goodness Downey pops up
to give it a much-needed jolt of reality as Julian hits rock bottom in a
disturbing sequence that anticipates Requiem
for a Dream (2000) by a few years and without all the flashy editing and
cinematographic pyrotechnics.
Robert Downey Jr. is a
revelation as Julian in what was his first substantially serious role. He
demonstrates the capacity for having no vanity as an actor, which is evident in
a scene where we see Julian smoking crack and he’s a sweaty mess. There’s no
dialogue but through body language and facial expressions, the actor conveys
his character’s self-destructive downward spiral. Downey’s Juilan is in a clammy,
bloodshot state with his rumpled designer clothes, unshaven look and pretty
vacant eyes. The actor wisely doesn’t always play it with manic bravado and has
quiet moments where one can see that Julian is aware of his mounting problems
but is in so deep he’s unable to get out from under it. Downey nails the
absolute desperate depths that his character is willing to go in order to feed
his drug habit, which includes stealing Clay’s mother’s jewelry and allowing
Rip to pimp him out in order to pay off his debt.
Less Than Zero was an important film for Downey in that it acted as a transition from
silly teen comedies to more dramatic fare. For the first time, he showcased
some formidable acting chops. This is evident in the last scene Julian has with
his father (Nicholas Pryor) as the former makes one last plea to the latter,
asking if he can come home. We get an idea of the damage he’s done to his
family. Julian seems sincere but one gets the feeling that he’s done this
before. His father finally agrees in an emotionally charged moment but it is
ultimately too late. Julian has burned too many bridges and people like Rip who
are coming to collect. It is a tough scene to watch because it feels so raw and
real. Downey physically transforms himself into a pale, disheveled mess of a
human being who is gradually self-destructing in front of our eyes. It is a
harrowing performance that transcends this flawed film.
Andrew McCarthy is saddled
with the thankless role of the straight-laced protagonist. Any of his character’s
edges from the novel have been completely sanded down and the actor does the
best he can with the material he’s given. Clay is the audience surrogate and
our entry point into this exotic world. McCarthy plays it close to the vest and
portrays Clay as someone who keeps his feelings in check – the epitome of west
coast cool. The actor uses his expressive eyes to convey emotions that reside
just under the surface, usually in the presence of Blair.
Less Than Zero portrays the parents of these kids in just as unflattering a light,
whether it is Julian’s unforgiving father or Clay’s father (Tony Bill) who
plays boring classical music on the piano while his perfectly coifed wife
(Donna Mitchell) looks on approvingly. It’s all so elegant and boring – no wonder
these kids are losing themselves in drugs. The glossy look of the film is
complemented by stylish camerawork courtesy of Edward Lachman (The Limey) and so we have the camera
gliding over a swimming pool at night as Julian curls up nearby, his sickly
pallor looking even worse at night, reflected off the water.
Producer Marvin Worth bought
the film rights to Bret Easton Ellis’ novel Less
Than Zero for $7,500 before its publication in June 1985. It went on to
become a bestseller. The purchase was sponsored by vice presidents of
production for 20th Century Fox Scott Rudin and Larry Mark. Worth
hired Michael Cristofer, Pulitzer Prize winning author of The Shadow Box, to write the screenplay. He stuck close to the tone
of the novel, removed Clay’s bisexuality but kept his drug habit. Worth felt
that the script was commercial but the studio disagreed and hired producer Jon Avnet, who had worked on Risky Business
(1983), to take over the project.
Avnet thought that
Cristofer’s script was “so depressing and so degrading” and proceeded to tone
down the graphic nature of the novel so the film wouldn’t alienate audiences. Furthermore,
he wanted to take Ellis’ novel and “tell a sentimental story about warmth,
caring and tenderness, in an atmosphere that is hostile to those kinds of
emotions.” Had he actually read the novel? How exactly to do this and by how
much was a source of conflict between the producer and studio executives. To
make matters worse, the project ran afoul of regime changes in the studio: Fox
president Larry Gordon, who had approved the purchase of the book, was replaced
by Alan Horn. He was, in turn, replaced by Leonard Goldberg who didn’t like the
book. However, studio chairman Barry Diller wanted to make the film. The film’s
cinematographer Ed Lachman thought that no one at the studio had read the book
but “because it was popular and a bestseller, they optioned it. When they saw
their own neighborhoods, kids, and lifestyles depicted, they got very
reactionary about the project.” Ellis concurs and felt that when Goldberg, a
family man with kids, took over at the studio, “it became a different beast.”
The producers wanted to have
relatable characters and a compelling story. Harley Peyton was brought in to
rewrite the script. He recognized the job was a daunting one because it was
like “reading someone’s diary,” but felt it was “The Great Gatsby in 1984 with drugs.” Clay was no longer amoral and
passive. In addition, he and his girlfriend Blair heroically try to get Julian
off drugs. The project was still considered risky and so the budget was kept
under $8 million. Marek Kanievska was hired because he had dealt with
ambivalent sexuality and made unlikable characters relatable in Another Country (1984). The producers
felt that he could bring an outsider’s perspective to L.A. culture. Kanievska
was attracted to the “extreme” nature of the characters in the novel and felt
that they didn’t “have to be nice, to be pleasant to each other in order to be
accessible to an audience.”
When interviewing actors for
the film, the producers met many kids that were similar to the ones in Ellis’
novel and “who were from broken families. It was like a nightmare listening to
them talk about the problems they had had with drugs, and the fact that now, at
age fifteen or sixteen or seventeen, they had been out of rehab for year.
There’s something very wrong with the American dream.” At the time, Robert
Downey Jr. found the role of Julian a challenging one: “I had to do all my
homework before I started, as far as getting rid of any inhibitions I would
have about the character. I had to not care what people would think about me
for playing it.” He said rather prophetically, “It will probably be with me forever,”
and added, “This one hit a little too close to home.” Clarifying, he said, “Not
in relation to me being like the character – I’m really not. It’s more just the
truthfulness of the piece.”
For the first three or four
weekends of pre-production, Kanievska, art director Steven Rice and production
designer Barbara Ling went to nightclubs where kids hung out between midnight
and five a.m. so that they knew what they were like. They talked to a group of
Beverly Hills kids and found out what they were doing. The production used
several actual famous fashionable and former L.A. clubs with Ling creating
themes and making environments just like they were doing only on a bigger
scale. The film also featured “scratch” videos that combined art, satire,
politics and music, appropriating images from T.V. and film and combining them
with original footage, then synced or counterpointed with music. Ling wanted to
contrast a real “glamourama” look at Beverly Hills with “a flip-side, an
underbelly that’s covered up by the gorgeous beauty of the manicured lawns and
vast estates.”
For the look of the film,
Kanievska employed “lots of red, lots of greens, lots of blues. There’s a
slightly trashy, Hollywood element of neon everywhere.” Lachman said that they
attempted to invert day and night because the characters lived at night. To
convey the “heightened reality” of the characters on cocaine and other drugs,
he wanted to show how things look “when you’re high or coming down. And there
was always tension in the frame: the camera was always moving in on these
characters to be unsettling – the characters weren’t stabilized in their
environment.”
The studio did research and
found that teenage girls liked Andrew McCarthy and since Less Than Zero would be an R rated film they had to appeal to his
fanbase without alienating a slightly older audience. An early test screening
with an audience aged 15 to 24 revealed that they hated Downey’s character.
Since the book had been published in 1985, young audiences wanted to live in a
“great apartment, have a great boyfriend and wear great clothes,” according to
Scott Rudin, then president of production. New scenes were filmed that made
Blair and Julian more repentant including one where she throws a vial of coke
down a bathroom sink.
Lachman claims that the
studio took the film away from Kanievska during the editing process. According
to the cinematographer, executives “believed when they saw the film that it was
an attack on their own lifestyle and depravity.” He saw the director’s cut and
it was very different from what was released. Kanievska had tried to take a
“non-judgmental approach towards the subject matter, to show things as they
were, without moralizing, the way the book did.”
Ellis was 23 years old when
the film was being shot and admits that he was “lost in my own world, going to
parties,” and wasn’t interested in it. Before it came out, he was contacted by
Kanievska and met with him one afternoon for a drink. When Ellis got there, the
director was drunk. He apologized to Ellis and told him, “The movie didn’t work
out. I just want you to be prepared when you see it later tonight.” Not
surprisingly, Ellis didn’t like it but has seen it in recent years and found
that it has “aged well. I suppose that if there was no novel, we’d probably be
even fonder of it, but there’s that novel that keeps messing everything up.”
Downey has said that Less Than Zero was a turning point for
him: “Until that movie, I took my drugs after work and on the weekends. That
changed on Less Than Zero. The role
was like the ghost of Christmas Future. I became an exaggeration of the
character.” Soon after finishing the film, he went into rehab. In recent years
he has said of the film: “In some ways it was the most honest work I’ve ever
done even though I was nowhere near the level of depravity of these
characters.”
Less Than Zero received decidedly mixed reviews. Roger Ebert gave the film four out of
four stars and wrote, “The movie’s three central performances are flawless:
Gertz, as the frightened girl who witnesses the disintegration of her friend;
McCarthy, as the quiet, almost cold witness from outside this group, and
especially by Downey, whose acting here is so real, so subtle and so observant
that it’s scary.” In her review for The
New York Times, Janet Maslin wrote, “The persistent unnaturalness of the
film’s look (only rarely interrupted, though it needn’t have been, by a
naturally lighted outdoor scene to put the characters back in touch with some
kind of reality) winds up being deeply disorienting, and very powerful.”
However, the knives came out with the Los
Angeles Times’ Michael Wilmington who wrote, “Instead of making this hopped
up “Just Say No” parable, it’s a pity the film makers didn’t zero in on the
novel’s true riches: its penetration into a scene and an attitude, its
understated morality. Hooked on the drug of compromise, they’ve scraped Ellis’
world down to zero.” In her review for the Washington
Post, Rita Kempley wrote, “Less Than
Zero is noodle-headed and faint-hearted, a shallow swipe at a serious
problem, with a happily-ever after ending yet.” Finally, the Chicago Reader’s Jonathan Rosenbaum
described it as “Reefer Madness comes
to Beverly Hills in the affluent 80s.”
In recent years, the film
has begun to experience a critical re-evaluation with the Los Angeles Times voting it the 22nd best film set in
the city in the last 25 years by a group of the paper’s writers and editors
with Chris Lee writing, “With its neon-bathed shots of Melrose Avenue, decadent
nightclub set-pieces and scenes plotted around the turquoise brilliance of
swimming pools at night, Less Than Zero
viscerally evokes the Big Empty – the hedonism, superficiality and
laissez-faire nihilism – of ‘80s L.A.”
In retrospect, along with The Boost (1988) and Clean and Sober (1988), Less Than Zero is a powerful snapshot of
the coke-fueled ‘80s and the casualties that were left in its wake. In some
respects, it’s an empty film because it reflects the empty lives of the
characters that inhabit it. If the ending feels a little after school
special-ish it’s because the studio mandated it. Julian is punished for being
an addict and then Clay and Blair have a scene where they tell each other what
they’ve learned from this experience but thankfully it’s blasted away by Roy
Orbison’s haunting ballad (penned by Glenn Danzig no less!) “Life Fades Away”
that plays over the end credits. The film should have ended with Clay and Blair
but jettison all their dialogue, started the song earlier and just had them
look haunted. Yes, they survived but they’ll never be the same and leave it at
that.
The toxic cinematic cocktail
that is Less Than Zero must’ve come
as quite a shock to fans who were expecting to see heartthrobs Downey, McCarthy
and Spader in another reassuring John Hughes teen comedy and instead were
subjected to Downey as an increasingly devastated junkie. Whenever I watch this
film I can see a good one trying desperately to get out. One thing I know: no
amount of behind-the-scenes tinkering was able to dilute Downey’s blistering performance,
which has stood the test of time and provided a hint of the great performances
that were to come in subsequent years.
SOURCES
Boucher, Geoff. “The 25 Best
L.A. Films of the Last 25 Years.” Los Angeles Times. August 31, 2008.
Boucher, Geoff. “Robert
Downey Jr. Revisits His Film Career.” Los Angeles Times. October 9,
2011.
“Bret Easton Ellis Takes New
York.” Interview. June 23, 2010.
Buchanan, Kyle. “Bret Easton
Ellis on Less Than Zero, Its
Adaptation, and Its Sequel Imperial Ballrooms.”
Movieline. May 17, 2010.
Geller, Lynn. “Ed Lachman.” Bomb.
Summer 1990.
Harmetz, Aljean. “Sanitizing
a Novel for the Screen.” The New York Times. November 18, 1987.
Less Than Zero Production Notes. 20th Century Fox. 1987.
Rea, Steven. “An Actor’s
Brush with Reality – Robert Downey Jr. Is Uncomfortable with His New Role.” Philadelphia
Inquirer. November 8, 1987.
Williams, Murphy. “Robert
Downey Jr.: Return of the Hero.” The Telegraph. April 26, 2008.
It is a flawed film as I too, as a child of the 80s, hated the "Just Say No" slogan. It was bullshit. Still, I think it is good as I do like Andrew McCarthy and Jami Gertz yet it was the work of Edward Lachman that I liked a lot as well as some parts of it soundtracks, and the performances of James Spader and Robert Downey Jr.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the film certainly has some things going for it and the further it gets away from the shadow of its source material the more it is able to stand on its own. It is certainly a fascinating film.
DeleteWhat a coincidence, I recently watched the film and read the book. The film could've been much better, too shallow and moralizing; but a more faithful film adaptation probably wouldn't have worked either: the novel doesn't have much plot and the characters are extremely dispassionate. I liked both though, beautiful snapshots of an era that I wish I could've experienced even with all its pitfalls. Today's antiseptic reality seems so lame in comparison. In addition to the cinematography, the soundtrack and Thomas Newman score were both great.
ReplyDeleteAgreed on pretty much all counts. It really isn't a good adaptation of the source material. But on its own it kinda works.
Delete