'Less Than Zero' was a good book, but a horrible adaptation. The movie plays out like an anti-drug drama while the book explores California's wealthy socialites who exist in a state of perpetual uselessness. With vicious characters similar to Igby Goes Down, and the unbearable and disgusting apathy of The River's Edge, the novel portrays a dark reality of over-privileged city sleaze with too way much money.
The novel is narrated by Clay, an eighteen year old who returns home from his New Hampshire college for the winter holiday. Rightly characterized as a modern Holden Caufield, Clay just seems to watch his surreal existence among the wealthy Califorian socialites with disgust. It is like the "Roaring '20s" of The Great Gatsby, only much harsher. The characters have no emotional connection to one another, neither to family or friends. When asked where her parents are for the Christmas vacation, one girl, Kim, replies that she read in Vogue that her mother was in London, or perhaps Honolulu. Everyone just seems to be content (or kidding themselves that they are) in their meaningless rituals. Meeting at one club after another, doing endless amounts of coke, engaging in casual sex.
These characters are, what Sandra Bullock's character in 'Murder By Numbers' refers to as the 'orphans.' Kids with too much money and no place to go, nothing to do. Their lifestyles have turned them into the most disgusting creatures who don't seem to acknowledge their state of uselessness. They consider it the good life. In fact, Clay does seem to be the only one to realize it. Though Blair may've once been his girlfriend and Julian may've once been his best friend in school, they don't seem to matter anymore as they get carried away with this lifestyle. Everyone has turned into this sort of Il Conformiste (notice that all characters are described as blond and tanned). Any sort of connection Clay might've had with his friends or family is lost. New Hampshire, I suppose, is his only escape from perhaps, fantasies of suicide. (Notice how he states at the end that he half-wished he could take Blair back with him).
The movie is a ridiculous adaptation of the book. Important characters like Rip and Trent, the most disgustingly apathetic of the characters in the book (notice how they react when the twelve year old girl is hogtied to the bed at their friend's house or when they discover a dead body behind a club), are made trivial in the movie. And largely because the theme: these useless characters made so by their money and by the city life (the same themes of the 20s and 30s) becomes only secondary to the anti-drug story. In fact, another 80s drug-themed movie of the decade, 'Big Lights, Bright City' with Michael J. Fox and Kiefer Sutherland (aside from the drug theme) does a better job at illustrating the type of sickening cycle of useless people Ellis was describing in his own novel.
'Less Than Zero' is one of a few of Ellis's novels that have come to be adapted to the screen. The same cast of characters, those rich useless kids of the city who delude themselves in a world of zero emotion or care, return in 'American Psycho,' 'The Rules of Attraction', and now 'Glitterama.' Although, I suppose 'The Rules of Attraction' is much closer to the novel 'Less Than Zero' in that one character comes to realize how pathetic that cycle is, and desperately seeks to escape it in the end.
So, I'd say, the novel is good. The movie was not. I suppose the only saving grace of the movie is that yes, it was an 80s movie with the hot young stars of the decade (particularly Gertz and Spader who are always interesting to see). That, and the anti-drug message can't be totally disregarded, especially considering the decade. Although, then if that were all the filmmakers were looking for, then: 1) it was done better the following year ('Bright Lights, Big City'; Clean and Sober), and 2) they didn't need an adaptation of a novel to create that kind of story. The movie is alright just by itself. But as an adaptation, the novel fares much better.
Moreover, for those interested in reading the novel, this narrative makes an interesting comparison to the 1979 Terry Davis novel, 'Vision Quest,' which was also poorly adapted into film in the early 80s. Anyways, these are two very different books that would be quite interesting to read consecutively.
The novel is narrated by Clay, an eighteen year old who returns home from his New Hampshire college for the winter holiday. Rightly characterized as a modern Holden Caufield, Clay just seems to watch his surreal existence among the wealthy Califorian socialites with disgust. It is like the "Roaring '20s" of The Great Gatsby, only much harsher. The characters have no emotional connection to one another, neither to family or friends. When asked where her parents are for the Christmas vacation, one girl, Kim, replies that she read in Vogue that her mother was in London, or perhaps Honolulu. Everyone just seems to be content (or kidding themselves that they are) in their meaningless rituals. Meeting at one club after another, doing endless amounts of coke, engaging in casual sex.
These characters are, what Sandra Bullock's character in 'Murder By Numbers' refers to as the 'orphans.' Kids with too much money and no place to go, nothing to do. Their lifestyles have turned them into the most disgusting creatures who don't seem to acknowledge their state of uselessness. They consider it the good life. In fact, Clay does seem to be the only one to realize it. Though Blair may've once been his girlfriend and Julian may've once been his best friend in school, they don't seem to matter anymore as they get carried away with this lifestyle. Everyone has turned into this sort of Il Conformiste (notice that all characters are described as blond and tanned). Any sort of connection Clay might've had with his friends or family is lost. New Hampshire, I suppose, is his only escape from perhaps, fantasies of suicide. (Notice how he states at the end that he half-wished he could take Blair back with him).
The movie is a ridiculous adaptation of the book. Important characters like Rip and Trent, the most disgustingly apathetic of the characters in the book (notice how they react when the twelve year old girl is hogtied to the bed at their friend's house or when they discover a dead body behind a club), are made trivial in the movie. And largely because the theme: these useless characters made so by their money and by the city life (the same themes of the 20s and 30s) becomes only secondary to the anti-drug story. In fact, another 80s drug-themed movie of the decade, 'Big Lights, Bright City' with Michael J. Fox and Kiefer Sutherland (aside from the drug theme) does a better job at illustrating the type of sickening cycle of useless people Ellis was describing in his own novel.
'Less Than Zero' is one of a few of Ellis's novels that have come to be adapted to the screen. The same cast of characters, those rich useless kids of the city who delude themselves in a world of zero emotion or care, return in 'American Psycho,' 'The Rules of Attraction', and now 'Glitterama.' Although, I suppose 'The Rules of Attraction' is much closer to the novel 'Less Than Zero' in that one character comes to realize how pathetic that cycle is, and desperately seeks to escape it in the end.
So, I'd say, the novel is good. The movie was not. I suppose the only saving grace of the movie is that yes, it was an 80s movie with the hot young stars of the decade (particularly Gertz and Spader who are always interesting to see). That, and the anti-drug message can't be totally disregarded, especially considering the decade. Although, then if that were all the filmmakers were looking for, then: 1) it was done better the following year ('Bright Lights, Big City'; Clean and Sober), and 2) they didn't need an adaptation of a novel to create that kind of story. The movie is alright just by itself. But as an adaptation, the novel fares much better.
Moreover, for those interested in reading the novel, this narrative makes an interesting comparison to the 1979 Terry Davis novel, 'Vision Quest,' which was also poorly adapted into film in the early 80s. Anyways, these are two very different books that would be quite interesting to read consecutively.