Starting life as at the Almedia Theatre in London back in the summer of 2001 ‘The Shape of Things’ is a strange hybrid of play and film. As Paul Rudd once articulately put it, it’s a thilm - or a plovie (I prefer plovie).

Whether on stage or screen the story (and cast) remains the same. Adam (Paul Rudd) is an unassuming, overweight, geeky English student who meets beautiful art student/terrorist Evelyn (Rachel Weisz) just as she’s about to deface a sculpture Adam is being paid to guard (note the ‘subtle’ biblical allusions in the characters names). In a rare moment of bravado Adam asks Evelyn to dinner and they quickly (and unexpectedly) become an item. As time goes on Adam starts to change under Evelyn’s tutelage; he loses weight, gets contacts, cuts his hair, changes the way he dresses - and that’s just the start. Adam’s best friends, the engaged Phil (Fred Weller) and Jenny (Gretchen Mol), are surprised at the effect Evelyn has had on Adam but even more surprising is the impact the new ‘improved’ Adam has on their relationship.

Without saying too much about the way this seemingly conventional ‘ugly duckling’ plot develops, the film is less about Adam’s physical (or mental) transformation and more about what this means in the context of art and society. It is a film about the nature of art, what constitutes an artistic statement and what means are justifiable to make that statement. Either that or it’s a film about the superficiality of our society and whether the shape of things (or more accurately people) really dictates the way they will be perceived and how they will behave. When you’ve seen the film you’ll just have to make up your own mind, I’m certainly not going to spoil the ending for you by giving you my opinion now. Suffice to say the plot is intriguing and thought provoking with enough contentious points to strike debate but not at the expense of character development. Writer/director Neil LaBute makes no attempts to hide the piece’s theatrical origins and the script has hardly altered in its transition to the screen. One amusing nod to the film’s genesis was the programme like quality to the opening credits, rather than just having the actors names flash up before the other complete credits (i.e. Director Neil LaBute) here they are prefixed with ‘Actor’ or ‘Actress’. Unusually the film contains only ten scenes, even more unusually there are only four speaking parts, in fact there are only four parts full stop. There is no ‘Waiter number 1’ or ‘Man with beard at party’, there are no characters in this film apart from the four leads. People occasionally appear in back of shot, but (with the exception of the film’s finale) they are always out of focus and (without exception) you never hear a word anyone else says.

So then it seems unnecessary to point out that the film’s success rests near totally on the dialogue and chemistry between these four characters. LaBute has been called pretentious in the past, but he has also been called brilliant ‘The Shape of Things’ falls somewhere between the two. The dialogue in the film is highly theatrical, if you are a theatre-goer you’ll be aware of the differences between the conventions of how people speak in plays as opposed to in a film. The language is more knowing, the references more highbrow and in general the impression is more self conscious and less natural. This is certainly true of ‘The Shape of Things’; you are never under the impression that the characters are coming up with their lines on the spot and that will not be to everyone’s taste. If you find (most) theatre pretentious you’ll probably be less inclined towards this film and it may even go so far as to irritate you with its extreme verbosity. If you can put up with a little pretension and the occasional forced exchange you’ll be rewarded with many witty and interesting interactions which can be moving, infuriating or just plain confounding.

Despite being ostensibly a filmed play there is much of interest in ‘The Shape of Things’ as a film. The film is shot with an anamorphic lens meaning frequently there are vast expanses of space when we are focused on one character, there are almost no close ups but when there are they are used to great effect. Apart from a very ‘wide screen’ feel and in contrast to the script there is nothing showy or ostentatious about the way this film is shot. The scenes are long and shot in a series of very long takes, there are no jump cuts, zooms, split screens or freeze frames and no digital effects whatsoever. That’s not to say there is nothing visually impressive about this film. Colour is used to very cleverly in sets and costumes, the opening scenes containing exclusively warm, earth tones in which Evelyn (always in blues and greens) is the only splash of colour. It’s a great old-fashioned trick that speaks of the sensibilities of the production design in general, sets are always thoughtfully constructed, props and costumes and especially colour skilfully used to enhance mood, this is a beautifully designed film and Lynette Meyer as Costume and Production Designer deserves high praise.

A further great visual success is Rudd’s physical transformation. Proof finally that using fat suits and prosthetics can look believable and go unnoticed. I would imagine most audience members watching would assume Rudd had undergone a similar weight gain and loss as exhibited by Tom Hanks in ‘Castaway’. In fact Rudd wears a series of neck pieces (giving the impression of a double chin), has pieces in his mouth to fill out his face and wears body padding which all get smaller as the film progresses and Adam’s weight loss increases. He also wears some very subtle nose plugs, which make a later transformation far more marked than expected.

These types of visual tricks are not so easily employed on the stage and speak of LaBute’s knowledge of cinema and how to use its conventions only so far as it serves his story. The score is a reflection of LaBute’s reluctance to make his play entirely cinematic. The action is not scored in a typical film manner and there are no songs playing in the background in apartments or cafes. In fact music is only played as scenes change (a far more theatrical practice). The music used is all by Elvis Costello, either snippets of songs from his back catalogue or pieces or original music written for the film. It works very well both fitting the stylish and darkly comic tone of the film and providing a showcase of Costello’s musical talents.

Since ‘In the Company of Men’ LaBute has been known for filling his films with unsympathetic characters, this tag is somewhat out of date these days particularly since his last two films ‘Nurse Betty’ and ‘Possession’ have be populated with just as many good guys as villains. Crucially though he didn’t write those stories (though he did adapt ‘Possession’ for the screen). Back to his Writer/Director credit in ‘The Shape of Things’ LaBute gives us a mix of the two, two relatively unappealing characters and two seemingly good guys. In the pivotal role of Adam, Paul Rudd proves yet again that he should be in a lot more films. Adam is nerdy and uncomfortable without ever seeming like a caricature, importantly even at the start of the film (avec neck piece) he is still appealing. Adam is funny, self-deprecating and sweet, but categorically not the kind of man you would want to sleep with. As the character progresses Rudd alters Adam’s behaviour so slightly that scene by scene you don’t notice the joins. There are times when the star of ‘Clueless’ begins to rear his oh so appealing head just for Rudd to throw in one of Adam’s trademark clumsy gestures and remind you he’s a work in progress. In the final scene of the film Adam’s new found confidence is finally, beautifully displayed as he stands up to the manipulative Evelyn, it is so long awaited and well performed it may cause you to spontaneously clap.

Evelyn herself is a far harder character to sympathise with than Adam (though Adam is far from perfect). Playing the bitch is always tough and Evelyn on paper seems so totally and utterly unlikeable that it’s miraculous Weisz manages to command any empathy from an audience at all. Evelyn is the epitome of every self obsessed, conceited, cooler than thou art student you’ve ever met. The way she controls Adam with obvious (often sexual) manipulation is infuriating and her views on art are rage inducing. When dealing with what could be a very two-dimensional bitch Weisz gives a performance full of sexuality and power. She is alluring and repulsive simultaneously and her occasional flashes of vulnerability only serve to hint at a greater enigma beneath. The other less than charming lead is Adam’s best friend Phillip played by Fred Weller. Weller certainly looks to be having the most fun in his role and is responsible for a large portion of the film’s humour, he is a perfect foil for Evelyn but this doesn’t make him any more likeable than she is. Arrogant, sexist, childish and brash Phillip’s every bit the All-American college boy and Weller’s portrayal is a breath of fresh air, never letting a single scene he’s a part of fall into theatrical posturing. Gretchen Mol as Jenny has the least to work with, though her character is the only one you genuinely like she’s just far less interesting than the others are. Mol is perhaps the most believable in her performance, but that’s largely because she’s the most normal – that said she does get a highly amusing seduction scene on some playground horses. The one consistent criticism you can level at each of these actors is that they’re all obviously far too old to be playing college students, but the lack of supporting characters does help the illusion by minimising perspective.

There are many great things that have come out of transferring this piece from stage to screen. The incredibly tight direction and performances show a level of rehearsal you just don’t see in other films (and allowed the entire film to be shot in 19 days). Every position a character is placed in, every hand or facial gesture, every sigh is pre-meditated and the attention to detail shows. The film is beautifully and simply constructed and so heavily reliant on dialogue it does feel reminiscent of a different time in filmmaking. For many though the film will feel too put together and well designed at the expense of realism. The simple ten scene structure without sub-plots or car chases will bore those whose attention span had been addled by years of MTV. The essence of the plot and the questions it raises will frustrate some and not interest others but it will be the dialogue that causes the most irritation. That said if think you can cope with some rather affected and theatrical conversation ‘The Shape of Things’ will return more than enough to compensate you for your efforts.

I can't. I've been meaning to respond to this ever since you posted it but it didn't seem fair to respond to such an exhaustive review with a mere 'I hated it' but I did. I hated it. I'm not entirely sure why though. I've always hated Weisz (and I didn't much like Rudd at the time either) but neither of them have ever broken a film for me before. I'm not averse to a little pretension (I could sit through any of Hal Hartley's films again right now) and I've never considered myself to be one of these MTV addled hyper-edit special-effect idiots. I can only assume I was frustrated by the lack of realism and stilted dialogue you warned of. Did I mention that I really hated it?

It’s a three star review. Though some of the dialogue is very annoying and the characters totally unlikeable I really liked the ideas, structure and design of the film, plus I am fairly pretentious (I work in the theatre).