In 2002 James Van Der Beek took a sharp, deliberate detour from his Dawson’s Creek persona by playing Sean Bateman in The Rules of Attraction, a chaotic adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis’s novel. The film opened to mixed reviews and underperformed commercially, yet it offered Van Der Beek a rare chance to subvert his image and attempt a career reset as the show that made him famous wound down. The performance divided audiences then and remains striking today for how fully he inhabits an amoral, self-destructive college student who could be called the anti-Dawson. What followed was a movie that many regarded as misguided in tone and marketing, but which also contains a performance that rewards reappraisal.
Key Takeaways
- The Rules of Attraction premiered in 2002 and earned mixed to tepid reviews while failing to meet box-office expectations.
- James Van Der Beek portrays Sean Bateman, presented in the film as the younger, sociopathic sibling in spirit to American Psycho’s Patrick Bateman.
- The screenplay and direction were by Roger Avary, linking the film to a Pulp Fiction–adjacent creative lineage that influenced marketing claims.
- The cast included Shannyn Sossamon, Jessica Biel, Ian Somerhalder, Kate Bosworth and veteran actors in small roles such as Faye Dunaway and Swoosie Kurtz.
- Marketing positioned the film inconsistently, at times suggesting a teen comedy and at others invoking darker films, which frustrated the lead actor and confused audiences.
- Modern viewers find elements of the film dated and problematic, notably two scenes of sexual violence and a portrayal of people of color that leans on stereotypes.
Background
Bret Easton Ellis’s novels of the 1980s and 1990s trafficked in stylized nihilism and social satire; American Psycho (2000) translated that voice into a polished, singular film anchored by Christian Bale. Roger Avary adapted The Rules of Attraction and staged a campus tale of decadence and apathy centered on young characters who treat others as expendable. Van Der Beek, then widely known as the earnest lead of the teen drama Dawson’s Creek, chose Sean Bateman as a conscious, risk-taking break from his television persona.
The early 2000s were a fertile period for youth-oriented movies, and distributors often sought to package edgy adaptations for mainstream viewers. The Rules attempted to straddle art-house provocation and teen-comedy accessibility, a split the campaign failed to reconcile. That tension—between the film’s abrasive content and its attempts at mass appeal—helped shape its initial reception and long-term reputation.
Main Event
The Rules of Attraction arrived with a patchwork marketing strategy that alternately highlighted its links to Pulp Fiction and American Psycho and promoted a more conventional teen-movie angle. This mismatch left audiences uncertain about what to expect and, according to Van Der Beek, misrepresented the film he signed on to make. In interviews at the time he said he pursued the role to avoid repeating what viewers could already see him do on television, and he described the screenplay as the best unmade script he’d encountered.
On screen, Sean Bateman is an emotionally predatory undergraduate who sells drugs, manipulates classmates, and lashes out physically and verbally. The film treats him as a provocateur rather than a sympathetic lead, and Van Der Beek leans into that opposition with a performance that oscillates between wounded vulnerability and contemptuous detachment. Several sequences—most notably two graphic scenes that involve sexual violence and a suicide—have aged poorly and draw justified criticism for being gratuitous or mishandled.
Despite the film’s flaws, many supporting performances add texture and dark humor; the ensemble casting includes rising actors of the early 2000s as well as established names in cameo turns. Critics and viewers found the tone uneven: some praised the audacity and visual style, others faulted the scripting and empathy gap between characters and audience. The film’s failure to find a coherent market positioning contributed to its box-office struggles and muted critical embrace.
Analysis & Implications
Van Der Beek’s turn in the film matters less as a commercial gambit and more as an attempt to recalibrate his career trajectory. For an actor typecast by a long-running television hit, playing Sean Bateman was a risky statement of range and intent. The performance demonstrates his ability to navigate complex, unsympathetic material, but the film’s shortcomings limited the role’s capacity to convert critical goodwill into mainstream momentum.
The Rules of Attraction also illustrates how adaptation choices affect reception: translating Ellis’s cynical, surreal prose to a coherent cinematic language is difficult, and where American Psycho found a tonal partner in director Mary Harron and a committed lead in Christian Bale, Avary’s movie landed as a more fractured proposition. The result is a film whose aesthetic flourishes sometimes clash with character plausibility, leaving viewers to decide whether the collage-like approach is incisive or alienating.
On a broader level, the film highlights early-2000s industry dynamics—studios and distributors eager to market edgier material to younger audiences but wary of alienating mainstream viewers. When promotion emphasizes the wrong elements, even a notable cast and daring premise can be undermined. In cultural terms, the movie now draws scrutiny for content that contemporary audiences assess through evolved standards about consent, representation, and the ethics of depicting violence for shock value.
Comparison & Data
| Film | Year | Reception (summary) |
|---|---|---|
| American Psycho | 2000 | Critical acclaim and cult following |
| The Rules of Attraction | 2002 | Mixed reviews; commercial underperformance |
The table above sketches the contrast: American Psycho emerged as a cohesive critical property despite its challenging source, while The Rules of Attraction was viewed as uneven and commercially disappointing. Without clear box-office figures presented here, the qualitative difference in legacy is still apparent in how each film circulates in critical memory and pop-culture conversation.
Reactions & Quotes
Contemporaneous and retrospective voices underline the film’s conflicted status. Below are representative remarks with context.
One thing I was very aware of from the start is that I couldn’t ask people to pay 10 bucks to see me do in a movie what they could see me do on TV for free.
James Van Der Beek, 2003 profile
This remark came during a promotion-period conversation in which Van Der Beek explained his decision to pursue roles that would defy his Dawson’s Creek image. He emphasized a desire to be seen as a film actor with range rather than as a television archetype.
Rock n’ roll.
The Rules of Attraction (2002)
The character’s recurring catchphrase serves as a performative signature and, in Van Der Beek’s delivery, becomes a shorthand for Sean’s ironic detachment and transient thrills.
Unconfirmed
- Whether Van Der Beek’s private feelings about the film changed substantially in later years is not publicly documented and remains a matter of conjecture.
- Specific internal marketing decisions at the distributor level that led to the film’s inconsistent trailers have not been fully disclosed in public records.
Bottom Line
The Rules of Attraction is a flawed but revealing artifact of early-2000s cinema: a film whose tone and marketing undermined its chances even as it showcased a performer willing to risk his established image. James Van Der Beek’s portrayal of Sean Bateman remains an important example of an actor attempting to break type, offering moments of real intensity amid an often uneven film.
For viewers and scholars interested in star reinvention, adaptation, or the period’s youth cinema, the film deserves a measured rewatch—one that acknowledges problematic elements while recognizing Van Der Beek’s deliberate gamble. That balance is essential for understanding both the film’s failure to translate into mainstream success and its continuing value as a study in career metamorphosis.
Sources
- Rolling Stone — media (feature article and obituary reference)