Affectless 'Object' lets down Aniston

Capitalizing on what is becoming a popular motion picture trend, "The Object of My Affection" is Hollywood's glossy answer to "Chasing Amy," last year's highly praised indie phenomenon about a romance doomed by issues of sexual preference.

Although "Object" doesn't measure up to its predecessor, the film, surprisingly enough, has a sincere emotional center. But a muddled screenplay and undisciplined direction prevent the movie from really taking advantage of this strength.

Jennifer Aniston stars as Nina Borowski, a Brooklyn social worker stuck in a passionless, utilitarian relationship with a grating lawyer (John Pankow). At a party thrown by her pretentious, name-dropping step-sister Constance (Allison Janney) and her famous literary agent husband Sidney (Alan Alda), she meets George (Paul Rudd), a gay elementary school teacher who is about to be dumped by his live-in lover. Nina, the kind soul that she is, offers George the spare room in her apartment, which h

Courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston get a little too affectionate in "The Object of My Affection."

e accepts.

The two forge a close friendship, which is a bit unsettling to Nina's boyfriend, Vince. Of even greater significance is Nina's announcement to George that she is pregnant.

She decides that she wants to raise the child with George, her best friend and the obvious love of her life, and not with Vince. Needless to say, this decision complicates matters for everyone involved with Nina.

Powered by the excellent performances of Aniston and Rudd ("Clueless" and "William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet"), "The Object of My Affection" exhibits an unexpected sincerity on an emotional level. Although it is difficult to believe that Nina, with her charming personality and her beauty, would be so desperate that she would have to settle for Vince, the despair of her character is presented effectively.

As the antithesis of her superficial step-sister, all Nina wants is to find a special person, and then later in the film, to have that person help her raise her child.

Aniston, through expressive body and facial language, subtly reveals the pain that Nina feels when her desires cannot so easily be fulfilled.

REVIEW
	The Object of My Affection 3 stars At Briarwood and Showcase

Moreover, Rudd, although a bit inconsistent, skillfully documents the inner turmoil that his character feels. He loves Nina very much, but her request is too much for him to take. She is asking him to compromise his lifestyle and his happiness, as they essentially become a couple. She also becomes dependent on him, which he is not ready for.

Thus, the stage is set nicely for a gut-wrenching second half of the film. But this momentum fails to surmount to anything as director Nicholas Hytner is unable to get a complete grasp of the material.

While it is acceptable for the characters to be unsure of what they want to do, Hytner cannot figure out what he wants either. Does he want to make the film about the pain of unrequited love, of dissolving friendship, or of child rearing issues? He settles for a combination of the three, which ends up being a lot more than the film can handle.

The screenplay then takes the movie in various directions, swerving back and forth from dilemma to dilemma. As this happens, the viewer loses track of what issues the characters are exactly struggling with, and the film heads into the aggravating world of self-importance.

This is augmented by a finale that is disappointing in its violation of the tone of the rest of the film. Sadly enough, had more attention been paid to the screenplay, many of these problems could have been avoided.

"The Object of My Affection" is an interesting, but highly flawed work, that could have been a much better movie. The emotion is real, the central characters are well developed, and the lead actors are excellent.

Still, given that the idea for this movie cannot be considered innovative, particularly in light of "Chasing Amy," which set the precedent for the genre, these strengths are not enough to overcome the film's many weaknesses.

04-20-98