MovieChat Forums > The Life Before Her Eyes (2008) Discussion > I understood what the director was tryin...

I understood what the director was trying to do but...

posted 14 years ago by ohdontpanic42
2 replies | jump to latest

SPOILERS

I can't decide if I like this film. I was interested all the way through and because of the hints about conscience and the heart and stuff I quickly figured out what the 'twist' at the end was. But something about it just really irritates me.

I get that all of Diana's adult life is her teenage fantasy in the moments before she gets shot, instead of Maureen. I think the director was trying to portray Diana's guilt, the sanctity of friendship, conflicting lifestyles and choices affecting the future &c but I don't understand why the director thought it would make a good premise for a movie. It could have been done better, with a much better pace, less repetition and more suspense. I didn't feel like the girls had a close friendship; it was clear we were meant to feel that but I wasn't convinced. Parts of it are very artistically shot but I think at times it attempts to be too ambigious and just leaves the audience confused. For example at the anniversary, with the "Are you a survivor?" part and Diana answering in the negative. Also the bit before adult Diana is almost run over by the car, seeing her husband with the younger version of herself.
Emma is a reflection of teen Diana's angst and rebellion and Prof. McFee and her teaching career shows perhaps a hidden warmth for knowledge and teacher-like figures that Diana tries to hide in her teen years.

What did you think the director was trying to do and in your opinion was he successful?

[–] aimless-46 14 years ago

I felt about the same as you did after seeing it for the first time, although I bought into the friendship dynamic completely. I like it a little better each time I view it (including watching it with the commentary special feature turned on). Much of it is expressionism which we don't see much of in American films, so it takes a while to really connect with the stuff. And that requires you to let go of the plot and just go with the style and the theme, something easier to do after the first viewing. Everything is a literary device and getting caught in a plausibility trap (which most of the comments on this page reflect) will prevent you from making the connection needed to really go beneath the surface of the story.

The really incredible thing to me is how uniquely it explores the implications of friendship/conscience. There are rewards to friendship but also obligations (responsibilities) and if you don't feel these, then you are mistaking friendship for something much shallower. Diana's life essentially becomes a Hobson's choice; between something and nothing. And the viewer gets to watch as Wood nonverbally conveys the process of her character slowly coming to that realization. The "life before her eyes" becomes nothing once she understands the implications of that option.

[–] Sorcerer-NL 14 years ago

Just finished watching the movie. At first I got confused and thought I might have gotten the names Maureen and Diana wrong... I mean, the older Diana did dye her hair...

But the entire movie was actually life before her eyes, right before she died. The plausibility trap is a problem when first watching this movie. So I guess the question (for the director, screenplay writer etc.) should be whether that's a problem.

There were some clues throughout the movie (some of which are only visible in hindsight), but the pessimistic tone and the empty future Diana imagined somehow don't completely fit her character. Also 'remembering the massacre' somehow doesn't fit into this picture. It's just off...

The problem with this type of movie is that in the end it's just about how the movie feels, after you've watched it. And to me it was just a little off, some things didn't fit. It was a good movie, but some things could've or should've been a little different.