I just saw the film, The Life Before Her Eyes, which was based on a book by the same name. It was originally screened at festivals with the name In Bloom, which may have been more symbolically appropriate, as the book’s title gives away too much of the film’s ending.
I typically don’t care about spoilers, but I know I’m rather rare in that respect. But I will make references to “An Occurance at Owl Creek Bridge”, Stay, and Jacob’s Ladder. If you understand the common thread between those three naratives, then I just spoiled the movie for you (I guess). In broad strokes, the film is about the events in young wild-child Diana’s (played be Evan Rachel Wood) life and her friendship with polar oposite Maureen, in the weeks leading up to a horrific school shooting that culcminates in a gut-wrenching encounter with the gunman and the two girls in the girls’ bathroom, intercut with scenes fifteen years later from the life of an adult Diana (played by Uma Thurman), as she lives with the guilt of surviving, as well as the deep after-effects of other choices she made as a teenager.
The cinematography was truly wonderful, as was the acting and the undercurrents of the story of young Diana’s friendship with Maureen. There are visual clues throughout the filming techniques that clue you in on how to emotionally re-assemble the story once the connections are made clear in the end. I didn’t mind so much the continuous intercutting between past and future, as well as the playing around with chronology of the past, though James Berardinelli calls it very clearly in his review: “The non-chronological approach creates an intellectual puzzle but limits the ability of the audience to relate to the characters.”
My biggest gripe with the film isn’t the manner in which director Perlman has chosen to compose the film, or in its ultimate meaning, or even in the moral subtext of the story; it’s in the way the symbolism is continuously pounded into the audience. There are some repeitions of elements that build up intrigue and make you wonder, “I wonder what that’s really supposed to mean”. Then there are other elements which are repeated in not-so-subtle ways that over the course of the film actually become annoying. It’s not that it’s clumsy or awkward… it’s just heavy-handed. All these other elements blend together in a way that synthesise a graceful whole that is undermined by the artless hammer of these repeated statements.
And honestly, it kinda ruined it for me.
In other news, the entire reason why I was even aware of this film is because the score is composed by James Horner. I suppose the music was effective, but in the end, it just seemed far more clinical than emotional. It was quite a departure for his film sensibilities, and frnakly, I’m not so sure the film was more or less for his efforts. And I think that’s the first time I’ve ever felt that way about a Horner score.
I think I’m the only person in the world who didn’t notice the giveaway in the title…I was totally surprised by the ending.