The Life Before Her Eyes, the latest film by Vadim Perelman (House of Sand and Fog), opened this weekend in limited release. In part as a response to the negative reviews by a number of critics, Perelman said recently in an interview that he's decided that it's better for audiences to know the ending going in (I did confirm with Perelman that he actually said this, because I was rather surprised that he would). And while I understand Perelman's desire to counter the critical response to the film in this way, I decided to take a look at what the negative reviews actually say.
First, I'm going to largely ignore the reviews (good and bad) that came out of the Toronto International Film Festival last year, because the cut of the film in theaters now is different. So let's look at what critics have to say about the current cut. Let's look at one titled (ever so objectively) "Hollywood and the War on Women", by Prairie Miller over on News Blaze. Miller starts her "review" of the film with a five-paragraph rant that tries to tie films about the Iraq war into a perceived "war against women" in Hollywood, going so far as to make the accusation that this war is fueled, in part, by male directors and producers whose coffers are being drained by alimony and child support payments. Uh, what?
Midway through the sixth paragraph, Miller finally gets down to talking about the film she's ostensibly reviewing (I'm assuming here that Miller is a woman, I could be wrong on that count). After a scant two paragraphs actually talking about the film, in which she seems to have completely missed the entire point of the movie, Miller concludes her rant with this: "What Uma Thurman is doing as the older Diana in this anti-abortion movement propaganda screed masquerading as a teen angst drama, is anybody's guess. All that's missing are the pamphlet tables in the theater lobbies."
I don't know what abortion issues Miller has that would cause her to perceive The Life Before Her Eyes as anti-abortion screed, but she must have seen a different film than I did, or else her view of the film was completely warped by whatever personal issues she brought to the table. What she wrote has no business even properly being called a review of a film; she's far too busy ranting against the Hollywood machine and its conspiracy against women to bother actually critiquing the film as a film. She's not the only one hyper-focused on the abortion angle, though.
Lou Lumerick, writing for the New York Post, starts out his review with this: " ... an overwrought and patently offensive anti- abortion drama ..." before winding up his piece with "Well, it seems the teenage Diana had an abortion - and the business in the ladies' room may be a bit of karmic payback. Yikes." Yikes indeed, Lou, if all you got out of this film was that it's somehow a film centered on Diana's guilt over an abortion. I'd hate to see what some of these critics would take out of reading Sylvia Plath's poem, "Three Women" ("Plath, in this wrenching piece, is clearly trying to guilt out women who have procured an abortion, or lost a pregnancy, while championing motherhood as the only right path for women everywhere!")
Even assuming that Diana's guilt is about her abortion (I don't believe it is, I think it's much more about the friendship between the two girls, and the choice Diana has to make in choosing between herself and her friend), what are we really saying here? That women who have abortions never feel guilt about them? Sorry, but as a feminist myself, I find that patently absurd. Abortion is an emotional issue, even for women who support the right of women to have one. So what? The fact that a teenage character might be feeling some doubt or guilt over an abortion doesn't make it a screed -- it makes it real and honest. The dishonesty here is in pretending that the only kind of pro-female film with an abortion in it has to present abortion as a choice made without thought, without any sense of responsibility, without a twinge of guilt or emotion involved. That's just absurd and insulting.
Lumerick and Miller aren't the only ones mischaracterizing the film as being anti-woman or anti-abortion, though. Maria Garcia, writing for Film Journal International, weighs in with a "Perelman hates women" screed, seemingly unaware that the book on which the film was based was written by a woman.
The other negative reviews seem to hinge on the critics who dislike either the film's heavy use of imagery and metaphor (which, interestingly, many of the same critics did not take issue with in House of Sand and Fog), or the way the film flashes back-and-forth between past and present, or the reveal at the film's ending. Joe Morgenstern, writing a slim two-paragraph review for The Wall Street Journal, opens his piece with this:
Consider this more a consumer warning than a movie review: "The Life Before Her Eyes" will draw you in, then intrigue you, then bore you, then bewilder you, then make you crazy with its incessant flashbacks and flash forwards, and finally leave you feeling like the victim of a fraud.
At least Morgenstern is honest enough to admit that what he writes isn't really a review at all; indeed, he barely delves into the film. So, what? Morgenstern is annoyed because he wasn't able to follow the flashbacks in the film enough to figure out what was going on, and then he's miffed because he didn't see the ending coming?
Jules Brenner's review for Cinema Signals is listed as being negative, but much of what he has to say is actually mixed, and somewhat positive:
The editing is a major player in the construction, along with the director's blueprint for shooting it with the flashback/flashforward sequences in mind--a technical accomplishment that's not as easy as it looks. Perelman pulls it off with very close attention to detail, but involvement is less than it might have been as sympathy gets nicked away by the effort to resolve the associations and meanings. Too much looking for the "ah hah!" moment.
On the other hand, this freewheeling play on time and reality is no waste of time. Wood is superb, exhibiting an exquisitely mature level of acting that includes knowing exactly how to use and control the intrument of her appearance and persona for the ultimate realization of the role -- an attribute common to the best actors, especially when physical attribute is germane to the subject matter.
So basically, Brenner didn't like that the film is full of clues hidden within imagery and metaphor, and that he actually had to pay attention and work a little to figure it out?
Point is, if you just based your decision on whether or not to see this particular film based on the reviews up on Rotten Tomatoes, you'd be doing yourself an injustice, as most of the negative reviews I've read seem to be operating from the assumption that audiences are incapable of handling watching a film that requires an intelligence level above that required to appreciate your average, dense, spoon-fed rom-com.
Yes, The Life Before Her Eyes is more poetry than prose. While it does require that you pay attention to figure out what's going on, personally, I don't see that as a bad thing. I was engaged in the film from start-to-finish, and rather than being annoyed by the ending, I found that it made me want to mull over all those lovely bits of imagery woven throughout, and then enjoy realizing the significance of them once the story had played out.
I think there are a lot of movie fans out there who are sick of having their movies dumbed-down for them, who will enjoy the poetry and symbolism of this film, and who, by the way, will also enjoy the excellent performances, especially by Evan Rachel Wood and Eva Amurri as the younger Diana and her best friend, Maureen. Sometimes, when a film has largely negative reviews, I'm in agreement with this majority. In this case, I'm clearly in the minority, but nonetheless, I'd encourage you to see the film for yourself, and to take the negative reviews with an ample dose of salt.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-20-2008 @ 8:34PM
Craig Kennedy said...
I enjoyed your review and I admire your defense of this film Kim, even if I didn't like it as much as you.
For me, I found it hitting me on an intellectual level rather than an emotional one and it didn't completely satisfy. On the other hand, it was beautiful and Evan Rachel Wood especially gave a terrific performance.
The abortion angle barely registered with me until I read some of the reviews you speak of. It was a component of Wood's guilt, but so what? Pro-choice people who refuse to even acknowledge any consequences or complicated emotions to an abortion are damaging to their own cause. Their virulent reaction to the movie on those grounds is awfully narrowminded.
Regarding Perelman's suggestion that it's better if audience's know the ending, I disagree. For me, the ending saved the film. Knowing how it ends I think would sap some of the essential mystery that carried me along and held my interest throughout.
The ending itself didn't feel like a cop-out or a Shyamalanian twist. It felt right and gave meaning to the artificial quality of the film.
http://livingincinema.com
Reply
4-20-2008 @ 9:01PM
marty said...
Like Juno, any film where the woman/girl decides to have the baby rather than an abortion is seen as a neo-con, anti-abortion film. Geez, these bleeding heart leftist critics are all the same. The minute any film addresses issues that are against their own beliefs, then slam the film. They are not film critics but propagandists who use their reviews to present their own political agendas.
Reply
4-20-2008 @ 10:46PM
Paul D said...
Uh...you ARE aware that many have successfully argued that Juno is a pro-CHOICE film, yes?
4-20-2008 @ 10:49PM
YouFaceTheTick said...
Um, i read the book 2 years ago. I never considered it had anything to do with abortion. There's so much going on and I can't see how any sane person could encounter that story, emerging from it with a view that it's just about one abortion.
Reply
4-20-2008 @ 11:28PM
PST said...
Haven't yet seen the film, so I can't comment on it. But I can comment on your parse of some of the cited reviews.
Morgenstern and Brenner do not at all say what you construe them as saying. Morgenstern says that he went from being intrigued to being put off by a device, which is not the same as being too dumb to follow it. Brenner says that it is an impressive technical accomplishment, and you parse that as 'it was too poetical, mysterious, and difficult for poor dumb me.' It sounds like you're resorting to one of the worst defenses used by a fan of some piece of art: the 'you didn't like it, so obviously you didn't get it' defense. Morgenstern doesn't seem to have given it much time or thought, but if it didn't force him to it's not necessarily his fault. Brenner seems to have appreciated it as a fan of film technique but still been dissatisfied by it; that's pretty far away from not getting it. That's getting it, but not wanting it.
See, there's a problem with the defense of 'intelligent filmmaking.' Subjective narration, ambiguity, fragmented (or otherwise non-linear) temporal structures, and all the other hallmarks of intelligent filmmaking are techniques that have been around for almost as long as there's been narrative film, have periodically popped up in fairly broadly distributed films for almost 50 years, and have been increasingly popular since the 90's. Every year there are literally hundreds of films that attempt to make the audience pay attention, do some work, and appreciate the poetry and symbolism. Some of these films really are intelligent and of high quality, but probably around the same percentage as there are of intelligent, excellent films that are more straightforward narratively. When there is a pool of long-standing techniques to draw from, some of the work is bound to be bad.
So I find it very easy to believe that this film might be cleverly constructed so as to tease the audience into working through its clues to appreciate the poetry of its conclusion and at the same time end up being sound and fury signifying nothing. It's no longer good enough to say that it's 'unconventionally' structured and therefore the people who dislike it must be incapable of understanding it. The deficiencies might be in the film rather than in the viewer. Especially since I'm sure most of these critics have been able to follow all the other fractured timeline, poetic, subjectively narrated films that make up our canon.
But I'll be sure to check it out to see where I stand on it. Maybe it is great and these critics are just too swamped by deadlines to notice it. But maybe not.
Reply
4-21-2008 @ 10:27AM
Craig Kennedy said...
PST, make no mistake, Morgenstern and others aside, Ms. Voynar is right: many critics are letting their stand on abortion cloud their judgement about this film. Prairie Miller and Lou Lemenick especially.
4-21-2008 @ 10:02AM
Kim Voynar said...
PST,
I have no problem with people not liking a film I liked. Lord knows, I've taken enough shit here and on other film boards for defending JUNO, although the issue I took with many of the (mostly male) writers who bitched about that film was their obsession with Diablo Cody's former occupation.
If a critic doesn't like a film, great. Then tell us, in a reasonably intelligent way, why it's not a good film. If you actually read most of the negative reviews of this film, the vast majority simply don't do that. You have two-paragraph non-reviews like Morgenstern's, and pro-choice screeds like Miller's and Lumerick's, and most of the negative reviews sitting in Rotten Tomatoes are like those. And many of them, as I said, seem to operate from the assumption that your average intelligent audience member would be incapable of following this film.
Harry Chotiner from CultureVulture.net actually said, "With over eight months left in the year, it requires a certain audacity to declare that The Life Before Her Eyes is, and will always be, the absolute worst film of 2008 ... "
Audacity, indeed, if Chotiner truly believes this film is worse than: ONE MISSED CALL, PS I LOVE YOU, ALIEN VS PREDATOR: REQUIEM, MR MAGORIUMS WONDER EMPORIUM, FRED CLAUS, HITMAN, AWAKE, PERFECT HOLIDAY, IN THE NAME OF THE KING, NATIONAL TREASURE 2: BOOK OF SECRETS, FIRST SUNDAY, MEET THE SPARTANS, EYE, THE HOTTIE AND THE NOTTIE, FOOL'S GOLD, WELCOME HOME ROSCOE JENKINS, JUMPER, STEP UP 2 THE STREETS, 10,000 BC, COLLEGE ROAD TRIP, TYLER PERRY'S MEET THE BROWNS, SUPERHERO MOVIE, and PROM NIGHT.
And we're only at April.
Point is, those reviews impact the film's RT "fresh" or "rotten" rating, which, in turn, has an impact on people deciding whether or not to see the film. And I think it's a shame that a filmmaker like Perelman takes a chance and makes a smart, beautifully-shot film like this, and many people won't even bother seeing it because of reviews like that. Way to encourage Hollywood to keep churning out the usual same-old, same-old, dumbed down crapola.
4-21-2008 @ 1:06AM
Mr. R said...
I am a man and I have no say on abortion so all I can say is I think Evan Rachel Wood is gorgeous! Thanks...
Reply
4-21-2008 @ 9:43AM
Kim Voynar said...
Paul,
Re. JUNO, I'm very aware of that ... I'm one of those who made the argument that "choice" doesn't mean "the woman has to have an abortion," it means "the woman has the right to choose an abortion, or choose to have and keep her baby, OR choose to have it and give it up for adoption."
Nonetheless, many of my fellow liberal film critics did indeed criticize the film as being anti-abortion propoganda, simply because Juno walked out of the abortion clinic and chose to give her baby up for adoption instead.
Reply
4-21-2008 @ 10:24AM
Kim Voynar said...
I'll add here, in defense of those critics writing for print publications where they often have very limited space with which to review a film, that they have to be brief, and not usually by choice. But if you've only got two paragraphs of space in which to review a film, why waste a whole paragraph telling your readers that what you're writing isn't actually a review, rather than using that space to actually critique the film?
Reply
4-21-2008 @ 11:44AM
Kim Voynar said...
Thathollie,
I managed to write a 1,000 word review that didn't give away any of the film's surprises. And I write negative reviews regularly, as do other writers here, that are specific as to what they hate about a film without spoiling. Read any of James Rocchi's or Scott Weinberg's negative reviews, especially -- they're both very good at dissecting exactly why they dislike a film without giving surprise endings away. It can be done.
Reply
4-21-2008 @ 2:53PM
rex said...
Were there any explosions in the movie? Because if not it loses at least half a star in my book.
Seriously though, good article Kim. One of the things I really enjoy about Cinematical is the site's insistence that, We "the viewers", are not as dumb as Hollywood insists we are. Sure, Meet The Spartans, might be #1 for its weekend, but that doesn't mean that those of us who aren't teenagers didn't bemoan the movie and ridicule it.
It seems to me that too many media outlets assume we are idiots and refuse to respect the reader/viewer. Instead we are spoon fed agendas and told what to believe based off of overly simplified charactures.
Reply
4-21-2008 @ 6:29PM
Erin said...
I have little interest in seeing this film (maybe on dvd) but I love the righteous anger of this post.
Reply
4-22-2008 @ 10:41AM
Richard von Busack said...
As one of the male critics who supposedly bitched about Juno because of Cody's previous line of work, I want to say I loved Me and You And Everyone We Know, which was written and directed by someone who was in Diablo Cody's previous line of work.
Reply
4-22-2008 @ 10:45AM
PST said...
Kim (and Craig),
I believe totally that the majority of reviews take the film to task on abortion. I have no trouble believing that the majority of film reviewers watch films shallowly, remember them poorly, reduce them to simple messages (most of which are in no need of having a film made to posit them) while ignoring their formal and aesthetic qualities, and then rate them on whether or not they agree with the resulting reduction. If your post were confined to that claim, and called something like 'In defense of cinema as an art form, rather than a platform for the director's politics,' I wouldn't have bothered to post at all, since you probably don't need to read 'I agree.'
But this is 'in defense of intelligent filmmaking.' My problem was that Morgenstern and Brenner were not taken to task for reading the film heuristically with a copy of Roe v. Wade by their side, as Lemerick &co rightly were, but because the film was supposedly too intelligent for them, and that I didn't get the sense of that from their reviews at all. Both writers rather seem to feel that the film isn't worth the effort it asks of its audience; Morgenstern so much so that he doesn't even bother to give it a full review (which is actually a fairly common practice among film reviewers who bother to review more than one or two films a week, especially on a newspaper where space is limited, but even on the internet, where it isn't). But Brenner in particular seems up to the task of following it (I'd like to point out that I had never seen anything by Brenner until I read this (I at first referred to him as a 'her' because I though I'd read 'Julia') and so am not some fan of his sore that you criticized him); so why is your parse of his article 'Brenner didn't like that the film is full of clues hidden within imagery and metaphor, and that he actually had to pay attention and work a little to figure it out?'?
I also took issue with the idea that a film that uses non-linear temporal structure and ambiguous subjective stretches, which seems to be the case here, is automatically 'intelligent' and worthwhile for having done so when these strategies have been available for decades and are now so ubiquitous that even Adam Sandler comedies use them. These techniques are widespread enough that using them is not necessarily any different from writing a traditional, linear, three act film with goal-oriented protagonists who achieve their goals over adversity, find love, and learn something valuable along the way.
Or, there is one difference. If you want to give the audience something simple, it isn't too much of a disappointment if it turns out to be of poor quality. The audience has invested, and therefore lost, little. But if you want to make the audience work to get your film, you'd damn well better make sure that there's something worth getting at the end. Morgenstern and Brenner seem to think that The Life Before Her Eyes doesn't offer this something. I still don't know, since the film hasn't opened yet in my city, but I don't think that either critic is somehow a deficient viewer for, having done the requisite work, being disappointed by the ultimate payoff.
Whereas I do think that the abortion screed-readers are deficient as viewers.
Reply
5-07-2008 @ 5:06PM
Thathollie said...
I believe critics were initially under the impression that they were not supposed to give away any surprises that might occur in the film. So, if they can't actually address whatever plot developments they had a problem with, what else can they do but say non-specifically that they hated it?
Reply
5-28-2008 @ 6:39PM
Christopher Bernard said...
Thank you for your discussion of The Life Before Her Eyes. I saw the film last Friday and was deeply moved and impressed by it. Let me quote from an email I wrote to someone about it recently (I don't think I can express my thoughts any better than this):
"I was astonished, moved, pained, troubled, and provoked by that film as I rarely am: it haunted me for much of the weekend. I found myself reliving some of the scenes, even individual shots, understanding them in an entirely different light from how I originally saw them. And the reversal at the end, which at first shocked me, then troubled me as a trick, in the end struck as a very wise move: if a "sucker punch" (as Stephen Holden said in the Times), then the kind you might get from a spiritual master who is trying to get through to a particularly thick novice.
"I'm sure you have seen how the film has been almost universally panned. I go back and forth between feeling cocky and dumbfounded. The film, while far from perfect, struck me as a scaldingly honest look at the price of moral action in a universe that may be random and meaningless, and is often violently murderous. I have rarely seen an American film whose moral vision is - not bleak, exactly, as deeply ambiguous morally and "un-comforting" in its openness to some of the worst possibilities about our place in the world. Few of the commentators I've read have taken on these issues, which strike as fairly shouting from the film - the Darwinian premises, for example, and their moral consequences - or even seem to be aware of them.
".... maybe Life was too "French" - too interested in moral complexity and ambiguity, too willing to flirt with nihilism, too sadistic, too intent on bathing the viewer in a bath of moral ice and fire without any easy escape, just too "honest" for a movie. All the sorts of things we're willing to put up with if spoken with a French accent but that, when spoken in plain American English, makes us panic and deny. I include myself in that: there were moments when I wanted to leave; I was getting just a little more reality than I had bargained for with my $10.00+ ticket."
Reply