To Die For (1995) - 6/10

For me, this feels like more of a “showcase” film than anything I am actually interested in. Maybe to put it a different way—the reasons I like the film are more about the talents involved versus the actual end result. That doesn’t mean this is a bad movie per se, but I am not as enamored as some of the critics seem to be. With that said, I also think this film is a weird case of being too early to the party—almost as if it were the first-gen prototype for Gone Girl. But more on that later. Let’s jump into the rubric.

1. Acting

By far, this film’s best strength is its casting. Starting from the top of the call sheet, we have Nicole Kidman as Suzanne Stone—a narcissistic and humorous take on the femme fatale archetype. At this point, Kidman was just starting to break out with American audiences, and To Die For was a great testament to her versatility in both big- and small-budget features. For Suzanne, Kidman does a great job knowing when to keep things close to her chest early in the film and then letting go a bit later on.

A successful femme fatale should intrigue audiences at first, giving just enough to show that there may be more happening under the surface. As things progress, we see Kidman’s almost aw-shucks young woman with big dreams of stardom give way to a slightly hidden ambition, and finally to an unforgiving and relentless narcissist who may even be incapable of seeing her own psychosis. It’s a nuanced progression, and I actually enjoyed it more and more as we start peeling back Suzanne’s layers. I don’t know if it quite hits the level of accolades it ended up garnering, but this is certainly a very strong performance in a genre that typically hampers its actors.

Outside of the lead, we have a load of great supporting performances. Despite having a critical role in terms of plot, Matt Dillon actually gets quite sidelined for most of the film. With that said, he fits into Larry seamlessly and manages to be sympathetic without burdening the audience with feeling bad for him later on.

We also get a trio of great young actors early in their careers. Casey Affleck plays… well, Casey Affleck—but as usual, that works just fine. Alison Folland is wonderful as Lydia and brings a great sense of awkwardness to her fascination with Suzanne. Joining the fray is also a young Joaquin Phoenix as Jimmy. I don’t know exactly what it is about Phoenix’s agape expressions, but he just carries Jimmy so well and elevates the otherwise dull-witted character into something engaging and sadly pitiful. Lastly, Illeana Douglas is fantastic as Larry’s sister Janice, and her talking-head segments are a tier above everyone else. 

2. Cinematography

Despite being a pretty prolific director, I don’t typically associate Gus Van Sant with having a distinctive visual style. His films seem to lean more into a naturalistic look, practically shirking anything that might look inorganic or unrealistic. What he does tend to do, though, is include random experimental shots intercut with an otherwise fairly “standard” shooting style.

For instance, when Larry confronts Suzanne about pivoting away from her pursuits of stardom, her vision starts to shrink to a pinpoint and is depicted as such with tunneled vision in the lens. We also get an artistic and unrealistic close-up of Suzanne during her weather report, which serves as the background for Larry’s death scene. And we get an ever-expanding collage shot at the film’s conclusion as Lydia’s final interview segment puts one last exclamation point on the film’s underlying thesis.

All of these shots feel slightly out of place in the greater context of the film, but knowing Van Sant, these types of moments are on brand. Honestly, sometimes it just feels like he gets bored and wants to mix things up.

3. Production / Costume Design

In a bit of a continuation from the cinematography, the color scheme of the movie does stand out. The bright colors of Suzanne and her world both match her outer persona and starkly contrast her darker true self. The costume department, in particular, clearly did a lot of work crafting Suzanne’s fashionable outfits that both accentuate her femme fatale nature while also keeping up the theme of pretty outer appearances disguising something else.

Apart from costumes, I like the design of the sets and the crafting of Suzanne’s reality. Again, the brightly colored sets, such as their home, are obvious but also manage to keep things grounded in a working-class aesthetic. Suzanne may have dreams of making it big in California, but her surroundings are clearly humble, blue-collar, and firmly small-town. Despite her ambitions, she is clearly tapped out here, and no amount of makeup, distinct outfits, or fake Michelin-star cooking can change that.

4. Writing

“To me, there is little more worthy of respect than a great sense of humor. Not the joke-telling, punch-line variety. I’m talking about a sense of humor rooted in a deep understanding of the way people behave and the inherent comedy in the human condition. Buck Henry had that.”

The above quote from Gus Van Sant really highlights why this film works so well. Both Van Sant and Buck Henry had a clear understanding of the source material (the novel of the same name by Joyce Maynard), as well as a keen and prescient eye for how the real-life events the novel is based on unfolded.

The film is clearly a satirization of America’s growing obsession with reality TV and exploitational news coverage. Suzanne’s downward spiral from eager young woman with big dreams into psychotic murderer is not a cautionary tale—it is a searing treatise on how vulnerable humans are to our narcissistic tendencies. We may not all be like the extreme of Suzanne, but we are the television audience obsessively tuning in to absorb all of the sordid details of a tragedy.

And maybe the most impressive part of the whole script is just how ahead of its time it has proven to be. In the same year the film was released, we saw one of the most infamous court trials broadcast into every U.S. home: the O.J. Simpson trial. Now, almost 30 years later, we are stuck in a cycle where every year seems to be marked by a new “big trial” that everyone gleefully watches and gossips about. Likewise, the sense of narcissism and clamoring to be “the next big whatever” has reached a fever pitch. Social media continues to supercharge some of the worst parts of the human proclivity for narcissism, and it seems those involved with this project saw that coming a mile away.

Other than the central themes, this is also a fairly tightly designed screenplay. Borrowing from Maynard’s narrative, the decision to use a docu-series interview structure serves the film well and helps break up an otherwise straightforward story. It also allows for a nice shorthand for character building, where the audience can gain insights into the various characters while seeing the events unfold from a variety of different perspectives.

And lastly, while this may not be, as Van Sant put it, the joke-telling, punch-line variety, it is very much a sharp comedy. There are plenty of examples, but I adore Larry’s funeral scene in particular. I do it little justice in text form, but the image of Suzanne, in very chic funeral attire, silently placing a stereo on Larry’s grave, hitting play on Eric Carmen’s “All by Myself,” and then slowly panning the camera over to a flabbergasted priest and funeral attendees is a pure chef’s-kiss cinematic moment.

5. Sound Design

There is a score here from Danny Elfman, who was still in the earlier section of his career. Unlike some of his other efforts from this timeframe, there wasn’t much specifically memorable about this endeavor, and it gets overshadowed by some of the borrowed commercial tracks. In particular, I already mentioned a great scene that features “All by Myself,” but it’s really a rendition of the National Anthem that steals the movie.

In a not-so-subtle moment during the police investigation, the TV in the background begins to play the anthem as Suzanne mournfully wanders around the room, surrounded by police and family. Then, as the music starts to build, she looks out the window to see the bright lights of TV reporters out on the lawn. Through Kidman’s great performance, sharp writing, Van Sant’s fantastic tracking shot, and the now blistering volume of the National Anthem, we see America in all its ugly glory. These are the types of moments I love in cinema—the culmination of so many individual facets of filmmaking coming together to create something iconic.

6. Editing

With a runtime just over 100 minutes, this film keeps things moving at a good pace. The eventual murder that acts as the center of the plot is telegraphed pretty early on, but the intercutting of actual plot moments with character interviews keeps things interesting despite knowing the eventual outcome.

Apart from that, the editing is mostly straightforward, with maybe the best sequence being the murder itself. The more frenetic cutting between characters, and using the TV to keep Suzanne in the room, was well designed and increased the tension in a compelling fashion.

7. Visual Effects

Nothing to really discuss here.

8. Originality or Strength of Adaptation

I can’t speak much to the source novel, but I do know that Maynard structured each chapter as an interview from the various characters’ perspectives. I think the film’s docu-style version of that, at least on paper, is a slightly superior tweak that fits the central theme quite nicely. As for which version is better, I can’t seem to find a vocal consensus on book versus movie. Both versions were quick to identify the more interesting human angle on the real-life criminal case, and the loyalty of the adaptation suggests there was little worth changing when bringing it to film.

9. Stunt Coordination

Nothing to really discuss here.

10. Direction

I’m really glad this film has Gus Van Sant at the helm. This could have easily been a cheesier or sloppier take that would have undermined its much smarter context. Luckily, Van Sant’s penchant for character work and independent film sensibilities prevents this and seemingly even elevates it above itself.

Legacy / Final Thoughts

Despite the praise buried in my review, I still can’t bring myself to up the score. Intellectually, I think this film has a ton going for it, but as a movie-watching experience it felt lacking. Maybe I just didn’t connect with it because it was a first watch, but it feels like a discount version of David Fincher’s superior Gone Girl. Ultimately, while the individual efforts are noteworthy and the film is an early example of talent across several great careers, it is simply not for me.