Cameras are villains in `To Die For'

---

RATING: * * * 1/2

---

by Christof Spieler

---

And that, of course, is the point.

Suzanne Stone (Nicole Kidman) is an aspiring star who marries Larry, who runs his family's bar in a small New England town. Through sheer determination, she lands a late-night weather shift at a small local cable channel. Convinced that she's the next Diane Sawyer, she starts work on a documentary about local teens. Sparks fly between one of her subjects and her -- and she uses him to get rid of her husband, who she thinks is standing in the way of her career.

The plot is bare. The characters could be described in a few words: the driven, ruthless aspiring star, her devoted and rather clueless husband, his provincial family and so on. At least that's how the camera sees them.

Maybe half the film is seen as we expect to see a movie: people interacting, the camera, passive and unseen, recording the scene. The rest is media footage: Suzanne's documentary footage, interviews with Larry's sister and the teenagers, a talk show with Larry's and Suzanne's parents, and, as the thread that weaves it all together, a tape that Suzanne makes to sell her story to the networks.

It makes for an eye-opening movie. When Suzanne says that the new American dream is to be on TV and, in effect, that one's value is measured by the camera, we might dismiss it as the ravings of a cold-blooded lunatic.

But then we wonder if she isn't right after all. How else to explain O.J., the Bobbits, Kato Kaelin and all those talk-show guests prepared to make fools of themselves just for a chance to be on screen?

This sort of moral could make for a tedious, sermonizing movie. To Die For , though, is neither. The pace is quick (appropriate, of course, for its subject), the plot is enough to keep us interested, and the ending is a surprise. Most of all, though, Nicole Kidman is wonderful. Her character may seem like a caricature, but she makes Suzanne believable and all the more chilling for it.

I left To Die For troubled and even more cynical than usual. I began to wonder if the movie I had just seen was just as shallow as the world it portrayed. Somehow, I felt deprived -- the film was superficial, bare, devoid of all subtlety. But then, maybe that's the point. I'd say it's worth seeing. It will make you think.

This item appeared in the Arts & Entertainment section of the October 27, 1995 issue.

Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.