What really is... To Die For? Reflection

Gus Van Sant’s 1995 drama, To Die For smartly displays the downsides of a world more and more influenced by an ongoing media presence. The main character, Suzanne, expertly played by Nicole Kidman, idealizes everyone and anyone who appears on television, citing talk show hosts and famous TV personalities at every opportunity as if from an internal encyclopedia of media and entertainment. She has become obsessed with being viewed on TV, and so her obsession with her appearance, her outward personality and relationships with friends, family and her husband are a continuous act to be maintained. The most salient quote from the entire film is likely Suzanne’s statement to the young, impressionable student, Lydia, whom she tells,:

“You're not anybody in America unless you're on TV. On TV is where we learn about who we really are. Because what's the point of doing anything worthwhile if nobody's watching? And if people are watching, it makes you a better person.”

Later in the film, Lydia reiterates this to the documentary crew doing a special on Suzanne’s life after the murder of her husband and Suzanne’s mysterious disappearance. This notion is at the core of what makes Suzanne tick, and why she is so ruthless in her pursuit of success in her career. She yearns for the approval and admiration of others, which is likely why she chooses three young, impressionable and ‘down in the dumps’ teens to become close with. She’s also a master manipulator, using her husband’s and James’ infatuation with her, her sexual prowess, as well as Lydia’s loneliness, lack of role model, and Russel’s boredom to her utmost advantage.

As a work of fiction, what fascinated me is the films confluence of various creative in the final product. For instance, the author of the original novel, Joyce Maynard, makes an appearance as Suzanne’s lawyer later in the film. Furthermore, the famous horror gore director, David Cronenberg, plays the distant mob relative of the Maretto family that is responsible for her eventual disappearance. It would have likely been simpler and less expensive to hire regular actors to portray these characters. This begs the question, what was the significance of having these prominent members of the media and film industry portray these small characters? What kind of a commentary is the director making about the interpolation of media as a living, breathing, vastly interconnected organism? Certainly food for thought.