The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is the true story of Elle editor Jean-Dominique Bauby who suffers a stroke and has to live with an almost totally paralyzed body; only his left eye isn't paralyzed. It’s his only means of communication with the world through a series of blinks, once for yes, and twice for no.
I remember hearing about this movie a while ago and just now got around to seeing it, not really knowing what it was about. I’d like to talk about what I enjoyed most about this movie, the aesthetic choices the director Julian Schnabel made. Firstly, most of the film takes place through the eyes of the main character, Jean-Dominique. He has what’s called locked-in syndrome. Having the audience see the world literally through his eyes, makes me feel, on some level, like I’m walking a mile in his shoes in a way.
The picture goes in and out of focus as Jean first begins to adjust to his life after his stroke. At times, we’re given a very limited view of what’s happening on screen. There are a lot of close ups, and narrow shots. In some scenes the director chooses to focus on minor, like the way the wind blows someone’s dress, the swaying grass, the clouds, things that Jean would take notice of in his state of being.
The director was formally an artist and didn’t use conventional coverage. His take on the movie was very poetic and used the story as a way to convey art in a visual medium that supported the story.
~Brianna P.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This does seem like a very compelling film to watch, and I'd like to hear more about the choices that were made. However the terms that you use to evaluate it are somewhat vague. All directors make "aesthetic choices." What makes these stand out? How do they support the narrative? What sort of structure does the film employ?
Post a Comment