You really think the director is going to leave in such a mistake in a scene that's all about the details, like Malcolm never moving his chair or touching the check book and his wife being in a seemingly grumpy mood never looking or speaking to him directly? She just gave a quick glance in his direction, she may have been distracted by the people at the other table, who knows.
share[deleted]
Agree to what the stratego answered to your post. I think the look that she gave was put there on purpose, to make the audience THINK that Malcolm's wife actually saw him (although she was just looking at that direction/through Malcolm) to almost "mislead" the audience. If she hadn't looked "at him" people would be like "hm... can't she hear/see him?". That look gave some proof (even though it was false) that his wife was reacting to him at the table.
shareI thought that too. It's a good theory, but still it has to go down as a mistake.
sharebut still it has to go down as a mistake.
She looked right into his eyes. She should have been directed to look in his general direction instead. She also looks at him just after Bruce Willis speaks, as though she is reacting to his words.
shareWe hardly see his face, so I don't think you can say she was looking "right into his eyes". You really think the director makes this mistake not once but twice? He's just misleading you. Just imagine Malcolm not being there and her behavior's not odd at all. Her eyes have to look somewhere.
shareI know he is misleading me. I just think it could have been done better is all.
shareHow could it have been done better? She was quickly glancing at something behind him and you thought she was looking at him. That's exactly what the director wanted.
shareNo. She looked right at him. Based on the positioning of the previous shot, if you follow her eye-line, you know she is looking right at his face. An eye line is something directors of films and actors are very very aware of. The director should have got her to just look in that general direction (where he would logically sit) and not literally look at a fellow actor and time a reaction just after he spoke. Also her behavior should be just generally pensive, like She is missing her dead Ex Husband and not acting as though she is giving the silent treatment to a Husband that is actually there when he is actually not. Its a minor point, but an interesting one since it affects the believability of the twist on a second viewing.
shareShe looked right at him.
An eye line is something directors of films and actors are very very aware of.
Also her behavior should be just generally pensive, like She is missing her dead Ex Husband and not acting as though she is giving the silent treatment to a Husband that is actually there when he is actually not.
Its a minor point, but an interesting one since it affects the believability of the twist on a second viewing.
OP You thick *beep* twat!
shareThis is a reply to the whole thread as it stands now, not just the original post.
By the way, let's always warn people when a thread starts to venture into spoiler territory. This one is there.
There's no need to debate whether Olivia Williams merely happens to glance in the direction of Bruce Willis (not a flaw) or absolutely looks him in the eye though her character shouldn't see him (a flaw) or is playing a character who can see the dead (a puzzling complication). The character Anna is commemorating a wedding anniversary as she and Malcolm ought to have done together. It's perfectly natural for her to imagine -- not hallucinate, not see the dead, but simply imagine -- Malcolm sitting across from her and to look where his face would be.
The bitterness that we see in Anna's gloom is all right, too. Even apart from the tragic twinge of anger that people are known to feel toward loved ones who have "left" them by dying, Anna must feel a more general anger at the fate that ended Malcolm's life and blighted her own. When she says "Happy anniversary" at the end of the scene, we can get her meaning by mentally appending the word indeed. She's not addressing her imaginary Malcolm then, but protesting against their fate.
I'd say the scene was carried off with just the right touch by all concerned. It works one way in a certain context of information and assumptions, and it works another way in a different context.
Sadly it does not. It ruined the film for everyone.
shareRuined it for everyone? Then am I a ghost that doesn't know it's dead?
Just kidding. Don't mind me. And please don't struggle so hard to be King of the Mountain. The remaining time till you shuffle off your own mortal coil will be more fun, and you'll stand a better chance of really having everyone arrayed around you as allies.
Haha you're special. I'm going to stream this film 10 times just for you.
shareAm watching the movie now and saw this scene, a couple laughs right as Willis is talking to her about being distant etc, and she looks at that. The couple is behind where Willis sat down, so it's very clever how the misdirection was used.
shareAm watching the movie now and saw this scene, a couple laughs right as Willis is talking to her about being distant etc, and she looks at that. The couple is behind where Willis sat down, so it's very clever how the misdirection was used.
nah dont buy that - its a misdirection you think you see her stare into his eyes because you expect to see her do that....but again everyone has an opinion...
shareThe table behind theirs makes a loud noise, you can here it in the background. That's what cathches her eye. She's looking not looking at Malcolm she's looking at thevtable behind hers. That's why it's such a quick glance.
share