MovieChat Forums > We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011) Discussion > The Control of Information (spoilers)

The Control of Information (spoilers)


We Need to Talk About Kevin is a film that really astounded me when it comes to controlling the information that it gives to its viewers to maximize tension. The film takes place largely as flashbacks after the incident has happened. What we see in the film thus teases us and plays with our imaginations about what that event was. It does this by showing us information that we might not understand, and then when calling back to that information so we can understand not only the larger picture, but how it has affected Eva.

In this film, there are three kinds of information that are presented to us: visual information, auditory information, and information received from dialogue.

Visual information: We see images, brief flashes from the incident, to know that something has happened and to capture our attention. This is not a new cinema trick. What this film does so astoundingly is visual metaphors and visual comparisons. Take, for example, the opening shot. We see an open window, the breeze gently blowing the drapes. We don't understand what this image means, yet, but in the end of the film, we see the same shot composition as Eva discovers the bodies of her husband and daughter and now we understand the resonance this one shot has. Throughout the film you can see these visual comparisons of one shot to another shot with poetic relevance: the same shot composition of Eva sitting on a bench, once at a hospital and a second time at prison. Or the shot of her taking the eggshells out of her mouth, and how it perfectly mirrors the shot of Kevin biting his fingernails. This film mixes these in with visual metaphors that imply a darker meaning - and when we finally see that meaning, the imagery has a greater impact. For example, the shot of Eva driving home on Haloween night. The imagery of the costumed trick-or-treaters passing by the car is creepy and foreboding, but then we see the same composition and same visual imagery during the shots of her pulling into the school. By using visual metaphors, visual comparisons, and choosing just the right images of the past to show and at the right times, we discover that the whole story has really been told to us already - not the specific details of Kevin's grisly mass murder, but the emotional and traumatic significance of it to Eva.

This is also done through audio cues. Many audio cues in the first film can be heard which seem out of place, irrelevant, or specifically there to be called attention to. Later in the film, we can hear these cues as Eva remembers them, in the specific contexts that explain their relevance, and then we realize their true meaning. In this way the film provides us with auditory information that resonates in Eva's mind and strikes us as being significant, but doesn't let us put together the pieces until the end.

Information from dialogue is scarce compared to visual and auditory information, but it is used alongside visual cues to imply violent or unsavory events that Ramsay chose not to show. A strong example would be when Celia's eye is burned by the drain acid. We see the event that causes Eva to take out the drain acid and calls our attention to it, and we see in precise and focused visual detail as she takes off the child lock carefully and takes out the drain acid, then leaves it on the table as it fills the frame. Then, we do not see what happens to her eye, but we hear enough in the dialogue "Why did you leave out the drain cleaner?" "You were supposed to be taking care of her." Nobody has mentioned anything close to what actually happened, but we understand the full picture. just from these brief notes.

Whether or not you liked this film (a lot of people seem to think that it is a rather shallow horror film) You can't deny the art that went into the direction of this film, and the ingenious ways in which it builds tension by taking care of what information it gives to the audience. It doesn't say too much about what happened, but it doesn't say too little either: it gives the audience just what they need to know to be captivated and feel compelled and required to see the ending. That is the real mastery of this film.

reply

The book follows the same formula but is better at foreshadowing and limiting information until the last few chapters. We learn pretty much right away that Kevin killed students, but by the author's constant references to school shootings we assume Kevin took out classmates with a gun. For a while we wonder whether they will ever go into detail. It isn't until the last few chapters that details start to add up as they emerge and we suddenly realize Kevin used a crossbow. The last few chapters actually lay out the entire incident and how it was pulled off in much more detail than the film covered. It's a lot more disturbing whereas the film seemed to gloss over specifics.

reply

Nice analysis

reply

Solid post my man

reply