From an art-house point of view, this is probably one of the best films of the year. The opening sequence with throngs of people engaged in a tomato battle lends itself well to the associations we generally have when we think of the color red. Red is a color that can be considered a general theme of the movie. Later on in the movie, we see Tilda Swinton scrubbing the red paint from her porch, a quite simple but effective metaphor: There is blood on her hands, because she didn't respond appropriately to her son's weird behavior.
The director also uses food in an artistic way. Throughout the entire movie we see shredded food, sandwiches with red jam turned upside down and lychees devoured by the evil son. All this to give the entire movie a notion of I don't know what, disgust maybe. This artistic take on the topic illustrates the feelings of the mother, her feeling of guilt, her inaptitude to come to terms with the tragedy and her confusion as to what really happened. Like a poem is often a better way of conveying the feelings one has regarding a particular subject matter, this movie describes the feelings of a mother whose son went on a killing spree better than a documentary probably could, but that's about it when we talk about the advantages of an artistic take on the subject matter. If, regarding this movie, we venture to take a reality check, the film has quite a few shortcomings. For example: The son goes on a killing spree at his school, however, not one single scene shows him at school conversing or interacting with class mates or teachers. The film focuses on the family and on the family only, so why does he kill his class mates? The bow and arrow massacre also is hardly credible. If a guy shot students with a bow and arrow instead of using a gun, it's hard to believe that he could manage to kill so many in a gym. After the first arrow, wouldn't the students run towards him, wrestling him down before he could take a second shot? The film also wants to make us believe that Kevin was born evil (the Play-the-ball scene), negating the fact that many of the real school shooters were ordinary children until they were bullied by their class mates so extensively that it gradually changed their personality and perception of life.
And the reactions of the parents: John C. Reilly again plays a doofus character who has no clue whatsoever about what's going on in his family, while at the same time being a successful and well-off man who can afford to buy a great house and many other things. Sorry, but it doesn't wash. Bottom line: If you are into art-house movies this is a great movie, if you want to learn something about school shootings, refrain from watching this.
The director also uses food in an artistic way. Throughout the entire movie we see shredded food, sandwiches with red jam turned upside down and lychees devoured by the evil son. All this to give the entire movie a notion of I don't know what, disgust maybe. This artistic take on the topic illustrates the feelings of the mother, her feeling of guilt, her inaptitude to come to terms with the tragedy and her confusion as to what really happened. Like a poem is often a better way of conveying the feelings one has regarding a particular subject matter, this movie describes the feelings of a mother whose son went on a killing spree better than a documentary probably could, but that's about it when we talk about the advantages of an artistic take on the subject matter. If, regarding this movie, we venture to take a reality check, the film has quite a few shortcomings. For example: The son goes on a killing spree at his school, however, not one single scene shows him at school conversing or interacting with class mates or teachers. The film focuses on the family and on the family only, so why does he kill his class mates? The bow and arrow massacre also is hardly credible. If a guy shot students with a bow and arrow instead of using a gun, it's hard to believe that he could manage to kill so many in a gym. After the first arrow, wouldn't the students run towards him, wrestling him down before he could take a second shot? The film also wants to make us believe that Kevin was born evil (the Play-the-ball scene), negating the fact that many of the real school shooters were ordinary children until they were bullied by their class mates so extensively that it gradually changed their personality and perception of life.
And the reactions of the parents: John C. Reilly again plays a doofus character who has no clue whatsoever about what's going on in his family, while at the same time being a successful and well-off man who can afford to buy a great house and many other things. Sorry, but it doesn't wash. Bottom line: If you are into art-house movies this is a great movie, if you want to learn something about school shootings, refrain from watching this.