Almost There: Nicole Kidman in "To Die For"
Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 12:53PM 
This October, the Criterion Channel is celebrating all things death and murder, be it fantastical or otherwise. Indeed, amid its new collections, one can find a curated program of movies that reflect the idea of True Crime in some way or another. Gus Van Sant's pitch-black comedy To Die For is one of those films. The story of an ambitious weather girl with aspirations of TV fame who manipulates teenagers into killing her husband was a breakthrough for Nicole Kidman back in the mid-90s. After years of being systematically undervalued by audiences and critics alike, the actress got immense critical acclaim and came close to an Oscar nomination…
Our understanding of Nicole Kidman's Suzanne Stone is fragmented from the very beginning, long before a puzzle of testimonies further refracts our perception. The opening title sequence prepares the audience by introducing the protagonist through the facsimiles seen in magazines, newspapers, and newscasts. They are salacious spectacles of printed polemic, a media dream of a murderous mastermind crossed with a bimbo caricature. Yet, even when the movie's self-tape-like framing device manifests, Kidman's face filling the white void and talking directly to the camera, get a sense that it's as authentic as those glossy covers.
It's easy to see that she's performing, making the distance between the real Suzanne and us grow ever larger. Take how she talks as if stuck in a perpetual pitch meeting. Every interaction is another chance to sell herself and to promise a toxic French vanilla fantasy. And yet, Suzanne is not a good liar, nor is she a good actress. Of course, Nicole Kidman is a master of cinema, but she plays Suzanne as a terrible liar and unconvincing manipulator. She's creepy rather than endearing, her gestures so ingratiating they reveal insidiousness. But then, revulsion bleeds into awe for the audience, for Kidman rather than for Suzanne.
The actress is the one in control and with the star quality, carefully effacing those qualities from her screen presence to play this movie monster. Notice that Suzanne's less persuasive than she might realize. Her weather girl act is somewhat stilted, for instance. Vexing intensity bends the saleswoman-like vocal cadence out of shape, so much that one can taste the character's need to impress. Suzanne says nobody ever says no to her, but she goes about as if possessed by an animal fear that someone will. It's a killer's cold confidence mixed with a wannabee celebrity's irrational insecurity.
One would expect this type of character to look immaculate and infallible. However, Suzanne's got as many cracks as she has shiny surface. Those gaudy suits and Barbie face drip with desperation, naked expressions of her hunger that contradict the woman's presupposed slyness. In other words, she wants to project an idea of sophistication, but her attempts never work. Suzanne Stone is failed seriousness, a monument of toxic camp. Moreover, she's ruthless beneath that mask of pink naïveté, like a bottle of Pepto Bismal laced with strychnine. That the gaggle of teenagers played by Casey Affleck, Allison Folland, and Joaquin Phoenix is fooled by her is more of a testament to their innocence than her genius.
With them, she uses sex as her preferred weapon, and Kidman performs the routine with sinister predation. Each morsel of attention and erotic fulfillment is a vacuous service the TV personality exchanges for murder. It's not merely that affection is transactional in Suzanne's worldview - everything is, and she'll be the winner of all deals in the business of living. By the end, those high schoolers are the only people she dominates over, the only ones she can bargain with and keep her upper hand. Kidman shows the awareness of this dynamic in how the protagonist moves around them, an adult looming over children. It's sickening and not in a good way.
The performance turns more standardly evil as Suzanne's plan unravels, manipulations growing increasingly deranged while her façade grows in paradoxical confidence. Before, she felt like someone running away from failure. After the murder, Kidman portrays her as an individual savoring success, a lion licking its claws to taste the blood of a fresh kill, getting drunk on the sanguine ambrosia. It's an expected turn, more commonplace than the remaining work, but Kidman's visible dedication to the grotesque role never wavers. She bites into the viciousness of Suzanne, illustrating the hypnotic pull of the TV cameras, the orgasmic trance their gaze elicits. To Suzanne Stone, infamy sounds like applause.
In retrospect, Kidman has delivered performances with much more finesse than this one. Still, there's no denying that her blunt approach works like gangbusters, signaling her stardom from within a black hole of fame-hungry inhumanity. The best way to appreciate it, though, is to see the big picture and not lose oneself in the garishness of individual moments. When we get too close, all we see is an amorphous mass of dots, bold impressions that are sometimes overwhelmed by their mercurial corniness. Instead, one needs to step back and consider the totality of the work, the pointillistic pop art mural of absolute insincerity that Kidman and Van Sant have painted for our pleasure.
From its Cannes premiere up until Oscar nomination morning, Nicole Kidman won plaudits left and right for To Die For, positioning herself as one of the big contenders of the season. She won the Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Comedy or Musical and the inaugural Critics Choice Award. BAFTA also recognized her work with a nomination, as did the New York Film Critics Circle, the Saturn, and the American Comedy Awards. Additionally, Kidman received several trophies from critics' organizations, including the prestigious BSFC prize for Best Actress. All things considered, the actress achieved mountainous precursor support, much more than a lot of other Almost There cases.
That year, the Academy's chosen five were Susan Sarandon in Dead Man Walking, Elisabeth Shue in Leaving Las Vegas, Sharon Stone in Casino, Meryl Streep in The Bridges of Madison County, and Emma Thompson in Sense & Sensibility. Sarandon won the gold after dominating the early 90s with four nominations in five years. While it's difficult to surmise who was fifth in the lineup, Stone's lack of precursor support beyond a Golden Globe victory and her film's lack of other Oscar nominations makes her out to be the most likely possibility. Martin Scorsese's leading lady never again caught AMPAS' attention, but Kidman would only grow more celebrated after this snub, winning her Oscar for The Hours.
As mentioned above, To Die For is newly available on the Criterion Channel. It's also streaming on Hulu, and you can rent it on various other platforms.
Reader Comments (20)
It's an extraordinary performance and for years it's been the one I wish she had won her Oscar for. This is a great description of Suzanne.
Also, Illeana Douglas was so entertaining in this (but then she usually is).
The big success for me is not imagining anyone else in the role,I believe Meg Ryan was first choice but went off to do French Kiss instead of this and everyone from Holly Hunter to Bridget Fonda were mentioned.
I find Nicole hilarious in this role,her sheer self belief reminds me of Reese in Election,if no one believes in them they'll go to any lengths to make it happen for themselves.
This is my favourite Phoenix performance,he's just dead on with that devil may care not too bright slacker of the early to mid 80's
You also had to be around when Kidman was undervalued and many snipers claimed she was getting roles due to Cruise and her talent proved how worthy she was of our close attention.
I think to that Stone was 5th and she stays,I can' think of anyone who could've pulled off Ginger the way she did not even 1st choices Griffith and Pfeiffer.
If I had to get rid of anyone it would be Thompson as It was the last of her period performances and the weakest though she's good as ever and she was winning screenplay.
Sarandon was better before her win but Claudio it was time as you mentioned
All in all it's a solid line up that could've have better with a Kidman nod.
Nathaniel totally forced you to write this. I hope you're in a safe place.
I don't think Stone was 5th, she gave one of the best performances of the year, right there with Shue. In this lineup Thompson is the weakest link. Casino should've been nominated for Best Film, Director, Cinematography, Costume & editing and Sharon should have won, For me, it's : Stone> Shue>Streep>Sarandon>Thompson. But I would've nominated Bates instead of Thompson.
Love this flick and that cast. It's also the first time I was blown away by Kidman's work and it has remained in my favorite five of her performances, along with Moulin Rouge!, The Others, Dogville and Big Little Lies S1.
As far as Oscar goes, I'd have replaced Stone with Kidman and given the statue to Streep.
If I recall correctly, there was some chatter that Shue could miss, so wouldn't surprise me if she was fifth instead of Stone, who did tons of self-campaigning that season.
If Kidman was a young actress/half of a megastar couple today, I think she would 100% be Oscar-nominated. But in the 1990s, votes were far more likely to award star-making turns from younger up and coming/celebrity actresses like Kidman rather than going for more challenging performances. Especially when the film wasn't a natural fit for the Academy in other categories. I think that's why Melanie Griffith, Julia Roberts, and others got in for great star performances, when Kidman got left out.
I love your description of Suzanne, even though I think I like this film and performance more. However, Nicole makes Suzanne such a phony without ever going overboard that it truly impresses. And it's pretty daring for an actress, with her trajectory at the time, to take something like this on. It's easy to see why, post-Oscar, she took on films like Birth, Fur, Dogville and others that most actresses would have overlooked. Her taste are unconventional and she constantly challenges herself. She's also great at creating friction between herself and the viewer while still creating real people.
I know this is minor but Kidman has yet to receive an Oscar nod for an R rated movie.
I LOVE THIS FILM! As a fan of Gus Van Sant and Nicole Kidman, this is one of my favorite films that they did as I await for them to work together again as I think Van Sant is in need of a hit film and then he can go back to doing experimental films again.
Still, this is incredible as I love the sense of charm and vanity that Kidman displays in the film as she wasn't afraid to act bitchy and mean but is also so funny. I was 15 when I saw it on TV and I thought... "shit... she knocked this out of the park" and I never got that from Tom Cruise during that time as he would do that with Magnolia and that is it. Kidman I think ended up eclipsing Cruise as the better actor as she still does interesting things while he continues to be...
TOM CRUISE IN... KWAP-PLA and then he... WAM! OOOH!!! BAHH!!!! when he DUH-DUH and - DUH-DUH-DUH and BOO-PAH!!! He's become one of those people that are now doing the DERP-DE-DERP films but because it's action and he takes them so seriously. It's now the BAP-BAH!
I have said this before and I will say it again : Stone should have gone Supporting for Casino. She could have very easily won and Kidman would have been nominated in Lead.
Not a big Kidman fan... but I found her great in this movie.
Definitely top 10 Kidman, and, therefore, awards-worthy.
But it was a strong lineup without her, and it had the weird randomness of Sarandon being the first name alphabetically that I've always enjoyed.
still think this is her best on-screen performance and that's saying a lot considering all the stellar work she delivered after
This is very likely a textbook example of how the voting system works. The actors who voted either named Kidman in the first two slots, but no one else voted for her. Once, the final rounds of tabulation were reached she did not get the number of votes needed (1/6 of the total plus one vote) whereas Shue and Thompson did--their films had wider support. I think Streep and Stone were probably the first two to make the threshold. Then, Thompson had support for the writing/acting double and Sarandon was running on an "its time" campaign.
Loved Kidman in this and have been a big fan ever since. Her recent "Nine Perfect Strangers" was weak in many ways, although Nicole's performance was fine. I have a group of gay friends who for the most part can't stand Kidman. That's OK with me, because I can't stand Tom Cruise.
Also for me these were the film and the perf who started my Kidman Fever. I was so happy when she got the Golden Globe and sorry when she was shut out at the Oscars (Ampas took its time with her and in general have been through the year quite…mmm…cautious). Best Actress 1995 line-up is widely discussed but I would have replaced Thompson with Kidman and Stone would have been a bombastic winner (and so Shue or Streep)
This was a very strong Best Actress lineup after the dreadful 1994 class. A nom- (and win?) worthy Meryl Streep. The never-topped-it Elisabeth Shue. Stone, showing she had chops. Sarandon with career momentum and a performance to match.
Emma Thompson was the weak link here and should've been replaced by Kidman. I actually don't know who I'd vote for.. so many good options for once.
Her true star-making performance.
Now I want a reunion between her and Phoenix!
ScottC -- Douglas is delightful in this, I agree.
MrRipley79 -- I used to share your thoughts on Thompson, but recent re-watches made me appreciate her work more. I do need to revisit CASINO, though.
Peggy Sue -- It was something that I pitched, actually :D
HowdareU -- Everyone in this lineup is good. Me saying that Stone was probably fifth isn't a read on her performance, simply a deduction based on the precursors and AMPAS' general rejection of Scorsese's film.
Working stiff -- Streep's also my choice from the '95 lineup. However, Moore is my favorite of the overall year.
Andrew Carden -- Didn't know about that. Thanks for the insight.
Joe G. -- That friction you mention is something I really admire about Kidman.
/3rtful -- And those are some of her best performances!
thevoid99 -- I wonder what a Kidman/Van Sant reunion would look like. Honestly, I haven't been excited about the director's work since MILK.
Michael R -- That's an interesting idea. Who do you think she'd have replaced in the Supporting lineup?
rdf -- Glad you appreciated her here, even while not being a fan.
Mike in Canada -- Definitely top 10 Kidman.
eduardo -- I like the performance but wouldn't go that far. My favorite's probably BIRTH.
Lenard W -- That's an astute overview of how the vote might have panned out.
rrrich7 -- I still need to watch NINE PERFECT STRANGERS :/
Mirko -- Cautious is one way to put it. I might have used another word, 'stingy' perhaps.
Paranoid Android -- What would your lineup look like? What's amazing about 1995 is that the likely runners-up would have made a lineup for the ages too. Kidman, Leigh, Bates, etc.
Fadhil -- That would be very cool. They're so good together here.
There are castings that you just know altered history. This is one of them. She's perfect here. I wish she'd been nominated, but that was a very strong year. I can't imagine she'd have missed any other year. I wish she'd make something like this again and away from the miniseries.