Can a movie be about the end of the world when the world is not at risk of ending?
Advantageous would try to argue yes. The entire movie is about the end of Gwen, her world, and the effects of this on others close to her. Yet, what I found interesting about this film was that during class—when everyone was asked to choose what the movie was about—no one mentioned the end of the world. Why was this?
Perhaps the movie left Gwen’s world underdeveloped. Overall, the film tried to develop her world. It would constantly thrust viewers into Gwen’s world and the people in it: her daughter, her parents, her cousins, her coworkers, the parents of Jules’ friends, and more. These scenes and relationships were packed with emotion and allowed the viewer to get a better sense of Gwen’s world. I was beginning to realize how much she meant to others. However, other than her daughter and possibly her coworker, Fisher, the film never fully developed any of her relationships. Before I could truly understand her meaning to someone and the impact her loss would have on them, the film would whisk me away to somewhere and someone else. Instead of diving in and focusing on a relationship, the film would move on to another. Instead of examining a single theme like friendship, family, trust, betrayal, forgiveness, or more, the film would move on to another. These relationships and themes always felt superficial; they were not given enough time to grow. Because of this, Gwen’s world felt drastically underpopulated.
Is it really the end of the world when only one or two people are truly affected by it? When an underdeveloped world comes crashing down, is it the end of the world, or is it just the end of a person?