I love documentaries. Absolutely love them but i find the idea of showing bodies (and especially bodies of children) on film. As i understand it, only dianes body is shown but how shown is it... is this a film i should probably avoid?? Xx
shareIt's not graphic at all. Or hardly so.
They certainly do not show any bodies of children.
They show Diane for only a few seconds.
I didn't find that scene particularly graphic.
She just looked like she was sleeping on the ground. And there was a little bit of blood smeared here and there. Not much at all, really.
I think I remember her clothes being a bit disheveled.
I don't think the film (or that scene) is particularly graphic.
I don't think you need to avoid it.
On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not graphic and 10 is extremely graphic, I'd give the film a 1 or maybe a 2.
Just started watcbing it now and it says at the beginning that it is graphic.... im going to give it a good go x
shareOkay ive got to the bit where it shows her body and youre right. It is as if shes asleep... 1. Eye is ajar. Her arms are above her head. She has blackened eyes and nose. And blood is smeared on her hands. I still felt wrong after seeing it but im still in two minds as to what went on/wrong with diane.
R.i.p everyone involved
Yes.
I am a little surprised that they placed that "graphic warning".
Maybe they did so because it was shown in prime time?
Yeah I expected a lot worse , especially with so many people being involved
I was waiting for my hearse what came next was so much worse
I am a little surprised that they placed that "graphic warning".
... People are creeped out or bothered by all kinds of things.
Yeah, people like Kate
shareI found the burned out van and the SUV of the other men's car pretty graphic in itself. Also the man crying describing how he tried to save some of the children. The pic of the broken body of Diane, which was just alive 1/2 hour or so ago, also disturbed me pretty bad. Course I have PTSD.... Shouldn't have watched it maybe?
shareOne thing I'll never get over when it comes to that shot of her on the ground is the fact that I thought it looked NOTHING like her.
I get it, when you're in an accident you are not going to look like yourself. But even with her face all swollen and nose askew and whatnot, she looked like a completely different person. Her head looked like it had been shaved, and honestly she looked like she weighed even more than her last photos showed.
Not that I know exactly what she looked like in person, but when you look at photos of her and then that still of her after the accident, I still can't get over that it's the same person.
The ratio of people to cake is too big.
Yes, but I was just going to ask ...
How do you (or, we) know what she looked like?
If I remember, the film showed a few photo's of her. Not many. And weren't they all quite old, like of her wedding day and such?
The best "picture" I got of her was when she was storming in and out of that convenience store (on the videotape). And that didn't look too far off from that final photo of her in death.
(God rest her soul and the souls of the other deceased.)
She kind of looked different in all of her pictures due to fluctuating weight and using v. not using makeup. None of the pictures were consistent at all. Plus, her face was probably swollen due to her teeth problems, bad color due to smoke in the car/death, etc.
shareHer teeth were knocked out in the accident so that's probably why her face looked so different. In sure her nose was broken and she is very swollen. She also weighed 200 pounds, so I don't think she looked any bigger than in the gas station footage.
shareA burned out van is graphic? Is an object. It's lifeless.
shareThere is a disclaimer at the beginning so I expected some pretty gruesome images. I've seen other documentaries like the Paradise Lost trilogy which shows the dead children and several autopsy photos. It's pretty awful but I saw no reason to include Diane in this documentary. Permissions must have been granted to include her photo as none of the other victims were shown and all I can think about is Diane and Danny's Son, Bryan. For his sake alone this should not have been allowed. He is now 12. He can watch the documentary, he can Google images of his dead Mother. For that reason alone it shouldn't have happened
share