De Palma's Slices

email this story
read comments (18)
post a comment

When I think of the respectable and rewarding things about the films of Brian De Palma, I always think of those visual arias that are his well-known specialty -- those searing displays of virtuoso camerawork and choreography that are worked out just so.

My right-off-the-top-of-my-head favorites: (a) a fantasizing Angie Dickinson being mauled in the shower in Dressed to Kill, (b) Sissy Spacek's freckled hand reaching out of the grave to grab a horrified Amy Irving, (c) Al Pacino lying on a Grand Central Station escalator in Carlito's Way, (d) Tim Robbins meeting instant death when his face plate is removed during a space walk in Mission to Mars, and (e) Irving using her telekinetic powers in The Fury to make bad guy John Casse- vetes explode into pieces.

But I almost never think of De Palma's movies being good as entire creations because they really and truly stopped being that a long time ago. The last entirely decent De Palma film -- by which I mean a De Palma that didn't once make me squirm or groan or shake my head in sadness -- was Mission Impossible, although I did squirm here and there. Scarface was the last one before that. The last beginning-to-end 100% enjoyable De Palma film was The Phantom of the Paradise.

But I'll always admire De Palma for those little slices of cake. There's one of two of them in his latest, The Black Dahlia. Problem is, you have to sit through the whole film to enjoy them, and by that time they come along you're so numbed and despondent over the turgid, impossible-to-follow plot and florid acting and the general over-ladled quality of the damn thing that nothing seems so enjoyable as the thought of getting up and jamming.

Power of Silence<< previous | next >>Larry King knows

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on September 17, 2006 at 3:57 PM

comment #1

Dixon Steele says ...

Haven't seen the DePalma, but it reminds me of one of my favorite films, the underappreciated TRUE CONFESSIONS, which deals with the same case.

The performances are perfect and having just seen it again this weekend, I'm convinced it's every bit as good as CHINATOWN.

Posted by Dixon Steele at September 17, 2006 5:59 PM

comment #2

Jay T. says ...

So many reviewers are complaining about an over-complicated plot... it's FILM NOIR!!!!! That's a staple of the genre (The Big Sleep is a great example, in which the plot doesn't even tie up correctly but it doesn't matter because that's not the point).

Posted by Jay T. at September 17, 2006 6:10 PM

comment #3

D.Z. says ...

Um, Mission Impossible was horrible. It's the sort of film Michael Bay could have done, if he wasn't busy with The Rock.

Posted by D.Z. at September 17, 2006 7:08 PM

comment #4

ZacharyTF says ...

I was surprised that the article didn't mention Pauline Kael until the 10th one in. I figured she would be mentioned in the first few.

DePalma, probably more than any other director, has been a severe hit and miss guy. On the one hand you have Carrie, The Untouchables, Scarface, Mission Impossible and Femme Fatale. On the other hand, you have Mission to Mars, Snake Eyes, Raising Cain and the movie I consider to be the worst film ever, Bonfire of the Vanities.

I don't think I've ever seen a film of his that I was meh on. It was either I really liked or loved it or I hated it. No middle ground.

Posted by ZacharyTF at September 17, 2006 7:25 PM

comment #5

atticusrex says ...

Hey Jeff and the rest... I have always loved De Palma's camera work.

It's his thing and he does it better than most. I admit the script lets him down from time to time or studio interruptus ruins his movies.

Take Snake Eyes for instance. From the very beginning and up until we are in the hotel room with Nic and the gal with Gary about to knock on their door was brilliant filmmaking. Then boom the floor gives way and the movie sinks. I have always admired the way De Palma can move the camera so slowly, build the music and create thrilling tension with everything going into a slow motion mishmash.

But Jeff... I am surprised you didn't mention his best film in terms of his directing/storytelling style: Blow Out. Just take the opening few minutes... The screen is split into two. The camera stays fixed on each scene. On the left side we see/hear Travolta
going about his job and on the right side we see Travolta's living room with tv on and we can hear the newscaster. Right there and in a few mintues you have everything you need to know about Travolta's character and the plot of the movie and where will be at the climax... Simply brilliant storytelling.

All that said... I haven't forgiven him for Bonfires, Mars, Raising Cain (Even though it has his touches) and Wise Guys. My guilty pleasures of his are Dressed To Kill, Body Double and The Fury.
Sisters, Carrie, Scarface and Carlito's Way are Classics.
Casulities of War and The Untouchables are good and his M:1 1 is the best of the three so far... yet I really wish they would make one like the tv show... M:I is a Con... That is what we need to see. I would have listed War as a classic but there are better Nam movies and while I do like Untouchables and it stars God, I mean Connery and De Niro has fun as Capone... Costner didn't do it for me at all. He was wrong for that role. For some reason for me Coster does his best in Baseball or golf movies.
Point is I look forward to De Palma movies to see his skill set at work just like I do for Michael Mann and P.T. Anderson.

Posted by atticusrex at September 17, 2006 8:56 PM

comment #6

TKC says ...

Seriously -- no one's a big fan of Raising Cain? It's one of my favorite De Palmas, in part because it's the one where he's most tongue-in-cheek. (I love, for instance, the scene where he re-enacts, shot-for-shot, the sinking-car scene from "Psycho", and then -- just when you're congratulating yourself for recognizing the reference -- throws in another twist. Or the incredibly long tracking shot as Frances Sternhagen explains the backstory, always wandering out of frame and having to be pulled back in -- which seems like a joke about a character repeatedly coming close to ruining a director's shot. Or, if nothing else, the immortal line, "Watch out! You're going to kill somebody with that sundial!") Sure, it's over-the-top and insane, but in the best possible way.

Posted by TKC at September 17, 2006 9:26 PM

comment #7

Nate West says ...

We complain about these guys who are hit or miss of late--De Palma, Scorsese, Woody Allen, Malick--but we will miss them when they're gone. At least for now, with each new picture, there's a possibility of something breathtaking happening on screen. Given current conditions, I'm grateful for just the chance of a spark.

Posted by Nate West at September 17, 2006 10:15 PM

comment #8

sprofessor says ...

I like De Palma but he's not a complete filmmaker in the way some of the other movie brat directors were IMO. He's certainly very talented and is a brilliant visualist. In an age were lazy directors depend upon dialogue, De Palma really understands pure cinema - using moving images to tell a story (this shouldn't be confused with using pretty pictures, like Bay, Scott etc do).

But I'm not sure he belongs making feature films. I really wish there was more room for other shorter kinds of films. I'd love to see De Palma make a silent film, he'd be brilliant at it. But as long as he has to use dialogue he's dependant on the script, and knowing a good script from a god-awful one is not De Palma's strong point.

Posted by sprofessor at September 17, 2006 10:23 PM

comment #9

Dixon Steele says ...

Once read an interview with DePalma in which he said if it was up to him he'd have no dialogue in his films.

Posted by Dixon Steele at September 17, 2006 10:39 PM

comment #10

Colin says ...

I'm going to agree with Jay T., here: the somewhat complicated plot is genre appropriate. And, I also don't get what most critics are saying. I found the plot to be pretty easy to follow. I mean, sure, for a good part of the movie, a lot of things happen that you can't quite explain at the time, but then in the last few acts, everything seemed to be explained fairly well. I'm realy confused as to what most critics found inexplicable.

Also, while I thought the film was far from perfect, it did have a terrific ending. In that sense, it's similar to another Ellroy adaptation, "Cop." On the other hand, the much better "L.A. Confidential" is much better throughout, but it's ending is terrible.

Posted by Colin at September 18, 2006 6:15 AM

comment #11

Rich S. says ...

I'm reminded of an old SNL commercial for "Brian DePalma's Clams." The tag line was something along the lines of, "Watch as DePalma comes out of retirement every couple of years to rip off Hitchcock and give his wife [at the time Nancy Allen] a job." Like Stephen King, I've always enjoyed DePalma as a talented hack who is most successful "riffing" on the true geniuses that came before them. I think DePalma is more of a craftsman than an auteur. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Posted by Rich S. at September 18, 2006 7:36 AM

comment #12

sutter kane says ...

DePalma doesn't even qualify as hit-or-miss. It's hit, miss miss miss miss, hit. Jeff is correct that he hasn't done a decent movie since MI, and I'm sorry folks, but Femme Fatale is a train wreck thanks to the ending- it's worse that High Tension. How you could have Rebecca Romijn doing a strip tease, making out with another girl, and still have the movie suck that badly is beyond me. Dahlia is proof positive- DePalma is done.

Posted by sutter kane at September 18, 2006 10:02 AM

comment #13

christian says ...

In the end, it all comes down to the material.

If Depalma has a good script, he can make a good movie.

The lessons of the 70's breed of great directors is that they believed a great camera move meant a great film.

Story, story, story...

Posted by christian at September 18, 2006 11:32 AM

comment #14

MASON says ...

I read the script when Fincher was attached. Same writer and it was very good, maybe even great.

It changed A LOT when DePalma came on board. And in stupid-ass ways that could only be DePalma's fault.

Posted by MASON at September 18, 2006 1:12 PM

comment #15

christian says ...

True dat. And I meant assuming the director listens to the script. But that's my point.

Posted by christian at September 18, 2006 1:30 PM

comment #16

Jay T. says ...

Man, De Palma just BUTCHERED Ellroy's book... one of the best sequences (that takes place south of the border) was cut from the film completely, marking the exact point that it turns into pure crap. What a shame; if only David Fincher had been allowed to make this movie.

Posted by Jay T. at September 18, 2006 7:06 PM

comment #17