Skip to main content

Ah, but you're not a psycho.


Dressed to Kill
(1980)

We follow ostensibly the lead female character, who embarks on an activity that she has moral qualms over. But the first act ends with her murdered by person unknown, apparently a woman. An associate of the woman is in contact with her, aware of her crime. It falls to a relative of the female character to investigate her death, leading to a dramatic revelation of the murderer’s true identity. In the denouement, a rather cod-psychology explanation of the murderer’s motives is offered up.


Yes, it’s Brian De Palma’s Hitchcock fetish operating in full effect as he sprinkles liberal doses of Vertigo over his reheated Psycho (and then, at the very end, borrows from his own Carrie). In De Palma’s defence, all the borrowing here translates as a means to a set piece. He’s a director who is so skilled at dazzling visual displays that otherwise redundant films are worth checking out just for that one virtuoso sequence. He's defended himself against the Hitchcock criticism by pointing out that anyone working predominately in the suspense thriller genre would end up being compared to its greatest master. But if your obsessions are that similar (and the theme of voyeurism is perhaps the strongest link between two) you do yourself no favours by tracing round your predecessor's work as a template. There’s a wee bit of autobiography in here, which is also peculiar as it seems one of the less likely elements; the son of the murdered woman uses surveillance equipment to attempt to discover his mother’s killer (in real life, De Palma did likewise, at the behest of mum, to investigate whether his father was having an affair).


There’s no attempt to disguise the artifice of the script and the hokiness of the dialogue. You might argue that this is because De Palma doesn’t care and it’s all about the visual. But the script is so head-on in its borrowings you reach the conclusion that it’s actually indicative of De Palma’s twisted sense of humour at work. Almost every scene pushes the limits of its melodramatic (or dramatic) content and, twinned with Pino Donnaggio’s lush but unsubtle score, pushes the viewer to the point of mirth. Partly this is due to De Palma’s adoption of storytelling techniques in the ‘80s that seem slightly antique; as with Janet Leigh in Psycho, we are privy to Angie Dickinson’s internal processes during the opening section. De Palma achieves this through split screen, as she recalls an action that led to the current moment, or we follow her imagining and then contrast it with reality.


Played out mostly silently, accompanied by Donnaggio’s score, the first 30 minutes are visually sumptuous and often dreamlike; the library scene with it’s maze of tracking shots, is an astounding piece of filmmaking. Apparently De Palma had considered a voice-over might be necessary but decided it worked as he intended. And it does; you’re never in doubt as to Dickinson’s character’s thought processes, to the point that it becomes OTT (climaxing, one might say, as she is ravaged in the back of a taxi). This kind of half-mockery continues into her post-coital discovery that her one-afternoon stand had a venereal disease; see how the unfaithful wife is punished for behaviour! Wait a bit and she’ll be punished some more!


It was in this period that De Palma was regularly on the receiving accusations of misogyny, to the point that he willfully went and beckoned further criticism with Body Double. I could certainly see where critics were coming from (Pauline Kael not among them), but revisiting Dressed to Kill, it is far too lunatic a concoction to break down into any lazy characterisation of its architect.


The film became a bit of a legend not for De Palma’s technical prowess but because of Angie Dickinson’s soapy masturbation in the opening shower scene. De Palma makes gleeful use of Angie’s beaver-and-breast body double; a scene like this in a mainstream movie today would likely attract even more attention than it did (in the US it was released in both R and X form, with trims to the more graphic sex and violence; it’s interesting to note the comparisons on the DVD extras, as Europe got the full monty).


The violence is sporadic but fairly extreme too; it’s been suggested that De Palma went to places Hitchcock would have gone if censorship had permitted (and Frenzy may be an argument in favour of this view). I’m not overly familiar with the giallo genre, but I wonder if Hitch would have been so influenced by it the way De Palma is here. Of course, it also fits into the stalk’n’slash genre that was at its height around this period.


De Palma isn’t exactly spent after his opening act, but he follows a decidedly more routine course of daffy plotting and heroine endangerment. The highlight is the sustained pursuit of Nancy Allen’s high-class hooker into a subway and onto a train (a setting that De Palma would return to for both Carlito’s Way and Mission: Impossible). When it comes to the climax, it’s all over quite abruptly (ahem), before we head for a self-consciously cheesy explanation of the transsexual condition and fake-out endings (including a fantastically freaky psychiatric hospital).


In terms of performances, Angie Dickinson’s superb in the opening section, as effect as Janet Leigh was in the film De Palma is aping. And Keith Gordon is winningly fried as her obsessive science geek son (now a director, although I’ll always know him best for Static). Not much family resemblance there, though. The recording equipment angle would be the focus of De Palma’s next film (and one of his best), Blow Out. Nancy Allen, then wife of the director, had her hooker role especially written for her by hubbie(!). Much as I like Allen, and as peppy as she is delivering her dialogue (“Are you going to pump me out here or are you going to invite me in?”), she doesn’t really have the presence to strike a balance with her co-stars. Who also include Michael Caine and Dennis Franz.


Franz is a hoot, playing a proto-version of his TV police detectives, one who is quite willing to send someone into danger if he can’t get what he needs within the law. As unlikely a character as he is, he brings an earthiness to the role that asks you to suspend belief in this strange mélange; his character shouldn’t fit in, but for some reason it does.


Caine’s on full lizard-eyes form. Reportedly his role was earmarked for Connery (presumably without his ‘tache). This was the final part a trilogy of terror for him at this point, to mixed results (the others being The Hand and The Island). He’s never less than watchable (trying getting through his first scene with Dickinson without fixating on his poised tea cup) but even De Palma comments that Caine saw the role as a welcome break after more energetic running and jumping action fare.


The truth of his character’s identity is signposted enough as it is, but it does make for the occasionally amusing line (Dr Levy, who has been treating “Bobbi” comments on meeting Caine for the first time, “Why don’t we go to my office and we’ll try to get in touch with her”). Indeed, part of the enjoyment of the role is seeing the employment by De Palma of devices to telegraph the character’s processes (whenever Caine becomes aroused, he looks in a mirror). Knowing that his alter ego was played throughout by Susanna Clemm (who also appears as Detective Luce) would be an annoying cheat if the film weren’t so wholly unapologetic in its approach to verisimilitude.


A brazenly ridiculous film, then but so dazzling visually that it achieves a kind of giddy glory. I suppose you might argue that De Palma could have better directed his talents towards something of more obvious merit than Hitchcock knock-offs as, for all the criticism he receives, he’s no second-rate hack. But, removed from the controversy he created at the time, his technical mastery is well worth revisiting. 

**** 



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …