Skip to main content

You have a twin sister?


Passion
(2012)

Compared to a number of his contemporaries (John Carpenter, Joe Dante, John Landis, David Lynch), Brian De Palma’s post-millennium CV looks relatively robust; five films, where some of those names are lucky to be able to claim two. Sure, it’s half the tally of Spielberg, but you can count the filmmakers as prolific as he is on one the fingers of one hand (Woody, Clint). De Palma’s almost on a par with Robert Zemeckis. The difference being that Zemeckis’ name holds cachet. De Palma’s harbours cult-appeal, but in a slightly past-it, still-playing-in-the-same-sandbox kind of way.


It’s not like he ever went the full commercial route anyway. There were a couple of lucky accidents; the impact of Carrie, which he famously cast simultaneously with George Lucas for Star Wars. Scarface introduced him to the gangster milieu, which he returned to several times and was the home of possibly his finest combination of crowd-pleasing and visual pizazz (The Untouchables). But he never seemed willing to put aside his pet obsessions aside for very long. Bonfire of the Vanities extinguished his studio clout as quickly as it had arrived and, if Mission: Impossible boasted some of his favoured themes and cinematic grammar (surveillance, the extended multi-perspective set piece) while yielding the biggest success of his career, the goodwill it garnered didn’t last long.


De Palma’s 2000s have been patchy to say the least. Mission to Mars featured a couple of good set pieces but was no more distinguished than the same year’s Red Planet. The Black Dahlia was another flirtation with big Hollywood productions, back to the crime genre, but the result was horribly miscast and botched in ways that brought out the worst in its director. The mannered melodrama that works so well in his self-spun films detracted from the long-awaited translation of James Ellroy’s novel. I must revisit Femme Fatale, his first solo screenplay since Raising Cain (David Koepp scripted Snake Eyes, based on De Palma’s idea; that film is a beserk visual feast and makes the most of Nic Cage in full whacko mode). I found it utterly unmemorable; even if you don’t care for his pictures, they’re usually at least arresting. I haven’t yet seen Redacted, a low budget Iraq War drama; political and social commentary have never been his strong suit (even though that’s where he started out with his ‘60s pictures), and Casualties of War and Bonfire both managed to overegg their themes or flat-out mutilate them.


Passion is a confluence of much that is best and worst in De Palma. The script is his, and the bare bones of the plot resemble several of his classic psychological thrillers. These films in his oeuvre are the stuff of lazy labelling (a Hitchcock imitator, they say, as if someone who shares Hitch’s rare flair for visual storytelling is to be dismissed). This picture is a giddy melange of kinky passions, cruel manipulations, voyeurism, doppelgangers, masked assailants, fake-out dreams sequences (or are they?), sudden reveals and elegant-but-bloody murders. And throughout, there is the director’s cold, gleaming eye. It’s a gaze he shares with both Hitchcock and David Cronenberg (albeit, more pronounced in Cronenberg’s work up to the end of the ‘80s); a clinical detachment that defines him as borderline misanthropic (his most ardent detractors would claim he is straight-up misogynistic, but that seems like far too easy and emotive a tack to take). His characters are merely players in an elaborate and intricate game.


Because his camera remotely observes, rather than identifies with, his protagonists, there’s a sense that anyone in his films may be subject to the cruelty of sudden fate. It keeps viewers on their toes. Critic Pauline Kael was a huge advocate of the director. She delighted in his craftsmanship and wicked sense of humour. Then, she was one for going out on a limb and bucking the party line. Feting someone more used to taking brickbats (particularly during the early ‘80s, when he was prone to waving the worst excesses he was accused of in critics’ faces; see Body Double) was par for the course. But she was absolutely correct about his prowess and distinctiveness, and neither was she blind to his failings (one could do worse than read her essay on Scarface, a picture whose reputation has grown out of proportion to its merit).


As enjoyable as many of his early ‘80s pictures are, there was an indulgence to his pastiches of both Hitchcock and his own films that really needed stamping on. It’s why The Untouchables felt so fresh, a startling effective marriage of his skill in scene construction with a script that couldn’t be further from his pet obsessions. By the time he made Body Double, he was just trying to provoke, and there’s a slightly weary desperation to it; the set pieces are flawless, but he could do this in his sleep. This is the Catch-22 of the auteur; the things that make them famous are also the ones that eventually cause the well to run dry. Even someone as roundly acclaimed as Woody Allen has gone for stretches of uninspired doodling. Because we haven’t seen a new De Palma in five years, there’s a glorious recognition when one of his trademark devices surfaces. When the first split screen shot arrives, my reaction isn’t “Oh, he’s using that again”; it’s “Why does no one else have the acumen he does?”


Lest we forget, De Palma is now in his 70s. As an aging wunderkind, it’s at least gratifying that his approach has not devolved or become neutered. He only betrays his fogeyishness where he attempts to be relevant, which feel a little like an embarrassing granddad holding forth on the latest acts in the pop charts. It’s not as if his best movies relied on the zeitgeist anyway; they exist in their own microcosm, an artificially heightened plane that at best runs parallel to the real world and more truthfully refuses to be beckoned by contemporary relevance. So the foregrounded Macbooks, with cast members sat rapt before them, and conversations concerning YouTube rather jar. When De Palma sees fit to introduce references to a Ponzi scheme one character has become embroiled in, it is clumsy in a way we aren’t used to simply because De Palma isn’t the type to chase superficial topicality. Perhaps he felt the need to drop in such references to appeal to investors, to actually get the film made (although, I believe him when he says he’s always been a tech head – see Dressed to Kill for a bit of autobiographical surveillance) but it doesn’t mean that they don’t stick out like a sore thumb.


De Palma adapted Passion from the French film Crime d’amour, although you’d be forgiven for assuming the genesis was all his own. Rachel McAdam’s Berlin-based bitch ad agency boss Christine Stanford takes credit for protégée Isabelle James’ (Noomi Rapace) great idea. As Isabelle protests, and embarks on an affair with Christine’s beau (Paul Anderson) so Christine ups the psychological attacks and humiliations. Before long, murder is on the mind. Throw in a suggestion of S&M (the contents of Christine’s draw are very un-Rachel McAdams) and Isabelle’s devoted assistant (Karoline Herfurth), who also carries a torch for her, and you have all the necessary ingredients for De Palma to work his magic.


Unfortunately, as with The Black Dahlia, the casting is off. You can believe in McAdams as a manipulative mare, but not as the Sharon Stone agency boss type. Even less as a dirty little sexpot. She doesn’t have the maturity or presence. And Rapace, called on to be the shrinking, repressed violet, is more of a natural fit for the dominatrix of the relationship. There’s only a year between the actresses, so there’s never really a sense of mentor and pupil (indeed, Rapace carries a sense of worldy-wisdom lacking in McAdams). Herfurth is great as the impassioned junior, while Anderson seems to be having more fun playing a British tosser than the audience does watching him; he’s too unrefined to become a truly hissable cad.


The early scenes between the leading ladies are rather forced, with everyone trying too hard. De Palma is going for the exaggerated interactions of Dressed to Kill, but without that film’s lush aesthetic the performers are left high and dry. When Isabelle’s idea is revealed, “Asscam”, there’s a toe-curling feeling of how passé this all is, and it remains a mystery how the campaign received 10 million YouTube hits in five hours. The faux-hipness isn’t fooling anyone, particularly as this is also a movie where the one of the leads smokes away in her office as if she was running a business 30 years ago.


But, around the point when Christine ritually humiliates Isabelle in front of her colleagues, De Palma’s movie finally clicks into gear. He makes good narrative use of modern spy systems, something he’s right at home with, and by the time he ushers in the signature split screen sequence his movie has become as engrossing as the best of his twisted psychodramas. Also on the credit side, one of the key twists hinges on the abuse of prescription medicine; with this and Side Effects, maybe he isn't completely out of touch.


The big problem with the movie, which no amount of directorial flourish can overcome, is that it looks terrible. De Palma uses Pedro Almodovar’s regular DP, Jose Luis Alcaine, and he might have reasonably assumed that the results would yielded  a rich and sumptuous palate. But Passion looks dreadful. There’s no depth here. The visuals are flat, and the colours washed-out. The interiors never take on a life of their own; we are always conscious that this was filmed on sets (much like Cronenbrerg’s early work). The 1:85:1 aspect ratio feels restrictive when the grand spectacle kicks in. This is a far cry from the director’s definitive collaborations with Stephen H. Burum. Anyone who saw the fourth season of Damages will testify to how bad cinematography can kill a show or movie; this isn't quite so shocking, but we're used to an embarrassment of riches from De Palma. Pino Donaggio’s score also feels like a faint call back to better work. De Palma hasn’t so much let us down creatively as made poor choices of crew.


So the results are never dreamy enough to carry the full flavour of his narrative. It’s as if his mojo has been diffused by the faltering visuals. While the second half of the movie, with its trad-De Palma twists and double twists, goes a considerable way to making up for this, it remains disappointing. You can’t help but inwardly cheer when the director tops one dream sequence with another, hinges events on an all-important mislaid item, introduces the possibility of a character having a twin sister, or ends the movie in a way that is the maximum cliché of how we expect him to end a movie but is also irresistible. Yet it’s a significant disappointment that formerly his strongest constant, the gorgeous images, have deserted him on this occasion.


Passion is well worth seeing (it didn’t even merit a Blu-ray release in the UK and bypassed cinemas). The sad thing is, this is a director who can construct a narrative that is just as engaging as he was at his peak, and he still has the same talent for putting a scene together. Where he falters is partly with the random casting but mainly in an area I would never have countenanced. Passion looks cheap.

***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

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…

It looks like we’ve got another schizoid embolism!

Total Recall (1990)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven offered his post-mortem on the failures of the remakes of Total Recall (2012) and Robocop (2013) when he suggested “They take these absurd stories and make them too serious”. There may be something in this, but I suspect the kernel of their issues is simply filmmakers without either the smarts or vision, or both, to make something distinctive from the material. No one would have suggested the problem with David Cronenberg’s prospective Total Recall was over-seriousness, yet his version would have been far from a quip-heavy Raiders of the Lost Ark Go to Mars (as he attributes screenwriter Ron Shusset’s take on the material). Indeed, I’d go as far as saying not only the star, but also the director of Total Recall (1990) were miscast, making it something of a miracle it works to the extent it does.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013)
(SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

I am you, and you are me, and we are here. I am the dreamer. You are the dream.

Communion (1989)
(SPOILERS) Whitley Strieber’s Communion: A True Story was published in 1987, at which point the author (who would also pen Communion’s screenplay) had seen two of his novels adapted for the cinema (Wolfen and The Hunger), so he could hardly claim ignorance of the way Hollywood – or filmmaking generally – worked. So why then, did he entrust the translation of a highly personal work, an admission of/ confrontation with hidden demons/ experiences, to the auteur who unleashed Howling II and The Marsupials: Howling III upon an undeserving world? The answer seems to be that Strieber already knew director Philippe Mora, and the latter was genuinely interested in the authors’ uncanny encounters. Which is well and good and honourable, but the film entirely fails to deliver the stuff of cinematic legend. Except maybe in a negative sense.

Strieber professes dismay at the results, citing improvised scenes and additional themes, and Walken’s rendition of Whitley Strieber, protagonist…

My dear, sweet brother Numsie!

The Golden Child (1986)
Post-Beverly Hills Cop, Eddie Murphy could have filmed himself washing the dishes and it would have been a huge hit. Which might not have been a bad idea, since he chose to make this misconceived stinker.

So you made contact with the French operative?

Atomic Blonde (2017)
(SPOILERS) Well, I can certainly see why Focus Features opted to change the title from The Coldest City (the name of the graphic novel from which this is adapted). The Coldest City evokes a noirish, dour, subdued tone, a movie of slow-burn intrigue in the vein of John Le Carré. Atomic Blonde, to paraphrase its introductory text, is not that movie. As such, there’s something of a mismatch here, of the kind of Cold War tale it has its roots in and the furious, pop-soaked action spectacle director David Leitch is intent on turning it into. In the main, his choices succeed, but the result isn’t quite the clean getaway of his earlier (co-directed) John Wick.

He did it. He shut down the Earth.

Escape from L.A. (1996)
(SPOILERS) It seems it was Kurt Russell’s enthusiasm for his most iconic character (no, not Captain Ron) that got Escape from L.A. made. That makes sense, because there’s precious little evidence here that John Carpenter gave two shits. This really was his point of no return, I think. His last great chance to show his mettle. But lent a decent-sized budget (equivalent to five times that of Escape from New York) he squandered it, delivering an inert TV movie that further rubs salt in the wound by operating as a virtual remake of the original. Just absent any of the wit, atmosphere, pace and inspiration.