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 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…

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

I don't like bugs. You can't hear them, you can't see them and you can't feel them, then suddenly you're dead.

Blake's 7 2.7: Killer

Robert Holmes’ first of four scripts for the series, and like last season’s Mission to Destiny there are some fairly atypical elements and attitudes to the main crew (although the A/B storylines present a familiar approach and each is fairly equal in importance for a change). It was filmed second, which makes it the most out of place episode in the run (and explains why the crew are wearing outfits – they must have put them in the wash – from a good few episodes past and why Blake’s hair has grown since last week).
The most obvious thing to note from Holmes’ approach is that he makes Blake a Doctor-substitute. Suddenly he’s full of smart suggestions and shrewd guesses about the threat that’s wiping out the base, basically leaving a top-level virologist looking clueless and indebted to his genius insights. If you can get past this (and it did have me groaning) there’s much enjoyment to be had from the episode, not least from the two main guest actors.

When two separate events occur simultaneously pertaining to the same object of inquiry we must always pay strict attention.

Twin Peaks 1.5: The One-Armed Man
With the waves left in Albert’s wake subsiding (Gordon Cole, like Albert, is first encountered on the phone, and Coop apologises to Truman over the trouble the insulting forensics expert has caused; ”Harry, the last thing I want you to worry about while I’m here is some city slicker I brought into your town relieving himself upstream”), the series steps down a register for the first time. This is a less essential episode than those previously, concentrating on establishing on-going character and plot interactions at the expense of the strange and unusual. As such, it sets the tone for the rest of this short first season.

The first of 10 episodes penned by Robert Engels (who would co-script Fire Walk with Me with Lynch, and then reunite with him for On the Air), this also sees the first “star” director on the show in the form of Tim Hunter. Hunter is a director (like Michael Lehman) who hit the ground running but whose subsequent career has rather disapp…

An initiative test. How simply marvellous!

You Must Be Joking! (1965)
A time before a Michael Winner film was a de facto cinematic blot on the landscape is now scarcely conceivable. His output, post- (or thereabouts) Death Wish (“a pleasant romp”) is so roundly derided that it’s easy to forget that the once-and-only dining columnist and raconteur was once a bright (well…) young thing of the ‘60s, riding the wave of excitement (most likely highly cynically) and innovation in British cinema. His best-known efforts from this period are a series of movies with Oliver Reed – including the one with the elephant – and tend to represent the director in his pleasant romp period, before he attacked genres with all the precision and artistic integrity of a blunt penknife. You Must Be Joking! comes from that era, its director’s ninth feature, straddling the gap between Ealing and the Swinging ‘60s; coarser, cruder comedies would soon become the order of the day, the mild ribaldry of Carry On pitching into bawdy flesh-fests. You Must Be Joki…

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

Luck isn’t a superpower... And it isn't cinematic!

Deadpool 2 (2018)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps it’s because I was lukewarm on the original, but Deadpool 2 mercifully disproves the typical consequence of the "more is more" approach to making a sequel. By rights, it should plummet into the pitfall of ever more excess to diminishing returns, yet for the most part it doesn't.  Maybe that’s in part due to it still being a relatively modest undertaking, budget-wise, and also a result of being very self-aware – like duh, you might say, that’s its raison d'être – of its own positioning and expectation as a sequel; it resolutely fails to teeter over the precipice of burn out or insufferable smugness. It helps that it's frequently very funny – for the most part not in the exhaustingly repetitive fashion of its predecessor – but I think the key ingredient is that it finds sufficient room in its mirthful melee for plot and character, in order to proffer tone and contrast.

Ain't nobody likes the Middle East, buddy. There's nothing here to like.

Body of Lies (2008)
(SPOILERS) Sir Ridders stubs out his cigar in the CIA-assisted War on Terror, with predictably gormless results. Body of Lies' one saving grace is that it wasn't a hit, although that more reflects its membership of a burgeoning club where no degree of Hollywood propaganda on the "just fight" (with just a smidgeon enough doubt cast to make it seem balanced at a sideways glance) was persuading the public that they wanted the official fiction further fictionalised.

Well, who’s going to monitor the monitors of the monitors?

Enemy of the State (1998)
Enemy of the State is something of an anomaly; a quality conspiracy thriller borne not from any distinct political sensibility on the part of its makers but simple commercial instincts. Of course, the genre has proved highly successful over the years so it's easy to see why big name producers like Jerry Bruckheimer and Don Simpson would have chased that particular gravy boat. Yet they did so for some time without success; by the time the movie was made, Simpson had passed away and Bruckheimer was flying solo. It might be the only major film in the latter's career that, despite the prerequisite gloss and stylish packaging, has something to say. More significant still, 15 years too late, the film's warnings are finally receiving recognition in the light of the Edward Snowden revelations.

In a piece for The Guardian earlier this year, John Patterson levelled the charge that Enemy was one of a number of Hollywood movies that have “been softening us up f…

Like an antelope in the headlights.

Black Panther (2018)
(SPOILERS) Like last year’s Wonder Woman, the hype for what it represents has quickly become conflated with Black Panther’s perceived quality. Can 92% and 97% of critics respectively really not be wrong, per Rotten Tomatoes, or are they – Armond White aside – afraid that finding fault in either will make open them to charges of being politically regressive, insufficiently woke or all-round, ever-so-slightly objectionable? As with Wonder Woman, Black Panther’s very existence means something special, but little about the movie itself actually is. Not the acting, not the directing, and definitely not the over-emphatic, laboured screenplay. As such, the picture is a passable two-plus hours’ entertainment, but under-finessed enough that one could easily mistake it for an early entry in the Marvel cycle, rather than arriving when they’re hard-pressed to put a serious foot wrong.