Blow Out
(1981)
Blow Out is one of
Brian De Palma’s best films, and one whose status has grown in the years since
its release. It’s a movie about the craft of making movies, and deconstructing
them. As such it pays homage to specific earlier pictures (Blow-up, The Conversation)
while maintaining the stylistic flourish that is so thoroughly De Palma. It’s a
movie all about the establishing idea, which it explores with astonishing
virtuosity. The only side effect of this is there’s a natural deflation when
the bag has run out of gas. Still, this is one of the director’s wittiest and
cleverest movies and, even if it’s restrained by his sometimes-grand guignol
standards, Blow Out pays off with
possibly the most twisted of any of his twisted endings.
The voyeurism/surveillance obsession that by this point
appears to be De Palma’s raison d’être as a filmmaker finally finds a more
elegant home than in the horror genre. This is De Palma’s conspiracy movie. But
the joke is, it’s an anti-conspiracy movie; the lone nut did do it. This puncturing of expectations is typical of the
ghoulish humour that permeates Blow Out,
as the director lays waste to the previous decade’s paranoia of malign intent
form unseen powers-that-be. De Palma seems set on confounding genre expectations
throughout, while simultaneously embracing them in a manner that borders on
parody. And yet, he isn’t seeking to subvert his narrative. Rather, he seems to
be saying that life’s just one long poor taste joke (Pauline Kael argues, in a
review feted by Quentin Tarantino, that De Palma plays it all straight; I’d counter that, if he’s doing that, the overblown
Pino Donaggio score is a misstep, since it invites sniggers in reply to its
gushing swoons). Maybe such biting of the hand that feeds him contributed to
the Blow Out’s box office failure.
There’s a dovetailing of his personal predilections with the commercial
instincts that served him so well in Carrie
and Dressed to Kill, but it wouldn’t
be until the ‘90s that he’d triumph in the spy/conspiracy genre, with the biggest
hit of his career (Mission: Impossible)
and Snake Eyes.
The most obvious conspiracy reference point in the movie is
the Zapruder film; the death of a politician caught for posterity. But De
Palma’s take is more mundane, and typically sexualised. The politician in
question, Governor George McRyan, is widely expected to announce his democratic
presidential candidacy but he has been set up for a Candid Camera canoodingly scenario by entrapment. That part, at
least, is an actual conspiracy; his
opponent wants him out of the picture, but through scandal rather than death. De
Palma’s scenario would be closer to Marilyn Monroe bringing down JFK, or more
specifically the Chappaquiddick Incident in which a passenger in Senator Ted
Kennedy’s car died when his vehicle plunged from a bridge off Chappaquiddick
Island. Kennedy pleaded guilty to leaving the scene, and the resulting scandal
was thought to be instrumental in his decision not to run for president in the
subsequent two elections. The death of Nelson Rockefeller several years before
the film was made has also been suggested as an inspiration. Murmurs were that
he died in the presence of an aide whom he may have been having an affair with.
It’s the grubby goings-on that interest De Palma, and in his mind one’s
downfall is more likely to result from carnal thoughts than a bid to change the
world. A TV report states that the
Senator has issued “a sweeping
condemnation of Whitehouse policies”, but that’s really par for the course
and we hear nothing more specific (compare this to The Parallax View, where the politician announces himself very
directly as a force opposing the status quo; so he has to go).
Jack: Is this known as obtaining objective
eyewitness testimony? Because if it is, forget it.
When it comes to cover-ups, the pressure on Travolta’s Jack
Terry is at the behest of aides keen to preserve the wholesome image of McRyan.
There’s no suggestion of threats to Jack’s life (or to Nancy Allen’s Sally, the
“escort” girl who was in McRyan’s car). At the hospital, having rescued Sally
from the watery tomb of the senator’s automobile following the crash, the
senator’s aide pleads with Jack to keep schtum. The police have been taken care
of, Terry is informed. Instinctively desirous of the truth to be told, Jack
protests, only to capitulate in the face of the probing “What difference does it make to you?”; it makes all the difference
to the senator’s family. The exchange explains Jack’s baffled response to
police questioning minutes earlier, in which the cop appears keen to ignore
Sally’s presence.
Jack: Yes I heard the blow out but the first sound
I heard was a bang.
I’ll come on to the actual threat posed shortly, but it’s so
heightened as to question anyone’s state of mind who thinks De Palma is taking
this whole thing seriously. What’s noticeable, rewatching the movie, is that
the area of straight-playing extends from Jack himself. That’s down to both
Travolta’s performance and De Palma’s captivation with Jack’s craft. Many have
attested to the quality of the actor’s work here, and it was clearly key in
Tarantino chasing him for Pulp Fiction.
Travolta brings a naturalism and wit to Jack that allows him to exist in both
the cartoon world of Sally and John Lithgow’s lunatic gun-for hire Burke and the scenes where we are rapt at his
technical process and prowess. It is his technique that dazzles, be it
recording sounds, visualising the crash from playing and replaying the audio,
or piecing together the photographic evidence and furnishing it with a
soundtrack. There is no room for asides or sneers here, because De Palma is
delighted to expose and glorify the nuts and bolts of filmmaking. He does so confident
in the knowledge that he has seized upon an unassailable narrative hook. It’s
partly why, once the process is complete, the director flounders slightly. And
it explains why he returns to a play on conventions.
Jack: I like to think this is our finest film.
That’s not to say that the director doesn’t have fun with
the apparatus of filmmaking. But he gets that part of the larkiness out of the
way in the first 10 minutes. There are occasional call backs when Jack returns
to the studio, in order to remind us of the final sick joke of the last scene
(itself the equivalent of the double take shock ending we’ve come to associate
with the director). The opening sequence is a very funny parody of the in-vogue
slasher movie, one De Palma had undoubtedly influenced with his voyeuristic
leanings, shock endings, and prolific stabbings… but at its core was all a bit beneath him. Donaggio’s pulsing
synth score is also extremely funny during this sequence, as De Palma riffs on Halloween and Friday 13th.
An unseen killer’s presence is felt through point of view
camera work, as he inevitably hangs about outside a college sorority house. Inside,
nubile students are dancing in their skimpies, shagging, and showering. De
Palma is setting the scene here for his own crazed, unmotivated psycho (Burke);
both are marked out by their heavy breathing, as they are invigorated for their
kill. He also seems to be taking a rise out of his past efforts; the glimpse we
have of the killer bears an uncanny resemblance to one Stephen King (strangely
perhaps, as Carrie was one of the few
movie adaptations the author praised). And, lest we forget, Dressed to Kill and Carrie lingered on shower scenes during their opening sequences.
This one ends decidedly more mirthfully, however. The maniac (as credited) is
poised to kill the showering lovely when she lets out the least terrifying
scream imaginable (“It’s hers… and it’s
shit” Jack’s producer complains). There’s a cheerful back-and-forth with
Sam (Peter Boyden) regarding his and Jack’s brief collaboration (five films in
two years), culminating in their latest, the all too believably titled Co-ed Frenzy. It’s his producer who
tasks him with getting some new sound effects (wind, mostly), leading to Jack’s
fateful intervention at the bridge. As for the scream, when Jack pokes his head
round the door later his succinct response to two auditions is “Keep looking”. It’s this that leads
directly to the final scene. It would be unfair to suggest Blow Out is especially self-reflexive, though. It’s only really in
this movie-movie play that De Palma overtly winks at the audience; his movie
about movies is very serious when it’s minded to be.
Harry: Do you realise how many conspiracy nuts I’ve
already had in here today?
So you’re an ear
witness to an assassination. That’s good; it’s got a nice ring. I like that.
Travolta wasn’t De Palma’s first choice for the movie, even
though he had worked with him before and had intended to work with him again.
The director had been attached to Prince
of the City, eventually made by Sidney Lumet with Treat Williams (Lumet was
no stranger to police corruption pictures, having previously helmed Serpico with Al Pacino. And it was Al
Pacino whom De Palma had in mind for Jack). When Al didn’t work out, De Palma
reworked the character younger (Travolta was only 27 at the time); this move
also allowed for Allen (who had worked with the soon-to-be star on Carrie) to step in. As Allen put it,
Jack was originally devised to be more cerebral. The wire recording aspect of Prince of the City made it into Blow Out with the flashback scene where
Jack has failed to insulate the tape recorder; the cop is sweating so profusely
he causes the battery to short, leading to his death. If Travolta can’t sell
the jaded and disillusioned due to his youth, that same factor can explain his
not covering all bases. His history also gives the police a disincentive to
help him (he “Put a lot of cops away”);
he’s accused of being fucking nuts when he protests that all of his tapes have
been wiped. Jack is sidelined as a conspiracy freak lacking credibility, but
not because there’s a co-ordinated intent to undermine him. When Jack suggests
“If they can get away with this…” he
is actually wrong (for a change). As Mackey (john Aquino) responds, “Who’s they? A communist conspiracy, couple
of ayatollahs with blow guns?” In fact it’s just one man, with a decidedly
deranged agenda.
De Palma clearly still had a surveillance itch to scratch
(and Blow Out would not sufficiently soothe it). There’s
Keith Gordon’s enterprising tech whizz in Dressed
to Kill, whose snooping is based loosely on the director’s own experiences,
Prince and the City and now Blow Out. The couple walking along the
river pretty much shout out loud De Palma’s pecadillos as they ponder, “What is he? A Peeping Tom or something?”
The sequence is masterfully composed, meticulously structured with an eye (and
ear) towards the jigsaw puzzle-like recompositions later. The big thing here is
De Palma’s use of the split diopter, enabling super-close-ups and allowing distant
objects to remain in focus in the same wide angle. With this device the entire image
is not in focus, as with traditional deep focus; only the two main objects
(say, Travolta on the bridge and the owl in the distance) are. The space
between them is not. Its use is so frequent and so striking In Blow Out, so vibrant an effect; you
wonder why it isn’t used more (certainly, it’s hardly seen these days). The
answer may be in the meticulous planning and formal consistency such an approach
requires. Everything that occurs here will be a yardstick for Jack to define
exactly what happened when he replays the incident; the couple talking, the
frog, the car coming in the distance, the owl, the owl screeching, the blow
out, the car crashing into the water. There’s a lot of detail required.
De Palma’s camerawork throughout is awesome to behold. I can
understand those who complain that the intrusive camera pulls them out of a
movie (how would they ever love a Hitchcock film?), but I find this kind of
thing a giddy delight. We see the same use of split diopter in Jack’s
department early on as he uses his tape machine while a news programme plays on
the TV. Later in the hospital there’s a close up of Travolta as he listens to
the cop speaking to an aide. There’s a wonderful effects shot as, piecing
together the tape we see the blow out in his mind.
Then there’s the blue screen
of the firework display as Jack discovers the dead Lucy (achieved with a
merry-go-round and a platform). When Jack returns to his studio after Burke
(John Lithgow) has erased all his tapes, the camera revolves around the room
taking in the invasion; the sense of loss of control, verging on dizziness, is
palpable. The director also loves his overhead shots, be it Manny’s assault on
Lucy and her retaliation with a bottle, or Burke picking his next victim in a
washroom.
Jack: I think your tyre was shot out.
As stunning as the initial recording sequence is, it’s Jack
putting it back together that truly impresses. As he listens to the tape, we
see the sources of each sound in close up, his replaying of the reel machine in
close up, and are granted different perspectives to the ones we saw on the
night itself. It’s a wholly expert piece of pure cinema. The method, the
concept, the technique, the patience and precision, all in absolute service of
the story. And it’s absolutely stunning to watch. The next stage is the
assembly of a flip book from the photos Dennis Franz’s scumbag blackmailer Manny
Karp has sold to the press (this is Franz’s second appearance in a De Palma
film; he’s on the wrong side of the law this time, but there’s something
disreputable about him no matter how ostensibly upstanding he’s supposed to be).
Vilmos Zsigmond relates how Jack’s dexterity with magazine pictures wouldn’t be
possible to achieve in reality, but De Palma’s rendition lacks no credulity.
And, when see the light flash from one frame to the next, the visual evidence
of the blow out, we are right there with him. So good is this section of the film that Jack getting his
hands (thanks to Lucy) on the actual reels isn’t really that important; the
exciting part is solving the mystery.
Jack’s decision to wire Sally (“I’m gonna wire you I’m gonna cover all the bases no ones going to fuck
me this time”) isn’t based on anything substantial and so feels rather
flimsy. As far as he knows his concerns are based only on Frank Donahue’s (Curt
May) news reporter not getting back to him; it’s essential to the plot that he
shouldn’t be suspicious of whoever broke into his lab, and that he shouldn’t
believe there’s any real danger (or he wouldn’t put Sally in harm’s way).
The mad dash rescue attempt is a play on classic themes
(it’s riffed on in The Player’s joke
Bruce Willis movie Habeas Corpus) in
which success is undercut, but this last section of the movie finds De Palma at
a loss over what to do next. One might view it as a further part of the
deconstruction of the conspiracy theme, that it should be solved and order
restored (except that conspiracy movies rarely end on an upbeat note). If he’s
intending for it to be a commentary of some kind, it flounders in that it can’t
compete with the subject matter of the previous two-thirds. The “braininess”
peters out, and neither the arch qualities (Lithgow’s hit man is a tad straighter
by this point) nor the narrative satisfy. There are some good ideas here;
Jack’s impotent voyeurism as the means to solve the case is yet again turned
against him, the use of the Liberty Bell parade, foreshadowed since virtually
the first scene, and the threat “Jack’s
gonna kill you” borne out when Burke succumbs in a fashion as frenzied as
his own slayings.
But crucially, if there was an intention to rely on the
emotional connection, and the sad loss of Sally, De Palma fails to convey it.
We get that Jack feels guilty; after all, he’s used her. But we don’t really care about Sally herself. In combination
De Palma (as writer) and Allen (in the choices she makes playing Sally) have
rendered her a ditzy little girl woman with panda make-up eyes. There’s almost
a dare to find anything to empathise with here.
Perhaps it represented an opportunity to be as different to Dressed to Kill as possible, in which
Allen essayed a smart-as-they-come high class hooker. So to be as different as
possible playing a variation on a theme. After all, De Palma isn’t exactly
breaking the mould by sketching yet
another female protagonist who makes a living from sexual dalliances with
men (of one sort or another). In the Blu ray extras, Allen self-effacedly cites
a reviewer who cogently surmised of Sally “Every
time she opens her mouth it takes you a full minute to recover”. Allen
referred to it as a “rag doll voice”
and tellingly when she showed up on set with it she was met with “Are you really going to use that?”
But isn’t just the voice. Sally’s as dumb as they come. She
knows how to fix a face (“This took me
two hours, and this is no make up” she sagely informs Jack) but she “sure as hell can’t type”. The fate of
McRyan means nothing to her (“I don’t
watch the news”). She’s an airhead with enough sense not to tell Jack what
she and Manny were up to, but not enough to sense danger when it’s looming
behind her. There’s no reason for us or Jack to really like her; pity her perhaps. Jack manipulates her, feigning
interest but really delaying her train because he wants the full story (if he’d
let her go, and she was given money to disappear, she’d have lived not to tell).
And when he discovers she’s been scheming he drops the façade (“You got nice tits who’s paying you to flash
them for McRyan?”)
I have to side with De Palma and Travolta against Allen and
editor Paul Hirsch, who insisted, “You
cannot kill this girl”. They felt Travolta should have cared for her but to
do that would necessitate fundamentally changing the character. To the extent
that Sally is annoying rather than sympathetic, and the third act rescue lacks
an emotional bond, that wouldn’t have been a bad idea (you could still have
Jack’s manipulation and failure) but there’d be no believability in attempting
to show Jack genuinely caring for Sally as she is portrayed and no real spark
if he had; he’d be a white knight who gallops off again as soon as the credits
roll because he doesn’t really care for his damsel in distress.
One thing about Blow
Out’s locations, it may be set in Philadelphia but the emphasis on
seediness and grime recalls a movie featuring a character named Travis Bickle
made five years earlier. The prettiest part of the movie is punctured by the
story-starting accident. Not that De Palma doesn’t make every frame striking
(there’s a pull back shot at the railway station, revealing steam and
carriages, that’s phenomenal, and it’s almost absent-mindedly just “there”).
But the imminent threat of Taxi Driver
is absent. The menace here is borderline tongue-in-cheek, certainly running
with the fictional killer motif of the opening movie reel.
Burke: I’ve decided to terminate her and make it
look like a series of sex killings in the area.
No discussion of Blow
Out can leave out John Lithgow’s Burke, rogue psychopath, whose veneer of
calm fails to disguise the fact that he may as well be the star of the slasher
movies De Palma is homaging in the first scene. Burke doesn’t appear until 45
minutes into the movie, but any failings in the latter half are nothing to do
with Lithgow. Nor indeed the character of Burke, who is uproariously
entertaining whenever he’s on screen. The only real threat in the film is a
crazed pyscho who adopts as his modus operandi the kind of excessive behaviour only found in the slasher movies of the
period. It’s an extra layer of commentary from De Palma. Is the lone gunman
very far from a knife-wielding maniac?
Burke: It’s Burke sir.
Boss: Burke? What have you done? Are you crazy? You
were just supposed to get some pictures.
Burke: Are you aware what you’re saying?
Boss: You were supposed to get some pictures of
McRyan not kill him.
Burke: I understood the objectives of the
operation, and I never concurred, but I didn’t kill him. It was an accident.
The first time we see him, Burke is attacking one of his
victims and, as with your classic horror monster, he’s breathing heavily as he
does so. Later, his casual conversation with his unseen employer finds Burke dropping
the titbit that he’s covering his plan to kill Sally by laying the groundwork
with “a series of sex killings in the
area”. It’s such an inspired, grotesquely unhinged, bit of overkill (if you
will), attempting to hide your murder by enacting a deplorable headline-grabbing
spree.
Given Burke’s graphic account of his activities, De Palma is
actually relatively restrained in what he shows, certainly in comparison to the
killer-on-the loose movies that surround Blow
Out; Dressed to Kill and Body Double (and Scarface might be included in that assembly). When he later takes a
victim in the station washroom, De Palma shoots the kicking feet under the
cubicle door. It’s enough to know that Burke’s creative killing methods (with a
screwdriver) entail “stab marks were in
the pattern of the liberty bell”, which is just the kind of crazy-town thing
that would form the basis for one of Jack’s
Bloodbath movies.
Kael’s contention that De Palma is taking this movie
seriously is less and less convincing the more you hear from Burke. His cool
efficiency is only matched by how deranged he is; he could have mopped up all
the loose ends and no one would have been any the wiser had he not indulged his
passion for the florid. His mock-sobbing confession “She made me do it” down the phone, disguised in a builder’s helmet,
is the pièce
de résistance;
the director has pretty much taken apart the entire genre, and it hadn’t even
peaked yet. His blithe analysis that, once he has despatched the girl, “This would completely secure our operation”
is met with horror by his dumbfounded employer. Frankly you want to see more
of Burke, what with his failing to see why his boss is so put out. After all,
the “Objective was achieved. He was
eliminated from the election”. When he smoothly poses as the newsman
at the end, it’s a disappointment to see him exit in such perfunctory manner.
It’s easy to see why Lithgow would have a sideline in crazies during the
decades to come, from Ricochet to De
Palma’s own Raising Cain to the best
season of Dexter. This might be his
most amusingly deadpan pyscho killer, though.
Sam: Now that’s a scream.
Jack: It’s a good scream.
So the final scenes, showing Jack sitting in the snow
replaying and haunted by the recording he has made, do work in terms of the punishment he is inflicting on himself.
They might have even more impact if he’d really cared for Sally and had still
been responsible. As it is, it’s a kind of hollow sick joke that he uses her
death scream as the perfect sound effect for his cheap slasher pic. She didn’t
matter and she doesn’t matter. It’s also a choice that references the
discussions of the possible existence of snuff movies during that era (and the
Zapruder film is, after all, the ultimate snuff movie). Jack using it is an
acknowledgement of his own guilt. In his mind he is that low a human being; he deserves to be the kind of person who
would make profit from her death, so he sentences himself to knowing forever
that he was responsible for debasing her memory in this way. It’s extraordinarily
bleak. As a final tip of the hat to total failure, we learn that the cover
story has survived intact. Jack remained silent (“Final victim killed her attacker in bloody struggle”).
Is there a more abiding message in here, relating to the
abundant use of the colours of the American flag throughout, including the flag
itself at the climactic murder? The Liberty Bell, a symbol of independence, is
cynically appropriated by Burke (Liberty
Bell Strangler Strikes), and it is the celebration of the same that does
for Jack’s attempt to save Sally. Patriotism stinks? Corruption doesn’t need to
be fed by conspiracy? It’s all empty anyway; Jack attempts to unearth the truth
at all costs, gets someone killed and helps no one. He fails to redeem himself
for perceived past mistakes, only compounds them. And presumably he doesn’t
even find out whom Burke was working for. It’s a sour, bitter end note. Very
much a post-‘70s movie, rather than an ‘80s one (a mere five years later, and
you’d be hard-pressed to find De Palma in more upbeat and salutary mode in The Untouchables).
There’s a reason few of De Palma’s film are seen as more
than cult classics, certainly in comparison to his biggest stylistic influence
Hitchcock. And that’s a lack of classiness. I mean in terms of sensibility,
rather than technique. As Hitch did later in his career, De Palma likes to
revel in the sordid and fecund. Blow Out
seems him half attempting a straight thriller, half attempting the ultimate
movie-movie and half further indulging his own unwholesome pursuits. But you
know that, whatever his failings in the script department, this is him at his
creative peak from the very moment the sound dial swings back and forth on the
opening titles and we hear a crucial snatch of sound as it does so.
This is a bravura piece of work, right up to the point where
it can’t possibly compete with itself any more. As a writer, De Palma is both
his own best friend and worst enemy. He can dictate the scenarios that bring
forth the most astonishing, eye-catching set pieces imaginable. But he can also
fall back on predictable indulgences and obsessions. It’s one of the reasons I
think his best few films tend to be more towards the status of director for
hire, or at least more directly with a commercial bent in mind; the result is a
balance of both worlds.
There probably hasn’t been a piece of filmmaking
deconstruction as clever as the first half of Blow Out before or since, so it’s a shame the final section can’t
live up to it. De Palma’s nevertheless produced something almost wilfully
nihilistic; at least with the doom-laden conspiracy thrillers there was a sense
of meaning behind the acts of the all-powerful (however nefarious). Now we
learn there’s nothing there at all. Perhaps that’s a foreshadowing of the
shameless me-ness of the decade to come. Mask the emptiness with greed.
Both director and star would be required to turn to more
flagrantly populist fare to pay the rent in the coming years. Travolta would
have a last brush with success by returning to pastures old (Staying Alive) before his first second
wind in a Bruce Willis movie at the end of the decade. The real one would be
with that Tarantino fella, though. As for De Palma, he’d endure a few more
slings and arrows, including now his most fêted movie (Scarface), before discovering a rarified atmosphere of both
critical and commercial plaudits with The
Untouchables. After Blow Out his
returns to voyeuristic activities felt increasingly as if he was homaging himself
rather than others but, no matter how disappointing, its impossible to see one
of his films and not come away with scenes to savour lodged in the mind. Blow Out has an abundance of them, which
is probably why it remains his most highly-praised “unseen” movie.
