Skip to main content

My true wife is my movie, not you.

De Palma
(2015)

If nothing else, De Palma, Noah Baumbach and Jake Paltrow’s documentary on the visionary director (“visionary” is an over worn adjective to daub on auteur-related movie posters, but if there’s one director who’s all about vision, it’s Brian De Palma) is a reminder of how few cinematic craftsman today possess a truly distinctive style. More than that, who embrace a distinctive filmic language; De Palma openly acknowledges his debt to Hitchcock, but quite rightly has a different take to those who accuse him of being little more than a copycat; the real surprise should be that he’s the only one who really followed and developed the form Hitch created.


For a piece on a master of the set-piece flourish, the meticulously, intricately-crafted tension teaser, Baumbach and Paltrow have settled on the most straightforward, linear approach possible, but it scarcely matters. Sit De Palma down and have him go through his career in sequence, anecdotalising the productions, the state of the industry generally and his own outlook on where he was and where he is. 


There’s much that’s familiar herein (his warped family background, in particular, including his father’s affairs that informed Dressed to Kill’s young protagonist, and how De Palma used to go and watch him, an orthopaedic surgeon, operate). What I wasn’t prepared for was the sheer good-humoured exuberance of the man. He seems able to see the funny side of most things. Yet, while you can certainly see his twisted wit in some of his vehicles (any time he casts John Lithgow, in particular), give him something more expressly comedic or satirical (Wise Guys, Bonfire of the Vanities) and the results tend to come up short.


I think it was The Untouchables that first got me into De Palma, and I have to admit there are still several of his earliest pictures I’ve yet to get round to catching. Perhaps because I discovered him at the point of his studio renaissance, some of his earlier, unleashed horror-thrillers leave a more variable impression, sometimes absolutely working, sometimes excessive in the wrong ways, but always displaying astonishing virtuosity. I can appreciate both the arguments relating to the apparent misogyny in his narratives and his own well-thumbed excuse that women imperilled are simply more cinematically interesting (as to his confession that he likes to follow them around, well…), but his detours into more mainstream fare, be it the gangster or action genre, rather disprove the latter.


What De Palma rarely is as a director is boring (there are a few; for all its style, Obsession tends to have an anaesthetic effect on me – it may just be the Cliff Robertson factor). As he notes of his most controversial, critic- and censor-baiting period, “The fact that Pauline liked me made people argue about me constantly”. Kael was De Palma’s staunchest defender, and at times did seem to be pulling him singlehandedly through a minefield of his own knee-jerk devising (Body Double was precisely designed to inflame his most vehement critics).


De Palma: You have to know where everything is. How close is the jeopardy? I’m scrupulous about that.

In the era of shakycam (albeit, its proliferation isn’t quite as disruptive as it was at its zenith), every one of its adherents should be sat down à la Alex in A Clockwork Orange and forced to watch De Palma’s approach to action, because not only is he mesmerisingly distinctive in how sees space and juggles the different elements that comprise a sequence, he’s also entirely coherent in terms of geography. With often breath-taking results. As he says of his groundwork, “In my movies the run up goes on forever”. Take a gander at the prom queen scene in Carrie, or the art gallery dalliance in Dressed to Kill, the “Odessa Steps” in The Untouchables and the subway chase in Carlito’s Way, and prepare to be staggered by the bravura craftsmanship of his constructions every time.


It’s interesting to hear De Palma discuss his use of trademarks, such as how he discovered split screen didn’t work for action and his yen for Steadicam (in particular first using it for Blow Out, and also on executing that film’s famous 360 degree shot), but best of all are his anecdotes: on Orson Welles (he needed cue cards; De Palma, formerly in awe of the titan, considered “This is sloppy”) Bernard Herrman (“He was scary”), Cliff Robertson (Vilmos Zigmond backing the actor up to a mahogany wall and exclaiming, of his perma-tan, “You are the same colour as this wall! How can I light you?”), execs’ responses – to the downbeat ending of Blow Out (“They were appalled”), to Body Double generally (he had carte blanche “Until they saw it”) – Oliver Stone (De Palma had him taken off the Scarface set because he was talking to the actors), De Niro (surprisingly, not learning his lines on The Untouchables), Casualties of War generally (“Good old Sean” he says, of Penn’s “in the name of the art” mistreatment of Michael J Fox), Bonfire of the Vanities (he considers the movie is fine, “just don’t read the book”) Carlito’s Way (Pacino having finally had enough after having been forced to run around all night in a huge sweaty leather coat at the height of summer: “Al took the train home. He thinks you’re crazy”) his original ending to Snake Eyes (“Nobody thought it worked”), dealing with Mission to Mars’ special effects (“endless repetition”, and tipping his hat to them, but being unable to understand how Spielberg and Zemeckis do it). Oh, and how he finds car chases boring.


We also hear a steady stream of stoic disappointments at the failures of his pictures to strike a nerve with audiences: “I can’t make a better movie than this” (Carlito) “Nobody went to see it – it was a terrible disappointment” (Casualties). Certainly, he’s a director very much identified as relying on periodic hits to kick start the ever-lurking phantom of unbankability. However, it’s notable that many of his best works are those where he decided he had to do something in aid of such commercial clout (Carrie, The Untouchables); I do think he’s at his best when married with really strong material that isn’t of his own devising or predilections, the odd exception aside, even if in later years he came a cropper with a series of questionable high-profile choices (Mission to Mars, The Black Dahlia).


The director’s also sanguine about where he is now (it’s five years since he directed,  and it was three when De Palma was made). He comments that 99% of those who try making movies are going nowhere, and “anybody who has a career, it’s a miracle”, that there’s nothing good about the Hollywood system, in terms of creativity. And, drawing on the example of Hitchcock, De Palma suggests that, in most cases, it is during their 30s, 40s and 50s that directors are at their peak, that it “physically wears you down, no question about it”. He’s probably right. There’s the occasional exception, sure (Mad Max: Fury Road), but even those who still churning them out (Spielberg, Scorsese, Ridley Scott) are often doing so with consistent technical skill but noticeably less passion or intent than hitherto. Still, I hope De Palma has a few more good pictures left in him, although like so many of his era, the difficulty is now more about getting the backing than a good idea.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

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…

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

They make themselves now.

Screamers (1995)
(SPOILERS) Adapting Philip K Dick isn’t as easy as it may seem, but that doesn't stop eager screenwriters from attempting to hit that elusive jackpot. The recent Electric Dreams managed to exorcise most of the existential gymnastics and doubts that shine through in the best versions of his work, leaving material that felt sadly facile. Dan O'Bannon had adapted Second Variety more than a decade before it appeared as Screamers, a period during which he and Ronald Shusett also turned We Can Remember It For You Wholesale into Total Recall. So the problem with Screamers isn't really the (rewritten) screenplay, which is more faithful than most to its source material (setting aside). The problem with Screamers is largely that it's cheap as chips.

Well, we took a vote. Predator’s cooler, right?

The Predator (2018)
(SPOILERS) Is The Predator everything you’d want from a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator (or Yautja, or Hish-Qu-Ten, apparently)? Emphatically not. We've already had a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator – or the other way around, at least – and that was on another level. The problem – aside from the enforced reshoots, and the not-altogether-there casting, and the possibility that full-on action extravaganzas, while delivered competently, may not be his best foot forward – is that I don't think Black's really a science-fiction guy, game as he clearly was to take on the permanently beleaguered franchise. He makes The Predator very funny, quite goofy, very gory, often entertaining, but ultimately lacking a coherent sense of what it is, something you couldn't say of his three prior directorial efforts.

Right! Let’s restore some bloody logic!

It Couldn't Happen Here (1987)
(SPOILERS) "I think our film is arguably better than Spiceworld" said Neil Tennant of his and Chris Lowe's much-maligned It Couldn't Happen Here, a quasi-musical, quasi-surrealist journey through the English landscape via the Pet shop Boys' "own" history as envisaged by co-writer-director Jack Bond. Of course, Spiceworld could boast the presence of the illustrious Richard E Grant, while It Couldn't Happen Here had to settle for Gareth Hunt. Is its reputation deserved? It's arguably not very successful at being a coherent film (even thematically), but I have to admit that I rather like it, ramshackle and studiously aloof though it is.

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 …

My pectorals may leave much to be desired, Mrs Peel, but I’m the most powerful man you’ve ever run into.

The Avengers 2.23: The Positive-Negative Man
If there was a lesson to be learned from Season Five, it was not to include "man" in your title, unless it involves his treasure. The See-Through Man may be the season's stinker, but The Positive-Negative Man isn't far behind, a bog-standard "guy with a magical science device uses it to kill" plot. A bit like The Cybernauts, but with Michael Latimer painted green and a conspicuous absence of a cool hat.

The possibilities are gigantic. In a very small way, of course.

The Avengers 5.24: Mission… Highly Improbable
With a title riffing on a then-riding-high US spy show, just as the previous season's The Girl from Auntie riffed on a then-riding-high US spy show, it's to their credit that neither have even the remotest connection to their "inspirations" besides the cheap gags (in this case, the episode was based on a teleplay submitted back in 1964). Mission… Highly Improbable follows in the increasing tradition (certainly with the advent of Season Five and colour) of SF plotlines, but is also, in its particular problem with shrinkage, informed by other recent adventurers into that area.

What a truly revolting sight.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge (aka Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales) (2017)
(SPOILERS) The biggest mistake the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels have made is embracing continuity. It ought to have been just Jack Sparrow with an entirely new cast of characters each time (well, maybe keep Kevin McNally). Even On Stranger Tides had Geoffrey Rush obligatorily returning as Barbossa. Although, that picture’s biggest problem was its director; Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge has a pair of solid helmers in Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, which is a relief at least. But alas, the continuity is back with a vengeance. And then some. Why, there’s even an origin-of-Jack Sparrow vignette, to supply us with prerequisite, unwanted and distracting uncanny valley (or uncanny Johnny) de-aging. The movie as a whole is an agreeable time passer, by no means the dodo its critical keelhauling would suggest, albeit it isn’t even pretending to try hard to come up with …

Bring home the mother lode, Barry.

Beyond the Black Rainbow (2010)

If Panos Cosmatos’ debut had continued with the slow-paced, tripped-out psychedelia of the first hour or so I would probably have been fully on board with it, but the decision to devolve into an ‘80s slasher flick in the final act lost me.

The director is the son of George Pan Cosmatos (he of The Cassandra Crossing and Cobra, and in name alone of Tombstone, apparently) and it appears that his inspiration was what happened to the baby boomers in the ‘80s, his parents’ generation. That element translates effectively, expressed through the extreme of having a science institute engaging in Crowley/Jack Parsons/Leary occult quests for enlightenment in the ‘60s and the survivors having become burnt out refugees or psychotics by the ‘80s. Depending upon your sensibilities, the torturously slow pace and the synth soundtrack are positives, while the cinematography managed to evoke both lurid early ‘80s cinema and ‘60s experimental fare. 

Ultimately the film takes a …