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’re never the same man twice.

The Man Who Haunted Himself (1970)
(SPOILERS) Roger Moore playing dual roles? It sounds like an unintentionally amusing prospect for audiences accustomed to the actor’s “Raise an eyebrow” method of acting. Consequently, this post-Saint pre-Bond role (in which he does offer some notable eyebrow acting) is more of a curiosity for the quality of Sir Rog’s performance than the out-there premise that can’t quite sustain the picture’s running time. It is telling that the same story was adapted for an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents 15 years earlier, since the uncanny idea at its core feels like a much better fit for a trim 50 minute anthology series.

Basil Dearden directs, and co-adapted the screenplay from Anthony Armstrong’s novel The Strange Case of Mr Pelham. Dearden started out with Ealing, helming several Will Hay pictures and a segment of Dead of Night (one might imagine a shortened version of this tale ending up there, or in any of the portmanteau horrors that arrived in the year…

Romulan ale should be illegal.

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
(SPOILERS) Out of the ST:NG movies, Star Trek: Nemesis seems to provoke the most outrage among fans, the reasons mostly appearing to boil down to continuity and character work. In the case of the former, while I can appreciate the beef, I’m not enough of an aficionado to get too worked up. In the case of the latter, well, the less of the strained inter-relationships between this bunch that make it to the screen, the better (director Stuart Baird reportedly cut more than fifty minutes from the picture, most of it relating to underscoring the crew, leading to a quip by Stewart that while an Actor’s Cut would include the excised footage, a Director’s one would probably be even shorter). Even being largely unswayed by such concerns, though, Nemesis isn’t very good. It wants to hit the same kind of dramatic high notes as The Wrath of Khan (naturally, it’s always bloody Khan) but repeatedly drifts into an out-of-tune dirge.

‘Cos I’m the gringo who always delivers.

American Made (2017)
(SPOILERS) This is definitely more the sort of thing Tom Cruise should be doing, a movie that relies both on his boyish™ charm and at least has pretensions of ever so slightly pushing the envelope of standard multiplex fare, rather than desperately attaching himself to an impersonal franchise (The Mummy) or flailingly attempting to kick start one (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back); remember when Cruise wouldn’t even go near sequels (for about 20 years, The Color of Money aside, and then only the one series)? American Made is still victim to the tendency of his movies to feel superstar-fitted rather than remaining as punchy as they might be on paper (Made’s never quite as satirically sharp as it wants to be), but it at least doesn’t lead its audience by the nose.

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…

By Jove, the natives are restless tonight.

The Avengers 4.17: Small Game for Big Hunters
I wonder if Death at Bargain Prices’ camping scene, suggestive of an exotic clime but based in a department store, was an inspiration for Small Game For Big Hunters’ more protracted excursion to the African country of Kalaya… in Hertfordshire. Gerry O’Hara, in his second of two episodes for the show again delivers on the atmosphere, making the most of Philip Levene’s teleplay.

Two hundred thousand pounds, for this outstanding example of British pulchritude and learning.

The Avengers 4.18: The Girl From Auntie
I’ve mentioned that a few of these episodes have changed in my appreciation since I last watched the series, and The Girl from Auntie constitutes a very pronounced uptick. Indeed, I don’t know how I failed to rate highly the estimable Liz Fraser filling in for Diana Rigg – mostly absent, on holiday –for the proceedings (taking a not dissimilar amateur impostor-cum-sidekick role to Fenella Fielding in the earlier The Charmers). I could watch Fraser all day, and it’s only a shame this was her single appearance in the show.

Old Boggy walks on Lammas Eve.

Jeeves and Wooster 2.5: Kidnapped  (aka The Mysterious Stranger)
Kidnapped continues the saga of Chuffnell Hall. Having said of 2.4 that the best Wodehouse adaptations tend to stick closely to the text, this one is an exception that proves the rule, diverging significantly yet still scoring with its highly preposterous additions.

Jeeves: Tis old boggy. He be abroad tonight. He be heading for the railway station.
Gone are many of the imbroglios involving Stoker and Glossop (the estimable Roger Brierley), including the contesting of the former’s uncle’s will. Also gone, sadly, is the inebriated Brinkley throwing potatoes at Stoker, which surely would have been enormous fun. Instead, we concentrate on Bertie being locked aboard Stoker’s yacht in order to secure his marriage to Pauline (as per the novel), Chuffy tailing Pauline in disguise (so there’s a different/additional reason for Stoker to believe Bertie and she spent the night together, this time at a pub en route to Chufnell Hall) and …

Cally. Help us, Cally. Help Auron.

Blake's 7 3.7: Children of Auron

Roger Parkes goes a considerable way towards redeeming himself for the slop that was Voice from the Past with his second script for the series, and newcomer Andrew Morgan shows promise as a director that never really fulfilled itself in his work on Doctor Who (but was evident in Knights of God, the 1987 TV series featuring Gareth Thomas).

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 …