Skip to main content

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale

(SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Femme Fatale opens with protagonist Laure Ash (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) watching Double Indemnity, before embarking on a heist directed by several brutalist accomplices, Black Tie (Eriq Ebouaney) and Racine (Edouard Montoute). That movie reference, combined with the title, informs us the director is very much occupying a lush movie fantasy world, only underlined by the diamond heist taking place at the Cannes Film Festival.

And the opening twenty minutes find the director coming up with a typically De Palma-esque piece of sleazy suspense: the heist executed as a seduction, with Veronica (Rie Rasmussen), sporting the precious gems, pressed against an opaque cubicle wall as the hidden Black Tie exchanges the items for fakes (quite how this is planned out, is unclear; the liaison was presumably planned with Veronica as Laure’s pre-existing lover, but that doesn’t tell us how Veronica ensured she’d be wearing the jewellery). It’s as sustained a piece of bravura filmmaking as only De Palma can deliver, and duly impresses.

Then, however, the picture changes gear, as Laure double-crosses her associates and winds up fleeing the country, only to return seven years later under an assumed identity, married to Peter Coyote’s ambassador. Which is exactly when Black Tie is released from prison. Very conveniently. Almost as if… Lest we’re persuaded events are following a dream logic – because, as we eventually discover, the majority of what follows is a dream, within the context of De Palma’s fictional reality – it’s actually a premonition. One borrowing from the likes of Sliding Doors, It’s A Wonderful Life and Run Lola Run for alternate timeline choices.

De Palma earlier threw in, in absurdly Hitchcockian, Vertigo-influenced – always with the Vertigo – manner, a doppelganger for Laure in the form of Lily, who despondently blows her brains out, so giving Laure an opportunity for a new identity and life; she’s in Lily’s bath tub when Lily returns home, and observes the event. Come the conclusion, Laure awakes, still in the tub, and this time prevents Lily from pulling the trigger, advising her to get on the flight to hook up with Peter Coyote. We see at the end that the villains are indeed on her trail (again seven years later), but this time they are killed themselves, impaled on some handy truck spikes… So has Lily been put on a magazine cover, identifying “her” as a target this time? And why, if Laure paid heed to her dream, would she be anywhere near the place things went so wrong “last time”?

Essentially, it’s an uber-trickster choice, the kind of thing that would legitimately infuriate a viewer, although that isn’t so much my problem with Femme Fatale (it did make me wonder, though; if Laure had gone ahead as before, how much of her dream’s footsteps would she tread). The director telegraphs his conceit with movie poster Déjà Vue adorning hoardings. No, the problem is the director’s title character.

De Palma “wanted a heroine who would be funny, sexy and deliciously cruel, one who would arouse strong feelings in the audience”. Except, with Romjin-Stamos’ underpowered performance, all you really take away is the cruel, after the initial sympathy for escaping oppressors. De Palma doesn’t help matters any with her inscrutable motivation (what is the extent of her relationship with Veronica? Does she care for Coyote? Presumably not, if she shoots him dead at the drop of a hat. How does she even know she needs to frame pap photographer Nicolas (Antonio Banderas)? Is she just assuming Black Tie and Racine will catch up with her?) We might suggest this is her ruthless dream self, and as such, ascribing sympathetic feelings is irrelevant, but if you’re taking that approach, it’s all too easy to advance to the next step, which is broad indifference.

Another actress might have imbued De Palma’s rather empty canvas with some degree of personality (both Uma Thurman and J-Lo were considered), but without that, Laure is little more than ornamental, the director taking great pleasure in offering exquisite tableaus of Laure in various states of revealing outfits or lack thereof. De Palma loves shooting Romjin-Stamos, but from that POV he’d might as well have cast Rasmussen, whom he loves shooting even more. It’s easy to see why he jumped at the chance of casting her, but the objectified character isn’t usually the protagonist in his movies. There needs to be more flesh on her bones, even to make her work as the silhouetted classic noir femme fatale he has here.

Banderas is clearly set up from the opening movie cue as a chump Fred MacMurray type, but if Laure is one-dimensional, Nicolas Bardo is too peripheral to become an effective dupe (“This world’s hell and you’re nothing but a fucking patsy”), and too plain dumb to elicit sympathy. Bardo seems more like a Craig Wasson in Body Double than your typical Banderas ­– which may explain why his wife persuaded him to take it, and he persuaded De Palma to teach him directing in return – and he never really feels like a comfortable fit for the character (Jean Reno was apparently in the running). The result is that, without strong counterbalances to the De Palma style in terms of performance, Femme Fatale is too thin (Coyote is barely in it, the same for Greg Henry, while Thierry Fremont indulges overplaying as a ham police inspector).

Stylistically, De Palma’s on form, then, although the Parisian setting, even with Luc Besson DP Thierry Arbogast aboard, is an insufficiently heightened space for his dream narrative. There’s too much real world there, and while Ryuichi Sakamoto’s score is effectively playful (and Ravel influenced) in the opening sections, it lacks strong identity as Femme Fatale progresses. If anything, distilling a De Palma down to its technical virtuosity, without the other departments no more than serviceably in place, shows how much, no matter how auteurish he identifiably is, he needs an effective support structure to make hay.

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

The Krishna died of a broken finger? I mean, is that a homicide?

Miami Blues (1990) (SPOILERS) If the ‘90s crime movie formally set out its stall in 1992 with Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs , another movie very quietly got in there first at the beginning of the decade. Miami Blues picked up admiring reviews but went otherwise unnoticed on release, and even now remains under-recognised. The tale of “blithe psychopath” Federick J. Frenger, Jr., the girl whose heart he breaks and the detetive sergeant on his trail, director George Armitage’s adaptation of Charles Willeford’s novel wears a pitch black sense of humour and manages the difficult juggling act of being genuinely touching with it. It’s a little gem of a movie, perfectly formed and concisely told, one that more than deserves to rub shoulders with the better-known entries in its genre. One of the defining characteristics of Willeford’s work, it has been suggested , is that it doesn’t really fit into the crime genre; he comes from an angle of character rather than plot or h

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

You tampered with the universe, my friend.

The Music of Chance (1993) (SPOILERS) You won’t find many adaptations of Paul Auster’s novels. Original screenplays, yes, a couple of which he has directed himself. Terry Gilliam has occasionally mentioned Mr. Vertigo as in development. It was in development in 1995 too, when Philip Haas and Auster intended to bring it to the screen. Which means Auster presumably approved of Haas’ work on The Music of Chance (he also cameos). That would be understandable, as it makes for a fine, ambiguous movie, pregnant with meaning yet offering no unequivocal answers, and one that makes several key departures from the book yet crucially maintains a mesmerising, slow-burn lure.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

People still talk about Pandapocalypse 2002.

Turning Red (2022) (SPOILERS) Those wags at Pixar, eh? Yes, the most – actually, the only – impressive thing about Turning Red is the four-tiered wordplay of its title. Thirteen-year-old Mei (Rosalie Chiang) finds herself turning into a large red panda at emotive moments. She is also, simultaneously, riding the crimson wave for the first time. Further, as a teenager, she characteristically suffers from acute embarrassment (mostly due to the actions of her domineering mother Ming Lee, voiced by Sandra Oh). And finally, of course, Turning Red can be seen diligently spreading communist doctrine left, right and centre. To any political sensibility tuning in to Disney+, basically (so ones with either considerable or zero resistance to woke). Take a guess which of these isn’t getting press in reference to the movie? And by a process of elimination is probably what it it’s really about (you know in the same way most Pixars, as far back as Toy Story and Monsters, Inc . can be given an insi