View image Look back in Angora: An Ed Wood moment between Josh Hartnett and Scarlett Johansson in Brian De Palma's "The Black Dahlia."
In anticipation of Brian DePalma's "The Black Dahlia," which premiered at the Venice Film Festival to bi-polar reviews and opens in the US September 15, a number of sites are celebrating the modern master of the rapturous moving camera. (See De Palma a la Mod for all the latest on De Palma and the Dahlia.) Dennis Cozzalio has an excellent round-up of who's doing what at Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule, and adds his own illuminating thoughts to the heady mix. (And don't forget to check out his Opening Shots submission for De Palma's "Femme Fatale" here at Scanners.)
Peet Gelderblom also has some good stuff about the "unofficial De Palma blogathon" at Lost in Negative Space. And I finally took the advice of That Little Round Headed Boy and caught up with De Palma's much-maligned "Mission to Mars," which has moments of astonishing beauty and suspense, despite being hobbled by a terrible script (original screenwriters joined by an ampersand; re-writer Graham "Speed" Yost tacked on with an "and") and one of the most lifeless performances I have ever seen from Connie Nielsen. (How could she not have been fired after the first day? She's heavier-than-leaden in almost every single moment she has on screen -- except the marvelous weightless dance sequence to [and you have to appreciate the humor] Van Halen. Other than that, like a Martian tornado she sucks.) De Palma is a terrific director of women (Margo Kidder, Sissy Spacek, Piper Laurie, Betty Buckley, Amy Irving, Carrie Snodgress, Nancy Allen, Angie Dickinson...) but Nielsen is really Not of This Earth. (TLRHB also features some informative comments about "Mission to Mars," including a link to Matt Zoller Seitz's round-up of reviews, from pans to raves.)
I've said this many times before about De Palma, but give this guy a decent screenplay and he can work wonders. Look what he can do even when he doesn't have one. So, give the guy a good script, already!
SPOILER FOR THE ENDING OF M2M BELOW.
APOLOGIES FOR USING THE TERM M2M IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Great post, as per usual, and thanks mightily for the links. Even though it's a majorly flawed film, I've always found Mission To Mars unaccountably fascinating, especially for the spots where the director's essential cynicism (is that really a pitch-black Challenger gag in the first shot, or am I crazy?) manages to break through the script's hippy-dippy positivity. I mean, surely it can't be a complete coincidence that Gary Sinise spends his final onscreen moments encased in what appears to be a giant boil-in-bag dinner. To Serve Man, anyone?
De Palma. This is a subject I go back and forth with friends on. I haven't truly enjoyed one of his films since the first Mission Impossible. You'd think after the success of that he would have been able to chose anything he wanted to. So why all the god awful scripts. It's easy to pick on Mission to Mars, but what about Snake Eyes. That script was so awful I didn't even give Mission a chance! And his film with the former Ms. Stamos, talk about leaden weight! Is this the story of a Director being forced into making films he doesn't care about, or has he been chosing these films and these actresses? It's easy to pin it all on the screenplay, but at some point De Palma had to say, "Yes, that sounds like a good idea." If these are being forced on him, it's about time he make a stand like the Scott brothers have, or Philip Noyce, and step back from all the Hollywood Hoopla and find those scripts that speak to him, and if these are the scripts that speak to him, then, well, he's kind of lost touch hasn't he. Personally, I find him relying far too heavily on his stylistic influences these days rather than on the characters and story that should be friving the technique.
In your brief description of "Mission" you mention a dancing scene in a zero gravity environment, sounds like the scene in the original "Solaris" when they float around in zero gravity to classical music. A stunning scene the first time around, in a far better movie it sounds like it.
I'm not convinced the guy would know a good script when he saw it, much less what to do with one.
Given that he himself is responsible for the scripts of such damp squibs as Raising Cain and Snake Eyes...
Snake Eyes was always THE guilty pleasure for me, I just can't find any flaws in it, that would make me stop watching it. I just find the pompous and unnecessary camera movements so fascinating, that I don't even notice the glaring plotholes, Gary Sinise's wooden presence, Nicolas Cage, etc. I even had a Snake Eyes poster on my wall for a while. Is it because I'm from Hungary, the nation that has yet to name a bridge after Stephen Colbert?
De Palma is a director I still can't get a handle on. On one hand, many of his most popular films are the ones I find the least compelling: I'm thinking specifically of the bland "Untouchables", the over-the-top "Carrie" and the absolutely loathsome "Scarface". Meanwhile, some of his supposed "hidden gems" also strike me as hideously flawed or ludicrously executed: "Femme Fatale", "The Fury" and "The Bonfire of the Vanities" are all among the worst films I've seen from a supposed "major director". Even "Snake Eyes", while stylistically assured, gets pretty ridiculous.
And yet..."Mission: Impossible", while a commercial film, is brilliantly executed. "Dressed to Kill" has some wonderful moments and sequences, and (despite its lurid subject matter) a distinctly feminist perspective. "Mission to Mars" was nowhere near deserving of the scorn it received...it has gorgeous sequences, a heartbreaking death scene, and a cosmic vision that is quite touching (even though it seems more Spielbergian than De Palmian). Yes, it also has a wooden performance by Connie Nielsen, an occasionally stilted script, and an unnecessary comic relief turn by Jerry O'Connell...but I'm willing to accept those flaws in exchange for those aforementioned moments of brilliance.
At the center of De Palma's career is what I believe to be his greatest film: "Carlito's Way". I enjoyed the film well enough when I first saw it, but on each subsequent viewing it gets better and better...both more entertaining and more poignant. Carlito Brigante is so much more compelling a character than that empty hothead Tony Montana, and in some ways I look at the somber wisdom of "Carlito's Way" as De Palma's penance for the hateful mess that is "Scarface".
So where do I stand on De Palma? Pretty much where you do: I think he is capable of brilliance (although his skill with actors is always going to be second to his cinematic fluidity), but also capable of churning out some truly god-awful movies. We should treasure him because he is, at least, always fascinating to watch...not bland and predictable like Ron Howard (or, unfortunately it seems, late Oliver Stone and Martin Scorsese). De Palma is still trying new things, and even though he may fail spectacularly on occasion, he deserves to be treasured merely for the attempt.
P.S. One major De Palma film that I have yet to see is "Casualties of War", which many consider to be his masterpiece. If it contains the stylistic assurance and humanistic vision of "Carlito's Way", then I'm in for a treat. If it's another "Femme Fatale" or "The Fury", well...
I for one truly enjoyed Femme Fatale. It's the only De Palma movie I own, in fact. It's pure, unadultered, unashamed Eurotrash. It's fascinating in its total devotion to itself. That, and Rebecca Romijn is a much better actress than she gets credit for. If The Black Dahlia is anything like FF, I'll be seeing it opening weekend.