Drifting: A Director's Log: On Not Getting DePalma

October 07, 2006

On Not Getting DePalma

It's only that recently I've become aware of the passion with which many cineastes regard Brian DePalma's work. A.O. Scott summed it all up last week, but it's a fervor that been growing increasingly public over the past six or seven months, as the release of The Black Dahlia loomed large and many writers whose work I admire began to rhapsodize at length about their love for a director who, for no particular reason, I never really paid any attention to. The title of this post is something of a misnomer, in fact, since I've never actually tried to get DePalma.

Including The Black Dahlia, I've seen exactly five of DePalma's films, and am thus in no way capable of writing anything of critical value about the filmmaker and the response to his work. I can say that I enjoyed this new film to a certain extent, that it wasn't the tonal mess I was lead to believe it would be, and that, if I was put off by anything in it, it was that it wasn't actually about the Black Dahlia. Or rather, that it was about the Black Dahlia on a symbolic level, and yet tried to have its cake and eat it too by offering a solution to a real life murder whose stature has grown to mythic proportions. It's a mystery that's more satisfying without answers.

But that problem, I suppose, stems from James Ellroy's novel (unread by me) and Josh Friedman's adaptation of it, which is, at it's best, slickly passable. It's never actually effective, as either a mystery or a parable (both of which I think it's trying to be), and that the film actually works, that it clears the brambles of it's convoluted narrative, is mostly due to DePalma's lurid direction. There's a great sense of discord about the film, and signs of a consistent struggle, and I think they are the result of the filmmaker's attempt to make the film he wanted to make on the foundation of a script that wasn't up to par. It is this meta-picture that I feel Matt Zoller Seitz must have been reviewing when he so eloquently defended a film that seemed so similar - and yet so elevated from - the one I had just seen.

As for the film's form itself - the 'pure cinema' that many have said DePalma consistently provides - I don't quite see what makes him stronger than, say, Scorsese or even Tarantino (it's too easy to draw an uneven parallel to the way both Tarantino and DePalam recycle the work of directors they admire - which, in Tarantino's case, includes DePalma, since Blow Out is one of his favorite films). I'm venturing into pure speculation here, based upon the few films I've seen and the other I've read about, but I wonder if what makes DePalma such a contentious filmmaker is the fact that his work doesn't go down easy - that it rarely seems the product of a graceful union between the writing and the filmmaking. This disparity, it seems, might amplify the virtues of a director's style and render a film more of an exercise in cinematic form (and cinematic obsession) - if the audience can separate the cinema from the script.

I don't know. I'm shooting in the dark here, at least until I see some more of DePalma's work, but for the time being, I think this reading is applicable to The Black Dahlia. An anecdote about my viewing experience: I saw the film at a somewhat dilapidated theater where the center channel of audio - containing all the dialogue and narration - was almost completely inaudible. I decided not to complain, because I wanted to see if the film worked without words - if there was, indeed, any pure cinema to be found in it. Unfortunately, the one other person in the theater went to report the problem. The remaining two hours were a frustrating, fascinating struggle; they weren't easy to swallow, but they certainly managed to stick.

Posted by David Lowery at October 7, 2006 03:04 AM

Comments

The scene where Eckhart meets his demise is pure cinematic magic though, and artfully shot/exposed and cut... but that's the only one that stood out for me... music was somewhat "Chinatown"-lite... but anywho..........

Posted by: R at October 8, 2006 06:08 PM

"I don't quite see what makes him stronger than, say, Scorsese or even Tarantino"

I don't know many (if anyone) who thinks he's "stronger" than these two. He's also insanely inconsistant. I think part of his appeal is that he doesn't necessarily try to outdo himself, he just does what he thinks will work and sometimes it fails miserably.

I'm not a mad DePalma defender though... I haven't seen Black Dahlia yet (you're about the only one whose opinion I value that's said it's worth sitting through at all).

Posted by: Regularkarate at October 10, 2006 12:02 PM

I've read a few pieces (by some good critics, if I remember correctly) who asset their belief that De Palama is one of the best filmmakers EVER.

I just added a few of his other films to my queue. In the meantime, for nothing but entertainment value, I'd say that The Black Dahlia is worth a rental, and, if there's nothing else out at the theater, maybe a matinee. It's more 'interesting' than it is 'good.'

Posted by: Ghostboy at October 10, 2006 02:58 PM

"Hi Mom!", "Sisters", "The Fury", "Dressed To Kill", and "Body Double" exhibit his brilliance, but yes, he is quite inconsistent... but don't blame him, blame James Ellroy and Josh Friedman. It's the written word that damages the finished product. Lackluster is perhaps a better word than Blockbuster.

Posted by: r at October 10, 2006 03:29 PM

the thirteen year old boy trapped in my body likes scarface.

Posted by: brad at October 10, 2006 03:36 PM

I love Scarface. Definitely my favorite of his films I've seen.

Posted by: Ghostboy at October 10, 2006 04:02 PM