Man, I could not believe how horrid that movie was (just my opinion). The original was pretty good but De Palma's take on it "stinks bad" (to quote a friend).
The words "derivative" and "crass" always come to mind when I hear his name. In all sincerity, I'd like to hear from people who like his work, why they like his work. I'd like to understand what other people see in him as a director.
But I'm just letting you know in advance, Solaris: Neither one of us will think any differently about the two directors afterward.
That's a deal. While I don't think Kubrick's work is without flaws, I like many of his films because of their austerity (some would say coldness) and for the visual compositions. 2001 is the best example of this, where the tone matches the story and the visuals are beautiful. I'm inclined to think Paths of Glory is his best overall movie, however, followed by Dr Strangelove. From 2001 forward I see a deepening of the studied approach apparent in these earlier movies, which is I think what alienates some people. Whatever the case, there's a weird, inverted emotional landscape post-Strangelove that was very much Kubrick's own, and the fact that he was able to do what he did on his own terms is impressive.
Hey, that's not playing fair! Everyone likes the pre-2001 Kubrick. I'm at work right now, so I'll get back to you later on De Palma.
Derivative -- Like how Scorsese or Spielberg steal shots all time time from old movies? Why do those guys get praised for being studied film historians, but De Palma gets criticized as a copycat? I find De Palma builds new ideas on the old techniques he copies more than even Scorsese or Spielberg do. De Palma also created a lot of new things, like his use of the steadicam for the killer's POV opening shot in Blow-out. Crass -- like how Claude Chabrol and French directors make movies about characters constantly obsessed with sex? Why are those guys praised for being so classy, but De Palma gets criticized for being crass? (Okay, I admit, even Claude Chabrol would not cross over the line of including a lap dance by Rebecca Romijn in his movie.) What is exciting about De Palma to me is how he wrings out of old cinema techniques a real sense of the erotic. He makes a murder revolting, yet so sexy and seductive. To sum it up, De Palma's films turn me on. My post in this other thread discusses more why I like De Palma: http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threa...nal-material-or-based-on.261251/#post-6902432
I agree with you on De Palma, but we can't give him credit for that. John Carpenter and DP Dean Cundey did it a few years earlier in Halloween, which the opening sequence of Blow Out was poking fun at.
Count me as a minor fan of "Body Double" - not a great film, but fun for the 80s camp. The soundtrack by Pino Donaggio is good, as are some of the scenes as he watches Melanie through the telescope. Very much a Hitchcock rip-off. Of course the first time I saw BD was in 1984 when I was only 14. The voyeuristic / obsession of the character was something interesting to my young mind, unlike the teenage comedy flicks. It certainly made an impression on me which perhaps why I have a soft spot for it.
I really liked DePalma's earlier films, particularly Carrie, Phantom of the Paradise, The Fury, Sisters, and so on. Obsession had some moments, but he lost me on Blow Out and it just got worse from there. Body Double is a movie I really despise, and I'm not a fan of The Untouchables, either; Mission:Impossible started off well but had an awful surprise reveal and ending. Scarface had some memorable scenes, but pales in the face of Godfellas or Casino. I also had to work on Casualties of War (DePalma's "My Lai" film) and it was dreadful. Nice essay on DePalma's pros and cons here: http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/retrospective-the-films-of-brian-de-palma-20130828
Your post pretty much reflects my feelings, though I can't stand Scarface. Regarding Turnaround's post, I realize my response is different than yours (obviously), but the way Scorsese and Spielberg reference older films seems more a tip of the hat to the tradition of filmmaking and an acknowledgement of those whom they've learned from while working within the context of their own styles. When I see it in a DePalma film, I feel like he's rubbing my nose in how clever he is. "Look, I'm referencing the Odessa steps sequence." "Look, I'm remaking Rear Window, but now it's sexy and perverse, aren't I modern." And sex-obsessed characters have nothing to do with my assessment of his crassness. It's his sensibility that I find crass. I feel like he's playing to the very cheap seats, and his Hitchcock fixation seems like something you'd outgrow by your sophomore year of film school. I know that's all really harsh, and I fully acknowledge that it's my own interpretation. The guy's films just rub me the wrong way, like Kubrick's rub other people the wrong way. We like what we like.
I'm in 100% agreement. On some level, I can laugh and say, "hey! Baby carriage rolling down the stone steps!" But I laugh and let it go. I liked DeNiro in Scarface and I enjoyed the baseball bat-at-the-dinner table scene, but I concede a lot of it was way, way over the top. Some of DePalma's movies had me booing, yelling, and throwing popcorn at the screen... and that was during the opening titles! Blow Out was one of those. Hated it.
I love Brian De Palma's directing, but the man sure does choose some awful scripts. Mission to Mars may be the best-directed terrible movie in history... Shalom, y'all! L. Bangs
The Fury script is total nonsense, but visually the movie is one brilliant De Palma set piece after another.
Ok, I'll behave. That was a rant, I admit. If you tell me what you like about him, I promise not to present a counter argument and also make an effort to see what you see. And I confess to liking Carrie, The Fury and Sisters, as well as parts of Phantom of the Paradise, if that helps.
It won't do any good. I find his best films visually stunning, whereas you probably see that as showing off. What you call his crass sensibility I find entertaining. We just have a different take on him and we always will. Oh, but at least we agree Scarface sucks.
It may surprise you that I read through the entire article Vidiot posted, which went through DePalma's complete filmography, and it's got me curious to go back and see a few of the films, including Body Double and Dressed To Kill. And as I said, I do like some of his work in the 70s. It's largely his work post-1980 that has led me to the opinion I posted above. While I realize Body Double is in that period, I'm still willing to give it another shot. So I'm not completely closed-minded on this subject.
I love Dressed to Kill, but Body Double is second-rate De Palma, I think. His usual ideas and themes are there, but it just doesn't have the zing of what I consider his best work.
I think that up through maybe Dressed to Kill he was pretty much winging it... having a ball throwing all this Hitchcock and Stephen King stuff into a blender with sex and hyper-violence and swirling the camera around until, as Pauline Kael correctly observed, he elevated trash to art. But then he started thinking about it, about being a genius, that is (and who could blame him, really... Kael alone must have written a short book of adulatory reviews and she wasn't alone.) Something went out of his pictures. Or maybe that's all he had... He might have been the Creedence of film directors with a great peak, but a limited range. But I found myself thinking of him while watching Gone Girl, which is the kind of sexy, dirty trash that he would have turned into a fast, fun, and funny movie, instead of the ponderous, portentous slog that Fincher gave us.
I agree about Gone Girl. But I think De Palma continued to make good pictures (with some turkeys along the way) up through Carlito's Way. I haven't much cared for his work since, other than a great sequence here and there.
