Perhaps because my girlfriend and I went in knowing that The Black Dahlia is supposed to be hard to follow that we had little difficultly understanding it, although I had to explain a few things to her after the show ended. I tried to pay very close attention to even minor details in the hopes that I wouldn't get lost in DePalma's narrative maze. Not that you didn't Dylan, but I braced myself for that convoluted narrative more so that usual. It took me several viewings to fully grasp LA Confidential's narrative, which I think is less complex than DePalma's film, so I can easily get lost in a difficult plot. Consequently, I was pretty surprised that after the film ended I didn't feel as confused as I expected. There were, however, some minor details that I couldn't figure out, but that didn't bother me.

[spoiler]As far as the ending revelation, I was somewhat surprised but also relieved to know that the reason that Fiona Shaw had acted so bizzare at the dinner scene was because of her involvement in the murder - and the booze of course. During the dinner scene I became extremely annoyed with the shaw's hammy acting and was baffled that DePalma allowed that her to behave in such a manner. Not that the ending revelation wipes my grievances of that scene away, but at least I somewhat understand why it was played in that manner. I do agree though, we knew very little about the mother and the strange gardener and consequently the ending isn't as strong as it could've been. But like you said Dylan, the last scene is beautifully executed.[/spoiler]
I should also point out that I'm not a DePalma apologist, most of his films are either hit-or-miss with me. And some of his supposed great works like Phantom of the Paradise and Scarface left me feeling rather indifferent about them. I do look forward to seeing this film again on DVD, however, even if there's only a handful of us.

BIG SPOILERS

I have to throw my hat in the ring and say that not only is this film bad, it's one of the biggest disappointments this year.

As others have mentioned in this thread, I'm not sure how you take a murder that captivated a city and make it so, utterly boring. And not only that, but to seem completely uninterested in the murder at all. DePalma's pastiche of styles here - film noir, '40s melodrama - just doesn't work at all. The move clunkily moves from moody cinematography and snappy dialogue to hammy, laughable acting (Fiona Shaw; I also nearly burst out laughing watching the dining room table sex scene between Hartnett and Johannsen.) Also, Eckhart's descent into madness is oddly undocumented. We are never really given a great explanation (something vague about his sister dying when he was young if I recall) and it seems rather abrupt.

The film does have good things going for it. The sets by Dante Ferreti are fantastic and the much talked about "reveal" of the body is pretty great. But so much of this seems like DePalma on autopilot. Even Eckhart's big death scene is weirdly unaffecting.

Hollywoodland, another similarly toned movie, I felt was just so much better. It was not a great film by any means, but as a piece film-noir homage, with a good mystery in the middle (and a desire to explore all theories around it) and some decent acting, it was a enjoyable popcorn yarn. The Black Dahlia juggles it's characters and themes, running too long, losing sight of its narrative power and eventually just leaving everything up in the air. And really, by the end, I didn't give a shit about any of the (overly explained to fit the story) revelations.

Has anyone read Ellroy's book? Is it better than the film?

Exactly, it wasn't even close to being the "De Palma set piece" it should've been.


I haven't, but read that comparison between the book and film I posted on page three. The book does sound a lot better.


This was the most confusing part of the film, particularly when the bank money thing is thrown out there.

The book is terrific.

As for his descent into madness, I do like how the film didn't care to explain things. You really don't know why he's becoming so out-of-control and I think any attempt to explain this would make it less disturbing. While the film is flawed, I think this aspect worked best, but it might just be because I really hate how films lose their mystery once things are spelled out.

A bit late, but this was the best film I saw all of last year. It's just amazing - De Palma is so on top of his game, it's like Rocky in the ninth round fighting his way back to the top. It's not perfect - the three lead performances don't quite hit the mark (Hilary Swank is phenomenal however) and the script, as noted, is structurally a bit of a jumble, but its far from incoherent and has all sorts of terrific scenes.

Maybe now it's gone from cinemas it won't have quite the same rush it had on the big screen, but I haven't been this utterly riveted by a new film since Mulholland Drive. It's the first film that really convinced me that De Palma is the real deal.

Not Femme Fatale?

Not seen it yet, but I've got pretty much all of De Palma's movies set to arrive via my Lovefilm account (which reminds me of another thread I've been meaning to start for ages...)

I love most of De Palma's films but avoid Mission To Mars like the plague if you haven't already seen it.

And Raising Cain. Bleh!

Maybe I am becoming a DePalma apologist because I keep liking the films of his that everyone hates like The Black Dahlia and Raising Cain? However I do admit that the latter is derivative and probably a bit too nutty for most peoples tastes, but I enjoyed it.

Mission To Mars, though, I agree is probably one of his worst despite some good sequences like the attempted rescue of Tim Robbins, even though you knew what the end result would be. Even that film, though, has its fans as it ended up on Cahiers Du Cinema's ten best list in 2000. Maybe in ten years we'll be singing a different tune about it?

I really need to give Phantom Of The Paradise another shot because it's always touted as one of DePalma's best. I don't think I can become a true card carrying official DePalma apologist until I find myself liking that film.

Maybe I'm wrong but I've always thought the major test for admission to the DePalma Apologist Brotherhood is arguing the positive virtues of Bonfire of the Vanities.

Another one I was disappointed in. Even in DePalma's worst films I can find at least one great scene (A couple come to mind for Dahlia, even though I was let down by the end), but Bonfire had not one.
And Raising Cain could have scored some points if it didn't seem so lazy. The final confrontation at the motel didn't make my mouth drop like the intro to Snake Eyes, or the conclusion to Scarface, or that wonderful scene in the museum in Dressed to Kill.
At least Dahlia had some killer scenes, which is why I will probably buy it when it shows up in the 5 dollar bin.

Even though I'd agree Raising Cain and Bonfire of the Vanities are nowhere near De Palma at his best (Cain might have been on autopilot, but it contained moments no other director would ever have had the nerve to do, and Bonfires had that good opening long take following Bruce Willis and entourage through the bowels of the hotel), for me nothing compares to the complete mess of Mission To Mars. From garden party opening to going off with the aliens ending absolutely nothing rings true, and not in that 'heightened reality' way of the best De Palma (and Cain!), but in that 'crap script' way. At best everything feels cribbed from other films (Close Encounters, Apollo 13, The Abyss) and even from De Palma's own film in the scene where the astronaut is 'spun to death' by the twister that mirrors the far better handled (both funnier and sadder) similar scene from The Fury. The less said about how Skittles manage to save the day, the better! I don't think science fiction is De Palma's strength.

I also thought it contained Ennio Morricone's worst score, noodling away annoyingly in the background of the final alien scenes. De Palma seems to have had back luck in that sense as I really didn't like Bernard Herrmann's score for Sisters either. It felt that the films really needed scores of cold horror or quiet contemplation to counter the histrionics occuring on screen (such as Howard Shore's scores for Cronenberg that deliver that shock, but also a sort of feeling of numbness to the horror that is occuring), instead they ramp everything up to 11.

2000 was a pretty bad year, as I felt Verhoeven's Hollow Man completely missed the mark too, and both Mission To Mars and Hollow Man are still at the top of my 'worst films of the decade' list years later.

When you are up against Val Kilmer in Red Planet and his film wipes the floor with yours, your film is seriously bad!

EDIT: Maybe not 'worst films', as I'm sure there have been worse films made that I haven't seen. Perhaps a better term would be 'most disappointing' considering the talent involved. Strange how the invisible man story tripped up John Carpenter too. At least Verhoeven didn't turn the story into a comedy even if his film did devolve into a stalk-and-slash film at the end, albeit a spectacular one.

Armond White talks about DePalma, defends Mission to Mars, as well as the Morricone score.

I've always liked The Fury, but I did not know it was possible to love that film as much as Armond White: "...Otherwise THE FURY would have the popular reputation of something like CASABLANCA, to which THE FURY is vastly superior."

As far as the psychotic De Palma fans go, Mission To Mars and Raising Cain command much more respect than The Bonfire of the Vanities, Snake Eyes and The Untouchables. I should know, I'm one of them.

(Of course, this is perhaps only because almost no one has bothered to see Wise Guys.)

How does Black Dahlia sit with "the psychotic De Palma fans"? Black Dahlia was a very odd experience. It was so completely hollow that I was surprised finding myself glued to the film all the way through. Always beautiful to look at, not a single boring moment. Hilary Swank stole the show.

It's interesting - the first time I saw it I was just so taken away by the sheer craft of the thing, I barely even registered a line of dialogue. The second time I saw it I realised there is a real emotional core - essentially the parallels between Bucky and Elizabeth Short's destroyed innocence and idealism. Granted, it's hampered by the lightweight acting of Hartnett, Eckhart and Johansson, but it's got a real heart to it. The absurdly cursory solving of the mystery at the end for me only strengthened the notion that the whole murder case is essentially a red herring (as De Palma indicates by having the corpse discovered as a long-shot aside during an action sequence well into the second or third reel - it's just not big a deal in the whole scheme of things). Hilary Swank was indeed the only one of the main quartet who seemed to understand what De Palma was getting at (everyone else just hovers nervously in the background every time she appears on screen), much in the same way, as Matt said, that Simone Signoret just "got" Melville's vibe in Army of Shadows.

Even despite her rather sexless performance, that moment where Scarlett Johansson blows a kiss in slow motion still floors me thinking about it. The whole atmosphere of that opening 'Jules-and-Jim' happy threesome is so rich and fabulous.

Narshty, I really like your assessment of Black Dahlia. I've seen it only once but I suspect the second time will be a richer experience.


Yes, I think that's exactly why the film's been ripped apart. People have expressed disappointment to me about the film's ending. I loved it, especially how Johansson waits behind the front door to receive Bucky - that glimpse of bright red lips through the door window made me smile for some reason.

I can't wait to see what you have to say about Femme Fatale.

Didn't Pauline Kael gush embarrassingly about The Fury, too?

I'm glad you said that because I just finished it for the first time today and was taken with how much it tries to push forward it's own fiction. De Palma never let's us forget that this is a movie and that we are witnessing the imaginary workings of a real case which is just a perverse thing to do in this situation. It's probably really telling that the one actor who looks like a '40s actor, Eckhart, was a last minute choice. The never doesn't twist, but unravels into this winding mess that it almost needs that pause of De Palma's voice to make everything reregister with the viewer that all of this is just a game, a fiction. It makes it all the weirder than (though I'm noticing this is typical of De Palma) that he seems very emotionally invested in his two leads of Bucky and Short. Maybe the supposed sloppiness of the film (all of his films) is the confusion between De Palma's technical wants (the narrative push back here) and his romantic Hollywood side which are very opposed and make for some weird seeming choices until one gets into that very left field rhythm.