MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > OT De Palma (2015)

OT De Palma (2015)

posted 8 years ago by swanstep
6 replies | jump to latest

Just a few notes on the recent Baumbach/Paltrow doc. on De Palma.

1. The doc. doesn't feature the interviewers at all, rather it's an uninterrupted stream of De Palma commentating on his life and films (and other people's films), sometimes in talking head/direct address to the camera and sometimes just as voice over clips etc.. This makes the doc. go down very smooth indeed but it also maea that there's no conflict or even any follow-up questions that might have caused some sparks to fly.
2. De Palma is quite witty and self-deprecating throughout, but only occasionally do his anecdotes much new light on either his own films or on film-making more generally. Best technical moment: how his use of split-diopter shots grew out of his split screen work.
3. De Palma saw Vertigo on release in 1958 and was completely blown away by it's meta-ness - the sense that it was in part about the process of film-making. De P. didn;t get to see Vertigo again until a special LACMA screening in 1974(?). Schrader saw it for the first time then and they came out of the LACMA screening together and determined to make Obsession. It's a vivid reminder of just how generally hard it once was to see lots of acknowledged classic films and of how this general difficulty was amplified for the great missing Hitchcocks.
4. De Palma's stories about working with Herrmann are all interesting.
5. De Palma stories about working with Cruise on Mission Impossible are interesting.
6. De Palma trailed his father around NYC arriving at assignations with his mistresses, ultimately confronting his father, threatening to kill him, etc. De P. says that he *is* the kid from Dressed To Kill.
7. De P. occasionally succumbs to grandiosity, e.g., he seems to say that he was the only person who was seriously influenced by Hitchcock in the '70s and '80s. But that's just not so: Spielberg and Scorsese and Carpenter all have a ton of Hitchcock in their basic styles (it's just that it's cut together with lots of other influences from Disney and Ford and Kurosawa and Hawks to Powell and Bresson and Rossellini and Minnelli), and Chabrol, Argento, Lynch, Coens, Curtis Hanson, De Vito, and many many others are all basically unthinkable without Hitchcock.

In sum, a good fun doc. for De Palma watchers and for those fascinated by the post-Easy Riders/Movie Brat generation.

[–] Doghouse-6 8 years ago

De P. didn;t get to see Vertigo again until a special LACMA screening in 1974(?). Schrader saw it for the first time then and they came out of the LACMA screening together and determined to make Obsession.

I wonder if this refers to the '73 LACMA screening I attended at which Hitchcock and Stewart were present to discuss and take questions on this and their other films together.

If memory serves, it was the kickoff to a two-week festival at which they ran every extant feature as well as every TV episode he'd directed, along with special programs, one of which was premiere of the Richard Schickel documentary, and others which examined in detail things like the editing of key scenes in certain of his films.

It was at that Vertigo event that I noticed a quirk in Hitch's answers that I found noteworthy: in any anecdote involving their personal, offscreen interactions, he referred to Stewart as "Jimmy;" when his answer had to do with anything appearing onscreen that involved him, Hitch referred to him as "the actor" (by which Stewart, seated right next to him, seemed unfazed).

De P. occasionally succumbs to grandiosity, e.g., he seems to say that he was the only person who was seriously influenced by Hitchcock in the '70s and '80s. But that's just not so...

Perhaps it's fair to say DePalma was the only director doing homages that so openly aped Hitchcock stylistically and thematically (right down to his choice of composer). That's not meant to diminish those efforts necessarily, as I quite liked both Sisters and Obsession.

Poe! You are...avenged!

[–] swanstep 8 years ago

I wonder if this refers to the '73 LACMA screening I attended at which Hitchcock and Stewart were present to discuss and take questions on this and their other films together.

De P. didn't mention Hitch and Stewart being present, so maybe it was something like a 1-year-later, echo event, where LACMA was again given special permission to show that print.

Perhaps it's fair to say DePalma was the only director doing homages that so openly aped Hitchcock stylistically and thematically (right down to his choice of composer).

I think that that was what De Palma really wanted to say. A good example of where the doc. misses a trick is in not framing this 'explicit homage' point as a criticism. Hell, even SNL got in on the act at the time and had a segment (which I've heard about but never seen) where they beat up on De Palma for being a Hitchcock copyist and also for so often casting his wives and girlfriends. I was expecting to see that SNL clip and maybe, e.g., Siskel and Ebert and other critics rolling their eyes at all the Hitch homages. We wanted to see De Palma commentate in response to those things too but the doc. never risks anything like that.

[–] ecarle 8 years ago

A good example of where the doc. misses a trick is in not framing this 'explicit homage' point as a criticism.

---

Yes. It WAS a problem for DePalma at the time. I'd say it took until Scarface(a HAWKS remake!) for DePalma to shake the criticism.

--

Hell, even SNL got in on the act at the time and had a segment (which I've heard about but never seen) where they beat up on De Palma for being a Hitchcock copyist and also for so often casting his wives and girlfriends.

---

I have the quote right here: "Once a year, Brian DePalma picks the bones of a dead director and gives his wife a job." This to promote "Brian DePalma's The Clams" a stop-motion parody of The Birds.

---

I was expecting to see that SNL clip and maybe, e.g., Siskel and Ebert and other critics rolling their eyes at all the Hitch homages. We wanted to see De Palma commentate in response to those things too but the doc. never risks anything like that.

---

Probably no way to get his cooperation for the interviews if they did that. But we all know about this issue..it continued on through Body Double and Raising Cain and Femme Fatale. DePalma just can't help himself.

What's interesting to me is this: give or take a few more movies to come(and his last hit was Mission Impossible 20 years ago!) DePalma has completed his career, and it has notable works within it. Carrie(early on, perhaps his real landmark film.) The Phantom of the Paradise. Scarface(his big one?) The Untouchables. Carlito's Way. And...on "the Hitchcock side of the street," Dressed to Kill and Blow Out are well-regarded.

That's more than enough to declare DePalma's career a success. But it will always be dogged not only by the Hitchcock copycatting, but by the fact that the copycatting was pretty well below the intelligence and art of the original.

Oh, well. Everyone makes their career choices. Or sometimes, those choices are made for them.

As an obsession.

[–] ecarle 8 years ago

De P. didn;t get to see Vertigo again until a special LACMA screening in 1974(?). Schrader saw it for the first time then and they came out of the LACMA screening together and determined to make Obsession.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder if this refers to the '73 LACMA screening I attended at which Hitchcock and Stewart were present to discuss and take questions on this and their other films together.

If memory serves, it was the kickoff to a two-week festival at which they ran every extant feature as well as every TV episode he'd directed, along with special programs, one of which was premiere of the Richard Schickel documentary, and others which examined in detail things like the editing of key scenes in certain of his films.

---

I think that was in January of 1973. I did not attend -- so great that YOU did -- but a family friend at Universal sent me the program, which I treasured at the time and still have. Each key Hitchcock movie(Vertigo, Psycho, etc) had a photo for the night it was shown. Some TV episodes were shown. And the final film to be shown was his recent "triumph," Frenzy. The photo was disturbing: Barbara Leigh-Hunt(Brenda) in the midst of being strangled, eyes closed, mouth screaming -- the killer's hands gripping the necktie the only visible part of his identity in the photo. That photo stuck with me.

I recall being amazed that the family friend knew I liked Hitchcock. I guess the word was out through my own family members.

---

It was at that Vertigo event that I noticed a quirk in Hitch's answers that I found noteworthy: in any anecdote involving their personal, offscreen interactions, he referred to Stewart as "Jimmy;" when his answer had to do with anything appearing onscreen that involved him, Hitch referred to him as "the actor" (by which Stewart, seated right next to him, seemed unfazed).

---

Hmm. Hitchcock did stuff like that a lot. Referring to himself as "one" sometimes ("People think one is a monster because of the work one does.")

On a similar note, I recall Hitchcock praising the work of Anthony Perkins and Martin Balsam in Psycho this way: "Tony and Balsam are intelligent men, so I just left the scene up to them." "Tony" is the Movie Star, the personal friend. "Balsam" is the supporting actor, the hired help.

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
De P. occasionally succumbs to grandiosity, e.g., he seems to say that he was the only person who was seriously influenced by Hitchcock in the '70s and '80s. But that's just not so...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps it's fair to say DePalma was the only director doing homages that so openly aped Hitchcock stylistically and thematically (right down to his choice of composer).

---

There is a sad irony that just as DePalma started using Herrmann...Herrmann died. And rather young -- 50's? 60's? For DePalma intended to use Herrmann on "Carrie" and likely would have used him as long as possible, carrying forth from Hitchcock.

But perahps it is better that DePalma had to use other composers. John Williams' overture for "The Fury" is tremendously exciting.

---

That's not meant to diminish those efforts necessarily, as I quite liked both Sisters and Obsession.

---

Yes, but I think it became a real problem for DePalma. Sisters is no Psycho, and Obsession is no Vertigo...even as both films reference those others incessantly.

Meanwhile, Spielberg was making The Sugarland Express and a "different type of thriller" in Jaws(it was an adventure movie, too); and Scorsese was making "Mean Streets(his first mob movie); "Alice"(a non-violent movie) and "Taxi Driver." In short, Spielberg and Scorsese did not OVERTLY ape Hitchcock as their Young Turk calling cards.

[–] Doghouse-6 8 years ago

Hi, ec!

I think that was in January of 1973. I did not attend -- so great that YOU did -- but a family friend at Universal sent me the program, which I treasured at the time and still have.

I think I'd gotten my first copy of Hitchcock/Truffaut only months before, so I just ate that festival up. I believe I even took some vacation time from work in order to do so (and I've kept my program, too, although I haven't looked at it in years). The rangy Stewart and diminutive Hitchcock made quite a picture when they stood onstage together before being seated.

Hitchcock did stuff like that a lot. Referring to himself as "one" sometimes ("People think one is a monster because of the work one does.")

I've come to understand that's more a British thing than a specifically Hitchcock one, and an archaic one at that. Karloff used to do it sometimes, and I've noticed it in older British films and television dramas.

Another Britishism that caught my ear in that documentary was Hitchcock's phrasing regarding the MacGuffin: "It's what the characters are after but the audience don't care." That got a giggle from the house, as though he'd deliberately engaged in poor grammar, like saying "ain't." But what I've noticed since then is that it has to do with nouns representing collectives, as in "Universal are releasing Hitchcock's next picture" or "the staff meet monthly." We treat them as singular; they treat them as plural. I think that, too, has been falling out of fashion for some time.

I love noting these little differences in the usage of our common language. Another charmer: where we'd say "the vacuum cleaner's broken" or "is on the blink" (or the "fritz"), some Brits say "the Hoover's gone wrong."

But perahps it is better that DePalma had to use other composers. John Williams' overture for "The Fury" is tremendously exciting.

I was unable to conjure that from memory, but quickly found a video file online and it came right back to me. I remember now what a promising aural mood it created, but although I recall little of the film, what stayed with me was the somewhat repelled feeling I had by the time it concluded. Seemed rather overkill, pardon the expression, especially after his immediately preceding examination of telekinesis, Carrie (which hadn't really tickled me much either).

Poe! You are...avenged!

[–] ecarle 8 years ago

Hi, doghouse!

---

I think that was in January of 1973. I did not attend -- so great that YOU did -- but a family friend at Universal sent me the program, which I treasured at the time and still have.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I'd gotten my first copy of Hitchcock/Truffaut only months before, so I just ate that festival up. I believe I even took some vacation time from work in order to do so (and I've kept my program, too, although I haven't looked at it in years).

---

It was a great program.

I'll try to articulate something here that maybe won't work, but I'll try:

My "Hitchcock fandom" rather fully emerged after the string of 1966/1967/1968 network and local screeings of all the biggies: Rear Window, Vertigo, North by Northwest, The Birds and (after a network cancellation and moved to local late night) Psycho. Then I got my copy of Hitchcock/Truffaut.

But: just as the fandom kicked in...Hitchocck pretty much disappeared from the scene. It was over three years from Torn Curtain to Topaz, a quicker two and one half to Frenzy, then a long four to Family Plot.

So Hitchocck was really about me becoming a great fan of a director who was pretty much done and gone. And something like that 1973 program was a nostalgic "reach back" to when he had a weekly TV show and those classics werer in release..with the kicker(which had rather created the REASON for the 1973 event) that Hitchocck finally had a well-reviewed hit again with Frenzy.

This is yet another reason that the success of Frenzy was important. With Frenzy on his resume as a recent hit, Hitchcock could be feted in LA(in 1973) and in New York(in 1974, with Princess Grace in attendance) NOT ONLY as a great "Golden Age" director, but as one who was actually relevant again in the 70's.

Briefly again on that photo of Brenda being strangled in Frenzy. In lingering on it, I perhaps revealed a certain taste for the brutal but it is there to look at on the "Frenzy" page and it IS brutal. And thus meaningful.

Interesting to me: the most famous production shot of the shower scene in Psycho is of Janet Leigh screaming -= BEFORE she is attacked -- at someone/something that we are just DYING to see(Mrs. Bates, as it turns out). But she isn't being stabbed. In the "Frenzy" shot, the victim IS being killed(strangled in a 1972 brutal way) but again there is "mystery": the male hands of the unseen killer tightening the necktie. We were just DYING to see him, too. (Bob Rusk, as it turns out, and not Richard Blaney as suspected early in the film.)

Thus did Hitchcock in his "photographic promotional materials" for Frenzy both mimic Psycho and (as Frenzy itself did) go BEYOND Psycho, in brutality.

---

--

The rangy Stewart and diminutive Hitchcock made quite a picture when they stood onstage together before being seated.

---

I'll bet that they did. In a similar fashion, when Hitchcock presented the honorary Oscar to Lew Wasserman in 1974(see? Hitchcock was hot again, per Frenzy), the two men stood next to each other and it was like The Tall Thin Man and the Short Fat Man in tandem. Such dual power!

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitchcock did stuff like that a lot. Referring to himself as "one" sometimes ("People think one is a monster because of the work one does.")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've come to understand that's more a British thing than a specifically Hitchcock one, and an archaic one at that. Karloff used to do it sometimes, and I've noticed it in older British films and television dramas.

Another Britishism that caught my ear in that documentary was Hitchcock's phrasing regarding the MacGuffin: "It's what the characters are after but the audience don't care." That got a giggle from the house, as though he'd deliberately engaged in poor grammar, like saying "ain't."

---

Another good call. I felt Hitchcock often -- in his filmed interviews without editorial clean-up -- spoke in rather oddly fractured English. But now -- ONLY now -- do I truly understand why.

---

But what I've noticed since then is that it has to do with nouns representing collectives, as in "Universal are releasing Hitchcock's next picture" or "the staff meet monthly." We treat them as singular; they treat them as plural. I think that, too, has been falling out of fashion for some time.

--

Again, interesting.

---

I love noting these little differences in the usage of our common language. Another charmer: where we'd say "the vacuum cleaner's broken" or "is on the blink" (or the "fritz"), some Brits say "the Hoover's gone wrong."

---

One reason I enjoy watching British films is because though English is being spoken...its being spoken different.

That said, I understand that Universal actually CHANGED some of the dialogue in Frenzy to reflect American idiom. "Truck" inserted for "lorry"; "elevator" for "lift" and something about which floor Rusk's flat is on.

When you think about it, this was pretty "cultural damaging" to re-loop British actors to say British terms in American idiom!

And beyond that: Frenzy is a real oddity in studio filmmaking. Universal released the film as if it were an "All-American Universal Studios movie" but it is clearly and distinctly British in cast, writer and studio(Pinewood.) Given those changed lines for American release, what we have in Frenzy is an odd "American-British hybrid" of a film.

---

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But perahps it is better that DePalma had to use other composers. John Williams' overture for "The Fury" is tremendously exciting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was unable to conjure that from memory, but quickly found a video file online and it came right back to me. I remember now what a promising aural mood it created, but although I recall little of the film, what stayed with me was the somewhat repelled feeling I had by the time it concluded. Seemed rather overkill, pardon the expression, especially after his immediately preceding examination of telekinesis, Carrie (which hadn't really tickled me much either).

---

I'm not a big fan of the "telekinesis" plot in either film, because to me its just wish-fulfillment fantasy: the weak destroy their stronger enemies simply by wishing it so and things fly through the air and kill them, or the victims fly through the air and die.

"Carrie" did this on a small, indie-film scale; "The Fury" did it with a big budget (for major studio 20th Century Fox) and with John Williams (to me) great big booming Star Wars/Superman type score.

"The Fury" is famous for spawning a Pauline Kael lovefest of a review that was overkill itself. Other critics felt Kael went way off the deep end here for a fairly schlocky film. She wrote that "The Fury" "had more set-pieces than any Hitchcock film"(maybe so, but they were mostly bad) and that the film's final scene(which I liked) would have had Hitchock, Welles, and about 20 other classic filmmakers laughing in glee. OTHER critics attacked Kael mercilessly for this review.

As for DePalma, as if working with Fox was some sort of mistake, he went back to near indie-film production for "Dressed to Kill" and "Blow Out."

Oh, the final scene of "The Fury": John Cassavetes was a noted director of realistic films, but better(to me) as an actor -- he had a handsome, sullen face and a look like he was always amused by the idiots in the world around him. Well, he's the ultra-villain in "The Fury" and at film's end, Amy Irving uses HER telekinetic powers to make Cassavetes entire body quake and shake and percolate until...his head explodes upwards from his neck at the camera and the rest of his body explodes like a balloon full of blood.

Kael thought this was magnificent. I thought it was pretty damn funny...and Williams score is operatic here in using the Cassavetes explosion to fade the film to a thunderous conclusion of music and image.