I pretty much compltely agree with you; at least with Vertigo the murderer had a notion that James Stewart might not be able to make it up those steps. (Itself not the strongest plot device)
My main question is why would John Lithgow pay off the kidnapper and have him smuggle the daughter to Italy in the first place? (The kidnapper says, during her flashback, that Lithgow will pay the ransom/They haggle the price at the airport briefly) What was the point? He knew that 17 years later she would be such a dead ringer for the wife, he would finally get his hands on the valuable land because by then Robertson would've gone a little nuts? Someone with that foresight doesn't need a business partner, he's bound to be a billionaire. We can assume then that Lithgow hatched the "daughter being the wife" plot as time passed on and Robertson's obsession manifested itself, but the original question remains: why bundle the kid off to Italy? It couldn't have been out of compassion to avoid killing her, nor to avoid discovery of the plot. She was unaware of his complicity and he could've simply paid the guy off and had her released unharmed. And really, what's the motivation of the kidnapper? "Sure, I'll bring along a traumatized kid with me to Italy, that'll raise no questions"
Dumb.
Playing devil's advocate with your questions:
1/2) It's her flashback and she's portraying herself as an adult during it. The child's mental state might have been much more damaged than Bujold shows, we already saw the kid hysterical in another scene. She could've suffered Post-traumatic Stress Disoreder and obviously her later "flashbacks" might indicate she suppressed a lot of memories. Children do grow up with people who've kidnapped them, unaware. Granted though this child was much too old. But, she had to be for the plot, in order to remember the "flashbacks" so well.
Basically, dumb. We can give a pass to the new mom, she was childless or something, who knows.
3) Good pickup, I didn't notice that, it's stupid that they had Roberston show up there, but, of course, it would make no sense for Lithgow to bring him there.
4) Lithgow had been feeding the daughter lies during his many trips to Florence (which Robertson refers early on that Lithgow has taken) so conceivably she was driven by her hatred. A better actress might've conveyed that more convincingly, especially with better direction. The rest can be given a pass, as we can stupidly assume that plots like these are attempted often in the world, but we're watching this one because it all managed to work out. Pretty much like Vertigo.
5) Robertson had signed over the valuable land to Lithgow, which is primarily what Lithgow wanted, it's what he attempted to get in 1959 until the police suggested Robertson use fake money. (Which, if they're using a transmitter, why not use real money -- I mean, they can assume the pickup guy isn't going to open the case at the pier??????) We can assume that Lithgow was planning to kill Robertson, and either make it look like a robbery by the daughter or perhaps a suicide, and was giving him back the case so there'd be no questions during the investigation. That's why Lithgow bothered to tell the whole plot to him. Why Lithgow kept the best part (she was his daughter) a secret makes no sense, except for dramatic effect later.
6) The bodies could've been thrown from the car, who knows, maybe they did recover the car at least. What a great car though -- runs into a gasoline tanker, explodes, but maintains all of its structural integrity, yet is completely burned out in the 10 seconds that transpire. But, we can blame the budget for that, not the plot.
7) If she's hell-bent on revenge as Lithgow asserts, she would've played it cool running into Robertson. And she had to be the "easy" and friendly in order to fool us. I give them a pass with this one.
Another question, why does Lithgow bother to switch briefcases in the bank (obviously Bujold is doing it, it's a woman's hands) He somehow knows that EVERYONE in the bank will be looking the other way at some point? Why not just pick up the real money at the pier? And leaving the fake money briefcase at the pier? He knows that it will send Robertson over the edge? Beyond where he will immediately smell a rat? Why not just kill him and get it over with. why not just spend 17 years getting him to name you, his best friend, as his heir,
or just kill him and buy the land from whoever inherits it, who is not obsessed?
reply
share
thomas196x2000
15 years ago
Thank you Majuro for your thoughtful and detailed response. Glad I was not the only one and I see your points as well.
When I was really young I loved De Palma movies. But like 80s pop music, they don't age well. I remember seeing this 20 years ago and liked it. But last night I just thought it was incredibly not well thought through. And while the constructs of Vertigo as well were imperfect, comparing this movie to that like other posters who thought this was as good or near as good, leave me really wondering what they are thinking.
I'll bet, sadly, if I watch "Dressed to Kill" again, after not seeing it for like 20 years, I might feel the same. And I wanted to like this film, but just too many holes.
My only other complaint is that while I loved the BH score, I thought it was used like a sledgehammer, way too heavy, especially when Robertson sees the church again, moving into melodramatic territory. bum BUMMMMMMMMMM! The church!
All in all, I did like some aspects of the movie, the locations, and anything Robertson is in I enjoy. Too bad this missed the mark, it might have been a minor classic.
reply
share
giammamike
15 years ago
3) When Lithgow and Robertson go to Italy, it's Robertson that wants to go back to the church-not Lithgow. So we must either accept that Lithgow somehow knew that Robertson would go there, or just took a chance. Either case, he had to set up the daughter and a whole job at the church. Or was that just an incredible coincidence and she happened to work there? Either way, makes no sense.
3) Good pickup, I didn't notice that, it's stupid that they had Roberston show up there, but, of course, it would make no sense for Lithgow to bring him there.
Essentially, this is De Palma's Vertigo. In Vertigo, Jimmy Stewart's friend took advantage of Stewart's Vertigo by preventing him following Novak to the top of the belltower so she could commit "suicide."
In Obsession, Lithgow takes advantage of Robertson's inability to let go of Bujold -- his obsession -- to bring him along to Italy, knowing full well he would want to return to the place he met his wife all those years ago. (Robertson had even built his own monument for her in New Orleans, returning to it religiously, cementing his morbid obsession.)
why does Lithgow bother to switch briefcases in the bank (obviously Bujold is doing it, it's a woman's hands)
Because most of it was Lithgow's money. That's why Roberston went to Lithgow. He didn't have all the money he needed to pay the ransom. But by taking everything Robertson had left, Robertson ends up destitute... and insane.
Leaving the fake money briefcase at the pier? He knows that it will send Robertson over the edge?
This way it re-enacts the original kidnapping/ransom. Having the same exact thing happen to him twice will drive him crazy and then Lithgow can get away with everything, free and clear.
This also allows Robertson to confront Lithgow. Lithgow tells him the truth and stretches it when he implicates Bujold (Robertson's daughter) in his own plot.
Of course this doesn't go the way Lithgow plans. Lithgow grabs that gun of his, planning to kill him in "self defence," apparently.
Things don't go that way. Allowing De Palma to have a Dial M for Murder moment with a pair of scissors.
reply
share
franzkabuki
14 years ago
As has been noted, if it were any less overwrought or nonsensical, it would not have worked at all. It´s firmly in the land of make-believe where logic is best left out of it - first of many films where De Palma is gleefully deconstructing cinematic legacy in ways that don´t make a whole lotta sense when looked at in terms of the real world (stuff like The Fury, Dressed To Kill, Body Double and Femme Fatale were to follow). I´d say his exercises in absurdity and hermetically sealed off realm of cinema are, as a rule, rather imaginative and definitely entertaining. It´s all about style - and this he´s got in spades.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
reply
share
s007davis
11 years ago
"Another question, why does Lithgow bother to switch briefcases in the bank (obviously Bujold is doing it, it's a woman's hands) He somehow knows that EVERYONE in the bank will be looking the other way at some point?"
I didn't think it was Miss Bujold switching the briefcases in the bank scene. Otherwise the scene where she's gets all frustrated with the suitcase full of blank paper and remembers the previous kidnapping via flashback would make no sense.
My explanation is that it is switched by a bank employee. It would be easy for Lithgow to explain. He could say something to the bank in advance like "my business partner is crazy and we need to go along with this to humor him." After all, LaSalle was probably seen as an upstanding citizen, not a crook, and they probably thought this was to protect the man who they thought was an upstanding citizen.
reply
share