I think the movie is very under-rated. While it is by no means De Palma's best, it is an effective thriller and it does make sense! (For those who claim it does not, what specifically seems to be confusing you?) The performances are excellent, particularly Lithgow and the female psychologist. Some scenes are very well put together and others are very atmospheric. Elements of the plot are unexpected and do keep the viewer guessing.
I think that many people go into this movie familiar with its very poor reputation and then either expect it to be bad or attempt to match the poor reviews onto what they see. It is a sort of accepted wisdom, I suppose (just as it is accepted wisdom that he is completely unoriginal and steals all his best shots). Unfortunately, this is a common complaint in De Palma's filmography: many people seem to judge and pre-judge his movies or judge him, the man, rather than his movies (a good case in point is The Black Dahlia a very under-rated movie that was, on the whole, judged prior to release (just look at the number of pre-release posts on IMDB lambasting the casting and his direction, etc, etc). If you look at many of the negative reviews they seem to judge the movie on how well it matched the reviewer's expectations of what they thought it was going to be, rather than reviewing what the movie actually was).
I really don't see how it can be claimed that he is not a technically brilliant director. Within Raising Cain he brilliantly creates an atmosphere and consistently provokes the viewer and subverts their expectations. Some of the shots are wonderful - particularly the long tracking shot in the police station (I particularly like the part of this shot where it tracks down the stairs at an angle). The style of the film is very much over-the-top, but it has to be in order to match the story line and Lithgow's masterfully OTT performance.
This, of course, is part of the inevitable "style over substance" argument that plagues De Palma. However, I think that, firstly, the argument is absurd in motion pictures (the art of cinema is the art of motion pictures - emphasis on the pictures. The medium of the cinema is visual, so why should it be a crime to have beautiful visuals or to use the "tools of the trade" in order to tell a story in the most effective manner? A great many genre directors, especially thriller directors, are accused of producing style over substance, but this is just because it is these films that most exploit the techniques of cinema in order to create an end product that exploits the emotions of the viewers. Pacing, angles, music, dialogue, montage, ect. are all vital parts of the thriller director's box of tricks and are nothing to be ashamed of). Secondly, there is nothing that indicates to me that there is any void between a film having substance and style and, as other posters have observed, there is substance in that there is a solid, logical plot.
I think one of the reasons De Palma and particularly this film are hated is that some viewers and many reviewers resent the ability he has to affect them - there are a couple of "jump" scenes in Raising Cain, some unexpected plot developments and an ending that works, despite the fact that De Palma has done a similar thing several times before. Of course, none of this will change anybody's mind, because his harshest critics are either unwilling or unable to objectively view his films. I am not a blind admirer of De Palma (I even have some problems with Raising Cain) but I do admire his abilities and his films are often superior to many of his peers. It is refreshing, in the 21st century, to still have a Hollywood director who has a distinctive, original style.
"There are three sides to every story: yours, mine, and the truth." ~ Robert Evans
reply
share
eatmepapi
17 years ago
This film marked the quick decline of DePalma the director. After this he became a joke. I can still remember the stunned look of the audience when the credits rolled.
reply
share
Dont_fuk_with_the_Fett
17 years ago
The only thing that confused me was when they opened Bauer's trunk and Davidovich was in there, clearly dead from drowning and yet, she comes back and slashes Lithgow...or maybe I got it wrong, could someone clear that up for me? For the record, no, it ain't De Palmas best but it does what it set out to do, I thought some of his techniques where pretty fancy, but then I realised he was just ripping off from other directors like that one long take with the steadicam where Waldheim is explaining everything to the cops...seems too similar to Kubrick...but again, maybe I got it wrong.
I'm a Drummer, not a Wet Nurse - Ringo
reply
share
R_Kane (15828)
3 years ago
I said that before Evans did. “There are 3 sides to every story: my side, your side and the truth.”
reply
share