Did Brian De Palma really direct this
Or was it just some guy who happens to have the same name?
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Snake Eyes (1998) Discussion > Did Brian De Palma really direct this
Haha, the sarcasm is oozing out of your post.
I'm guessing you think Depalma is a good director and this movie is beneath his abilities? Or Vice versa?
Sorry but, when you make 40 films of which 3 or 4 are remotely "good" (just in my opinion) Snake Eyes is no surprise.
Also keep in mind that he didn't WRITE the script for any of the masterpieces under his belt. But he DID write Snake Eyes. Obviously should get other people to do that for him.
Also, I did like Cage in this movie just up until the shooting, he seemed pretty natural. After that it went downhill faster than a bus off a cliff.
What was most hilarious is how the ending got changed in the last minute and Cage still had that line about drowning (for a flood which never happened in the new version).
But he DID write Snake Eyes
Well, De Palma is co-credited with story. But I think really David Keopp can take responsibility for the screenplay. And De Palma, or - perhaps - the studio, can take responsibility for making a hash of the ending by changing it into something nonsensical and less dramatic. share
"Also keep in mind that he didn't WRITE the script for any of the masterpieces under his belt."
I thought DePalma wrote Dressed To Kill, Blow Out, and Body Double?
Personally, I thought the 1st half of this movie was really good, it just had a really weak ending.
shareThat's how I feel. Stylish and exciting for the most part, then the ending kind of blows it. It doesn't ruin the rest of the movie entirely, but it was a real letdown.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever."
I love the beginning of this movie. If you notice the first 17 or 20 minutes is one continuous shot. No editing, no splits, just one smooth shot, full of back ground action. There were hundreds if not thousands of people in those scenes. Imagine filming that, the pressure on everyone to get it right, that’s hard. Yet, I do agree with some here the rest of the movie, not so great.
share[deleted]
Exactly, the beginning shows how great a director De Palma is in terms of scene control. I can't even think how long did they rehearse that scene, must have been a nightmare :)
shareYou do understand that the long "continuous" shot is about eight different pieces of film seamlessly edited together - it's not quite the hat trick you think it is.
Here's what makes a great director: A director who doesn't make the film all about himself, consistently screaming "Look how great this shot it is." A great director's shots are always in service of one thing - telling the story. This is where De Palma has mostly failed - why he has the acolytes he has, who put all logical thinking aside when viewing some of his completely awful films, is beyond amazing.
Now wait a minute, mr White Sheik. I've just rewatched the beginning (10 minutes of it). First of, I never said those 10 minutes were one continuous shot. The guy before me did and true - I didn't correct him, but I was referring to De Palma's directorial skills in scene and actors control. Now a quick analysis.
from about 2:45 until 6:20 (the seconds may differ slightly) it is one continuous shot. No edits there. That is almost 4 minutes of unedited movie. Then, from 6:20 until 10:16 it is another unedited shot, which means another (almost) 4 minutes of film in which Cage and Sinise meet, start talking, go around the boxing ring, with Cage being all "go Tyler, go Tyler", like he's on dope.
4 minutes of unedited shot. In which the boxing gala is living, people are walking around, sitting and chatting, cheerleaders are alive and main actors are leading a conversation, building up their characters and showcasing the relation between them, which is necessary for the things to come. All in one take.
I understand that doesn't convince you?
Wow -- this, from the articulate and vocal defender of Bert I. Gordon and BEGINNING OF THE END? You were a joy to listen to and had your points on the commentary for that film, but I fear you are out of your element in criticizing De Palma, who is a filmmaker of immense depth and virtuosity.
Sometimes showy direction can be a distraction, but it can also be exhilarating to see just what a restless and inspired mind can imagine to put on the screen. I would also suggest that the often dizzying layering of meaning and effect in most De Palma, which directors of less stature such as Gordon achieve only rarely and not usually by design, sets him apart from many similarly aggressive film stylists. It's unfortunate you don't see it, but take it from one who can appreciate each on their own merits, De Palma is the real deal.
A great director's shots are always in service of one thing - telling the story
All the shots in the film, regardless of how elaborate they are, were in service of the story and the characters and the world of the film. If you missed this it's only because you weren't paying close enough attention.
The long take (or takes) at the beginning of the film exists to map out the geography of the casino, which is the main location for the entire film.
The first shot of the newscaster establishes several things right off the bat. 1) The practicalities of the boxing match, which is central to the assassination and a metaphor for what the film is essentially about . 2) That someone important will be attending the boxing match, thus establishing that there is more to the narrative than meets the eye. 3) That there's a storm approaching, which is both a literal and figurative point of reference...
From here De Palma introduces the TV presenter, the presence of the media (and media intrusion) and the idea of surveillance, all of which are important to the story and its subtext.
He introduces the central character, his larger than life personality, his womanizing and corruption, and he establishes the various supporting characters, some of who are significant to the assassination plot, and others that are simply red herrings.
By the end of this sequence he's established all the major players, the world of the film (his setting) and the assassination itself - all of which are germane to the narrative - and he's done so in a way that is intelligent, stylish and expressive of a highly personal visual language that continues right the way through the film (in short, establishing the tone).
By shooting the opening sequence in what appears to be one long unbroken shot, De Palma is connecting all of these various elements to one another in a way that makes them significant, as well as presenting his main protagonist as central to all of these various elements as well (which he is, or will be).
Snake Eyes, like most movies by De Palma, is incredibly intelligent in its direction and in its use of references, subtext and meta-commentary. Here the director weaves a story that gestures towards Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Antonioni (but with an approach to deconstruction closer to Godard) and uses it to tell a story about politics (ideas of corruption, terrorism, war as a business strategy, etc) and something more personal (the moral redemption of a corrupt character forced into doing the right thing).
share
Great analysis. It's a very good movie and I can't believe how shockingly underrated it is. People must not like the theme of the movie and that it's about how the United States was built on top of corruption and the blood of others. The direction of the movie is perfect and Brian De Palma is a fantastic director who's mostly directed good films, several great ones and a masterpiece in Scarface. So I don't know what mrwhitesheik is spouting nonsense about. You have no idea about cinema, mate. None.
Never let others dictate your opinion on a film:
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=13340299