![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Film review: The Black Dahlia (2006)
My relationship with Brian De Palma, though his films anyway, is a complicated one. So when every critic paid for the job can’t accept that the man who gave us Scarface can’t do better than Black Dahlia, I’m asking why the man who gave us Greetings, Phantom of the Paradise and Carrie can’t do better than The Untouchables.
For my money, he finally has; and with Black Dahlia. Adapted from James Ellroy’s novel, Dahlia puts De Palma through his voyeuristic, campy paces in a way people who wanted another L.A. Confidential (and honestly, who doesn’t?) weren’t expecting. I know I wasn’t. I expected to hate it. Josh Hartnett, who with Aaron Eckhart makes this movie the Battle of the Beady Eyes, as star? Hilary Swank as femme fatale?
The critics’ (who aren't me) opinion is that this film is disjointed; that it doesn’t know what it is; that it’s incoherent, laughable, campy, and a big disappointment. Having watched a lot of De Palma over the past year or so, I have to wonder what they’re expecting. I never liked the director until I realized that he’s laughing the whole way. Body Double? Repulsive unless you read it as a dark comedy.
Maybe I should back up and talk about the film a little. Okay. Hartnett is Officer Dwight "Bucky" Bleichert, who teams up with Sergeant Lee Blanchard (Eckhart) to share Blanchard’s girl Kay (Scarlett Johansson with ridiculous hair) and the discovery of Elizabeth Short’s mutilated body. There are lots of plots and subplots relating to this tenuous threesome, Blanchard and Bleichert’s somewhat political rise through the ranks, and Blanchard’s rising-yet-hidden obsession with the Black Dahlia murder. Eventually Bucky takes over, his cool reserve boiling over when he gets embroiled in a bizarre family drama involving the Linscotts. It’s the dinner scene where Hilary Swank as the Linscott daughter brings Bucky home and all domestic hell breaks loose that I realized I couldn’t not like this film. This scene is worth the price of admission. It’s hilarious. And I was amused enough to just go with everything else we’re supposed to believe, without trying too hard.
Because yes, it’s convoluted. And you have to take a lot of tangled threads on trust. Do I really think they’ve solved the Dahlia murder? No. It’s ridiculous and the film really falls apart in trying to explain it. I still don’t really understand what they were going for here; but it looks great. De Palma tends to surround himself with people he can trust, and his crew here has many familiar names who do him proud. Not to mention an underused Bill Finley, star of many early De Palma films who appears here as something of an homage to Phantom of the Paradise. There are some other problems as well, such as a plot point that hinges on two people looking alike who really don’t.
A great deal of one’s opinion is based on what’s expected. I think there’s an idea of De Palma at work here that for me was never true; I like this movie because I like De Palma’s roots and I desperately want him to go back to doing comedy. I’m not looking for a retread of the 80’s, when I disliked most of his films. De Palma’s darkness makes you uncertain about his humor; he’s a lot easier to watch if you pick up on the funny. After all, a guy who casts himself as the off-screen director of Betty Short’s screen test, questioning her ability to portray sadness, has to be pretty funny.
The Black Dahlia isn’t a comedy by any means, but I think anyone who goes in expecting something dreadfully serious and “straight” is going to be disappointed. For myself, I had fun. It’s up to the viewer whether that’s good enough or not.
For my money, he finally has; and with Black Dahlia. Adapted from James Ellroy’s novel, Dahlia puts De Palma through his voyeuristic, campy paces in a way people who wanted another L.A. Confidential (and honestly, who doesn’t?) weren’t expecting. I know I wasn’t. I expected to hate it. Josh Hartnett, who with Aaron Eckhart makes this movie the Battle of the Beady Eyes, as star? Hilary Swank as femme fatale?
The critics’ (who aren't me) opinion is that this film is disjointed; that it doesn’t know what it is; that it’s incoherent, laughable, campy, and a big disappointment. Having watched a lot of De Palma over the past year or so, I have to wonder what they’re expecting. I never liked the director until I realized that he’s laughing the whole way. Body Double? Repulsive unless you read it as a dark comedy.
Maybe I should back up and talk about the film a little. Okay. Hartnett is Officer Dwight "Bucky" Bleichert, who teams up with Sergeant Lee Blanchard (Eckhart) to share Blanchard’s girl Kay (Scarlett Johansson with ridiculous hair) and the discovery of Elizabeth Short’s mutilated body. There are lots of plots and subplots relating to this tenuous threesome, Blanchard and Bleichert’s somewhat political rise through the ranks, and Blanchard’s rising-yet-hidden obsession with the Black Dahlia murder. Eventually Bucky takes over, his cool reserve boiling over when he gets embroiled in a bizarre family drama involving the Linscotts. It’s the dinner scene where Hilary Swank as the Linscott daughter brings Bucky home and all domestic hell breaks loose that I realized I couldn’t not like this film. This scene is worth the price of admission. It’s hilarious. And I was amused enough to just go with everything else we’re supposed to believe, without trying too hard.
Because yes, it’s convoluted. And you have to take a lot of tangled threads on trust. Do I really think they’ve solved the Dahlia murder? No. It’s ridiculous and the film really falls apart in trying to explain it. I still don’t really understand what they were going for here; but it looks great. De Palma tends to surround himself with people he can trust, and his crew here has many familiar names who do him proud. Not to mention an underused Bill Finley, star of many early De Palma films who appears here as something of an homage to Phantom of the Paradise. There are some other problems as well, such as a plot point that hinges on two people looking alike who really don’t.
A great deal of one’s opinion is based on what’s expected. I think there’s an idea of De Palma at work here that for me was never true; I like this movie because I like De Palma’s roots and I desperately want him to go back to doing comedy. I’m not looking for a retread of the 80’s, when I disliked most of his films. De Palma’s darkness makes you uncertain about his humor; he’s a lot easier to watch if you pick up on the funny. After all, a guy who casts himself as the off-screen director of Betty Short’s screen test, questioning her ability to portray sadness, has to be pretty funny.
The Black Dahlia isn’t a comedy by any means, but I think anyone who goes in expecting something dreadfully serious and “straight” is going to be disappointed. For myself, I had fun. It’s up to the viewer whether that’s good enough or not.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I will confess to being swayed by reviews, because I liked the trailer. It's hard not to be a movie lemming (and generally I *don't* trust reviewers.)
no subject
no subject
Not that I let critics tell me what to do, usually, but I'm still growing into my new mortgage and my entertainment funds are severely limited.
spoilers...
Spoilers below....
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
I didn't find it "disjointed" or "chaotic." You had to pay attention and keep track of the plot threads, but IMO it wasn't that hard to figure out. IMO too many critics either spend a lot of time in the popcorn line, or duck into other movies to get a "twofer." If you leave at certain critical moments, you *will* find it hard to figure.
I loved how the film looked. I'm not used to "film noir" in color, but enjoyed all the atmospheric tricks: the expressive shadows; the secretive, veiled Venetian blinds; the obligatory spiral staircase; the panoramic roof shots.
The recreation of Los Angeles street-scenes and interiors in 1947 appealed to me too. The club for "the sisters" was great - as were the gritty boxing scenes.
The dinner scene was indeed hysterical, as was the scene where Bucky starts shooting up the joint.
Who was the faceless director supposed to be, though? The one interviewing Betty?
Re: spoilers...
Oh, I *loved* the club. K.D. Lang? Hysterical. I would definitely watch a movie set in that club; who are all these women? (Though it was kind of odd that all the "lesbians" in the movie seemed pretty flexible.)
The faceless director is no one in particular. Well, it's De Palma, of course, but I don't know of any real life screentest. I heard they added that to the film so Short could be a character. I think that was a good move. And the pleasure of that, for me, is in hearing the actual director (and one frequently accused of misogyny) berate the doomed actress, whom he's already (by proxy) cut up. For me, that's just more evidence of BDP's humor.
Re: spoilers...
OK, I get the part about the director. It was very clever to introduce Betty as a character that way. It was sad to see her, too, because when he's berating her like, "Can't you show sorrow?" you see what a bad actress she is - no, she actually *can't.* Even through her tears she has that creepy hebephrenic little smile.
Were there really women who went around aping the "Black Dahlia" in style (kind of like proto-goths, before there were goths?)
The sense I got re: Madeleine's gayness was that she was basically experimenting with sexual narcissism ("I wanted to know what it was like to be with someone who looked just like me") as well as "slumming" in a way that would be sure to infuriate Daddy. It may be too that the film reflects a more modern view of bisexuality that maybe wasn't as much the case in the late 1940s. Or maybe de Palma just likes "lipstick lesbians" who can be "converted" by Josh Hartnett... ; )