Dressed to Kill.....Movie Club

Tools    





Mother! Oh, God! Mother! Blood!
**Spoilers** Don’t read if you’re still waiting to view it


Kong once mentioned as we were revitalizing this club that he would like to see the discussions more organized.

I’ll try to introduce some topics of discussion regarding Dressed to Kill, although some of the things I bring up may not be new to the topic of Brian De Palma or the film, but they may be worth discussing anyway.

First, my personal feelings about the film:

I first watched this film in 1986 when I was 20-years old. I then watched it again in 1987 when I was 21-years old. I don’t know if my “movie maturity” hadn’t developed yet because I couldn’t remember much about the film as I began to watch it last night, 16 years after my last viewing. Before starting the film, I remembered the opening scene with Angie Dickinson in the shower, but didn’t remember that it was a fantasy. I remembered the entire museum/taxicab/elevator scene, but I then had no recollection of the rest of the film. I had completely forgotten that Michael Cain’s character was the killer. I like De Palma’s style in this film, and the suspense works for me. The acting of Nancy Allen (De Palma’s wife at the time) is the only thing about this film that I don’t like.

From what I’ve read, Brian De Palma has received a lot of praise and criticism as a director. It seems that people either love him or hate him. Those who hate him point out that most of his early success was because he ripped off so many of Hitchcock’s films. There was a time, before The Untouchables, that every one of De Palma’s films was compared and picked apart regarding comparisons to Hitchcock films. Being a huge Hitchcock fan, I don’t see De Palma as ripping-off Hitchcock, but rather paying homage to him. If you’re going to make a mystery/suspense film, how can you not borrow from the master himself? Think about how many films out there borrow their storyline or style from other films. It Happened One Night has been redone so many times, it’s even shown up in the form of Shrek, which wasn’t criticized for being a rip-off.

Here are some things to discuss or consider (I may attempt to answer most of these after a few days):

Do you think De Palma uses gratuitous sex and violence in this film?

Does Dickinson’s shower fantasy at the beginning draw you in? or is it confusing and unnecessary?

Is the museum scene too long and drawn out? or does the camera work, editing, and acting of Dickinson work well in this scene to create suspense and develop the vulnerability of the character?

How does the discovery of her partner’s venereal disease play a part in this film?

What does the little girl in the elevator represent?

Does the poor acting of Nancy Allen (Liz) bother you? Do you think it would have been a better film had someone else played the part? or do you think she does a good job portraying a young, bimbo-type?

There are a lot of reflections and reflected light in the film? Does this have specific meaning?

De Palma uses a lot of split screens in many scenes, but he mixes up the style and purpose of these splits. Is there meaning to these split screens?

Does De Palma’s choice to use another actor (actress) for the role of the killer, “Bobbi,” as well as the voice of “Bobbi” on the message recorder make the sell of Michael Caine as the killer too unbelieveable?

Is the fake ending of Liz’s nightmare necessary? Does it work for you? Do see any relevance regarding this shower scene and the fantasy shower scene at the beginning?

How many scenes can you attribute to other Hitchcock films?
__________________
NEW (as of 1/24/05): Quick Reviews #10



The Mad Prophet of the Movie Forums
I must confess that I didn't see this movie this week. (I do however have a very good recollection of it).

I have several thoughts on the film.

I won't talk about everything, but a few quick comments before I discuss what you brought up:

1) I loved the style and direction of the film. I love De Palma (Sidenote: I recently saw The Phantom of the Paradise. I loved that. So sad and beautiful)

2) I think the film worked wonderfully well as a re-make/tribute to Psycho. It even uses the plot of Psycho to add surprise to the movie. De Palma changes events just slightly enough so that you don't immendiately realize what is meant to be taken from the movie. (Example: The man with the disease is used as a decoy to keep suspicion away from Caine, even if for a short time. He takes over Normans role for a short time)

3) I loved it.

Now you're discussion points: (in order that you brought them up)

While I do think sex and violence are too much in the film, they are used to a good effect in the movie, so...yes and no.

I though her opening fantasy was shocking. I also thought it to be a plot device to show how she wasn't being pleased by her husband. Not to mention that it pretty much set the mood for the rest of the movie.

The latter. (Not to mention the camerawork was both lovely and subtley creepy)

My first that is that it makes the viewer believe she will live longer, as she is already marked for death. The killing of her is much more of a surprise.

That is a good question. Innocence...fleeting life....good question.

I think someone else would've been much better. That said, she makes a great bimbo.

I think it does.
I'll have to think about what though....

I don't think it has an intended meaning, as this is a De Palma trademark split screen (I love those!), but it does add effect to the split personality theme.

No. I didn't think so at all. (This is the same arguement for Psycho. No one is bothered by mother though)

The ending did work for me (although I'd much much much much much prefer that the nightmare ending stay out over it being there). I liked Caine escaping, and I liked the parallel between the shower scenes.

A lot
__________________
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" - Howard Beale



It was beauty killed the beast.
Just a note: Kong didn't get around to watching this yet. Sorry. Kong will try to see it on Wednesday, and jump in the discussion then.


(Just wanted to let you guys know that Kong will continue his unmatched streak of Movie Club particapation; albeit a bit tardy on a few of them.)
__________________
Kong's Reviews:
Stuck On You
Bad Santa



The Mad Prophet of the Movie Forums
So noted.



I am having a nervous breakdance
I have this film but I haven't seen it recently. I will do so before I discuss it "for real" but I just wanted to comment on some things.

First of all, I like this film. It's one of the De Palma films I like since I think he is a very uneven filmmaker. Some of the films, like this one and Carlito's Way, I really like and others are really crappy.

I would say that at least in Dressed To Kill he is paying homage to Hitchcock rather than ripping the master off. The whole idea of killing the heroine half through the movie together with the elevator killing and a guy dressed as a woman is straight up Psycho, but why not use the wheel if the wheel is invented? I also think the esthetic style in this movie as well as the twist in the end is awsome. But I'll try and watch this movie again tonight to refresh my senile memory a bit and I'll get back to you guys and r66's questions.
__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but
now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.



Mother! Oh, God! Mother! Blood!
Originally Posted by Piddzilla
But I'll try and watch this movie again tonight to refresh my senile memory a bit and I'll get back to you guys and r66's questions.
How about MY questions?



I am having a nervous breakdance
Originally Posted by Mark
How about MY questions?
Oops! See! I told you I was senile!! I don't know why I keep mixing you and r66 up... Sorry, dude!



Mother! Oh, God! Mother! Blood!
Was I the only one that watched this film? I hope I didn't kill the club with this pick I guess we'll see during the discussion of the next two films.



I am having a nervous breakdance
Damnit, Mark! I'm sorry! I totally forgot about it! I've been working a lot lately and I've had things on my mind. I'm not even sure I will have time to see it tonight or tomorrow night since it's working weekend for me.



The Mad Prophet of the Movie Forums
I've been very busy lately as well. In and out of the doctors office, having surgery, etc. I'll watch next weeks for sure.



Ah, what a great choice. I loved this movie.

Originally Posted by Mark
Do you think De Palma uses gratuitous sex and violence in this film?
Yes, definitely, but it's done in a self-aware, distanced manner. All of his older movies, in my opinion, are comedies.

Does Dickinson’s shower fantasy at the beginning draw you in? or is it confusing and unnecessary?
I think it's a pretty brilliant piece of filmmaking. It draws you in without establishing anything other than 'this woman is horny' and sets up the later vd joke.

Is the museum scene too long and drawn out? or does the camera work, editing, and acting of Dickinson work well in this scene to create suspense and develop the vulnerability of the character?
Personally I could watch a De Palma set piece all day - the pleasure isn't in what happens, it's in how he films it. I loved the scene, I thought it did a fine job of creating suspense - De Palma does it on Hitchcock's level.

How does the discovery of her partner’s venereal disease play a part in this film?
It provides one of the best laughs of the 1980s. The camera zooms in and the music swells. Priceless.

De Palma uses a lot of split screens in many scenes, but he mixes up the style and purpose of these splits. Is there meaning to these split screens?
It's all in the style. Pre-Blow Out De Palma, I think, is a very surface-oriented director, insofar as you're not meant to care about the characters, you're meant to care about what he does to them. He's like a chemist, he puts people in weird situations and shakes it all up. I think he just likes the idea of action in two different places onscreen at the same time.

Does De Palma’s choice to use another actor (actress) for the role of the killer, “Bobbi,” as well as the voice of “Bobbi” on the message recorder make the sell of Michael Caine as the killer too unbelieveable?
No more unbelievable than anything in Psycho.
__________________
**** the Lakers!



It was beauty killed the beast.
Sorry for getting to this so late.

Kong feels a bit mixed about De Palma's Dressed to Kill. Overall, Kong thinks it's an entertaining work, but it's nothing masterful and there are a lot of things that Kong doesn't like about it. Kong has to say he isn't to crazy about De Palma on the whole; some of his stuff tends to be absurdly convoluted, and that can turn Kong off of the movie pretty quickly. But, in the case of Dressed to Kill, it manages to somewhat overcome it's absurdities through the use of good suspense building.

Okay, now for Mark's questions:
Originally Posted by Mark
Do you think De Palma uses gratuitous sex and violence in this film?
Kong wasn't fazed one bit by any of the violence, but Kong did think to himself that some, if not all, of the nudity was not needed. It didn't really detract from the film though.

Originally Posted by Mark
Does Dickinson’s shower fantasy at the beginning draw you in? or is it confusing and unnecessary.
For Kong it did nothing more than set the tone and mood of the movie. Not entirely necessary, but not without purpose either.

Originally Posted by Mark
Is the museum scene too long and drawn out? or does the camera work, editing, and acting of Dickinson work well in this scene to create suspense and develop the vulnerability of the character?
Kong thought that the museum scene was easily the best part of the movie. It's a little absurd, but it's fun to watch, and really well directed/edited. It also provides a lot of intrigue and mystery to the beginning of the film; more than was present in the post-Dickinson section of the film IKO.

Originally Posted by Mark
How does the discovery of her partner’s venereal disease play a part in this film?
It's a great way to throw off the audience. A major discovery like that is bound to leave the audience thinking that it's a major plor point that she will end up investigating, and therefore makes her murder all the more surprising. Kong doesn't think it serves any other crucial purpose than that, although it does tie in nicely with the detectives little monologue about how people can find death if they're looking for it.

In a way Kong also felt the movie was just a bit xenophobic, but that it probably wasn't really intended that way. You might think this is grasping at straws, but oh well, it's just something that popped in Kong's head. 1 - Mysterious stranger gives Dickinson a venereal disease. 2 - The only black people in the movie are a bunch of rapist thugs, except for a cop who basically ignores Allen's plight. 3 - The transexual is a murdering nutjob.

Originally Posted by Mark
What does the little girl in the elevator represent?
She sees dead people.

Originally Posted by Mark
Does the poor acting of Nancy Allen (Liz) bother you? Do you think it would have been a better film had someone else played the part? or do you think she does a good job portraying a young, bimbo-type?
Good Lord was she atrocious. Kong absolutely hated her in that role. Kong didn't know that she was De Palma's wife at the time. Earlier today at work Kong discussed this movie briefly with another fellow and Kong said, "Nancy Allen better have been De Palma's girlfiend because she sucked. There's no way in hell she got that part legitimately." Or something like that.

Originally Posted by Mark
There are a lot of reflections and reflected light in the film? Does this have specific meaning?
Reflections are cool. But, uhhh... Kong didn't glean any real meaning out them, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.

Originally Posted by Mark
De Palma uses a lot of split screens in many scenes, but he mixes up the style and purpose of these splits. Is there meaning to these split screens?
Split screens are cool. Kong really liked when De Palma had the split screens talking over top of one another. Reminded Kong of Altman.

Originally Posted by Mark
Does De Palma’s choice to use another actor (actress) for the role of the killer, “Bobbi,” as well as the voice of “Bobbi” on the message recorder make the sell of Michael Caine as the killer too unbelieveable?
It's all kinda of a stretch regardless.

Originally Posted by Mark
Is the fake ending of Liz’s nightmare necessary? Does it work for you? Do see any relevance regarding this shower scene and the fantasy shower scene at the beginning?
The fake nightmare may go well with the fake nightmare story that she tells Caine's character, but Kong didn't really like it. The "it's just a dream" scenario almost never rings Kong's bell.

Did anyone else dislike the way De Palma explained the twist (if that's what you wanted to call it)? The detective and the bimbo and the son and whoever else just sitting around giving us the didactic blow-by-blow seemed to be lazy writing in Kong's opinion.

New question: Do you think Caine's character was really married? If he was, wouldn't Bobbi have murdered his wife?



Mother! Oh, God! Mother! Blood!
Kong has to say he isn't to crazy about De Palma on the whole
I'm not a huge De Palma fan or defender, but I think he has done some pretty interesting things, especially with his earlier stuff. I like Carrie, Dressed to Kill, Blow Out, Body Double, Scarface, and Raising Cain. I've also seen The Untouchables, Carlito's Way, Mission: Impossible,and Snake Eyes, but I wasn't a HUGE fan of those films. The rest of his films I haven't seen. I'm interested in seeing Sisters, Obsession, The Fury, Casualties of War, Bonfire of the Vanities, and Femme Fatale. Anybody have brief comments of "Like" or "Dislike" for those films?


Regarding the discovery of VD, Kong wrote: It's a great way to throw off the audience. A major discovery like that is bound to leave the audience thinking that it's a major plor point that she will end up investigating, and therefore makes her murder all the more surprising. Kong doesn't think it serves any other crucial purpose than that, although it does tie in nicely with the detectives little monologue about how people can find death if they're looking for it.
I totally agree. Just like in Psycho, the money Marion Crane steals seems to be the major plot line. De Palma borrows a great plot twist from Hitchcock and puts a new spin on it.

Regarding the little girl in the elevator, Kong wrote:She sees dead people.
No, but seriously folks...

I saw someone say on the special features of the DVD that there's an idea that children can see guilt. Angie Dickinson's best acting in this film is when she's not saying anything. Her face tells everything in the museum and again in the elevator. The little girl is a great way for the audience to see Dickinson's character react to what she's been doing all afternoon, as well as her way of dealing with her recent discovery.

Regarding the horrible acting of Nancy Allen, Kong wrote:Good Lord was she atrocious. Kong absolutely hated her in that role. Kong didn't know that she was De Palma's wife at the time. Earlier today at work Kong discussed this movie briefly with another fellow and Kong said, "Nancy Allen better have been De Palma's girlfiend because she sucked. There's no way in hell she got that part legitimately." Or something like that.

She was HORRIBLE! This film could have been sooooooo much better had someone else played her part. She's not ever very sexy! I didn't know she was De Palma's wife either until after watching the film and seeing it mentioned on the special features.

Regarding reflections and split screens, Kong wrote:Reflections are cool. But, uhhh... Kong didn't glean any real meaning out them, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.

Split screens are cool. Kong really liked when De Palma had the split screens talking over top of one another. Reminded Kong of Altman.
Anytime Caine's character felt aroused, he looked in a mirror. I think this, the reflected light off the straight razor, the mirror in the elevator, as well as the split screens, had simple meanings regarding split personalities.

Kong wroteDid anyone else dislike the way De Palma explained the twist (if that's what you wanted to call it)? The detective and the bimbo and the son and whoever else just sitting around giving us the didactic blow-by-blow seemed to be lazy writing in Kong's opinion.
I hated this part of the film. I thought, "You gotta be kidding! This is how they tie up all the loose ends? This is the resolution?" Then they went to the dream sequence, which saved face, a little. I think what De Palma was trying to do with that "explanation" scene is show that the woman detective following them looked just like "Bobbi," and wasn't really "Bobbi" in those scenes. Yes, very lazy writing.

Kong asked:New question: Do you think Caine's character was really married? If he was, wouldn't Bobbi have murdered his wife?
I don't think he was really married. Good question and observation, though.



It was beauty killed the beast.
Originally Posted by Mark
Anytime Caine's character felt aroused, he looked in a mirror. I think this, the reflected light off the straight razor, the mirror in the elevator, as well as the split screens, had simple meanings regarding split personalities.
That makes sense.



Bruce Campbell Groupie
I'm gonna answer one point, that's Did De Palma's use of another actor's voice and frame for killer Bobbi make Michael Caine's revelation as the killer any less believable? For me personally, no, it's quite a twisty and turny film anyway, so you couldn't really guess who the killer would be, it was a surprise to me that Michael was the killer, but a pleasant surprise, I think this is one of Michael Caine's best roles.