criterionforum.org

If The Black Dahlia has failings on a purely narrative level (which it does, much as I thoroughly appreciated the film), it's because De Palma's so uninterested in narrative here, he subsumes it entirely to atmosphere and genre pastiche. What I found interesting about the murder plot in the film is just how completely uninterested the film is in it - it'd much rather skulk about and psychoanalyze the figures of the central love triangle, wherein Bucky is torn between the man (procedure, overt masculinist display) and woman (domesticity, passivity, yet she and Bucky seem to occupy the same position with Lee, the distant outsider - is their sexual consummation really that different from Madeline's sexual pursuit of her double in Elizabeth?), both of whom he loves? The film isn't a noir, really - it's more of a domestic melodrama about seething passion, class division, and above all the action of viewership, turned completely on its head so one can see that the domestic melodrama and the noir are two sides of the same twisted coin. Am I the only one who, in those early dinner table scenes of Lee, Kay, and little Bucky, thought of the reconstruction of the domestic by the pool in Rebel Without a Cause? He's clearly their child, and yet something more...

That the central action scene - Bucky watching the events on the staircase - is an obvious Vertigo allusion only sheds light on the film's melding of genre pastiche as well as its psychological project on viewership. We the audience are constantly constantly denied access to spectacle or even clear lines of sight - of Elizabeth's corpse, of the later stairwell sequence. Important scenes are elided, and we're left looking at people watching off-screen action and recalling passively observed dialogue. We are as helpless as Bucky, which is where the film derives for me much of its power.

But the one big thing that bothered me is that the Dahlia was a real woman, a person, and this film goes a long way toward humanizing her in those creepy/sad test reels -- the most powerful part of the movie for me, and Mia Kirschner gives the best performance in the movie by far. But then it throws that away in the final reel, with an imaginary version of her gruesome demise staged as a grand guignol horror show...I was prepared for a very skillful and sensitive resolution of the Dahlia's fate. I trusted De Palma in this one regard, and the movie didn't deliver it for me.

I've read that De Palma saw her character as as a Norma Desmondesque tragic absurdity. That's all well and good, but seeing as her two scenes are really the film's only attempt at comedy, they stand out painfully.

There was some great tension between Bucky, Emmet, and Madeleine in that scene. De Palma surely could have built a great setpiece out of it had he not resorted to lazy cross cutting.

I do, however, hope it makes good money so that De Palma has an easy time getting Toyer--which sounds like classic De Palma material--off the ground

Dylan wrote:I didn't care for the performance, but the real problem is that she's a significent contributor to the killing, and there's only one scene with her before the revelation, so when we find out it's her it doesn't really matter

Dylan wrote:I didn't mind the flashbacks because every De Palma film has them (and surely you know that as a De Palma supporter, and I understand your criticism is geared more toward what you wanted the scene to be).

Dylan wrote:Advance word is that it made a lot of money on opening day, and might be a contender for #1 spot. However, I have heard that "Toyer" is put on hold again, and that De Palma is instead jumping right into his "Untouchables" prequel, perhaps because he presently feels more in tune with period crime pieces, and plans to return to the horror genre after he gets these out of his system (and it does make more sense for him to make another film in this vein, especially if this is successful, rather than following it with an all-out horror film). Apparently he has already spoken with Ennio Morricone about the score (as we all know, Morricone scored the first "Untouchables").

In the novel, Madeline does not die. She gets arrested and convicted for killing Lee. In fact, that's not how the murder took place. In the novel, we never see Lee's death. He goes missing for several months until Bucky gets a tip that Lee was in Mexico. He goes there only to find his decomposed body. We find out Madeline killed him when she tells a story to one of her johns.

Also, the gardner was indeed Madeline's father. However, he witnessed the porno when he was doing his duties and went crazy thinking it was his daughter. So he saught revenge by killing her. The mother did have a hand in it also. The garnder was definitely a psychopath. He would collect body parts as trophies.

Other differences:
* Bucky and Kay are married after Lee goes missing, but long before his body is discovered.
* One suspect was apprehended and questioned. This required a cross country trip. He didn't do it, but he did provide a very good lead.
* There was a father and son cop duo who were involved with the Dahlia.
* Extensive investigation in the novel. Lots of questioning. We also get to know just what kind of person Elizabeth was.
* The shootout at the beginning of the film is different. In the novel, they actually have them lined up against the wall until one of the suspects turns around and Lee shoots him in the face.
* Ramona never died. She got away with murder.
* Bucky was fired because he withheld evidence and conduct unbecoming of an officer.
* Father was arrested for building code violations and Madeline went to jail.
* Due to the family's high profile, the secret of that murder was never told again, thus leaving the murder unsolved.

But, why the IMDB-rating is dropping so fast: from a 9.6 in the "Venice" period, to a 6.4 this afternoon? So many "10" ratings and a very fast growing "1" rating... weird. As far as I know, this is new in the IMDB-rating history.

There is a big buzz about The Black Dahlia in the U.S. ?

I hate to differ, but I think it's inaccurate to say it's making good money. Its per-screen average is very weak.

The dinner scene with the Linscott's was by far my favorite scene, even though it almost felt like a completely different film.

I find the ratings and reviews for this film disasterious. I think it is getting an unfair beating.

The low budget is apparent both in the cinematography and what they chose to depict.

The Black Dahlia - Wasn't it wonderful of Brian DePalma to hire so many amateurs instead of professional actors?

This is certainly the worst film Brian DePalma has ever been associated with, surpassing the mess of Bonfire of the Vanities and the excess and incoherence of Mission To Mars with a magical combination of miscast actors, a muddled, incoherent script, terrible lighting, and no real DePalma flourishes of interest.

It makes perfect sense after seeing this film that Scarlett Johansson and Josh Hartnett ended up together, because birds of a feather flock together. Scarlett is certainly more talented as an actor than Josh - I think he may actually match her pretty for pretty, height vs busty width - but neither one of them stands a chance in this mess. If you ever want to know how NOT to hold a 1930's cigarette holder, Scarlett has it for you.

But the much bigger sin is that DePalma somehow got career worst performances out of a couple of excellent actors, Aaron Eckhart and Fiona Shaw, not to mention making the very serviceable Mike Starr look like he's never been on a set. And poor, poor Rose McGowan.

The one quality thing in the entire film is Mia Kirshner in a series of black & white supposed screen tests. She has the lack of context that DePalma is so good at. We hear his voice directing her. And what we see are the parts of the screen test that aren't the test… Betty Short being Betty Short. Of course, it is completely unrealistic that this much film was being used on flirting instead of the serious testing. But still, she and the film shine in those moments. Unfortunately, they only make up about 5 minutes of the 121 minute film.

I think that the complaints about Hilary Swank are unfair, but she does play a classically wrong role. Her character has sex with everyone, but never gets naked. This is an option in many films, but with easy nudity in parts of the film that are not about sexual power, it stands out as yet another stupid mistake in a movie that is a leading candidate for worst of the year.

I don't understand the criticisms about the supposedly "excessively convoluted" storyline, I thought that was just one of the charms of films noirs - that the storylines can be confusing at times.