ecl@hocsj.UUCP (10/29/84)
BODY DOUBLE
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
The ads for this film call Brian De Palma "the modern master of
suspense." To some extent, they are correct. De Palma has made a series of
interesting horror films, including THE PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE, THE FURY,
and especially CARRIE, without which public attention might never have come
to Stephen King. He has also studied in depth the films and techniques of
Alfred Hitchcock. He released OBSESSION at the same time that Hitchcock's
final film, FAMILY PLOT, was in the theaters. I have also claimed that if
the two films were shown side-by-side, without credits, most people would
have picked OBSESSION as the new Hitchcock classic. Other Hitchcockian
suspense films De Palma has made include SISTERS, DRESSED TO KILL, and BLOW
OUT. His current effort along these lines is BODY DOUBLE.
At this point, this review will become a minor spoiler review, much as
I would like to avoid it. This is because the biggest surprise of this film
is that every single surprise is telegraphed. In the second scene in which
the villain appears I told myself, okay, this guy is going to be the
villain. The film introduces the characters and the situation, then has a
riveting suspense sequence in a shopping mall. (This is a very well-
directed sequence, by the way.) Then just as the mystery is getting started,
it shifts to a purse-snatching scene on a beach. We were still very early
in the mystery (certainly still in the first half of the film), and I said
to myself, "Oh no!" Then I took my notepad and wrote down the entire
solution of the film: who was doing what to whom and exactly why, and
exactly how the villain's plot worked. And it was no wild guess. De Palma
can use Hitchcock's style and make polished mysteries, but he does not do
Hitchcock's homework. Each Hitchcock film had a new and unexpected plot.
None were derivative. The plot for BODY DOUBLE was clever when Hitchcock
used it in a previous film. De Palma cannot borrow Hitchcock's plots and
expect them to still be surprising.
Hitchcock proved that he was more than a filmmaker--he was a reader.
He read a lot of the mysteries being written in his time, took the better
plots, and made films out of them. De Palma is more a student of film. He
can pick up a lot from previous films, but it is pretty tough to pick up
mystery plots that other film fans will not recognize. It is extremely
frustrating to see the care with which De Palma constructs his films and to
see all that care wasted. By not having a fresh, original source of plots,
that effort is squandered on suspenseless suspense films.
(Evelyn C. Leeper for)
Mark R. Leeper
...ihnp4!lznv!mrltechpub@mhuxt.UUCP (mcgrew) (11/01/84)
Has anyone seen Body Double, Brian DePalma's new flick?
Saw it the other night and thought it was awful!!
Aside from the familiar Hitchcock plot from Rear Window
and a gross scene with a power-drill, it was nothing
to rave about.
"James Dean, James Dean, he said it all so mean..."ecl@hocsj.UUCP (11/02/84)
Reference: <329@mhuxt.UUCP> > Aside from the familiar Hitchcock plot from Rear Window > and a gross scene with a power-drill, it was nothing > to rave about. No, it was VERTIGO, not REAR WINDOW. Yes, in both BODY DOUBLE and REAR WINDOW the main character "witnesses" a murder by spying on his neighbors through a window (though he doesn't see the murder in REAR WINDOW, and he only sees the beginning through the window in BODY DOUBLE before he runs over there to try to stop it). But the entire premise of BODY DOUBLE--that of a man set up as a "witness" to a fake crime--is stolen from VERTIGO. Also, the parallels of vertigo (in VERTIGO, naturally) and claustrophobia (in BODY DOUBLE) as the reason for choosing that particular witness is obvious. (Sorry if I've spoiled VERTIGO for anyone, but I *did* say "spoiler," and it's a good film even if you know the gimmick. In fact, after you see it the first time without knowing the gimmick, you'll want to watch it again to see how Hitchcock did it.) The scene with the drill is interesting--you never see the drill enter her body, just as in PSYCHO, you never see the knife enter Janet Leigh's body. If it's a gross-out scene, it's only by implication. By the way, De Palma's first Hitchcock "tribute," OBSESSION, is probably his best, and a lot better than many of Hitchcock's lesser films. How about VERTIGO, HIGH ANXIETY, and BODY DOUBLE for a triple feature? (Read <199@hocsj.UUCP> for a full review.) Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl
dpw@rayssd.UUCP (11/09/84)
I saw it last weekend and you was much too kind. I watched it until the
end only because I knew that had to get better. I was wrong !!!
Darryl Wagoner
decvax!brunix land line: 401-847-8000 x4089
allegra-------\ home line: 401-849-5730
---- !rayssd!dpw
linus-------/hummel@csd2.UUCP (12/01/84)
I keep reading reviews of Body Double which miss the point that the whole thing is a dream. I thought it was brilliant, but gruesome. Are the critics stupid, or is the point of the movie hard to pick up? hummel@nyu-csd2 ...cmcl2!csd2!hummel Robert Hummel
shilling@uiucdcsp.UUCP (12/03/84)
Every review I have read on Body Double dwells on the Hichcock connection.
rh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (12/04/84)
If the whole thing is a dream, how did Craig Wasson meet Melanie Griffin? She wasn't around anywhere during the beginning of the filming (before the ostensible dream would have started). I really doubt if this was the point, although it could have been done that way... -- Randwulf (Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh
steve@tellab3.UUCP (Steve Harpster) (12/05/84)
Apparently the point IS hard to pick up. The whole thing is NOT a dream. The only dream is toward the end when the guy is about to be buried alive. He dreams of being back in the studio and conquering his claustrophobia. He then leaps out of his grave and we're back to reality again. -- ...ihnp4!tellab1!steve Steve Harpster Tellabs, Inc.