Sisters (1972).

Review #2139: Sisters.

Cast: 

Margot Kidder (Danielle Breton / Dominique Blanchion), Jennifer Salt (Grace Collier), William Finley (Emil Breton), Charles Durning (Joseph Larch), Lisle Wilson (Phillip Woode), Barnard Hughes (Arthur McLennen), Mary Davenport (Mrs. Peyson Collier), and Dolph Sweet (Detective Kelly) Directed by Brian De Palma (#801 - Mission: Impossible, #1230 - Carrie, #1471 - Scarface)

Review: 

“I always said that film lies 24 times a second. That’s the antithesis of what Jean-Luc Godard said, that it’s truth 24 per second. That’s nonsense! Film lies all of the time.”

It's easy to say a director can come anywhere. Raised in a family that were in his words, “egotists who didn’t care what damage they were doing”, Brian De Palma was born in New Jersey but raised in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. He had an interest in building computers before studying physics at Columbia University. However, he became more interested in film after seeing movies such as Citizen Kane and Vertigo. He finished his studies at Columbia to move on to study at Sarah Lawrence College in the theater department. A friendship with an actor in his aspiring days in Robert De Niro led to the shooting of De Palma's first feature with The Wedding Party, a film shot in 1963 but only released in 1969 (which meant that it served as his "third" film due to Murder a la Mod and Greetings being released in 1968). Get to Know Your Rabbit (1972) was his first venture with the Hollywood system and was a comedy like most of his previous five efforts, but it was not a major success. This film was shown first in late 1972 but did not have a full release until 1973. The screenplay was done by De Palma and Louisa Rose while De Palma did the story. Spearheaded by Edward R. Pressman as producer with a budget of $500,000 with distribution by American International Pictures, the film was a fair hit for its time and has managed to receive further attention with the resulting career that followed for De Palma that went from Phantom of the Paradise (1974) and Obsession (1976) to, well, Carrie (1976). Whether called a psychological thriller or horror film, screw it, this one counts for whatever category you want.

Incidentally, for a film that involves a good deal of voyeurism, De Palma has stated in later years that he would secretly follow his father around to record his adulterous habits when he was young. Of course, the actual inspiration came from his reading of an article in Life magazine in 1966 that detailed the lives of the Soviet conjoined twins Masha and Dasha Krivoshlyapova, specifically with their psychological makeup as they grew older (of course, since they were born in 1950, the Soviets did a variety of things in "the interests of science", which namely involved the scientists tricked their mother into believing the twins were dead to they could serve as research subjects). It is interesting to consider the elements that sound familiar to Alfred Hitchcock, whether that involves Rear Window (1954) or Psycho (1960), only with some use of split-screen composition that was used in a handful of films of the time (such as Carrie). This is the kind of "homage" that seems ripe for critics to love, I think, because it means they don't have to confront much in the way of gore and therefore they can't be labeled as just being anti-homage when they see something that harkens to the past when it comes to something with a bit more gore and call it "derivative". For me, this is basically Rosemary's Baby (1968) all over again, where it is more about reputation more than anything, at least when one considers the moments when the film actually gets to the point where I appreciate it best (of course, this is a 92-minute film). De Palma apparently gave the script as a "Christmas present" to Kidder, who at one time shared a house with Salt. The "French-Canadian" accent is a result of Kidder not being able to pull off a Swedish accent. It is an odd performance to say the least, mostly because we are viewing a double-sided coin of doubt and curiosity, which is touch and go once you get past that buildup sequence of her and Wilson. Besides her is the focus on Salt, the would-be digger of trying to figure out what the audience has already viewed (all she has to go on is seeing one little note of help). Her part works as an exasperatingly amusing view on the usual go-and-look type of mystery that you usually see in these films (only without that character usually being pestered about marriages by people like Davenport). Finlay makes up the mystery part of the film, which is most important for the climax because, well, hell, if you've read this far, you'll probably guess that someone has to play a part in lending some exposition to just how literal that film title is. When the film reaches that point where it has to lend a few pointers your way of just what is where and who is what is when the film has managed to reach its high point in delirium for actual tension, which is probably made funnier (or unsettling, take your pick) by that last exchange of words to go with the last view of a film all about the view and the person taking it. Call it a commentary about women or just a film that likes to dwell on watching, the general enjoyment of the film comes from how effective the homage to Hitchcock goes for you. I would say it is a good flick to view as an early example of what is to come for De Palma for sly filmmaking. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next: Spiral (1998). No, really.

Midnight Cowboy.

Review #1431: Midnight Cowboy.

Cast: 
Jon Voight (Joe Buck), Dustin Hoffman (Enrico Salvatore "Ratso" Rizzo), Sylvia Miles (Cass), John McGiver (Mr. O'Daniel), Brenda Vaccaro (Shirley), Barnard Hughes (Towny), Ruth White (Sally Buck), Jennifer Salt (Annie), and Gilman Rankin (Woodsy Niles) Directed by John Schlesinger.

Review: 
"I like making films that have question marks in them and are not all tied up beautifully with a pink ribbon, even though that's what the audience seems to want, and if you give it to them there's more assurance of commercial success, perhaps. But that's never the way I've seen life or reflected life in what I want to put on the screen."

If there was ever a time for a film to come out with a sense of grimy honesty and capable performances to make a tale of New York City from its lower edges come alive, Midnight Cowboy is definitely the film to do it. The changing of the times in what content could be touched upon or shown in films led at last to an film rating system by the Motion Picture Association of America in 1968, which had found initial ratings in G (General), M (Mature), R (Restricted), and X (no admissions under 16, adults-only). This film is known as the first and only X-rated film to have won an Academy Award for Best Picture, although it should be noted that it was later reclassified under the R-rating with no edits done. With that said, it should be no surprise to see such a provocative film come from British actor-turned-director (both feature and short films) John Schlesinger, who made his mark with urban dramas such as A Kind of Loving (1962), Billy Liar (1963), and Darling (1965). Accompanying him is Jon Voight, who had just two film credits before taking on this film and the effort to play a Texan (with the native New Yorker studying tapes of Texans incessantly) and Dustin Hoffman, a method actor that became part of a new generation of actors with versatile performances of varying vulnerability (he convinced the filmmakers to do the film by going out in a dirty coat and blending in with the surroundings). This was an adaptation of the 1965 novel of the same name from James Leo Herlihy. Responsible for the adaptation to film was Waldo Salt, who found a way to shift focus from the first half to the second half of the novel through flash-present sequences that would show the past of the main character through the eyes of a present scene as memories (shown either in color or in black-in-white). Despite anxiety over what people would think of it before release, Schlesinger ultimately felt that he made a film that while it couldn't be made today, captured a "mixture of desperation and humor which I found all along Forty-Second Street." Accordingly, both Salt and Schlesinger would win Academy Awards for their work on this film.

It is clear to see how one made such an interesting film that lurks in the cesspool with such tremendous acting from its main stars with a lasting power of sorts in detailing the underbelly of a city with misfits that make try to forge their way in the big city. There is a tender story worth viewing with Voight and Hoffman that reaches out to the loner in us, the person who yearns for more than what we see in the mirror or what we see in our soul. Hoffman achieves a grand scuzzy quality to his role, one that seeps into the underside without seeming comprised of any frills or distractions to make us believe anything other that we hear and see of him. He is the man perpetually on the outside of even marginal living, selling a character that you might bat an eye at if he was just "walkin' here". Voight matches in line with a curiosity and dandy nature as a would-be hustler that makes for a stirring performance in his pursuit to find somewhere (or someone) to belong with, and the scenes with Hoffman are the most dynamically compelling in interest, particularly when the film starts rolling down to the end of its 113 minute run-time. They may snipe at each other and they may both have plenty of trouble with a city like no other, but there is still a level of warmth beneath all the cold, which is still something to look back upon. A group of eccentrics make for an interesting supporting cast, each of whom get their own little scene with Voight, for which McGiver does the quirkiest and most interesting one as a gay religious fanatic. The film clicks more often than not as a gritty piece of work that breaks innocence of a dream into several little pieces to dissect. It is a tender and somber film to its fateful end, hustling about with no compromises but hard-life choices to make that leave its viewer with something to think about as a key piece of its time and a highlight for its stars that make it a daring and welcome film for those are mature enough for it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.