Dressed To Kill
1980
Brian De Palma
Spine #770
Available on Blu-Ray & DVD courtesy of The Criterion Collection
Dressed To Kill
1980
Brian De Palma
Spine #770
Available on Blu-Ray & DVD courtesy of The Criterion Collection
As a director in 1980, Brian De Palma (Carrie, Scarface) had earned the reputation of not only being a more than capable director, but that of a provocateur with scholarly influences and style (although not entirely his own) for storytelling. His first hit of the decade was critically embraced, but also reviled by many, who conversely saw it as shallow, misogynistic, and garishly over-violent. Initially receiving an “X” rating, but after a few minor cuts worked its way down to an “R” rating, “Dressed To Kill” was extreme but never over-the-top. While also being able to pulsate Hitchcock as well as any other director, De Palma could also be the thinking man’s deconstructionist with an inclination of a bloody good time. Each shot is delicately thought out and meaningful, each frame is precise and telling; “Dressed To Kill” is heightened, intelligent, suspenseful storytelling at it’s best.
The film starts with a bored housewife (Angie Dickinson) who not only fantasizes during her husband’s succinct “wham-bam” lovemaking, but also coming on to her seemingly noble psychiatrist (Michael Caine), and roaming art galleries cruising for romantic thrills and to hopefully an affair. After a successful one-night stand, Dickinson is soon murdered in front of a call girl (Nancy Allen) by a mysterious being wearing sunglasses, a blonde wig, and an overcoat. Allen’s attempt to help the police only lands her as the prime suspect who now has to figure out what the hell happened and if it will happen to her. She enlists the help of Dickinson’s teenage son (Keith Gordon), a computer whiz and surrogate for De Palma’s younger self, to help solve the case and bring the true murder to light. The movie never really examines the duality of self, but rather comments on thriller tropes, archetypes, and thematic gestures that came before it and ultimately influenced “Dressed To Kill”. The performances are excellent and built around each actor’s strong suits. Nancy Allen portrayal in particular of a well-adjusted hooker is still refreshing and engaging. While the inherit humor of a call girl and a grieving teenage boy teaming up to solve a murder is never lost by De Palma, it never feels out of place or silly.
“Dressed To Kill” is given a plentiful amount of supplemental material to match the equally wonderful follow-up that was “Blow Out”, released a few years back. Included is a new interview with De Palma, conducted by filmmaker Noah Baumbach along with stand-alone interviews with actor Nancy Allen, producer George Litto, composer Pino Donaggio, shower-scene body double Victoria Lynn Johnson, and poster photographic art director Stephen Sayadian. A 2001 documentary on making “Dressed To Kill” featuring majority of the cast and De Palma, a look at the differences in the “R” and “X” cuts of the film, a 2001 interview with actor-director Keith Gordon, and a profile on cinematographer Ralf Bode. To round everything out is the storyboards that De Palma used to envision the movie, the original trailer, and an essay by critic Michael Koresky. All in all, this is a jam-packed release that should be included in any thriller fan’s collection.
“Dressed To Kill” is another entry of the De Palma filmography where not only indulges in the inherent sexist nature of thrillers who almost exclusively focus on women in peril, but also embraces it. Our two female protagonists are the main subjects for us to watch over, worry over, and titillate our heightened ominous gaze. Dickinson and Allen both counter each other in their personalities but provide more intrigue and depth to sustain our interest beyond our own voyeurism. It’s almost a guilty pleasure to watch them as they jump from predator to prey or go about their routines not knowing who or what may be lurking around their steamy showers. “Dressed to Kill” was steeped in controversy even before it’s initial release but ended up helping the promotion of the film and beyond just schlock. Echoes of sexism, transprejudice, gender politics, slight racism, and glorification of violence are still heaved its way and it’s hard to ignore the awkward juxtaposition of them with each other without taking some offenses. One could argue it’s the film’s climatic surprise only works because of our lack of prejudices and stripped of the elegances and mined for their sadistic impulses, general glib, and outrageous moments. At the very least, it’s provocative filmmaking that speaks about our own expectations as movie audiences and how we get off on it.
