![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A Review of The Black Dahlia- Part One
Sep. 19th, 2006 05:57 pmWhat you need to know before reading this review: I loved The Black Dahlia and make no excuses or apologies for it. It was a great movie directed with great panache and auteuristic style by Brian De Palma. I was not previously a De Palma follower, though my sister is a die-hard and I've enjoyed his movies in the past, most notably the recent Femme Fatale -it's a flawed logic that has detractors screaming that the inexpicably -to their way of thinking- good reviews of the movie come from only De Palma fanatics. I am an Ellroy fan and was over the moon when I heard that De Palma was directing an adaptaion of his work; their sensibilities seem to sync perfectly -and I breathed a sigh of relief to know that David Fincher dropped the project early on.
I will not compare this movie to L.A. Confidential and, if I should do do, it will be with a knowledge of the source material and diffrences in the two movie adaptations of Ellroy's work -they're different entities, folks, each with their own flaws. I was not a large fan of any of the actors in particular, though I liked them all in general, so I had an amiable outlook on them to begin with.
So, with all that aside:
STORY: Some people, lots actually, single the plot out as the movie's weakest element -it's too confusing, convoluted, boring, laughable- and I'm inclined to disagree for the most part. It is confusing and convoluted and there are some major flaws with the presentation, like keeping clues to a bare minimum throughout the movie, leaving them to squeeze the resolution of the major storylines into ten minute intervals of expositionary dialogue and flashbakcs. That said, I was happy to see so much of the Ellroy plotline still in there, with only "middle-man" characters, id est characters that contribute information to the storyline that the main characters are capable of learning and discussing themselves, cut or sidelined for clarification and time purposes.
No, it's not really about Elizabeth Short or the unsolved case involving her murder, a criticism I've seen in about eighty-percent of the reviews I've read online. What Ellroy does with it is an interesting take on the genre: Instead of inventing a murder for his fictional characters to become involved in, he takes the same ideas and applies them to a well known homicide case. It makes his job harder, because most people have at least heard of the Dahlia, and he's tasked with having to make his storyline and characters believable in a factual environment.
The script, written by the Josh Friedman, screenplay writer on last year's meh War of the World, is surprisingly tight, well paced with sharp, often fun dialogue and a tense and reflective narrative. And it is a character piece, not necessarily at any given time focused on the the murder so much as it lets us into the lives and heads of the characters in a very personal way, to understand their actions and, ultimately, to care about them. The advertising was extremely misrepresentative, making it out to be a grim and exctiting -some would say titilating- crime thriller with its flashy and bloody heart-beat glimpses of the murder, actually making it seem as something akin to a snuff film. But you won't find Se7ev here, nor do I really want to. And you don't have to be familiar with the book to appreciate the twists and turns or solid characterization, though fans of the book and fans of Ellroy, myself included, will be content in the fact that it retains so much of his personality as an author.*
The fact that the screentest scenes are an invention of filmmaker Brian De Palma's shows an adaptability on the director's part, serving to further the existing storyline from the novel instead of inventing a new one. It shows just how very synchronized Ellroy and De Palma are, as the latter doesn't need to change the former's work drastically to fit his style, making the source material his own while still keep its original identity. It's a perfect marriage of sensibilities.
It's an extremely faithful adaptation, made all the more amazing by the fact that Ellroy's work is very hard to translate on to the screen. There's some stumbling, as I mentioned above, but the overall effort that went into making it succeed more than makes up for it. Much of the plotting and many of the characters of L.A. Confidential were lost in the transition from book to screen, and, while the finished product speaks for itself as to its enormous success, something of Ellroy's is missing -his seediness, his darkness. Da Palma was unafraid to portray the somewhat more unsavory aspects of the period -racisim as a norm, Nazi-ism in a just post-war world, deep corruption of leading characters- and gave it a much grittier, more realistic feel than the stylish and colorful L.A. Confidential. **
ACTING: Another controversial subject, this is where the movie could have lost me. If Josh Hartnett wasn't able to carry the entire film, it would have fallen in flames down around him. Luckily, he is up to it, giving a sympathetic and charming performance I personally didn't know he was capable of. It's a shame that no one will ever give him the credit for it he greatly deserves, as it's the role of a lifetime and I get the distinct feeling that, had he be an unknown, critics would have all been praising him as being underrated and too good for the movie. He has a sweet sort of genuine awkwardness and a casual presence which is both compelling and completely relaxed. And he's as soulful as a white boy can be while still remaining sincere.
Aaron Eckhart is one of those actors who has skirted around fame for years, always coming close to being in the public eye with films like The Core or Possession. Again, The Black Dahlia should have been a star-making vehicle and, early on, critics did cite his performance as being especially good. I don't think he's so much over-the-top as he is larger than life as Lee -he's outrageous and energetic when we first meet him, but slowly, as he breaks down under the strain of the case, we begin to see his humanity. But even as he falls apart, Eckhart keeps the up magnitism and manic intensity. Plus, the guy is all kinds of ridiculously handsome, which is never wrong, though I think kind of works against him in the movie as it does seem to make him more like a broad sort of cartoon character.
Scarlett Johansson, too, evolves her character, from the enigmatic dame to a warm and caring woman who is manipulative and sincere at the same time. The three have a fantastic chemistry that lends itself easily to the group dynamic, and it's not difficult to not only see but feel that these people are in love, in a very honest and deep way, with each other. The scene at the movie theater, which, almost exclusively, follows Kay's reactions while watching The Man Who Laughs, is cute as she grabs both men's hands, one on either side, while later revelations shed a grim light on her surpisingly extreme yet, at the time it's shown, somewhat comical fear. It's never trite, it's never a stereotype as both Kay's feelings towards Lee and Lee and Bucky's feelings towards each other are made presented so openly with emotional impact and clarity.
Hilary Swank is as fun as people say she is in the untypically cast role of the femme fatale, clearly having a lot of fun with it as she puffs seductively on her cigarette holder and speaks in her husky undertones. The family dinner scene is so screwy and laugh out loud funny, credit must be given to Fiona Shaw as well, who actually is, in fact, completely over the top, but she makes it work for her. She very obviously is, in the best example of both De Palma's and Ellroy's black humor, playing it up for laughs, a perfect stereotype of a snobbish accent twisting her seemingly stroke-inhibited, sneering face as she gleefully talks about her involvement at the ending denouement. She kind of reminds me of an evil Julia Child -or just Julia Child, depending on what you think of her.
Other actresses in smaller roles make quite an impression: Rose McGowan is practically smacking her gum as, dressed gawdily in her Egyptian movie extra's costume, she sashays around the room, a cheeky parody of her own image. Jemima Rooper turns in a fantastic if all too brief performance sporting long blonde locks and a sailor dress, first glimpsed by Bucky as she's coyly licking her ice cream cone and swinging her bag like a little girl. Equally as fascinating is her appearence in the stag film with Elizabeth, and it's a real shame that the movie, in a very rare turn, chooses to manipulate the viewer into a heavy-handed pity for Betty, when it comes so natural in the parts where she's just being herself.
Which brings me to the fantastic Mia Kirshner in another role that, if done wrong, could have killed the movie dead. Her presence as the ill-fated Elizabeth Short is tragic in its honesty, showing us a very real, flawed girl, a true victim in not begging and pleading for the audience's forgiveness. Her bright eyes dazzle, shining out from even the black and white screentest scenes, her unself-conscious manner as she picks at the run in her stockings illustrating better than any dialogue ever could have how young she truly is. It's no surprise that her likeness has become the image of the movie in the press as she holds the heart of the movie so very carelessly in the palm of her hand. The movie, for the most part, enforces the idea that, she may have been promiscuous, she may have been involved in all sorts of dirty dealings, but she was a person, flesh and blood, and that no one deserves her fate. It sounds so terribly cliched but the movie makes it work as so few have. It promotes the idea of innocence even within immorality, through Betty, through Lee, through Kay, and through, ultimately, Bucky.
PART 2- Coming soon
*Save for those obsessed with comparing it unfavorably to L.A. Confidential, a strange sort of mindset as this movie actually retains more of Ellroy's twisting and winding plot and hard-nosed characters. Me, I like 'em both on their own terms.
** My one concession to the comparison game. It won't happen again.
I will not compare this movie to L.A. Confidential and, if I should do do, it will be with a knowledge of the source material and diffrences in the two movie adaptations of Ellroy's work -they're different entities, folks, each with their own flaws. I was not a large fan of any of the actors in particular, though I liked them all in general, so I had an amiable outlook on them to begin with.
So, with all that aside:
STORY: Some people, lots actually, single the plot out as the movie's weakest element -it's too confusing, convoluted, boring, laughable- and I'm inclined to disagree for the most part. It is confusing and convoluted and there are some major flaws with the presentation, like keeping clues to a bare minimum throughout the movie, leaving them to squeeze the resolution of the major storylines into ten minute intervals of expositionary dialogue and flashbakcs. That said, I was happy to see so much of the Ellroy plotline still in there, with only "middle-man" characters, id est characters that contribute information to the storyline that the main characters are capable of learning and discussing themselves, cut or sidelined for clarification and time purposes.
No, it's not really about Elizabeth Short or the unsolved case involving her murder, a criticism I've seen in about eighty-percent of the reviews I've read online. What Ellroy does with it is an interesting take on the genre: Instead of inventing a murder for his fictional characters to become involved in, he takes the same ideas and applies them to a well known homicide case. It makes his job harder, because most people have at least heard of the Dahlia, and he's tasked with having to make his storyline and characters believable in a factual environment.
The script, written by the Josh Friedman, screenplay writer on last year's meh War of the World, is surprisingly tight, well paced with sharp, often fun dialogue and a tense and reflective narrative. And it is a character piece, not necessarily at any given time focused on the the murder so much as it lets us into the lives and heads of the characters in a very personal way, to understand their actions and, ultimately, to care about them. The advertising was extremely misrepresentative, making it out to be a grim and exctiting -some would say titilating- crime thriller with its flashy and bloody heart-beat glimpses of the murder, actually making it seem as something akin to a snuff film. But you won't find Se7ev here, nor do I really want to. And you don't have to be familiar with the book to appreciate the twists and turns or solid characterization, though fans of the book and fans of Ellroy, myself included, will be content in the fact that it retains so much of his personality as an author.*
The fact that the screentest scenes are an invention of filmmaker Brian De Palma's shows an adaptability on the director's part, serving to further the existing storyline from the novel instead of inventing a new one. It shows just how very synchronized Ellroy and De Palma are, as the latter doesn't need to change the former's work drastically to fit his style, making the source material his own while still keep its original identity. It's a perfect marriage of sensibilities.
It's an extremely faithful adaptation, made all the more amazing by the fact that Ellroy's work is very hard to translate on to the screen. There's some stumbling, as I mentioned above, but the overall effort that went into making it succeed more than makes up for it. Much of the plotting and many of the characters of L.A. Confidential were lost in the transition from book to screen, and, while the finished product speaks for itself as to its enormous success, something of Ellroy's is missing -his seediness, his darkness. Da Palma was unafraid to portray the somewhat more unsavory aspects of the period -racisim as a norm, Nazi-ism in a just post-war world, deep corruption of leading characters- and gave it a much grittier, more realistic feel than the stylish and colorful L.A. Confidential. **
ACTING: Another controversial subject, this is where the movie could have lost me. If Josh Hartnett wasn't able to carry the entire film, it would have fallen in flames down around him. Luckily, he is up to it, giving a sympathetic and charming performance I personally didn't know he was capable of. It's a shame that no one will ever give him the credit for it he greatly deserves, as it's the role of a lifetime and I get the distinct feeling that, had he be an unknown, critics would have all been praising him as being underrated and too good for the movie. He has a sweet sort of genuine awkwardness and a casual presence which is both compelling and completely relaxed. And he's as soulful as a white boy can be while still remaining sincere.
Aaron Eckhart is one of those actors who has skirted around fame for years, always coming close to being in the public eye with films like The Core or Possession. Again, The Black Dahlia should have been a star-making vehicle and, early on, critics did cite his performance as being especially good. I don't think he's so much over-the-top as he is larger than life as Lee -he's outrageous and energetic when we first meet him, but slowly, as he breaks down under the strain of the case, we begin to see his humanity. But even as he falls apart, Eckhart keeps the up magnitism and manic intensity. Plus, the guy is all kinds of ridiculously handsome, which is never wrong, though I think kind of works against him in the movie as it does seem to make him more like a broad sort of cartoon character.
Scarlett Johansson, too, evolves her character, from the enigmatic dame to a warm and caring woman who is manipulative and sincere at the same time. The three have a fantastic chemistry that lends itself easily to the group dynamic, and it's not difficult to not only see but feel that these people are in love, in a very honest and deep way, with each other. The scene at the movie theater, which, almost exclusively, follows Kay's reactions while watching The Man Who Laughs, is cute as she grabs both men's hands, one on either side, while later revelations shed a grim light on her surpisingly extreme yet, at the time it's shown, somewhat comical fear. It's never trite, it's never a stereotype as both Kay's feelings towards Lee and Lee and Bucky's feelings towards each other are made presented so openly with emotional impact and clarity.
Hilary Swank is as fun as people say she is in the untypically cast role of the femme fatale, clearly having a lot of fun with it as she puffs seductively on her cigarette holder and speaks in her husky undertones. The family dinner scene is so screwy and laugh out loud funny, credit must be given to Fiona Shaw as well, who actually is, in fact, completely over the top, but she makes it work for her. She very obviously is, in the best example of both De Palma's and Ellroy's black humor, playing it up for laughs, a perfect stereotype of a snobbish accent twisting her seemingly stroke-inhibited, sneering face as she gleefully talks about her involvement at the ending denouement. She kind of reminds me of an evil Julia Child -or just Julia Child, depending on what you think of her.
Other actresses in smaller roles make quite an impression: Rose McGowan is practically smacking her gum as, dressed gawdily in her Egyptian movie extra's costume, she sashays around the room, a cheeky parody of her own image. Jemima Rooper turns in a fantastic if all too brief performance sporting long blonde locks and a sailor dress, first glimpsed by Bucky as she's coyly licking her ice cream cone and swinging her bag like a little girl. Equally as fascinating is her appearence in the stag film with Elizabeth, and it's a real shame that the movie, in a very rare turn, chooses to manipulate the viewer into a heavy-handed pity for Betty, when it comes so natural in the parts where she's just being herself.
Which brings me to the fantastic Mia Kirshner in another role that, if done wrong, could have killed the movie dead. Her presence as the ill-fated Elizabeth Short is tragic in its honesty, showing us a very real, flawed girl, a true victim in not begging and pleading for the audience's forgiveness. Her bright eyes dazzle, shining out from even the black and white screentest scenes, her unself-conscious manner as she picks at the run in her stockings illustrating better than any dialogue ever could have how young she truly is. It's no surprise that her likeness has become the image of the movie in the press as she holds the heart of the movie so very carelessly in the palm of her hand. The movie, for the most part, enforces the idea that, she may have been promiscuous, she may have been involved in all sorts of dirty dealings, but she was a person, flesh and blood, and that no one deserves her fate. It sounds so terribly cliched but the movie makes it work as so few have. It promotes the idea of innocence even within immorality, through Betty, through Lee, through Kay, and through, ultimately, Bucky.
PART 2- Coming soon
*Save for those obsessed with comparing it unfavorably to L.A. Confidential, a strange sort of mindset as this movie actually retains more of Ellroy's twisting and winding plot and hard-nosed characters. Me, I like 'em both on their own terms.
** My one concession to the comparison game. It won't happen again.
