Review: The Black Dahlia
Filed under: New Releases, Noir, Universal, Theatrical Reviews, Scarlett Johansson

Brian De Palma arrives in the final third of 2006 with one of his best films, and yet no one will realize it for years to come. De Palma's work is routinely ignored and undervalued for the very simple reason that he makes cinema. He hasn't shown much interest in making socially significant films; he probably won't make a To Kill a Mockingbird or a Hotel Rwanda anytime soon. And he's not much interested in adapting Henry James or E.M. Forster for the big screen. As a result, he is often seen as inferior. He never reaches beyond cinema into other realms; he only makes movies.
Thirteen years later, many see Carlito's Way as arguably De Palma's greatest achievement. (The film critics at Cahiers du Cinema selected it as the best movie of the 1990s.) And yet in the thick of 1993, no one cared. Schindler's List, The Piano and The Age of Innocence were the rage. And it's noteworthy to remember that, as beloved as his Scarface is today, De Palma received a 1983 Razzie nomination for his trouble (he has received five in all).
The truth is that De Palma can only make films. He would be a flop as a novelist or a painter. His specialty is voyeurism, sitting in the dark and watching things. And the best things to watch from such a dark, secret place are life's most lurid elements: Sex, violence and obsession. Because these things require an abandonment of intellect, critics tend to resist them. (The same goes for horror films, which are regularly panned.)
But there's yet more trouble. De Palma's new film The Black Dahlia comes from the same cycle of James Ellroy books as L.A. Confidential, so it's impossible to avoid inevitable comparisons between the films. L.A. Confidential comes from an incredibly literate script, perhaps one of the greatest scripts ever written, and contains an "A" level cast to die for. It tells its story well for more than two hours (a good length for Best Picture consideration), and hints at a swirling darkness below the bright surface. Brian De Palma's The Black Dahlia delves into a much more visceral place, slashing through logic and proceeding from a purely physical, lascivious standpoint. To put it simply, L.A. Confidential is literature and The Black Dahlia is cinema.
In The Black Dahlia, two ex-boxers, Bucky Bleichert (Josh Hartnett) and Lee Blanchard (Aaron Eckhart) wind up joining the police force. Lee is married to Kay (Scarlett Johansson) and the three remain the best of friends, in spite of Kay's shady past and her subtle flirting with Bucky. The partners are assigned to catch a violent hillbilly who mugs old ladies, but they become increasingly entangled in a lurid murder case; the body of a beautiful would-be starlet is found with her mouth sliced into a gruesome grin (as in the silent era classic The Man Who Laughs). It's precisely this subplot -- the fact that Lee and Bucky are supposed to be working on a less glamorous case, hunting for a man -- that makes the obsession angle work.
Hilary Swank co-stars as a high-profile society daughter, drawn to underground lesbian clubs, who may have spent some time with the victim. Though Swank is a double Oscar-winner, it's unlikely that The Black Dahlia will generate the kind of adoration for its actors that L.A. Confidential stirred up. And it's true that Kevin Spacey, Russell Crowe, et al. are quite a bit more talented (and more experienced) than the young Black Dahlia cast. Of course, performances have never been De Palma's specialty (despite great ones from Al Pacino, Sean Penn, Sissy Spacek, etc.). Like Bresson, he's more interested in using actors as models. Their looks are important, and where they appear in the frame, but the director's presence is of primary importance. There's no room for show-offs or Oscar moments. Thus, we get an image of Bucky, preparing for a fight, sitting alone in a wide, empty, dreary locker room, or of Lee and Bucky crouching over the body of the dead Dahlia, the camera pointed up at them from her point of view, seducing them downward.
Ellroy based his 1985 novel on a real case, but imbued it with images and emotions surrounding his own mother's unsolved murder. Working with such solid source material, De Palma balances the emotional depravity and Ellroy's complex plot machinations up until the final moments. He avoids some of the bad writing that has haunted his past productions, from the second half of Snake Eyes (1998) to all of Mission to Mars (2000). And De Palma takes it one step further, adding in his own pet themes. In this version, we actually see the Black Dahlia in a series of audition films made prior to her death. Mia Kirshner plays her, flirting with the camera (and consequently with the audience), with alluring shades of vulnerability and bravado. Now we can see and feel the reason behind all the fuss.
For those who succumb, The Black Dahlia is a remarkable achievement, a worthy follow-up to De Palma's smashing Femme Fatale (2002) and perhaps one of the year's best films.
For another take on The Black Dahlia, check out Karina Longworths' Netscape at the Movies video review of the film.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-14-2006 @ 12:55PM
Dan said...
I love me some DePalma, but "Carlito's Way" should be watched for Sean Penn and maybe John Leguizamo's performances and that's about it. It's a mess of a movie and it should be noted that according to that Cahiers du Cinema poll you want to quote, "Carlito's Way" is tied for the best movie of the '90s with, um, "Bridges of Madison County." That's one of those situations where it's best to smile, nod and back away slowly.
-Dan
Reply
9-14-2006 @ 2:14PM
Dave said...
I normally don't chime in on these, but this review is a great example of why I have all but stopped reading reviews on this site. It takes four paragraphs before I even know what the film's about, and only until the very last paragraph to we even get something taht would be considered a reivew. Isn't the rule of journalism supposed to be to put everything you need to know in the first paragraph? Did I really need (or care about) the history of Brian DePalma? How hard would it be to start the review with "The Black Dhalia is one of the years' best films, and a remarkable achievement from Director Brian DePalma." The first three paragraphs should just be cut out entirely; skimming them gives the impression that this film is not very good, when in fact, the reviewer feels the complete opposite.
Reply
9-14-2006 @ 2:15PM
Chuck Bowen said...
I have to back up Dan here, I love Brian De Palma also, but Carlito's Way, in my humble opinion, is terrible, a laughably melodramatic, predictable just when I thought I was out they pull me back in thriller that almost plays like an unintentional spoof of the far superior "Scarface". As with all even lower tier DePalma, there are stunning visual flourishes, but in general I didn't find it worthwhile, and the less said about the chick of the moment at the time Penelope Ann Miller the better. However, I can't wait for "The Black Dahlia".
Reply
9-14-2006 @ 2:21PM
Chuck Bowen said...
Dave,
I think Mr. Anderson is trying to provide a little context, De Palma is one of those filmmakers that really divides people and that should be mentioned when discussing one of their films. And he does open the review by calling Dahlia one of the years best films.
Reply
9-14-2006 @ 4:21PM
The Jeremy said...
I really don't care about Hillary Swank. I want to know how much screen time Jemima Rooper (and Mia Kirshner) has in the film before seeing it either tomorrow or Saturday.
Gawd, its like nobody on Cinematical has ever watched *Hex* before to know how good Jemima can be in a role.
Reply
9-14-2006 @ 10:13PM
Roscoe said...
Actually, Mr. DePalma's work is ignored and undervalued because it is, by and large and with only occasional exceptions, shit. Sisters and Phantom of the Paradise are entertaining enough, but do nothing to excuse the incredible idiocies of Dressed To Kill and Body Double (which is of interest only to those curious to know what Rear Window would have looked like had Bob Guccione directed it).
Reply
9-15-2006 @ 2:28AM
Andre Soares said...
Journalism rules exist so they can be broken when necessary. It's always good to read a review in which the writer takes the trouble to provide context to the film/filmmaker being discussed.
That said, the only DePalma film I've ever truly liked was "The Phantom of the Paradise." (Well, perhaps "Scarface," too, an overlong and overblown romp.) Everything else of his I've seen has been visually stunning and dramatically dead.
Reply
9-19-2006 @ 12:20PM
Frank Habets said...
Seing all the negative reviews for this movie, I was tempted to skip it.
However, after reading Mr. Anderson's review, I've changed my mind. Why? Because his take on DePalma is bang on. We're on the same page here. A lot of people don't 'get' DePalma, and its a shame.
So thank you Mr. Anderson for this wonderful essay.
Reply
9-21-2006 @ 2:08PM
Jim Gleeson said...
I like Brian de Palma movies and I really wanted to like this one. But I didn't. I thought the acting was overdone. I found some of the images laughable at times. I was also wondering at what point I might see a comedian walk on camera as this movie seemed to be almost satirizing the Noir genre.
Saying that Brian de Palma makes movies and that we don't understand him are cop outs and condescension. I think your reasons for liking the movie are equally valid for my reasons of disliking it.
It takes all kinds.
Reply