MUBI

We all remember Brian De Palma’s “Carrie,” “Scarface,” and “Dressed to Kill” mainly because of the stylized gore, violence, and suspense. But few know he started his feature film career making satires/comedies with “Greetings,” “Hi, Mom!” and “Get To Know Your Rabbit.” “Sisters” (and “Phantom of the Paradise” to some extent) fits very well as a transitional work. It is a horror-comedy or terror-comedy done as many folks have noted as an homage/parody of Alfred Hitchcock’s work.

De Palma admits to borrowing ideas from Hitchcock and also from the early Soviet montage theorists and filmmakers. Indeed “Sisters” succeeds with its “Psycho” first act and “Rear Window” second act and a number of suspenseful collisions of fullscreen and splitscreen images. But its all the filler, in-between stuff and the third act that makes this film truly unique and worth watching.

One can also find similarities between this film and Samuel Fuller’s “Shock Corrdior.” The character of Grace Collier reminded me of the other film’s journalist — Johnny Barrett. Their motives for trying to solve a murder and their demises are not dissimilar. Also both films twist genre conventions via absurdity while tackling the heady subjects of their times (i.e., racism, abuse of power, and the audience’s zest for the taboo).

If you want something more serious, see “Obsession.” If you want to see De Palma outdo Hitchcock, see “Dressed to Kill.”

(I’m eager to watch the Criterion DVD to hear De Palma’s recollection of “Sisters.”)

If this movie isn’t an homage to Hitchcock then I don’t know what is. It’s all here: the motif of the doppleganger; the practice of voyeurism; disturbed femmes, and the manic aural cues of Bernard Herrmann in one of his last contributions. Fortunately, it is also a decent thriller on its own terms. Contemporary audiences will, however, instantly have the “twist” figured out, and from there the film ceases to surprise, devolving into a whodunit thats long been figured out. I’d opine that Herrmann’s score saves this movie and lends it more energy than the narrative itself, giving it the freakshow vibe which prepares and justifies the surprisingly disturbing penultimate scene. Fans of De Palma should pick this one up, while fans of Hitchcock too, can appreciate it for what it aspires to be.

The Hitchcock “Psycho” (1960) and “Rear Window” (1954) references may be a tad extreme, and the experimental aesthetic of most of the film’s cinematography (split-screens, flashbacks, off-kilter framing and jump cuts) may be hard for some to grasp, but I say this is one hell of a visual masterpiece from De Palma. Margot Kidder (Superman) delivers an unexpected, powerful, captivating and believable dual-personality performance. William Finley’s (The Black Dahlia) role as her possessive ex-husband, and the head psychiatrist of a mental ward, is both creepy and relentless. The story itself flows smoothly throughout, regardless of the slow pace and non-linearity of certain story points Any true fan of the Hitchcock style will dismiss these attributes in a heartbeat, knowing damn well a surprise or two is sure to come sooner than later. And let’s not overlook the eerie and suspenseful Bernard Herrmann score. Brilliant story, and even better visual execution. My favorite quote from the film:

“Did you know that the germs can come through the wires? I never call and I never answer. It’s a good way to get sick. Very, very sick… That’s how I got so sick! SOMEONE CALLED ME ON THE TELEPHONE!” – Crazy woman in the psych ward

I really, really loved this film! Best part was, I streamed it for FREE! That’s what I’m talkin’ ’bout!

Twitter.com/acarrillojr
Facebook.com/ArmandoCarrilloJr

Having, prior to watching this movie, watched a TCM original show called “Night At The Movies: The Suspenseful World Of Thrillers” I was really in the mood for some great suspense. When they referenced Brian De Palma I was excited, because I had a few films of his ready to watch, and I had never knowingly seen a film of his before. But to have De Palma alongside brilliant clips of great Hitchcock films gave me expectations that were far beyond de Palma’s grasp. This film was all but a dud for me. The plot in the beginning was good enough I suppose, and the disposing of the body was clever and did lend a bit of suspense when the police came to search, but after that, it was a slow moving wannabe psychological thriller that just fell flat. Any “flashback” or reference to the past felt weird and out of place, the acting was not very good, and the characters were very one note and boring. Not a film I’d want to watch again.

Being unfamiliar with De Palma, I wasn’t expecting much. It was better than I thought it would be and kept my attention. However, it’s one thing to reference Hitchcock but make a whole film that seems a parody of Hitchcock was a bit irritating. The execution was good but the acting could have been better and the story could have used a lot of work. It wasn’t a very good premise to begin with but there were certain plot elements that perhaps should have been explained since they didn’t make sense. I’d watch it again maybe because it kept my attention but I get the feeling that this movie wasted my time after finishing it.

Most of what I’ve seen from DePalma is either trashy or film-by-number hack material with few exceptions. This film is one of those exceptions for me. While it certainly plays to sensationalism before craft, his grasp of Hitchcockian technique is certainly on display here, be it rip-off or homage, and it plays very very well. Wonderfully creepy, disturbing and horrific at the right moments. It seems like a movie Hitchcock would have directed had he lived a few years more. Great Bernard Hermann score!

Brian De Palma’s overall style isn’t really to my taste — I get the Hitchcock influences and the intentionally campy sense of horror/humor, but when I see his films, I never quite get what he’s trying to achieve. I enjoyed “Sisters” up to a certain point, despite (or maybe because of) the cheesy fake blood that looks like cupcake icing and Margot Kidder’s pseudo-Parisian accent (which sounds nothing like Quebecois, which her character is supposed to be). The voyeuristic theme set up by the game show in the beginning is a fun touch. However, the ending is not as clever as it seems to think it is. It’s a bit of a let down.

He who digs a pit will fall into it, and whoever breaks through a wall will be bitten by a serpent. He who quarries stones may be hurt by them, and he who splits wood may be endangered by it. If the ax is dull, and one does not sharpen the edge, then he must use more strength; but wisdom brings success [Eccl. 10: 8-10].

I remember this verse from when I was a kid in church. Watching this movie brought it back to mind. However the ending was definitely interesting. The film is not as obvious as it seems.