From: sbb@panix.com (The Phantom)
Subject: REVIEW: RAISING CAIN
Reply-To: sbb@panix.com (The Phantom)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:19:38 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01486
Keywords: author=Phantom

			     RAISING CAIN
		    A review in the public domain
			    by The Phantom
			   (sbb@panix.com)

     Although the Phantom attempts to get his reviews written as soon
after he sees a film as possible (for otherwise real life and the
Phantom's day job have an unfortunate habit of intruding), some films
require a little thought before the Phantom can dash off a 1500-word
opinion with any hope of accuracy.  (By way of contrast, the Phantom's
review of BASIC INSTINCT practically wrote itself on the subway ride
home; even so, the Phantom has a feeling that he put more time and
effort into his review than Joe Eszterhas put into his ludicrous
screenplay.)

     This is the case with RAISING CAIN, the latest film by Brian De
Palma and one of the best thrillers of the year.  Only, as the credits
rolled and the Phantom left the theater, he felt that RAISING CAIN
really wasn't all that good -- that perhaps it had been over hyped, or
that perhaps De Palma was starting to play it safe now that he's
"mainstream."  Certainly it reminded the Phantom more than a little of
De Palma's DRESSED TO KILL, and put side by side with that classic,
RAISING CAIN doesn't really measure up.

     But then it occurred to the Phantom that he was about to review the
wrong film (no, he hadn't accidentlly walked into the horrifying,
special effects-bloated DEATH BECOMES HER playing in the theater next
door; although some tedious Hollywood literal-mindedness occasionally
seeped through the wall, and although the sound of 200 frustrated and
patronized adults shifting irritably in their seats was occasionally
audible, this only served to keep the Phantom in his own seat for the
duration of the film, even though he was at times tempted to duck his
head in and discover just exactly how many expensive special effects a
comedy needs to be really, really funny).  For most of RAISING CAIN, the
Phantom had unconsciously kept a number De Palma's early works in mind,
and he'd made the mistake of seeing RAISING CAIN only by way of
comparison to them.

     Yet this is exactly the wrong way to see the film, precisely
because De Palma hasn't made DRESSED TO KILL II.  Once the Phantom
realized this, he also realized how much of RAISING CAIN he'd really
missed -- while searching for the parallels between De Palma's latest
work and some of the films that made his reputation as one of our finest
directors (and perhaps the best horror filmmaker working today), the
Phantom wasn't really attending to the film De Palma had actually made.

     Instead of a rehashed, more-of-the-same Hitchcock homage (a la
DRESSED TO KILL, BLOW OUT, or BODY DOUBLE), De Palma has, with RAISING
CAIN, pretty much said "To hell with it -- let's get rid of the story
and the characters altogether, and see what we have left to work with."
The result is a patently preposterous plot peopled with a parade of
poorly drawn, two-dimensional characters -- and pretty much nothing
else.  (Please, no letters.  The Phantom meant to do that, and he's
truly sorry.)

     Nothing else, that is, except the complete freedom to indulge in
the most lyrical, fluid, gorgeous filmmaking of the year.  Nothing
anyone in RAISING CAIN does makes much sense; there are plot holes at
every twist and turn of an outlandishly twisty and turny plot;
characterization is established solely through cliche and lazy, easy
tricks of the screenplay; and each individual scene in the film could
easily have been lifted from one of De Palma's prior efforts.

     But to focus on this is to miss the point -- something not a few
other reviewers seem to have done.  De Palma didn't set out to make yet
another "Brian De Palma Film (pat. pending)" -- if that's what you're
looking for, the Phantom suggests that you instead rent one of his
previous efforts; with the single exception of the bewilderingly bad
BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES, all are worth your time and your attention.

     As is the very different RAISING CAIN.  On the surface, CAIN is
about Dr.  Carter Nix who -- in the words of Janet Maslin -- has at
least three more personalities than he really needs.  While Carter is
the perfect husband and father, Cain -- one of his wicked alter egos --
occasionally makes an appearance and works enough evil to keep the plot
moving along.  As Carter/Cain, John Lithgow is perfectly cast and
remains completely in control of his role(s) and the near-constant
screen time he gets throughout the film.  He is literally at the center
of this very warped fantasy, and the Phantom strongly suspects that a
lesser actor might have taken the opportunity to put in a truly
over-the-top and egotistical performance that would ignore De Palma's
careful balancing act.  One of the things that so distinguishes CAIN
from a multitude of multiple personality films is that it is not at all
a Jekyll and Hyde film.  Instead, De Palma has crafted a much more
subtle vision of a man who is helplessly out of control -- of his
actions as well as his very being.

     In a perfectly turned parallel to this, Lolita Davidovich plays
Carter's wife Jenny, a woman who -- like many of the women in De Palma's
films -- seems more than a little unfocused.  She has the same
dream-like quality about her that Angie Dickinson had in DRESSED TO
KILL, and her quest for a better understanding of who she is and what
she really wants both drives the plot and underscores Carter's own
struggles to remain the thoughtful husband and devoted father.  In fact,
picture for a moment the opening scene in DRESSED TO KILL and you'll
have a pretty good idea how most of RAISING CAIN plays out: using Jenny
as the catalyst, De Palma brings us into a world where it's as difficult
for us to sort out what is real and what is dream as it is for Carter.
Are we seeing what's really happening?  What someone is dreaming or
remembering?  Or what someone is fantasizing about?  At no point in
RAISING CAIN does De Palma ever give us the sort of solid ground that
we've been so conditioned to expect from a Hollywood film -- and for
that the Phantom is profoundly grateful.  RAISING CAIN is a lot of
things, but literal-minded it is not, and that is all too rare in
American film these days -- even in horror films and thrillers, where
one might reasonably expect the line between reality and nightmare to
become blurred.

     But Hollywood (and therefore American audiences) are rarely
comfortable with anything other than obvious plot twists and predictable
conclusions; we like our fantasies nice and tidy by the time the credits
roll, and woe be it to the filmmaker who goes too far out on a limb.
Though De Palma has cautiously (and sometimes not so cautiously) tested
that limb before, this time he's way out on the end and ready to take
the whole tree down with him.  Thus, although we never have the
opportunity to identify with the story's protagonist (in fact, RAISING
CAIN doesn't really have one), De Palma allows us to do something even
better, something even more rare: for two hours he allows us to *become*
Carter.

     It's a scary ride, and one that frequently treats logic as if it
were a four-letter word.  On the surface we can't help but be aware of
De Palma's utter disregard for an original plot, or even an unoriginal
one that makes sense.  But down below, where De Palma is really working
this time, is also where all the fun is; the trick is to put aside your
prejudices and your preconditioned desires for a simple and
understandable plot, sit back, and enjoy the ride.  Once you stop
worrying about whether something in RAISING CAIN could "really" have
happened, you'll see a much different film emerge, one which is
comprised of a series of overlapping scenarios each of which is filmed
and acted to perfection; each of which makes sense on its own; but none
of which really fit together very well.  (It's as if De Palma has given
us an IQ test consisting of various shapes and a box with
similarly-shaped cutouts -- but the only way to pass the test is to use
a hammer and steer clear of the ever-seductive cookie-cutter correctness
that has made so many mainstream films so dreadfully dull.)

     Inside the box are scenes filmed so as to turn lesser directors
green with envy; with the possible exceptions of Stanley Kubrick, Ridley
Scott, Spike Lee and the Coen brothers, no one makes films that look
this good.  RAISING CAIN is exciting on a fundamental, visual level in a
way that very few other mainstream films are; regardless of what you
think about it, the Phantom is willing to bet that you'll remember
vividly many of the scenes in RAISING CAIN long after you've left the
theater.  

     Also inside the box is a sort of free-floating sense of dread that
-- like De Palma's startlingly photography -- is similarly absent from
most of the run-of-the-mill thrillers churned out by Hollywood hacks
each year.  It's a disquieting sense of menace that we've felt before in
bits of De Palma's other films (in the outdoor restaurant scene in THE
FURY; in the lead-up to the climactic scene in CARRIE; in Angie
Dickinson's silent tour of an art museum in DRESSED TO KILL), but here
it engulfs the film whole; without a well-drawn and logical plot to keep
it outside of our focus of attention, it creeps up on us just minutes
into the film and never really goes away.  We just don't know what's
going to happen next in RAISING CAIN, and De Palma ably capitalizes on
our sense of unease as he piles on scene after unlikely scene of terror
and suspense.  It's the end of CARRIE writ large[*]: there are so many
opportunities for a hand to spring out of a fresh grave that we find we
must either reject the film entirely or surrender ourselves to a two
hour-long nightmare.

     Having achieved his aim through guerrilla filmmaking, De Palma
leaves out the gore this time; he also leaves out the in-jokes (no
drills, phans) and the incessant references to Hitchcock.  Some
reviewers have remarked that CAIN is nothing but a reworking of PSYCHO,
but they're misguided.  De Palma did PSYCHO in DRESSED TO KILL, and
while he uses elements of it to establish the framework of RAISING CAIN,
he's obviously not out to do another Hitchcock homage.

     RAISING CAIN has more in common with the equally dreamlike JACOB'S
LADDER than it does with any of Hitchcock's films (with the possible
exception of THE BIRDS); the Phantom only hopes that CAIN does better at
the box office.  Despite a pedestrian ending that in ten minutes
attempts to wrap up the visual nightmare of the previous 120, audiences
found JACOB'S LADDER to be too joyously untethered from reality for
their made-in-Hollywood tastes.  It would be a real shame if RAISING
CAIN suffered a similar fate at the box office because too many people
dissuaded their friends from attending a film that "doesn't make sense"
or that doesn't have a neat and predictable ending.  Yet given the
immense popularity of films like BASIC INSTINCT -- films that are
unrelentingly stupid but that are literal-minded to the core -- the
Phantom fears that audiences will react to CAIN much the way they did to
De Palma's CASUALTIES OF WAR, itself a casualty of our need for films to
take us away from real life, yet allow us to keep our feet firmly
planted on the ground and our minds firmly reassured by pat endings and
ever-clear lines between reality and fantasy.

     People have said that Brian De Palma is not a "normal" director,
that his films are too dark and that he is too drawn to humanity's evil
side.  In the past he's attempted to dress up his dark visions with
Hitchcock's respectable clothing; now he's done away with the window
dressing and let us come along with him on a very naked and effective
exploration of evil, of the blurry line between reality and illusion,
and of his own singular vision of terror.  RAISING CAIN is without a
doubt one of De Palma's best films; if nothing else, it's the most
unrestrained and inventive film he's made in years.

     No thumbs up or down -- but if you're a horror phan, or if you're
in the mood for a thriller that thrills on so many different levels, you
owe it to yourself to see just what a master of the art can do in this
genre.  More than worth full price: it's worth seeing twice.

[*] N.B.: Please, no letters.  The Phantom promises not to use the
phrase "writ large" ever again; chalk it up to a Modern American Film
101 flashback and to the Phantom's desire to give his spell-checker a
workout.  Webster's New World notes that when used this way, "writ" is
"Rare or Archaic" -- either way, a perfect reflection of the Phantom's
own writing style.

: The Phantom
: sbb@panix.com
: cmcl2!panix!sbb