Reassessing Brian De Palma’s “Dressed to Kill” and “Body Double”
By: Joel Eisenberg
Tags: Movies, Sex, Violence Against Women, Horror, Entertainment

Conclusion:

Amending what I had written for the opening of this piece, it is far too easy to pigeonhole an artist as embodying character flaws based on his or her work. Neither Dressed to Kill nor Body Double represented the first time De Palma was criticized for overt violence, or misogyny. The director of 1983’s Scarface was excoriated in the press for his portrayals of gang brutality for that now-iconic remake. 1976’S Carrie, though largely well-received (and nominated for two acting Oscars, for Sissy Spacek as Best Actress in the title role, and Piper Laurie as Best Supporting Actress as Carrie’s mother), has been frequently analyzed for its opening sequence, in slow motion, of nude and partially-nude women in a post-gym class high school locker room as Carrie has her first period.

Carrie, however, for the most part escaped the widespread criticism of some of De Palma’s later work.

Both Dressed to Kill and Body Double, for me, showcased a filmmaker at the height of his game. Aided immensely by eerily fitting Pino Donaggio scores, the films struck chords of audience manipulation with a skill rarely seen since, fittingly, the heyday of Hitchcock.

Upon its release, Body Double was slammed by critics. Roger Ebert was one of the very few to note the film’s substantial virtues:

“Body Double is an exhilarating exercise in pure filmmaking, a thriller in the Hitchcock tradition in which there’s no particular point except that the hero is flawed, weak, and in terrible danger — and we identify with him completely. The movie is so cleverly constructed, with the emphasis on visual storytelling rather than dialogue, that we are neither faster nor slower than the hero as he gradually figures out the scheme that has entrapped him. And the casting of a Hitchcockian average guy also helps.” — Roger Ebert

Art has a tendency to incite when exploring darker themes. This is intentional on De Palma’s part, as he is far too canny a filmmaker to leave such responses up to chance. Dressed to Kill was a masterclass of erotic suspense played straight, a highly-polished work of a genre that (perish the thought) should look so respectable. Hence a summation of its critical issues. Body Double was — and this is where it has found trouble — a tongue-in-cheek exploration, and exploitation, of women as sex objects and the men who see them as such. One can say violent fantasies are part of that picture, but the fact remains Scully tried to prevent the murder of the object of his perversions ... and as far as her character, there is a twist.

Body Double is over-the-top and in some ways no different than a splatter film, a sub-genre of horror which I believe has its virtues:

It is difficult for this writer to view Body Double as anything other than an immensely skillful romp. Perhaps De Palma was flipping off his critics with this one, but who knows really? Erotic thrillers, as with pornography, have been moneymakers for years. Like a more flamboyant Basic Instinct, Body Double was the equivalent of a lurid, voyeuristic crime novel, updated to then-modern sensibilities with that other taboo, sex, front and center.

The exploitation of the seedier side of humanity can be of value if one strays away from enacting the exploitation, which remains the age-old psychological conundrum. And, analyzing films that feature — in De Palma’s case, extreme — violence against women is far too often a no-win scenario.

I believe this is unfortunate, as these films do exist and we should learn what we can from them.

As for the director, we’re still debating his most notorious doubleheader. That says something. And that’s what I believe he intended. This is one skilled director who has known all along what he could get away with. In his case, I believe his most disquieting works were comments on the dark side of man, glimpses safely afforded to us in the cheap seats.

If done well this type of work resonates, for good or ill.

I suspect his work will continue to do so.

Thank you for reading.