Obsession

Brian De Palma once again shows his obsession for Alfred Hitchcock. He brings in some overwrought music from Bernard Herrmann.

This is another stylish but flawed film from De Palma with a dreamlike romantic mystery to cover up a controversial strand of the storyline.

Michael Courtland (Cliff Robertson) is a real estate developer in New Orleans whose wife Elizabeth (Geneviève Bujold) and daughter Amy are kidnapped. From the advice of the police, he does not pay the ransom. A botched rescue attempt leads to his wife and daughter's death.

Michael is left devastated. 16 years later, he goes on a business trip to Italy with his business partner Robert LaSalle (John Lithgow.) To his astonishment he meets Sandra Portinari, a woman who looks like his late wife at the same church he originally met her in Italy.

Michael becomes obsessed with Sandra and asks her to marry him. When he brings her to New Orleans, his friends and colleagues are worry about Michael. Fate plays a cruel twist on him as Sandra disappears one morning.

This is a moody, uneven and a slow moving thriller. De Palma is yet to master suspense and the script he co-wrote with Paul Schrader is choppy.

Bujold is very good in a difficult role. Robertson looks like a television actor who struck it lucky with an Oscar. He is just too bland. Lithgow on the other hand is too fruity who signals his nefarious hand in any twist in the plot.

It's 1959 New Orleans. Elizabeth Courtland (Geneviève Bujold) and daughter Amy are kidnapped for ransom. Michael Courtland (Cliff Robertson) sells to his business partner Robert Lasalle (John Lithgow) to raise the money. Following police advise, he gives the kidnappers fake money and the deal goes badly. Elizabeth and Amy are presumed dead after going off a bridge. Michael builds a tomb for them and refuses to develop the valuable land surrounding it. It's 1975. He and Robert go to Italy for business where he falls for Elizabeth lookalike Sandra Portinari (Geneviève Bujold).

The fake money ended any hopes for greatness. It's an annoying little detail but the movie can still be good. At the very least, the police would use counterfeit money which can be tracked. The kidnappers are probably going to open the suitcase as soon as they get into the van. It's a stupid little detail which I have to ignore. The other problem is that the villain is obvious from the start and the reason for the whole thing can be logically deduced as soon as the premise is revealed after thirty minutes. There is also a final twist that seems obvious as a possibility. It's not quite so well conceived either. I don't really buy the flashbacks and Sandra's progression. Maybe if she was brutalized, she could become submissive to the plan. This is a twisted mystery from director Brian De Palma but it's not as mysterious as it should be.

...or rather nightmarish,this is probably De Palma"s finest achievement.Here his obsession with Alfred Hitchcock is subdued or thoroughly mastered.Of course we cannot help but thinking of "Vertigo" but De Palma's work is made with taste :two good leads -Cliff Robertson,whose eyes seem to reflect fatality,and Genevieve Bujold whose beauty seems to plunge the audience into a dream(the sequence in the church makes her look like a madonna)-.Besides,Bernard Herrman's score is absolutely mind-boggling,enhancing the strangest sequences in an almost religious incantation.The cinematography is up to scratch,and the directing remains sober.The Hitchcock quotations take a back seat to De Palma's talent:compare this work with the grand guignol of "Carrie" the follow-up,the sensationalism tinged with melodrama of "fury" (no,it's not a remake of the Fritz Lang classic),the plagiarism of "dressed to kill" or "Body double".

One may regret the last pictures in slow motion.But that's minor quibble.This is De Palma's magnum opus,and it will be "blow out" before he puts out a genuinely personal movie.Do not miss it.

I say TO-MAE-TOE , You say TO-MAH-TOE. I say Vertigo, You say Obsession.

This early work of Brian de Palma freely takes plot material from Hitchcock's masterpiece. Indeed, Obsession strikes me as a more blatant Hitchcock steal, than the latter de Palma films also accused of being rip-offs (Dressed to Kill, Body Double, Raising Cane) The best and safest way to approach Obsession is to treat it not so much as a rip-off, but rather as a retelling. I suppose that would be the best way to treat all de Palma thrillers, come to think of it.

Brian De Palma, and co-writer Paul Shrader have chosen to take this story away from San Franscisco (Vertigo) and into Venice where de Palma can integrate long sweeping takes of renaissance churches with religious art, and work his camera through a labyrinth of four hundred year old, narrow streets/alleys.

Despite being derivative, Obsession entertains....for a while. Three errors come to mind, which hurt the movie. a) Cliff Robertson is no James Stewart, His performance as a distraught millionaire following a Venetian girl who resembles his dead wife, is stiff and unconvincing. b) the film is surrounded by a score that is over composed, too assertive and draws more attention to itself than it should. c) the climactic finale is chaotic and dumb. Despite a few good de Palma shots, Obsession comes with a disappointing pay off.

I'm not sure who best to recommend Obsession to. I would certainly not suggest it for those who worship Hitchcock. It's watchable, but De Palma has done better, as has the thriller genre.

Underrated masterpiece by De Palma was basically disregarded due comparisons to "Vertigo". Sure, the basic premise is the same, but De Palma takes it in a totally different direction. Technically, this is among his best works, with the beautiful camerawork complimenting a haunting, disturbing story. The story takes it's time, and while the slow pace may bother some viewers, patient viewers will realize that it works to draw them in. By the time it is over, it feels like you have just come out of a trance.