Brian De Palma is the best of the average

says Sergei Polotovsky

If Brian De Palma made a movie about the complex relationship between reality and its reflection, about the perversion of truth, about pseudo-documentary, then it is already mainstream. Because De Palma always fruitfully brought to life other people's ideas, but constantly fell short of the status of an author. He is a craftsman who takes on various jobs, but does not leave the mark of a master on it.

Unlike his contemporaries from the “New Hollywood,” De Palma did not become a name, a brand, or a banner. "The Godfather" is Coppola, "Taxi Driver" is Scorsese. Despite all their iconic images, for what it’s worth, they have the best roles in film history. And “Scarface” is a loose remake, transplanted from Hawks to the spicy Miami of the 1980s? This is Al Pacino, running out onto the stairs with a machine gun at the ready, and the last thing you remember about the director.

After the success of the film "Mission: Impossible" (1996), some Russian publications wrote about De Palma as a new (read: young) Hollywood director. Although he has already produced a nostalgic attempt to repeat Scarface - Carlito's Way (1993), and one of the most popular films in Russia of the 1980s, The Untouchables (1987). There was a lot more. The cheerful anarchist underground of the 1960s and the first films with a very young De Niro, clever retellings of Hitchcock and the classic of youth horror "Carrie" (1976). A persistent motive of voyeurism and admiring beauties, detective stories and action films. Everything seems to be going well, but a beautiful biography does not work out. Such that it would solemnly enter the pantheon, so that the series “Films of Brian De Palma” would appear in progressive video stores. Not the great Brian De Palma, what can you say.

No one will blame, say, Eyramdzhan for lack of greatness, although there will certainly be those who want to write a dissertation on this king of thrash. Elderly geniuses fall into insanity, and kicking them is a simple matter and not even very decent. Thousands of kids make films about love and war - no questions asked. There are questions for De Palma: he does it too well. I would like to assign him to some echelon, preferably the first, but it doesn’t work.

“Without censorship” seems to be an excellent reason to rewrite De Palma’s history. They say that when his parents had a fight and his mother accused his father of infidelity, little Brian tracked his dad for several days with recording devices. An excellent first attempt at documentary filmmaking. On the other hand, De Palma himself punningly stated: “The camera lies 24 frames per second.”

But it seems like nothing will stick together again. De Palma, the author of a dozen excellent films, fundamentally eludes authorship. Maybe he doesn't need it.

First-class second-class