# The De Palma Conversation **URL:** \ **Category:** General Movie Discussion\ **Created:** [May 20, 2025, 8:43pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066 "2025-05-20T20:43:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/secretagentfan/32/504_2.png) [@secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/secretagentfan)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2025, 3:22pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066/21 "2025-05-21T15:22:19Z")
[![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/97XoMjwoZ5w/maxresdefault.jpg "De Palma | Official Trailer HD | A24") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97XoMjwoZ5w) ---
**Author:** ![secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/secretagentfan/32/504_2.png) [@secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/secretagentfan)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2025, 7:14pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066/22 "2025-05-21T19:14:34Z")
John Kenneth Muir is always a great source of thorough film criticism. Here‘s a link to some of his work on De Palma: [https://reflectionsonfilmandtelevision.blogspot.com/search?q=Brian+de+Palma](https://reflectionsonfilmandtelevision.blogspot.com/search?q=Brian+de+Palma) ---
**Author:** ![secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/secretagentfan/32/504_2.png) [@secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/secretagentfan)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2025, 7:15pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066/23 "2025-05-21T19:15:57Z")
And naturally, the more I think of De Palma, the more the idea of a Bond film directed by him feels interesting. Too late now, probably. ---
**Author:** ![jamesb007nd](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ce7236/32.png) [@jamesb007nd](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/jamesb007nd)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2025, 7:33pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066/24 "2025-05-21T19:33:54Z")
I don’t know if it becomes interesting. Was the first M.I. movie interesting for you? I watched the first two M.I. movies last weekend on my old dvd’s and I liked them both, but it are not the huge movies what they became after those. ---
**Author:** ![MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/mrkiddwint/32/1772_2.png) [@MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/MrKiddWint)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2025, 7:38pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066/25 "2025-05-21T19:38:58Z")
> [@secretagentfan](#): > > And naturally, the more I think of De Palma, the more the idea of a Bond film directed by him feels interesting. And I would go the other way. A De Palma-helmed Bond would be an interesting film, but would it be good for the franchise? > [@secretagentfan](#): > > Here‘s a link to some of his work on De Palma: Thank you. _another oft-misunderstood talent from the formalist school_ Preach, John. What struck me as I watched BODY DOUBLE was how formalist De Palma’s work is. I have always known this, but coming back to these films, it is striking me harder than ever before (which may reflect the overall decline in formalist film aesthetics). ---
**Author:** ![MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/mrkiddwint/32/1772_2.png) [@MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/MrKiddWint)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2025, 7:42pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066/26 "2025-05-21T19:42:33Z")
> [@secretagentfan](#): > > the idea of a Bond film directed by him ![YARN | - My team. My team is dead! - Jesus. | Mission: Impossible (1996) | Video clips by quotes | 1d46b558 | 紗](https://y.yarn.co/1d46b558-787f-45a9-897b-36d2c8325d72_text.gif) I can think of a community member or two, who would not object to such an approach. ---
**Author:** ![secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/secretagentfan/32/504_2.png) [@secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/secretagentfan)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2025, 4:54am UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066/27 "2025-05-22T04:54:16Z")
> [@MrKiddWint](#): > > And I would go the other way. A De Palma-helmed Bond would be an interesting film, but would it be good for the franchise? In the 90’s, if he had been given the „freedom“ he was given on M:I, I would say yes. Right now - no. He is understandably cynical about the business and would turn Bond into a sex-obsessed maniac who at the end fails to save the one woman who could have saved him. One could argue that De Palma always was out of tune with the business, and that’s what makes him so interesting. At least he was allowed to make movies back then. These days it’s only about conglomerate-friendly IP-enablers. Could he do the independent arthouse circuit, being feted at the festivals? Sure. But most of these films will end up financial failures, forcing the directors to go where the money is. And De Palma surely would say: I‘m too old for that shit - and I know too much to swallow it. ---
**Author:** ![theSpectre](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/thespectre/32/567_2.png) [@theSpectre](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/theSpectre)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2025, 11:36am UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066/28 "2025-05-22T11:36:19Z")
I might be in the minority saying this, but I think Brian De Palma’s Mission Impossible film is actually the worst of the franchise basically for the absolute character assassination done to Jim Phelps. To me, it would be the equivalent of Bernard Lee’s M being revealed as the head of SPECTRE. ---
**Author:** ![secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/secretagentfan/32/504_2.png) [@secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/secretagentfan)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2025, 12:44pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066/29 "2025-05-22T12:44:31Z")
I respect your opinion but… did Ethan Hunt played by Tom Cruise appear in the series? Or Jon Voight as Jim Phelps? It’s a different universe, a different variation. Bernard Lee was not a female M. Still, in 1995 M was suddenly a female. They did not retroactively change the character, nor did the M:I movie. What came before still exists untouched. ---
**Author:** ![secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/secretagentfan/32/504_2.png) [@secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/secretagentfan)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2025, 12:59pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066/30 "2025-05-22T12:59:20Z")
**SISTERS** It’s been so long since I saw Brian De Palma‘s first wide release, and I mainly remembered the shocking gore of the murder and the famous split screen following it. This time I was surprised that the gore is not the most shocking element here but the depiction of women and Afro-Americans being mistreated by white males. De Palma already establishes his precise and visually striking directorial style with a surprising abundance of satirical humour. The film is using the structure of PSYCHO but turns it into something different: a thriller about people either seeing something, disregarding what they are seeing or being unable to see it. He even goes further in the finale by having a terribly lovestruck, yet brutally dominating character forcing someone to see things his way. And yet, nobody in the end dares to see what is really there or act on it. It is really an intelligent concept within a genre thriller whose surface made some critics not look deeper. Me included. This second look was absolutely worth it. ---
**Author:** ![MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/mrkiddwint/32/1772_2.png) [@MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/MrKiddWint)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2025, 3:32pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066/31 "2025-05-22T15:32:01Z")
> [@secretagentfan](#): > > One could argue that De Palma always was out of tune with the business, and that’s what makes him so interesting. I think that is an accurate estimation of De Palma. > [@secretagentfan](#): > > At least he was allowed to make movies back then. Exactly. Outliers were allowed to make movies, and if they turned out to be unexpected hits, e.g. CARRIE, they got to make more. > [@secretagentfan](#): > > These days it’s only about conglomerate-friendly IP-enablers. Agreed. Those who can guide IP to a safe and profitable harbor will enjoy flourishing careers. > [@secretagentfan](#): > > but the depiction of women and Afro-Americans being mistreated by white males. If Scorsese is a Catholic filmmaker, De Palma is a Quaker one. He bears witness in his films to injustice and the mechanisms of injustice. > [@secretagentfan](#): > > his precise and visually striking directorial style I am having the same response as I re-watch the films. Every shot is exactly what De Palma wants and needs it to be. As I re-watched MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE last night (review to come), the adjective “judicious” came to mind to describe his style. Everything that is in the frame is there for a reason, and everything is precisely arranged within that frame. > [@secretagentfan](#): > > The film is using the structure of PSYCHO but turns it into something different De Palma does not merely imitate Hitchcock; he takes his concepts/approaches and develops them, never hiding their origins, but but also never simply repeating them. > [@secretagentfan](#): > > a thriller about people either seeing something, disregarding what they are seeing or being unable to see it. A fine description of all De Palma movies. Central to his films: a) the act of seeing/watching b) understandings/misunderstanding what has been seen c) characters setting up narratives/events/visuals to be seen by other characters d) the unreliability of what one sees His is a very scopophilic cinema. ---
**Author:** ![secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/secretagentfan/32/504_2.png) [@secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/secretagentfan)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2025, 4:42pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066/32 "2025-05-22T16:42:58Z")
> [@MrKiddWint](#): > > His is a very scopophilic cinema. And once again my vocabulary is enlarged. ---
**Author:** ![MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/mrkiddwint/32/1772_2.png) [@MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/MrKiddWint)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2025, 5:17pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066/33 "2025-05-22T17:17:39Z")
That’s me. A one-person geek squad. LOL. But I have found that thinking about De Palma’s films in terms of scopophilia and Quakerism help makes sense of them. As I re-watch his films, I realize that his plots are nothing to write home about–they do their job, and move the story along, but his images are endless fascinating. Watching M:I last night, what drew me in and kept me absorbed were the images and their relationship to one another: so precise, so full of meaning and allusions. What De Palma cares most about resides _ **in** _ the images as images, and not in their use as transparent conveyors of story. As a result, even though I know what is going to happen, I am continually engaged by the way De Palma visualizes it. ---
**Author:** ![jamesb007nd](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ce7236/32.png) [@jamesb007nd](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/jamesb007nd)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2025, 6:12pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066/34 "2025-05-22T18:12:24Z")
Forgive my ignorance but what does IP mean, I think I already asked this months (years?) ago, but I can’t remember the answer. Google doesn’t give me the right answer, I know it’s not about a phone, or IP adress…so…? ---
**Author:** ![Dustin](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/dustin/32/7_2.png) [@Dustin](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/Dustin)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2025, 6:28pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066/35 "2025-05-22T18:28:37Z")
Intellectual property: a franchise like Bond, Marvel, LOTR, so on so forth. Everything that’s dealing with universes, spinoffs and the like. ---
**Author:** ![jamesb007nd](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ce7236/32.png) [@jamesb007nd](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/jamesb007nd)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2025, 6:37pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066/36 "2025-05-22T18:37:45Z")
Thank you, now it becomes clear to me, I was wondering about it for days, weeks, every time it came up here. ---
**Author:** ![MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/mrkiddwint/32/1772_2.png) [@MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/MrKiddWint)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2025, 7:30pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066/37 "2025-05-22T19:30:45Z")
MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE (1996) on streaming. Thoughts/impressions: 1. It is a short film. Excluding credits, it runs about 105 minutes, and has a three-act structure. 2. Screens within screens, and frames within frames. De Palma offers them all up, but they never retard the action. It is never visual flourish for the sake of visual flourish. 3. Kittridge stages a scene for Phelps and his to team to participate in, while also deploying a second team to watch the first team. 4. Phelps stages a scene within the above scene for Ethan’s consumption. 5. Glasses being worn, used as transmitters, permitting special vision. 6. Phelps betrays Ethan, and, in turn, Ethan betrays Phelps. Claire is the character through whom their game of cat-and-mouse plays out–hence Beart’s modest performance. Claire is most stark/cold in Ethan’s imagined reconstruction of what happened during the Prague job. But he (and De Palma) immediately back away from this view, and Ethan rewrites the action so that Phelps, and not Claire, detonates the car with Hannah in it. 7. In the boxcar, there are two shots from behind a wire mesh door. At first it can seem that the shots are there for visual variety, but it is revealed that Phelps is beyond that door, watching Claire plead with the phony Phelps (Ethan in disguise) for Ethan’s life. Once more, we have watching/looking–in this case, confirming Phelps’ suspicion/wonder if Claire has fallen for Ethan. Again, we have a woman part of a man’s plan, who is not protected by him, or worse, directly harmed by him. 8. Final shot of Cruise reminds me of he final shot of Travolta in BLOW OUT–focused on the star, but less than heoic. ---
**Author:** ![secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/secretagentfan/32/504_2.png) [@secretagentfan](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/secretagentfan)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2025, 7:43pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066/38 "2025-05-22T19:43:09Z")
I understand now that I had an underwhelming reaction to my rewatch of the first M:I because I had watched the last two films in the preceding days - and those are so finetuned with the action that the first film almost seems to belong to a different franchise. It kind of does because M:I was rebooted every time until the fourth one set the new template of Ethan and his posse. In that regard the De Palma mission is like a prequel, an origin story. And therefore different in style and purpose. ---
**Author:** ![MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/mrkiddwint/32/1772_2.png) [@MrKiddWint](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/MrKiddWint)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2025, 9:18pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066/39 "2025-05-22T21:18:00Z")
> [@secretagentfan](#): > > the first film almost seems to belong to a different franchise. It does: the films of Brian De Palma. > [@secretagentfan](#): > > an origin story That thought crossed by mind last night. Cruise’s Ethan is boyish, even a touch adolescent. The gravitas comes later. ---
**Author:** ![stromberg](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/user_avatar/quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/stromberg/32/534_2.png) [@stromberg](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/u/stromberg)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2025, 10:51pm UTC](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066/40 "2025-05-22T22:51:37Z")
> [@MrKiddWint](#): > > It is a short film. Excluding credits, it runs about 145 minutes, and has a three-act structure. Not really something substantial to contribute to the discussion, just the observation that at 145 minutes - 2 hours and 25 minutes – a movie isn’t really short. As I didn’t expect such a misjudgement from you, I opted to just look it up, and – lo and behold – according to my source (Wikipedia, that is), it’s only 110 minutes (not certain if that includes credits). Which makes it a _rather_ short movie. 🤓 Please proceed [Previous page](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066.md?page=1) [Next page](https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/the-de-palma-conversation/3066.md?page=3)