The Black Dahlia

[Jack Scorpion]

Ahhh, that's alright. I'm more interested in what he's going to do next! Ellroy, Hammett, Chandler, Mosley - all masters.

Ellroy doesn't think much of Chandler.

Mosley is my favorite of those 4.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm still trying to decide if I really want to see this or not. I've been seeing the trailer all over the place, am a big fan of Scarlett Johanson, and am sorely tempted -- but, alas, I am also one of those "sensitive viewers" mentioned earlier in the thread, and just don't think I could handle the full-on crime scene photos. I don't *need* to see them to know how gruesome and grisly and violent crime can be -- I've read enough about the case to imagine the scene, and that's bad enough. I've always felt DePalma had a tendency to overdo the gore -- so I'm still finding myself very hesitant to see the picture. Some images I'd rather not carry around in my head.

Maybe some kind soul can post a warning of where to expect the gruesome stuff so those of us inclined to cover our eyes will know when to do it?

 

[Feraud]

Maybe some kind soul can post a warning of where to expect the gruesome stuff so those of us inclined to cover our eyes will know when to do it?

I am planning on seeing it this weekend. I will give you a "heads up" on the gruesome scenes.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

I've seen production stills, the autopsy scene in this one makes "The Silence of the Lambs" autopsy scene look mild in comparison. The "Blach Dahlia" is going to be intense.

 

[Feraud]

Wall Street Journal review..

For those interested.

Confused Plot, Erratic Acting Wilt 'Black Dahlia' Thriller --- Hartnett Is
Strong, Johansson Lost In Translation to '40s Hottie; Fine 'Lennon,' on His
Activism
By Joe Morgenstern
The Wall Street Journal, Friday, September 15, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BRIAN DE PALMA'S "The Black Dahlia," based on the James Ellroy novel, stars
Josh Hartnett and Aaron Eckhart as cops investigating a fictional version of the
gruesome murder that mesmerized California in the 1940s -- a case that, in
reality, remains unsolved. During their investigation, the L.A.P.D. partners,
Bucky Bleichert and Lee Blanchard, grow obsessed, for different reasons, with
the victim, Elizabeth Short. It's easy to see why. In a film within the film, a
tawdry black-and-white screen test that becomes a piece of evidence, Betty
Short (Mia Kirshner) is the heroine of her own wrenching drama -- a pretty,
poignantly earnest girl whose dreams of stardom came to nothing but death. If
only the film outside that little film were as strong, or as clearly focused.
The production certainly looks sumptuous, and certifies Mr. Hartnett as a
mainstream movie star.

But the script is frequently impenetrable, the pacing is ponderous, and the
film noir style can't conceal a crucial piece of misconceived casting.

At first the story seems to carry echoes of "Jules and Jim." (In a movie by Mr.
De Palma, whose work includes "Dressed to Kill," "Carrie" and "Scarface," lots
of things echo other movies.) Both of the partners, who are also rivals as
avocational boxers, cherish the company of Blanchard's girlfriend, a radiant
blonde named Kay. "Always she'd be there," Bleichert recalls in a voice-over
narration, "never between us, always in the middle."

In a movie of the period, Kay might have been played by Lauren Bacall, Rita
Hayworth or the co-star of "The Blue Dahlia," Veronica Lake. (The name the
newspapers gave the case was a play on the title of that film.) In "The Black
Dahlia" she's played by Scarlett Johansson, a young actress with a great gift
for contemporary roles -- her performance in "Lost In Translation" was close to
perfection -- but a terribly shaky sense of how real people, or real movie
stars, comported themselves six decades ago.

Whenever she's on screen the fabric of theatrical illusion threatens to
unravel, and it's a fabric woven by two masters of the motion picture arts --
the production designer Dante Ferretti and the cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond.
Movie lovers will appreciate the classic Technicolor palate of a New Year's Eve
party (though that's hardly in the tradition of film noir), or the swooping,
soaring camera movements -- think "Touch of Evil" -- in the scene when
Elizabeth Short's body is discovered in the grass by the side of a road.

When Josh Hartnett is on screen, there's no danger of mistaking him for
Humphrey Bogart or Alan Ladd; he, too, is a product of his time. But in a movie
marred by broad acting strokes -- Aaron Eckhart's Blanchard all but foams at the
mouth -- Mr. Hartnett takes the camera, to use an old-fashioned phrase, with an
authority that ranges from minimalist to just-enoughist, and a voice through
which Bucky Bleichert, his flawed knight of honor, speaks volumes in deftly
modulated syllables.

Two other performances light up the screen -- or more accurately, in this noir
emulation, furnish it with burnished bedazzlement. Hilary Swank's Madeleine
Linscott has lots of money, a sleek roadster, a whiskey voice, a taste for
depravity (think "Chinatown"), an eerie resemblance to the dead Betty Short
(think "Vertigo"), and an ability to command our rapt attention. Fiona Shaw
gets much less screen time as Ramona Linscott, Madeleine's batty, boozy mother
(think Gloria Swanson in puffed sleeves) but what she does with it is a chilling
wonder.

If pungent atmosphere could fill the gaps, "The Black Dahlia" would be the
movie that Brian De Palma may have wanted it to be. But crime stories -- even
intricate stories like this one -- are expected to achieve more than a modicum
of clarity. In "L.A. Confidential," a brilliant period piece adapted, by Brian
Helgeland, from another James Ellroy novel, the intricacy was formidable, yet
the clarity was -- eventually -- complete. In "The Black Dahlia," which was
adapted by Josh Friedman, narrative strands tangle and wither, minor characters
clutter the plot, Blanchard's behavior becomes a frustrating bafflement, and
the baroque denouement leaves us begging for less. Like Bleichert, wandering
through a surreal, barely fathomable landscape, we're interested in watching
things go by. Still, it would be nice to know what's going on.

 

[Nick Charles]

I'm going tonight at 10 pm, will report afterwards.

out.

 

[Mr. Lucky]

For those interested.

Ahhh, it's the WSJ. I'll see it anyways. Hell, Ellroy could re-write the Weekly Reader and, if it were made into a movie, I'd see it.

 

[J. M. Stovall]

gotta agree with you about harnett - even from the trailers he looks all wrong.

There's just something wrong with his whole "jacket off loose tie" look that seems way too contemporary.
Detectives at the original crime scene

Movie Still

Sorry about the first photo, I thought it was too far away and blurry to bother anyone. This photo has the bottom cropped off.

 

[RedShoesGirl]

in looking at the original crime scene photo one can't tell the poor dead lady had been cut in half. were the halves moved for later images you think?

i don't find the images in black and white too gruesome, but rather i am overwhelmed by a terrible sadness for elizabeth short. i don't think i will see this film.

rsg

 

[Marc Chevalier]

There's just something wrong with his whole "jacket off loose tie" look that seems way too contemporary.

That's no accident. It was done to make the lead actor more "accessible" and "sexy" to a contemporary audience that wears flip-flops to the theater.

.

 

[Feraud]

There's just something wrong with his whole "jacket off loose tie" look that seems way too contemporary.

Just when did that look come into being for detectives? It strikes me as a laid back 70s style...

 

[Nick Charles]

OK I saw it 10 minutes ago. Is it bad if you almost left., The story is all over the place, hats suck, few good suits, nice sets but I mean really I was sitting there saying to myself, self where the hell is this going?. To which he answered BEats me, glad we had a giftcard.

MY 2Cents =CRAP

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I suspected as much.

.

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

Here's my take on the film, I just got back seeing a couple hours ago.

I normally do not like or enjoy playing the critic for people to read and whether or not to self decide to see a movie only because a few people who have a stronge word in the papers.

When first hearing about the film, I had no clue that it was based on a true event. I felt that a studio like Universal with an acclaimed director, would most likely put on a good show. They definitely do.

The Story:
There is a lot jumping around. Unlike Hollywoodland, which I had only seen last week, is a lot more suddle, and but not calm. It is not mainly about the murder of Elizabeth Short, but what surrounded it, what kept the public in a bug eyed daze for so many years.

The real story is between the partnering detectives. How they become a part of this murder because of their positions as being the homicide department of LAPD. Many twists and turns occur throughout the movie and there isn't once when you know what is going to happen. That isn't always a good thing in a certain perpective. Depending on who you are, you may or may not understand what is occuring. I did. There is a lot of thinking involved with every few moments of the film. That is a good thing, for those who think, and a bad thing for those who want effordless action and nonesense. Even action can have some thinking.

As the story progresses, you not only are trying to solve the case of the Black Dahlia. You are viewing the lives of those involved in pursuing to solve it and those who are effected by them and the case. That doesn't only include these partnering detectives. The film is a rather modern take on Noir, as many Noir's I've seen are tough and rugged, the streets are dirty and everyone's the enemy. This is more dramatic, suddle and mindboggling. Not everyone will enjoy this movie. From the reviews I have read on Yahoo Movies, they either were not into the plot, the story, and the setup (Los Angeles 1947), or they refused to think.

The Characters:
The characters are well drawn out, I must say. Hartnett does a good job at playing a detective in the 1940's, and is easy to follow with his development. Scarlett Johansson has always had the look of a Golden Age movie star. Her acting is no different. I think for the most part, she did a good job. Her character was smart and intriguing, but a little overdone at some points. Hartnett does a good example of a detective sought out to solve a murder, and at the same time, solve his own problems. Most leading characters in a film noir are similar. His partner however, played by Aaron Eckhar, is only interested in finding the killer. He is obsessed with Miss Short and wants nothing more than to find out who, what and where. He pushes everyone out of the way that gets in his path. His character is well drawn out because of this. You wonder why he is so interested to the point of obsession. What is his motive?

The other characters, for example, Mia Kirshner, plays a well brought starlet who obviously is pushing her way into Hollywood the wrong way. It's no wonder Elizabeth Short was murdered. But it was not Hollywood that murdered her. At least, you would think so.
The other characters play a strong, yet backside part in the story, all having meaning, and not just a one liner. They are just as important as any of the leading and supporting.

The Style:
The style is noirish, but not noir, at least my take on noir. As I explained before, tough and rugged, and everyone is the enemy is my version of noir. But that is classic noir. This is more modern. The shots are visual in some places, and basic in others. But you're not paying any attention to the sets and costumes are you? Well, most of you did or will be, but don't let it spoil the fun. There are many times where I felt they weren't showing enough, and other times too much, but most of the time, they showed just what needed to seen in every shot. Many times it seemed it was staged, like many classic movies are. Hollywoodland did more visual than story, as many said and I agree. The Black Dahlia has a good advantage in terms of that. You're not watching a documentary explaining times during 1947 or 1957.

The lighting, the camera movements, were some things you don't normally see in a movie these days, and it works well for such a movie as this. Sometimes the camera is used too much in style just to get a simple shot, which many classic movies have been known to do, for instance Gone With The Wind with all of those panning out sunset shots and the first shot panning into Scarlett O' Hara at the front steps. You can critique me on that, but the sunset were there to play as a curtain dropping into the next act. For most of it, the camera movements are true to the time. Aside from some scenes, you'd think you are watching a classic movie, or at least a parody on one. There is one scene, maybe a couple more, where it seems they are acting too 21st Century for me in a present day movie, and that goes both ways (good/bad).

Out Of The Doors:

When I first exited the theater, the first thing I thought was that they try to cheat you on a scene to expand it's depth, to make the movie seem more interesting, like the killing of a man, and building up to that point was too quick. This is common in some cases. Many times the movie had the audience laughing, and I am not so sure the director intended that during some of these moments, but there is still comedy relief and it shows. A couple times I did not see a purpose in a few situations, in style, acting, and setup. I believe they were put there for a reason, but I didn't see it clearly. I will say now, the movie is well worth seeing for those who want a bit a thinking, or are out for entertainment. I'm glad to say I walked out satisfied, confused, and am still going to think.

I rarely see a movie, mostly because I am skeptical on spending money and walking out as if I never walked in. Not a lot of movies have put a mark on me for years to come. It's tough to be satisfied.

 

[Solid Citizen]

LA Confidential NOT

IMHO save your money this Dahlia's all over the place as already outlined by the Fl members on this thread [huh]

Do yourself a favor if you already DON'T have a DVD copy of LA Confidential
showing what great film making is all about!!! :eusa_clap

SC

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Wow, I appreciate all of your replies. I think I'll be saving myself my money and not see it. Maybe keep it in the wings for a dvd rental or possibly purchase which can be cheaper than a movie and snacks for two.
Your criticism is greatly appreciated. I was so psyched for this film. I was really looking forward to the costuming and the hair/make-up. I think, since I was so excited to see it, my disappointment in the film would be even greater. I never got to the movies anymore. Like others have said, it seems so true that all too many movies, especially the huge budget blockbusters, are growing more and more horrible and unwatchable.

 

[penfencer]

I saw it last night and was really disappointed.

The actual Black Dahlia murder story is sort of pushed off to the margins of a really convoluted storyline.

It reminded me of Titanic and Johnny Depp's Jack the Ripper movie where the much more compelling reality is buried beneath a badly written fictional story.

Scarlett Johannson looked good anyway.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Saw it last night and one word comes to mind BUSY.

 

[Zemke Fan]

Amen, gents...

busy/convoluted/confusing is right. The screenwriter should be given a cigarette, blindfold, and immediate access to a priest.

 

[Mr. Sable]

I find it interesting that most of the movie was shot in Bulgaria and only the beach scenes and a few others done in Los Angeles.

I'm enjoying this new wave of movies set in the Golden Era and I'm not going to be too critical of them at all. This sort of thing brings the style back to public attention and it might bring people with a real interest looking for more info and may even bring them here to the Fedora Lounge. So even if the movie isn't an instant classic, sleeper, or cult favourite, or even a good flick at all, it's worthwhile in that respect, isn't it?