Oh Doctor, I'm so unhappy. I'm a woman trapped inside a man's body - and you're not helping me to get out!
Umpteenth Viewing. Criterion DVD. I must have seen this film in a hundred times in a hundred parts. It hit cable in late '81 if I remember correctly and I was fucking terrified of watching it for two long. This was crossed with the overwhelming feeling when I wasn't even an adolescent yet of seeing something I wasn't supposed to be seeing, which wasn't Angie Dickenson full nude in the shower in the beginning, or Nancy Allen full nude in the shower at the end, but rather Nancy Allen in black lingerie in stockings in Michael Caine's office. This... was to me at six or seven, full blown pornography and I remember it as such. The fact that it was crossed with such brutal and bloody murder was so over the top for me that it greatly affected my thinking of horror as a genre and specifically DePalma as a filmmaker for decades. I remember reading a book called Lustmord that called out Dressed to Kill and DePalma's not-too-well-thought-out responses to his slasher films. I was part of that crowd. "Yeah, fuck that guy. What a pig!" and the like chorus. So I reluctantly bought this on the last Criterion 50% flash sale and watched it last night having not seen it probably since 83 or 84 at the latest. I was amazed at what I saw and didn't see that I thought I remembered and after watching all the bonuses and reading the trivia and the Wikipedia page, I think I'm going to do a u-turn on this while keeping some reservations about the film.
That Dressed to Kill is a horror classic that calls back to Hitchcock in general and Psycho in particular there is no debate. The idea that it is pornographic is ludicrous, and despite the reputation there is only one murder in this film, the one on the elevator. The other two are fantasies and nightmares. I also learned that the opening, rather lurid shot of Angie Dickenson's character in the shower (actually of a stand-in) was not in the original release of the film. Neither was the up close slitting of Allen's character's throat or her vulgar description of what was in Michael Caine's character's pants. All that was cut, totaling 30 seconds, and I have to say, leaving that out it might make the remaining film scary for a six year old but what the fuck are the adults so upset about?
Given my younger screening of it and my hatred of DePalma's later works, I was actually unprepared for how engrossed I was in Angie Dickenson's performance - particularly the museum setpiece. That was like Janet Leigh losing her shit in the car during the rainstorm. DePalma is actually a master at showing short clips of emotion edited together using the Kuleshov Effect that he doesn't need dialogue. Most of this film is silent, and what little dialogue there is doesn't mean much. In fact, some of the contemporary reviews skewer the dialogue I think because they place too much emphasis on it.
As for the piggish scenes, yes there is a close up of a vagina. If you don't like that, then I don't know what to say. If you think that's more horrible than a woman getting slashed, then I think you're fucked in the head. At no time during the film does DePalma insinuate that women should be murdered because they are women. In fact, he goes through great lengths to humanize the victims so you can think even worse of the antagonist, which brings me to the last discussion point.
To say that I was confused as a six year old to see Michael Caine dress up like a blonde woman and cut people up might be an understatement. Cross this with Nancy Allen in stockings during my proto-jerking-off period and I'm surprised I'm not in therapy. Caine's character as trans I can see as problematic at the time as well as now - the characterization that trans people have some innate evil in them that makes them commit crimes could be traced to this film and possibly others... if you choose to read the film this way and I understand if you do. I was actually surprised to see Caine watching a film whilst doing 'research' on a trans woman discussing her previous life as a man and how absolutely normal the interview was. The interviewer was none other than the amazing shitbag Phil Donohue who actually took sympathy with the trans person and admitted he was trying to avoid bias as to 'normal' or conventional questions during the discussion. This is thirty seconds of the film, but if you're going to show a real trans person in a film like this, why not show one that is not a threat and DePalma chooses to do this. He is differentiating and in a genre picture like this it goes without saying he doesn't have to. I don't blame the audience in 1980 for not living in 2020; I'm sure a lot of people left the theatre disgusted with trans people. However, given the film evidence, I fail to see that as DePalma's point. Dressed to Kill is instead a film of ideas strung together (a dissatisfied housewife, a trans killer, the hooker witness, and the fears and fantasies of all of them). If the plot seems to be sacrificed in favor of style... well... all I can say is... well done.