DePalma’s ‘Cain’ Very Able : Director’s ‘Hyper-Reality’ Provides a Great Ride

In his review of the thriller “Raising Cain” (“ ‘Cain’: DePalma’s Return to His Bloodthirsty Roots,” Calendar, Aug. 7), Times critic Kenneth Turan states that the film’s director, Brian DePalma, has “fallen on creative hard times.” This view of DePalma seems to be common among critics these days, but I am mystified as to the “why” of this popular anti-DePalma disease.

What distances them from DePalma’s style and causes them to dismiss this unique American artist and his work?

The dismissal seems to come from the critics’ attachment to conventional storytelling and an inability to grasp DePalma’s aesthetic. They are unable to comprehend the palpable hyper-reality created by extreme style, and can’t give it credence.

Turan’s reaction was to feel uninvolved by the story and put off by the performances. The atmosphere had no impact on him whatsoever. In the past, DePalma has had trouble getting the elements of his thrillers to work together. He deserves credit for getting the mixture right this time.

“Raising Cain” does its job--it thrills. That in itself is no mean feat. A pulp thriller is a tough, manipulative genre. The director’s job is to lure the audience into his world, slam the door behind it and deliver a satisfying ride.

The difficulty lies in gaining the audience’s trust and creating a willingness to take the ride, which in turn requires a style that will captivate and involve the viewer.

DePalma’s potent, unconventional style makes some people wary of getting on board. His aim is to hook you viscerally, using radical camera and performance techniques to create an affecting atmosphere.

Turan’s claim that the “Raising Cain” script is arbitrary is in a way correct. DePalma does not rely on the standard mechanics of story structure. Nevertheless, the film is effective.

John Lithgow’s powerful work in “Raising Cain” also deserves credit. Playing the psycho in a pulp thriller is a challenge that requires a delicate combination of naturalism and commedia-style clowning. There is a great risk of slipping into the overacting abyss as Lithgow proved both with “Obsession” and “Blow Out,” but he meets the challenge this time.

Each of the multiple roles he plays is intriguing, disturbing and just plain entertaining. Turan negatively cites Lithgow’s performance as “showy” and “consciously over the top.” It is consciously over the top, and the result is a mood of stifling tension that heightens the thrills.

There are few directors attempting to take this manner of acting as far as DePalma has and its effect is striking. DePalma’s “Scarface” is a veritable opera performed in this style with a dozen virtuosic and unique performances.

It’s too bad for the public that Turan and many of his fellow critics miss the boat on DePalma. The critic’s greatest practical ability is to help shape people’s understanding and appreciation of cinema, and with the filmmaker, create an environment that will forge a path for new artists with new ideas.

DePalma has proved himself a man with intelligent ideas, a great passion and understanding of the film medium and an ability to manipulate its language. It would serve the public well for the critics to extol these uncommon abilities.

The state of American film is hardly so healthy that it can do without the serious examination of major artists. At the very least, “Raising Cain” is an interesting alternative to the rest of the summer nonsense. Turan could not even offer that much.

I feel like Kevin McCarthy at the end of “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” where a race of alien spores replaces everyone on Earth. Did they get Pauline Kael too?

Winter is an actor-director who played Bill in “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” and “Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey.” He just co-directed “Hideous Mutant Freekz.”