Review of Passion (2013) by Bill H — 12 Jul 2014

What is this movie? I mean, really. (In Barry Burton voice) "What is it?" It's so all over the place like it's bipolar. Think of one of those European art films advertised as some really sexy feature when they're not. It's so out there that I wonder if it's more of a comedy than a late night Skinemax erotic feature, or maybe something else entirely. But sex sells. Doesn't mean I bought the movie in hopes of seeing potential girl-on-girl action (spoiler: the kiss between Rachel McAdams and Noomi Rapace seen in the trailer is as far it gets), but because the movie had polarizing reviews. Audiences and critics are split down the middle. You'll either love it or hate it. I had to see what all the negativity was about and escape from the monotony of summer blockbusters.

Passion is the first new Brian De Palma movie I've seen since The Black Dahlia, one of the absolute worst movies of 2006 and one of the most unintentionally funny movies I've ever seen. And yet the same has often been said about Passion, a remake of a 2010 French film called Love Crime, or Crime d'amour, which I've not seen so I can't yell out "Betrayal!" but the consensus of that film was a resounding, "Meh." In a nutshell, Passion is about two women who work in advertising trying to outsmart one another by playing dirty, mean girl tricks. Might as well call this movie Mean Women, and thankfully Rachel McAdams hasn't forgotten her queen B edge and brings a more vile, sensual, and kinda freakish performance. Ditto for Noomi Rapace who gives quite a warped performance herself.

Things for the two started off pretty well with subtle backstabbing but a general understanding of work politics, until they get involved with the same guy and things escalate to vicious backstabbings and eventually murder. And that's pretty much the whole movie which masquerades as a whodunnit erotic mystery thriller movie concoction. The film mostly banks on being a mystery thriller, and for the most part it was surprisingly thrilling though the mystery you can kinda see coming a mile away. And yes, the movie is low on eroticism so perhaps you can get this movie and not worry about your kids watching it because there really isn't much offered in that category, which often is the source of criticism because I guess critics wanted to get all steamed up (to put it lightly). I think they wanted something deeper, heavier, meatier, something that remotely resembles a great erotic mystery thriller.

Say a kid watches it, or a teen, hoping to see some boobs and blow his arm off watching this supposed action, he (and it'll most likely be a male) will probably get mind fucked. One would expect to see all sorts of sex but instead watches this fucked up movie. It reminds me of when I first watched Beyond the Valley of the Dolls and was traumatized because it got so fucked up (thank you Roger Ebert for writing that movie). Passion doesn't reach that level, it's more like, "Huh?" once the credits start rolling. I first thought that it was just a cheap cop out that movies American thrillers and horror movies resort to where the filmmakers just want to say, "Gotcha!" but then I started thinking about how the film was made. All of the technical components like the camera angles, the lighting, the hammy acting, the shifts in tone, the De Palma trademarks (like the split screen showing two different actions happening simultaneously), the misdirection, the genre it's meant to be, and the jazzy/erotic score, all of it was quite endearing that it makes a rather simple mystery-thriller grandeur than it actually is. This may be a classic case of style over substance but this is actually necessary. And in its unique way the movie is actually quite funny and I think this was intentional.

In recent years, there have been a lot of movies about movies; even this year we got a major release (which I'll review in this lifetime). This was an instance where I'm not watching a movie for the story or characters, but watching a movie simply for what it is: a movie. It doesn't say anything thought-provoking or new about this trend of "movies being self aware," but just that it's a movie that exists. It's almost like watching how a movie is made, but nothing about it breaks the fourth wall in the way The Cabin in the Woods and Seven Psychopaths did (to name a few) nor is there anything said by the characters mentioning movies. Passion is a movie to be admired for existing and using all of these techniques. The writing is stilted and by the numbers as was presumably in the original French film but it was improved by De palma's approach to the genre, and expertise in film. And it looks like he had a lot of fun making this movie, which shows because I had fun watching it. I gasped, I emoted, I felt for the characters, I was on the edge of my seat, and yes I laughed. I would have had a blast watching this in theaters like I did for American Hustle and Ahnuld's The Last Stand. I'm not saying this ironically like I did for that shitty 2011 movie The Roommate (though maybe in a few years that'll be the case) but because Passion, as its title implies, is a love letter to cinema altogether and just about everything I love about movies unfolds onscreen. This is not a shitty movie like The Roommate was because this is a beautiful movie that is simultaneously a lot of fun to watch, and to lump beautiful and fun together is very rare (I think the last known instance would be The Dark Knight). Not a love of a genre or classic films or De Palma, but a love of movies and going to the movies. This recalls the 2007 double-feature masterpiece that was Grindhouse.

Every movie-making trick is used, at least for this particular genre though I don't think it's necessary to associate Passion with just one genre. The criticism was directed at the obvious and true I felt a bit cheated at the end but now looking beyond the story and remembering my love of movies, I enjoyed Passion a bit more and you might, too. It's got a nostalgic feel to it, especially during those dream sequences, yet it's more modern than those other throwback filmmaking flicks like Frances Ha (2013) or Far From Heaven (2002). Passion does not feel like an imitation like such movies but authentic even though much of it feels like an homage. It's not aware of being a movie nor does it make a grand statement about something, but is rather very subtle about being as such (being a movie, that is). Or maybe not even that. Passion is more classy rather than a filmmaker indulging in hipsterdom, probably because the filmmaker Brian De Palma is a living legend and a man who redefined cinema during his heyday.

Passion is quite a vexing movie and I'm sure more can be written about it but I loved it. I loved every minute of it. How will it hold up on a second viewing is hard to say. Call it a poor man's Mulholland Drive, or a bad parody of Brian De Palma's own filmography, or just a terrible film altogether, I love it and I love how it feels more like a love letter to cinema. Although Passion is regarded as having a 2013 release, I'm considering it a 2014 movie because it had such a lousy distribution outside of film festivals and painfully limited releases that I doubt a lot of people watched it last year and I want to give this movie the acknowledgement it rightfully deserves. And yep, you surmised correctly: Passion is one of the best movies I've seen this year. It's thrilling but oddly enough I think it's more fun and entertaining to watch. Maybe it should be labeled as a comedy; not a satire, a comedy. Or a conglomeration of genres. A beautiful arthouse erotic mystery thriller comedy that's fun to watch and is a solid homage to cinema. And now that I think about it, that makes Passion more like Werner Herzog's Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call, New Orleans. Dammit, I love this movie.