Screenplay by Paul Schrader, based on an idea by De Palma and Schrader
Photography by Vilmos Szigmond
Music by Bernard Herrmann
With : Cliff Robertson (Courtland), Geneviève Bujold (Elizabeth/Sandra), John Lithgow (Courtland's partner)

New Orleans, 1959. Michael Courtland and his wife Elisabeth are happily married and have a little girl. After a party, Elisabeth and her daughter are kidnapped and a high ransom is asked. Michael contacts the police but the kidnappers escape with their hostages and all of them die in a car accident. 20 years later, while in Florence (Italy) on business, Michael meets a young woman, Sandra Portinari, who works on the restauration of church frescos and is the spitting image of his deceased wife Elisabeth. He immediately falls in love with her but she insists on getting married saying that she won't accept their relationship otherwise. On the morning of the wedding the nightmare begins : Sandra is kidnapped and a high ransom is asked…


[

To interpret Obsession by Brian De Palma one must question oneself about the mutual contribution between the original work (Vertigo, 1958, Alfred Hitchcock) and its modern version (Obsession, 1975, Brian De Palma). From this theoretical questioning, an essential reflexion for the comprehension of the De Palma movie emerges : what view can we take on the artistic variation in cinema ? What we are going to focus on more precisely is what place can we give to Obsession. First we can reject the idea of a classification by genre (is it a thriller ? a drama ?), of an organisation by years (the contextualisation is 1975 but the film is also directly connected to 1959), of any kind of critical value (the appropriation of the film is something personal) or even of a simple critical study. In order to understand and interpret Obsession, one must envisage the film variations as those of a proper film subject and not simply as a lead to interpretation.

The movement from one movie (the original) to the other (the one that we are studying) makes us consider its value not “for itself” but “according to” or even “because of”. The movie's ambiguity is linked to its (im)precise place amid the big family of genre film. How can one schematically classify a romantic thriller as purely artistic work ? Basically a piece of work that pushes and exceeds the limits as far as can be without ever referring itself to the original. We will go for the following idea: the intention of the film is to be a reflexion on art itself and other variations.

Therefore we will concentrate mainly on the respect to show to an oeuvre that is a variation of a praised original piece of work and which is part of a genre only to allow it to be classified more easily. But Obsession only exists because we cannot really classify or place it in a hierarchy. Because the film is above the codification inherent to the genre, it flourishes, reaching a form of limipidity such that its relation to art is therefore much more complex. This reflecting on artistic variation is therefore not only referential but as important in its form as in its dramatic content. By staging Obsession as it is, Brian De Palma created what we can call or even theorize under the following idea : reflexion on art within art's variations.

In the book of interviews by Samuel Blumenfeld and Laurent Vachaud (1) , De Palma answers the question (page 52-53) : “Obsession revives the hitchcockian inspiration but differently than Sisters did because here, it is literally to a variation around Vertigo's main theme that you invite us ?”. De Palma answers : “Correct. It is exactly the way we proceeded with Schrader (co-author of the scenario) when the idea of the film popped into our minds: which variation to Vertigo could we imagine ?”

The whole movie is directly connected to these thoughts on the artistic process of creation and the filmmaker never ceases to pursue it along his career with Murder a la Mod (1967), from Sisters (1973) to Phantom of the Paradise (1974), from Dressed to Kill (1980) to Blow Out (1981), Body Double (1984), Raising Cain (1992) and principally Femme Fatale (2002), sort of comprehensive overview of the creator's career in which he reaches the quintessential point of this process of deconstruction and reconstruction of the referential grammar (itself theoretically connected to the whole artistic variation stages). To finish with this digression on the evolution of the director's work of which Obsession is the matrix foundation, let's pause for a few questions on theoretical possibilities which arise while reflecting on this film (which are visually, verbally and sonically echoed in the film).

• Should we restore the original (Vertigo) and neglect the new version ?

• Or should we forget about the disintegrating original and concentrate on the new version ?

• Should we constantly refer to the original in order to appreciate the new version ?

• Or should we consider the new version as a completely original work of art ?

As already stated in the first part of this essay, the whole reason of the film is to reflect on art and its variations. The reflection on art (and more openly on artistic creation) and the process of variation are often expressed by visual metaphors with for example the central scene which offers numerous reading tracks superposing and overlapping each other in order to be just one idea, the multiplicity of creation :

• Courtland enters the church of San Miniato in Florence where Sandra Portinari is restoring the La Madone fresco by Bernardo Daddi (1328). When they suddenly meet, she says to him: “Should we preserve the original or simply destroy it ?” The whole essence of the film lies in this sentence. As it happens, it is a variation around the nullification of space and time. Courtland comes back to this church where he met Elizabeth twenty years ago. The past (the original) and the present (the new version) are meeting, facing, contemplating and admiring each other.

• Sandra, perfect look-alike of Elizabeth, borrows her body, lives in it as well as haunts it. The original and the new version are now only one. We can talk of self-assimilation which cancels space and time concepts for only one present-past, like a confrontation to a déjà vu moment.

• Who does Courtland see and love in Sandra, her own self or Elizabeth ? It seems perfectly natural to think, whilst past and present are corrupting each other thus diluted in the present moment, that Courtland does not know if he lives in a realistic dream or in a dreamlike reality.

By annihilating past and present, by assimilating the original and the new version, Brian De Palma offers a universal reflexion on creation's place and the artistic value of the process of variation : when are you on the brink of copy ? what is plagiarism's limit ? or reproduction's end point ? At what point do plagiarism or simple falsification become genuine and complete works of art, recognised as such and universally respected ?

There are 2 scenes in Obsession that condense it into a single image and convey all the beauty, richness and complexity of this film : when Courtland buries his wife and his daughter in the US, he builds a memorial of which the front resembles exactly the church of San Miniato. The first image of the opening credits shows us the church in a picture. The second time we see it, it is reproduced identically as the memorial.

This reproduction is also the matrix of the symbolic meaning of the film : is it possible to recreate a pre-existing work of art in the form of a purely creative and artistic variation ? This question brings us back to our refusal to classify the movie in a precise genre which will immediately lessen its impact and reach. Brian De Palma consequently incites us to ask ourselves the following question : duplicated exactly, does the new version keep the very essence of the original ?

Representing Florence as a work of Art, as pure artistic creation (poetic and crepuscular beauty of the images, diffuse and cocoon-like photography, contemplative direction and feel of characters, places and moments), Brian De Palma connects us directly to Vertigo by Alfred Hitchcock. He offers us a contemporary version of the essence of the English director's film : the contemplation of oneiric, fantasized, dreamed, nightmarish atmospherical moments which breaks the border between past and present, dream and reality. Nevertheless, Obsession is absolutely never a copy of Vertigo. We mentioned the thin line between plagiarism and artistic creation ; Brian De Palma knew well to keep enough distance and to detach his film from Hitchcock's work by bringing a critical point of view and creating an original piece of work existing by itself and which is profoundly connected with De Palma's work.

Brian De Palma is the tragic poet of lost love. He is an authentically romantic creator. What interests him is tragic romanticism, the twilight of words and feelings, the intimate moment of detachment between life and death. He lingers on the face of the one who stays and not the one who leaves. Most important to him are the nerve-racking, heart-breaking feelings of someone watching his or her loved one leave. What moves him deeply is the inability to save the loved one. De Palma does not really capture the instant of death but the one just after, the instant of remorse, regret, denial, despair, remembrance and questioning.

In the magnificent Mission to Mars, Tim Robbins' character removes his helmet in space and his face freezes, being instantly covered by a mask which symbolizes the eternity of the lived moment. The distressed, heartbroken cries of Connie Nielsen's character are really difficult to bear as a viewer. By inviting us to contemplate the pain of the moment after, Brian De Palma reveals to what extent his characters loved each other and were fragile even though they were never able to express it to each other. In the moment after, they understand how powerful their mutual loving feeling was. Brian De Palma's characters reconstruct the past through feelings and pain and through suffering, they become aware of the value of their love. Obsession is a movie on Man's tragedy, on his incapacity to love in the present.

In Brian De Palma's work, contemplation is not only that of deep and painful feelings but also exists through places themselves : Florence is shown in a purely artistic manner, totally devoted to the most intimate obsessions and emotions of the filmmaker. He invites us to gaze at artistic beauty in all its forms : sculptures, frescos, the church, the old town, a bridge under a sunset. By showing Florence in this manner, the director is directly connected with the artist's imaginative world, the last image being a pictural representation very close to the crepuscular tints of Renaissance paintings (mainly those of Verrochio, Pollaiuolo or Michael-Angelo). The director makes of Florence a proper fresco as it could have been created by a tragico-romantic contemporary artist. Brian De Palma shoots the city as a dream, a recurring memory. It is never really shown during daylight but rather surprised at sunrise as in this magnificent and touching image of Sandra walking along the Ponte-Vecchio above the river Arno, memory directly connected to the most famous loving couple of the world : Dante Alighieri and Beatrice Portinari (Sandra's surname, which has not been chosen by coincidence), at nightfall during the sweet exchange of whispered words between Courtland and Sandra.

This tragic romanticism of the places is nevertheless connected with a classical aspect of cultural beauty representation. Brian De Palma asserts its classicism through the scene in the café in Florence which refers directly to the city's antique culture : Masaccio's Eve, Boticelli's Venus. If the tragic dimension of the film refers directly to the lessons of roman and greek classical culture, the religious and spiritual aspect refers it to the spiritual nature of the Renaissance.

The film's colours are organised around the ochre of the sunset on the Arno river and the grey tones of the misty and rainy clouds, by which they refer to Flemish paintings, as from 1450, by Van Eyck and Van der Weyden. This flemish influence is seen in the research of perspective that Brian De Palma uses perfectly by translating it into his use of space and depth of field. The filmmaker strives to create depth, to put in perspective the city's beauty, its cultural values and its architecture. When De Palma and his DP Vilmos Zsigmond use the natural city lights, they refer to the naturalism of the Renaissance painter Masaccio, imitating him by projecting on the wall the shadows of the main two characters (mainly when Courtland walks Sandra home at night and she refuses herself to him). If the diffuse light created by Zsigmond is connected to naturalism and particularly Masaccio's art, the perspective angle on architectural beauty is organized in accordance with the principles of the law on perspective of Paolo Ucello and Andrea del Castagno.

Brian De Palma sublimates the town and subsequently his film. One can tell to what extent Obsession is different from Vertigo in its purely visual conception. The Renaissance references do not seem to be in Hitchcock's film, as well as the classical greek and roman lecture which is completely absent in Vertigo. If Obsession is a variation of style on Vertigo, it is also a variation by the story itself which tends to confirm the intrinsic value of this film.

Obsession is a Christlike redemption for Courtland, but also a deliverance and a victory on the past which roots in the symbolism of Bernardo Daddi's fresco that Sandra is restoring : The Madonna. She is the artistic figure of the mother of all men. Sandra offers to Courtland his own redemption. Inside this city which becomes the mirror of an initiation quest, Courtland is haunted by this melody. His encounter with Sandraa mkes him think that he will be able to get rid of this past that tortures him, of this deep obsession. The cyclical construction is omnipresent in all his work, the famous “déjà vu”. De Palma and Schrader push the dramatic limits of Vertigo and offer the second kidnapping. The theme of conspiracy, essential in De Palma's filmography, reinforces the process of creation and withdraws from the process of variation. The filmmaker has simply pushed the limit far enough to free himself of variation and to tend, on a purely dramatic axis (because, as seen earlier, the visual aspect also detaches the film from the variation theme) towards a new creation. With this, De Palma explores the twists and turns of conspiracy and mainly those of “mise en scene”, of the manipulating power of images.

Brian De Palma's work is entirely based on manipulation by images and the use of "mise en scene" to hide the truth. Obsessed with the past and Elizabeth's image, Courtland never manages to capture the missing image : Sandra's face, his daughter, whom with the help of his partner, plans to take revenge on her father and chooses to take him back to this psychosis. Therefore Courtland contemplates not Sandra but Elisabeth. He only loved her as the other and only revealing the truth will deliver Courtland of his obsession and free him of his past. Obsession is a movie based on “mise en scene” and images as a creative process. De Palma's film is no longer a movie based on another but is totally freed of Hitchcock's film to exist as itself.

Obsession is the quintessential film on artistic creation. What was in the beginning a variation on Vertigo ends up as an authentic Brian De Palma creation, directly linked to his feelings and his most intimate and personal obsessions. If on the surface Obsession looks like Vertigo, it is because Brian De Palma uses his images in a way that when you first see them they make you believe that the movie is a variation. Nevertheless after this first impression a marvellous treasure is hidden : another movie, new, original, De Palmesque and not Hitchcockian. The contemplation of instants, places and gazes, the reflexion on direction, cinema and the power of images, the declaration of love to classical art, to the Renaissance and Romanticism periods : Brian De Palma directs an art film on the beauty of art, like the reunion between Courtland and his daughter, one of the most magnificently emotional scenes ever shot, incredibly sincere, which makes tears roll down my cheeks at each vision of this deeply moving and touching film.

(*1) Blumenfeld Samuel, Vachaud Laurent, Brian De Palma, entretiens avec Samuel Blumenfeld et Laurent Vachaud, Calmann-Lévy, France, 2001, 213 pages