Jumping on the bandwagon of an escalating post-WWII nuclear paranoia, Robert Aldrich’s hard-hitting Film-Noir KISS ME DEADLY (his fifth feature film) sets its cock-and-bull backbone in Mickey Spillane’s titular pulp novel, but substitutes its McGuffin with a cockamamie Pandora’s box allegory that is only appended for its sheer shocking value.
A hardboiled L.A. shamus Mike Hammer (Meeker), reluctantly falls in with a hitchhiker Christina Bailey (a radiant Leachman in her screen debut, and we do miss her illuminated presence after her character’s fate is appallingly sealed), who only wears a trench coat after fleeing from a mental institution in the dead of night, before being caught up with her pursuers, she tells Mike to “remember me” if she doesn’t make it alive, and this is exactly what happens. After Mike miraculously survives the man-made accident which ostensibly kills Christina (the villains have an unconscious Mike at their mercies, yet, they inexplicably spare him for no other reason but what the story requires), he knuckles down to bird-dog the mystery behind, routinely sieving through a concatenation of names, often from the mouth of his devout and world-savvy assistant-cum-lover Velda (Cooper), tritely hazarding the lives of those who are passively enmeshed in his investigation, it is mildly surprising that his buddy, the Greek immigrant Nick (vexingly played by Nick Dennis in hamming up his va-va-voom catchphrase) doesn’t blow himself up earlier but only succumbs to a facile budging of a jack. But the major breakthrough hinges on deciphering Christina’s cryptic last words (which might just as well be rephrased as “examine me” by screenwriter A.I. Bezzerides, if she doesn’t really intend to muddy the waters when her life is hanging by a thread), and “vestige” is the operative word.
For one thing, the story-line barely makes any sense, and Bezzerides has no volition to paper over its porous loose ends and preposterous turn of events, for instance, we have no inkling of the antagonists’ agenda with the box (saving an urbanely intimidating Paul Stewart from going sinister all the way), what is the involvement of Lt. Pat Murphy (Addy), and why on earth the only person who knows its whereabout is so impetuously dispatched? While Mike’s myth-divulging takes an improbably simplified route name after name, what he faces mostly is a cesspool of human scums that truly merits his slapping-happy second-nature (in turn echoes his own short-fused cruelty), not to mention the film’s sweeping derogative treatment of its female characters, everyone mechanically falls under the spell of Mr. Meeker’s irresistibly laconic and impassive macho posturing, trying to seal a kiss with him at short notice, Aldrich really overreaches himself in beating the drum for this fusty and pernicious masculinity.
That said, as a grubby noir tall-tale, its superficial production value speaks for itself by allowing Mike perambulating L.A.’s nocturnal streets and treacherous corners where lies and danger fester under DP Ernest Laszlo’s immaculate lens, and Aldrich unflinchingly ratchets up its cynicism until the final radioactive perdition, remotely elicits a sense of Sci-Fi proportion that chimes with its vertically rolling opening credits, which would be normalized by the STAR WARS juggernauts two decades later.
referential entries: Aldrich’s WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? (1962, 8.2/10), HUSH….HUSH, SWEET CHARLOTTE (1964, 7.8/10).
Jumping on the bandwagon of an escalating post-WWII nuclear paranoia, Robert Aldrich’s hard-hitting Film-Noir KISS ME DEADLY (his fifth feature film) sets its cock-and-bull backbone in Mickey Spillane’s titular pulp novel, but substitutes its McGuffin with a cockamamie Pandora’s box allegory that is only appended for its sheer shocking value.
A hardboiled L.A. shamus Mike Hammer (Meeker), reluctantly falls in with a hitchhiker Christina Bailey (a radiant Leachman in her screen debut, and we do miss her illuminated presence after her character’s fate is appallingly sealed), who only wears a trench coat after fleeing from a mental institution in the dead of night, before being caught up with her pursuers, she tells Mike to “remember me” if she doesn’t make it alive, and this is exactly what happens. After Mike miraculously survives the man-made accident which ostensibly kills Christina (the villains have an unconscious Mike at their mercies, yet, they inexplicably spare him for no other reason but what the story requires), he knuckles down to bird-dog the mystery behind, routinely sieving through a concatenation of names, often from the mouth of his devout and world-savvy assistant-cum-lover Velda (Cooper), tritely hazarding the lives of those who are passively enmeshed in his investigation, it is mildly surprising that his buddy, the Greek immigrant Nick (vexingly played by Nick Dennis in hamming up his va-va-voom catchphrase) doesn’t blow himself up earlier but only succumbs to a facile budging of a jack. But the major breakthrough hinges on deciphering Christina’s cryptic last words (which might just as well be rephrased as “examine me” by screenwriter A.I. Bezzerides, if she doesn’t really intend to muddy the waters when her life is hanging by a thread), and “vestige” is the operative word.
For one thing, the story-line barely makes any sense, and Bezzerides has no volition to paper over its porous loose ends and preposterous turn of events, for instance, we have no inkling of the antagonists’ agenda with the box (saving an urbanely intimidating Paul Stewart from going sinister all the way), what is the involvement of Lt. Pat Murphy (Addy), and why on earth the only person who knows its whereabout is so impetuously dispatched? While Mike’s myth-divulging takes an improbably simplified route name after name, what he faces mostly is a cesspool of human scums that truly merits his slapping-happy second-nature (in turn echoes his own short-fused cruelty), not to mention the film’s sweeping derogative treatment of its female characters, everyone mechanically falls under the spell of Mr. Meeker’s irresistibly laconic and impassive macho posturing, trying to seal a kiss with him at short notice, Aldrich really overreaches himself in beating the drum for this fusty and pernicious masculinity.
That said, as a grubby noir tall-tale, its superficial production value speaks for itself by allowing Mike perambulating L.A.’s nocturnal streets and treacherous corners where lies and danger fester under DP Ernest Laszlo’s immaculate lens, and Aldrich unflinchingly ratchets up its cynicism until the final radioactive perdition, remotely elicits a sense of Sci-Fi proportion that chimes with its vertically rolling opening credits, which would be normalized by the STAR WARS juggernauts two decades later.
referential entries: Aldrich’s WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? (1962, 8.2/10), HUSH….HUSH, SWEET CHARLOTTE (1964, 7.8/10).
影片除了开头、结尾，大部分时间都很无聊，叙事不讲究逻辑和结构，只是一味叠加、堆砌一串串的剧情，难怪当年只是平庸之作。至于为什么后来被法国电影界追捧？可能是：一,对“麦高芬”这个设定的开创性和启发性。（麦高芬这个词往往用来描述电影角色会是拼命追逐的物品或人物，可以是一件很重要的东西)。二,影片整体氛围: 影片描绘了一个越来越堕落且可憎的世界，没有正派的角色，也没有希望。(类似后来“全员恶人”和“世界末日”电影的设定)。三,潘多拉的盒子。盒子代表那种弥漫全片的贪婪。影片中每个设计这件宝物的人都无法自拔，他们都在气急败坏的追求一样他们根本不知道什么的东西，最终都在一场大爆炸中付出代价。(盲目的追求某种未知的东西，必将招致灭顶之灾)
《死吻》的经典一部分来源于从头至尾的压力，另一部分则源于麦克本身的形象的处理。一个俊朗的私家侦探却屡屡使用卑劣的手法来获得生意，麦克的行径算不上光明磊落，但他却有一个光明磊落的心。这是一种矛盾。麦克在业务上可以用卑劣的手段来为自己牟利，然而现实中如果处理自己的事情的时候，麦克显示出来的却是一种冷峻，他可以判断形势，虽然得不到一个确切的答案，但却能根据形势做出自己应有的冷静判断。麦克可以把握一部分真相与局面，这是麦克的优点，然而这也是知名的缺陷。所有麦克有关联的异性都被看做是没头脑的钟情于麦克俊朗的外表，然而他们却没有什么烦恼和担忧，麦克的情人再告诉给他一些异样的事情的时候，心中怀有的态度也是暧昧的，仿佛这样的消息可以为自己争宠。而麦克却不这么认为。他的担心和忧郁不断地让他在自己深陷的这件事情中更加的压抑。一方面他知道压力的源泉，另一方面却无法彻底的摆脱，麦克知道眼前的压力，但却无法预测未知的恐惧。这是本片一个重要的核心。
看到片尾我才明白电影名字为什么叫《死吻》，Gabriel对迈克说，“过来吻我，一个撒谎者的吻，你不是很擅长这个吗？”，自大的迈克以为自己洞察一切，却不知自己掉进怎样黑暗的无底洞，对于深爱着他的怀特（迈克的女助理），贪婪的迈克一直都在利用她，怀特说的，“你只是在有麻烦的时候才需要我”，可是迈克平时那些半真半假的吻依然让怀特飞蛾扑火，怀特用自己的肉体把线索一个一个地挖出来交给迈克，她不知道迈克为何不离开这一切，一定要去追求那个“伟大的什么（Great What）”，她怎知道迈克其实是极度贪婪的，迈克对于平时从事的离婚纠纷侦探工作那点收入完全不感兴趣了，他认为他钓到一条大鱼了，整个事件的背后肯定是一个价值连城的东西。一直到警察说出“曼哈顿计划”的时候，迈克终于瘫在那里，他付出这么多，竟然只是陷入了一场让他毫无收益的政治事件。他交出了那把得之不易的钥匙，他开始想起了怀特，酒吧里的歌手唱的那一段，“你不知道你对我做了什么，我宁愿忧愁和忧郁包围我.....”正是怀特心声的写照，那一夜迈克心有触动，他喝了很多，他烂醉如泥。然而他在沉烂醉中被酒保叫醒，“怀特被人抓走了”，他决定去救怀特，这一次他注定要付出沉重的代价。
贪婪的岂止是迈克，Gabriel更贪婪，她不仅仅是贪婪，而且心肠如毒蛇，她平时在迈克面前表现得胆小怕事，纯洁可爱，事实上她天不怕地不怕，无情无义，当然最后贪婪导致了她的毁灭，她打开了致命武器的盒子。电影在剧中称之为潘多拉的盒子。导演在剧中多次指出，科学家对此感到非常忧郁，暗示这个东西一旦发明出来，就是潘多拉的盒子被打开了。
剧中有几处比较深的地方:
一个是克里斯蒂娜的室友卡弗早就死了，Gabriel冒充了卡弗，接近了迈克，她处心积虑利用迈克找到了盒子的钥匙。
再一个就是克里斯蒂娜其实是警察的工具，然后又因为曼哈顿计划的绝密性，克里斯蒂娜被送入了疯人院，迈克后来总算想到了这一点，他怒斥那些警察，可是有什么用呢？
还有一个是克里斯蒂娜的名字，用的是英国诗人克里斯蒂娜的名字，迈克找到了诗人克里斯蒂娜的书，那首诗《remember me》指出了，“记住我，如果黑暗和堕落在我们的思想上留下印记，日子不会再接续，你却以为你计划好了未来”，暗示了整个故事的走向！
不过结局还是给了观众一点点温暖，醒悟后的迈克终于救出了怀特，在核爆炸的声光中，两人搀扶着逃开了，一瘸一拐的，活着！
《死吻》电影版具有相似的氛围，但是大多数影评还是称其为对斯皮兰的批判。当然，为了得到观众和主流影院的接受，电影必须做出一点批判或者修正；但是，在1955年的审查制度的限度中，电影还是努力给予迈克哈默迷们许多他们想得到的东西。奥尔德里奇在《纽约先驱论坛报》上宣称，“我们对六千万米基斯皮兰的读者保持忠诚”，并辩称电影是一部“好品味的动作、暴力和悬疑”作品。本片编辑贝泽里德斯多多少少统一了导演这一观点，虽然其后他又坦白了自己的犬儒态度：“我很快就完成了这个剧本，因为我藐视它。那是一种机械的写作。当时，仿佛东西就在空中，我只是把它们放到纸面上。”
事实上，贝泽里德斯和奥尔德里奇都是自由主义者，因此，他们的影片对主人公的态度是分裂的，将他视为一个寻常硬汉或一只怪兽都可。奥尔德里奇本人就在1956年的访谈中承认了这个效果：“我问我的美国朋友，他们是否感觉到我对这团乱麻的厌恶，他们说，在打斗和接吻的场面之间，他们并没有感受到我所谓的厌恶。”不管怎样，电影剧本还是反讽地扭转了原著的政治倾向，它去除了斯皮兰小说中的第一人称叙述和右翼修辞，并给女性人物以足够的机会来批判这个男性至上、自我中心的私家侦探。
通观整部电影，《死吻》一方面提供了有关都市颓败的社会现实主义写照，另一方面也描绘一个一个加速的、超现代的美国——这是一个消费主义的世界，里面充斥着奔驰跑车、招贴画女郎、言语简短粗鲁的硬汉、贝尔艾尔的游泳池、马里布海滩酒店和核裂变。电影的节奏和基调被迈克哈默的轿车修理师尼克完美诠释，这个角色是编剧在文本中的化身，他不断大声模仿汽车发动时的引擎声：“VA-va-voom!"仿佛是想给结尾处的爆炸加上一个反讽的高潮，奥尔德里奇使用了一个足以和《奇爱博士》相提并论的手段：索柏林在马里布的藏身之处在核爆炸中被炸上了天，迈克哈默和反角们同归于尽。结尾处的奇观镜头虽然短暂，却令人瞠目结舌，它把私家侦探小说的“独狼”神话推向了自我毁灭的极限，并把整个类型片都摧毁成一堆核废料。
在《邪恶的接触》之前，没有一部好莱坞作品可以像《死吻》这样充分地探索了广角推轨镜头和景深构图的可能性，也很少有片子可以拍出这种粗糙而失衡的样子来。就和奥森威尔逊几乎所有的代表作一样，《死吻》是一部异常动感和使人迷惑的电影——就像片头那个奇特的倒转字幕一样，好像奥尔德里奇在让斯皮兰徒手倒立。通观整部电影，那些怪诞的场景和截然相反的文化符码被设置在矛盾之中，而它的声轨经常变得不和谐，几近歇斯底里。因此，它促使人们把它和严肃艺术的既有形式对比。
不幸的是，影片的所有这些特性都没有被1955年的英美大批评家们提及。也许，斯皮兰如雷贯耳的声誉遮蔽了奥尔德里奇所做的一切；也许，电影的意义已随时代改变。无论如何，《死吻》当初公映之时，《纽约时报》没有给予评价，天主教的“良风团”谴责了它，英国把它列为禁片，而联艺公司在中西部和南部城市的推广中遇到了困难。然而法国人热情地拥抱了它，并且因为他们对本片稍带反讽的阐释，此片成为这个十年中最受赞誉的电影之一。在今日各种经典电影的视频产品和电视指南中，它经常得到几颗星的高度评价，作为一个所谓“廉价”（独立制作）的人工制成品获得灵韵的典范，它已被公认为黑色电影中的杰作。
以上内容摘自《黑色电影》（詹姆斯纳雷摩尔著）