Police spéciale

How fascinating an artist is Samuel Fuller? So fascinating that the responses on IMDb for this film range from "brilliant, devastating masterpiece" to "pulpy, campy fun" to "Ed Wood-like crap." Of course, being Fuller, this film is ALL those things. There are sequences that are amazing as anything. There are moments of just brilliant insight and meaning -- creepy and poignant in their nightmarish beauty. And then there are just plan crappy B movie moments that are unintentionally funny. Bad acting and annoying preachy moralizing. It's a hodgepodge. But it is also a totally unique experience to watch. Noir. Melodrama. Crap. Art. This is pure Fuller! Gotta love it!!!!! A must see for people who love their aesthetics with a kick.

If Sam Fuller is the father of Independent film then this is the point where the history of the Indie film begins. However, unlike most of Fuller's work this is not overtly shocking or wordy. In fact its best sequences are those which have no words. The acting, by mostly B actors is terrific, and the dialogue is well done. It tackled an issue that no film had before, and perhaps has not done so well since. A teriffic work.

I began looking into Sam Fuller after seeing a documentary about him on TV in which Scorsese, Tarantino, and Tim Robbins discussed his films. Scorsese also mentions Fuller in his "Personal Journey" film retrospective, in which he sites "The Naked Kiss" as a major influence. From what I've read, the studios found the material in "The Naked Kiss" to be a tad on the heinous side, and re-edited Fuller's film to the point where he didn't even want his name in the credits. His name is very much in the credits however, for soon after the film opens with a prostitute beating a man unconscious with the heel of her shoe, Fuller is named writer, director, and producer. I suspect that the discomfited staggering between camp, noir, and grotesque melodrama, might be more a result of studio tampering than Fuller's misdirection. It is also difficult to discern just what sort of censorship the studios achieved, for whatever they did was austerely permeated by social taboos the likes of abortion, prostitution, child molestation, and murder. These issues are treated by Fuller in a way that is decisively an ideological digression from noir, despite the film's sporadic use of noir's aesthetic. In noir, women are the enigmatic femme fatales: deceptive, seductive, fatal, and the primary antagonism of all men. It appears to be precisely the opposite in "The Naked Kiss." Fuller's protagonist, Kelly, an ex-hooker, tells a cop that you can always tell when a man is "a pervert" from his "naked kiss." Throughout the film, as Kelly encounters women dealing with abortion, prostitution, and pretty much just general depravity, Fuller shows men reinforcing and furthering their depravity, then condemning it when need be. The character of Griff, the cop, is the essence of this. To Fuller, there is a perversity in the way men treat women in American society, and it is reflected in the title of the film itself.

This is the second Fuller film that I've seen (the other one was "Shock Corridor"). I can't say that I was bored, but I really don't see why these films are held in such high esteem by some people (including famous film-makers like Scorsese). "The Naked Kiss" is certainly a good-looking film. The black and white cinematography is excellent, as you would expect from those involved. But stylistically, the film is kind of a mess -- a weird mixture of soap opera, film noir, 1960's-style psychological drama, and kinky shocker. For fans of the latter, that infamous opening scene certainly promises a lot more than the rest of the film delivers. As it seems to belong to no particular genre, perhaps Fuller's work could be considered a genre in itself. As has been pointed out elsewhere, if watched in the right company it can be a real camp hoot. But honestly, I think this film is far too flawed to be called a masterpiece, as some people have. The acting is fairly nasty, the script not much better. And that horrendous scene where our heroine sings that sickeningly sweet, cloying, endless song with the kids at the hospital! Good Lord, it's one of the most embarrassingly awful things I've ever seen on film! It seemed to induce actual physical pain, I kid you not! The subject of child abuse, which occurs in the film, was fairly progressive for its time, I'll grant, but hardly unique. If you can, see an even earlier film (1961) called "The Mark," with Stuart Whitman, Maria Schell and Rod Steiger. While staying in the confines of early '60s constrictions, it addressed the subject in a much more powerful and direct manner, to greater effect. I guess I'd have to consider Fuller one of those "cult film" figures. Either you get it, or you don't.

I just had to comment on this movie to give another view to the only other review that's here for this movie at the time. This movie was made in 1964 and thus should be judged according to its time. I thought the movie was excellent in the fact that it took alot of chances for 1964. It dealt with prostitution and child molestation in a very real way. The cinematography was very good for a picture of its time. The lighting on some of the scenes was absolutely erie and sometimes very emotional. I think in todays world of movie making the art of lighting has been lost or at least severely under developed. This movie is well worth seeing if you can find it.