Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2021 0:49:52 GMT
I’m still working my way through the Hitchcock movies. I don’t see this one mentioned very often. What is your opinion of it? One of his best? One of his worst? Middle of the road?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2021 0:56:53 GMT
Skip to 39 seconds....
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Jan 26, 2021 1:12:34 GMT
Dial M For Murder (1954), directed by Alfred Hitchcock. The perfect murder: what could go wrong? Random notes after another viewing, my first time on Blu-ray: - Drawing-room murder plots are supposed to be light, cozy crime stories. Here, only Milland acts the part of dapper stage villain, and even he becomes creepy and unsettling in his cold-blooded, intelligent focus on murdering his wife. Cary Grant wanted the part but it's hard imagining him being quite so sinister.
- But watch his face when he listens to her being strangled: it hurts him. He has regrets. Later he won't sleep in her bed while she's in prison waiting to be hanged. He's bad, but not beyond feeling guilt.
- The lovers are guilty, too. What do they deserve?
- Like the heist film, in the perfect murder plot we wonder how much will work and where it will go wrong. We want the villain to succeed, and we want him to be caught.
- The husband has a cunning Plan A where nothing can go wrong. Everything goes wrong. But in seconds he devises an even better Plan B, blaming his wife for murder with no suspicion on himself. We can't help but admire his quick, bold thinking.
- To our surprise, boyfriend Bob Cummings comes up with Plan C, a fictional version of the original Plan A. He's just trying to fabricate an alibi for her, even if it means the husband has to sacrifice himself.
- Police Inspector John Williams (a Hitchcock regular) devises his own secret Plan D to catch the murderer. He seems like a stock stage policeman and not until the final moments do we realize how scary-good he is at his job.
- The murder attempt on Grace Kelly is really quite brutal for this type of picture. Their grappling seems like sexual convulsions. We see the scissors driven into his back.
- Let us note how utterly believable Anthony Dawson is as the would-be murderer, a petty scoundrel who will kill if (a) he has no other choice and (b) there is sufficient money involved.
- One of the Japanese "Taxing Woman" movies has a semi-comic quote: the woman is being strangled as she reaches back to the camera...finally grabbing a tape dispenser (?) and bashing her assailant.
- Adapted from a play. Hitchcock obviously didn't mind using a limited set: see Lifeboat (1944), Rope (1948) and Rear Window (1954).
- He said the natural impulse when filming a play is to "open it up" and make it more cinematic, but that this is an error, just wasting time. He demonstrates his own technique here: a couple at breakfast reading the paper, news of a ocean liner arriving, quick shot of the boat, then the illicit lovers locked in an embrace, she in a passion-red dress. Just a few seconds, much more efficient than you could do it on stage, but you have to learn not to elaborate the plot just to make it more film-like.
- Why did he make it? He needed something safe at that moment. You want a sure success: film a stage play.
- Truffaut: "This is one of the pictures I see over and over again. I enjoy it more each time I see it. Basically, it's a dialogue picture, but the cutting, the rhythm, and the direction of the players are so polished that one listens to each sentence religiously."
- Hitchcock: "I just did my job."
- Years ago someone asked me: "I fell asleep during Dial M For Murder last night; how did the police finally figure it out?" I had to pause: "It had something to do with the keys..." but then muddled the explanation. They are hard to track.
Available on Blu-ray in the original 3D, which I suspect few people saw at the time it was released. I watched it in 2D. Detail is very poor for Blu-ray, hardly better than the DVD. The heavy grain is intact so this may be due to the lenses required for 3D. There seems to be a very narrow zone of good focus with everything closer or further away looking blurry. From time to time we'll see a face that begins looking pretty good, then the scene shifts and we lose it. I don't recall this effect on the DVD so I'm not sure what's up. Still, the color is good and the aspect ratio is the correct 1.85:1. The DVD had been cropped to 1.33, which makes a difference.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 26, 2021 1:49:45 GMT
It's pretty good. I'd rank it somewhere in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jan 26, 2021 2:22:56 GMT
MIddle-ish ... better than "meh" but not "Yahoo...whoopie" !
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Jan 26, 2021 2:48:03 GMT
What...key chains hadn*t yet been invented in 1954? Everyone just went around with a single loose key in their pockets or purses?
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jan 26, 2021 2:52:37 GMT
What...key chains hadn*t yet been invented in 1954? Everyone just went around with a single loose key in their pockets or purses?
Come to think of it, the first movie I remember seeing a chain lock on a door was in The Bat in 1959, everybody else yeah just used a key.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 26, 2021 2:56:53 GMT
I’m a fan, but it’s not typical or personal Hitchcock. It’s a scrupulously faithful adaptation of a great play, with some excellent performances. It’s much more a classic murder mystery than most Hitchcock (he didn’t like mysteries that much): you know the killer’s identity from the beginning, but it’s still super clue- and twist-based. That said, Hitchcock didn’t always film talk well (and this is a lot of talk—clever, witty, intelligent talk, but still talk), and this one is wonderfully filmed—fast, with lots of directorial tricks to disguise the talkiness. I think it’s a lot of fun. Also, I’d never turn anyone off watching a Grace Kelly movie!
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Jan 26, 2021 3:41:25 GMT
very enjoyable mid-range Hitch. Saw it on the stage in early 70s and worked a treat in that medium.
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jan 26, 2021 4:50:15 GMT
I like Dial “M” very, very much. It is not a “mystery” that Hitchcock didn’t like to do as some have written. It definitely falls into the category of “suspense.” Just two or three pictures earlier he had directed a murder mystery: “Stage Fright.” He chose the Frederick Knott play to film because he had one picture left on his contract with Warner but nothing in the pipeline. He needed what he called a “run for cover” project, something he could do quickly and easily that would satisfy the studio.
Even with a stage bound work that Hitch knocked off in his spare time between projects that mattered to him, he managed to blow away all his competition, even now almost 70 years in the future. Put it next to the 1998 remake “A Perfect Murder,” for example. It is a glossy but empty entertainment; some mildly enjoyable empty calories. But next to Hitchcock’s opus, the newer movie now seems worthless in comparison. The entire attempted murder sequence (with its typically Hitchcockian transfer of audience anxiety to the killers rather than the victim) is a small masterpiece in itself.
Epilogue: After Dial “M” and a move to Paramount, Hitchcock still had nothing he was really interested in. He needed another “run for cover.” He picked a short story by Cornell Woolrich, a writer whose work he followed. The story was titled “It Had To Be Murder” and was turned into “Rear Window.”
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 26, 2021 5:03:07 GMT
I like Dial “M” very, very much. It is not a “mystery” that Hitchcock didn’t like to do as some have written. It definitely falls into the category of “suspense.” Just two or three pictures earlier he had directed a murder mystery: “Stage Fright.” He chose the Frederick Knott play to film because he had one picture left on his contract with Warner but nothing in the pipeline. He needed what he called a “run for cover” project, something he could do quickly and easily that would satisfy the studio. Well, I wrote something like that, Mike, and though I don’t mean to be disagreeable ( ), I’ve still got to insist that it is, as I wrote, “much more a classic murder mystery than most Hitchcock.” Suspense and mystery certainly aren’t mutually exclusive, and Insp. Hubbard’s entire solution is based on surprising the viewer. Not to spoil anything for Ackbar, but Insp. Hubbard’s clue-based latchkey revelation is as much an “Aha! Of course!” as a twist at the end of an Agatha Christie whodunit—again, for the viewer as well as for the characters. I didn’t mean that Hitchcock didn’t want to do the movie; I meant that Hitchcock didn’t like mysteries. And I don’t think he did, both based on his words (which, as you’ve remarked to me before, are unreliable) and his onscreen work. In fact, I find Dial M much closer to a Christiesque whodunit in its plotting than Stage Fright, even though in that one you don’t know the killer’s identity until the end. I agree with your liking for it, however, and with your particular admiration for the attempted-murder sequence, which is one of the finest things Hitchcock ever did in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jan 26, 2021 5:10:20 GMT
I like Dial “M” very, very much. It is not a “mystery” that Hitchcock didn’t like to do as some have written. It definitely falls into the category of “suspense.” Just two or three pictures earlier he had directed a murder mystery: “Stage Fright.” He chose the Frederick Knott play to film because he had one picture left on his contract with Warner but nothing in the pipeline. He needed what he called a “run for cover” project, something he could do quickly and easily that would satisfy the studio. Well, I wrote something like that, Mike, and though I don’t mean to be disagreeable ( ), I’ve still got to insist that it is, as I wrote, “much more a classic murder mystery than most Hitchcock.” Suspense and mystery certainly aren’t mutually exclusive, and Insp. Hubbard’s entire solution is based on surprising the viewer. Not to spoil anything for Ackbar, but Insp. Hubbard’s clue-based latchkey revelation is as much an “Aha! Of course!” as a twist at the end of an Agatha Christie whodunit—again, for the viewer as well as for the characters. I didn’t mean that Hitchcock didn’t want to do the movie; I meant that Hitchcock didn’t like mysteries. And I don’t think he did, both based on his words (which, as you’ve remarked to me before, are unreliable) and his onscreen work. In fact, I find Dial M much closer to a Christiesque whodunit in its plotting than Stage Fright, even though in that one you don’t know the killer’s identity until the end. I agree with your liking for it, however, and with your particular admiration for the attempted-murder sequence, which is one of the finest things Hitchcock ever did in my opinion. Thanks. I didn't mean to be disagreeable or argumentative either. Online, tone of voice is at best hard, sometimes impossible, to discern. For quite a few years, Hitchcock was something of an obsession with me. But I've moved on to other movie interests. I think I need to dip back into his films now. They have meant a lot to me in the past.
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Jan 26, 2021 13:13:37 GMT
A Perfect Murder (1998), directed by Andrew Davis. This loose remake of Dial M For Murder (1954), is darker, more cynical than the original, in that the two men in the love triangle (Michael Douglas and Viggo Mortensen) are both villains and the wife (Gwyneth Paltrow) is not exactly admirable either. And yet my wife really likes this one; I haven't figured out why yet. This time I noticed camera work that is lovely and well-composed without being self-consciously arty. Great set design, both in the working art loft (a real location) and the luxury apartment, a constructed set that looks like several million dollars: Previously I thought it was terrible cliche to have Paltrow in the tub when the phone rings for the big attack scene. But later in the film Douglas is in the shower during his moment of maximum vulnerability (when his villainy is discovered just as he is about to get away with it), so there is a symmetry to their scenes. As in the original, confusion of the house keys is the key to solving the crime. David Suchet is the police detective who immediately detects something is wrong with the husband. I wish they had given him more to do, as the audience is cheering him on. As it is he just provides a few clues and Gwyneth has to solve the mystery. In a good bit, he is an Arab-American who bonds with her because she speaks Arabic and has a good heart. She only has a couple of scenes, but I'm always on the look-out for Sarita Choudhury ( Mississippi Masala (1991), Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love (1996)). Here she is Gwyneth's gal-pal, representing the audience as a non-rich, non-murderous normal person. Menacing score by James Newton Howard. Available on Blu-ray with two gang commentary tracks. I learned that Viggo is very "method": he wanted to live in the studio loft set and he painted his own artwork.
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Jan 26, 2021 14:15:16 GMT
Illuminating exchange of comments between Salzmank and mikef6 above. Thanks.
One of my favorite Hitchcocks, perhaps because it is less typical (I am not a huge fan of AH). As mentioned, it is a belated example of a 1930s drawing-room murder mystery but with the difference that all but one of the main characters are deeply-drawn and realistic, not the stereotypes you find in fims of the earlier decade. (The exception is Robert Cummings, but he is not important to the plot). Milland is superb, as is Anthony Dawson (a stellar moment in an otherwise journeyman career). It would have been ruined with Cary Grant.
For me too, Milland listening to the murder attempt is a superb scene.
I also like how the Inspector (who has hitherto seemed to be a 1930s stuffy stereotype) surprises us all by checkmating Milland in his patiently methodical way.
I have seen the film four times and, while I was convinced each time by the clever key solution, I could not explain it now for a million pounds,
|
|
|
Post by timshelboy on Jan 26, 2021 16:25:23 GMT
7/10 ie middling by his own high standards, and as others have said, somehow "impersonal".... but Milland is strong, Gracie on form as his adulterous wife and the set pieces work.
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jan 26, 2021 16:53:55 GMT
Great exchange of comments between Salzmank and mikef6 above. Thanks. One of my favorite Hitchcocks, perhaps because it is less typical (I am not a huge fan). As mentioned, it is a belated example of a 1930s drawing-room murder mystery but with the difference that all but one of the main characters are deeply-drawn and realistic, not the stereotypes you find in fims of the earlier decade. (The exception is Robert Cummings, but he is not important to the plot). Milland is superb, as is Anthony Dawson (a stellar moment in an otherwise journeyman career). It would have been ruined with Cary Grant. For me too, Milland listening to the murder attempt is a superb scene. I also like how the Inspector (who has hitherto seemed to be a 1930s stuffy stereotype) surprises us all by checkmating Milland in his patiently methodical way. I have seen the film four times and, while I was convinced each time by the clever key solution, I could not explain it now for a million pounds, Thanks for the kind words. I had my own problems understanding it on first viewing. When I first saw Dial "M" as a much younger person who had been born and lived all his life in south Texas, I had no idea what a "latch key" was.
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Jan 26, 2021 18:22:17 GMT
I wrote a mini review around 2,5 years ago:
Very theatrical just like Rope 1948, as it is confided in very small spaces, but opened up a bit. It's a filmed play and it shows, sometimes it hurts and sometimes it don't, like in this case. Alfred Hitchcock was in desperate need of a hit at the time when this movie came, he wisely changed nearly nothing plotwise, making a movie version of a hit play. Talkative yes, but one have to follow every line that is said, every eyebrow twitch, every finger movements to get that Hitchcock came closer to the persons than a theatre audience could ever experience, that's were his brilliance came in.
The door keys is an important part of the plot, and I must admit I've had some trouble understanding the twists and turns of that important door key, but this time I at last understood!
I watched the so called flat version, not the 3-D version.
I liked this movie offcourse, my only little objection is that both Milland and Cummings as the husband and lover seemed a little bit too old for Grace (in real life they were around 20 years older).
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Jan 26, 2021 21:29:26 GMT
I liked this movie, of course, my only little objection is that both Milland and Cummings as the husband and lover seemed a little bit too old for Grace (in real life they were around 20 years older). That should not surprise you. Look at her other leading men: Alec Guinness (The Swan, 1956): 15 years difference Bing Crosby (High Society, 1956): 26 years difference Cary Grant (To Catch a Thief, 1955): 25 years difference James Stewart (Rear Window, 1954): 21 years difference Clark Gable (Mogambo, 1929): 28 years difference Gary Cooper (High Noon, 1952): 28 years difference Not a teeny-bopper among them. She liked the mature, sophisticated, cosmopolitan type, and as just such a specimen myself I approve of her preference. I am surprised at your objection as you are European, not American. This idea that partners must be of similar ages is just a modern Transatlantic fad. Throughout the ages in all cultures those at the top of the pyramid in wealth, power or prestige have claimed first pick of the freshest and prettiest young women.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 27, 2021 17:53:22 GMT
A Perfect Murder (1998), directed by Andrew Davis. This loose remake of Dial M For Murder (1954), is darker, more cynical than the original, in that the two men in the love triangle (Michael Douglas and Viggo Mortensen) are both villains and the wife (Gwyneth Paltrow) is not exactly admirable either. And yet my wife really likes this one; I haven't figured out why yet. This time I noticed camera work that is lovely and well-composed without being self-consciously arty. Great set design, both in the working art loft (a real location) and the luxury apartment, a constructed set that looks like several million dollars: Previously I thought it was terrible cliche to have Paltrow in the tub when the phone rings for the big attack scene. But later in the film Douglas is in the shower during his moment of maximum vulnerability (when his villainy is discovered just as he is about to get away with it), so there is a symmetry to their scenes. As in the original, confusion of the house keys is the key to solving the crime. David Suchet is the police detective who immediately detects something is wrong with the husband. I wish they had given him more to do, as the audience is cheering him on. As it is he just provides a few clues and Gwyneth has to solve the mystery. In a good bit, he is an Arab-American who bonds with her because she speaks Arabic and has a good heart. She only has a couple of scenes, but I'm always on the look-out for Sarita Choudhury ( Mississippi Masala (1991), Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love (1996)). Here she is Gwyneth's gal-pal, representing the audience as a non-rich, non-murderous normal person. Menacing score by James Newton Howard. Available on Blu-ray with two gang commentary tracks. I learned that Viggo is very "method": he wanted to live in the studio loft set and he painted his own artwork. 6/10.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2021 6:19:55 GMT
Just watched it. Very clever movie with a very clever ending. I actually found it incredibly fascinating that the big explanation at the end still had the same satisfying qualities as the usual whodunnit reveal even though we already knew who the (would be) murderer was and the details of the husband’s plan. I wouldn’t have thought that would work as well, but it does.
Though, as others mentioned above, it just doesn’t really have the same Hitchcock touch as, say, Rope- which I liked quite a bit more. There’s nothing bad about the way the film was directed. It just didn’t have the same flair, style or passion as his better projects.
Good movie, but far from my favorite in Old Hitchy’s filmography.
|
|