|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Jun 16, 2024 14:14:15 GMT
Question for those here that seen this one. When you saw it, were you confused by a lot of it? Like I was?
Especially, things in the film that has to do with keys towards the end of the film.
Did it seem like the film got too confusing too quickly, for you to keep up with it? And when it was over you said to yourself... what the hell did I just watch?
|
|
|
|
Post by divtal on Jun 17, 2024 17:11:17 GMT
I've seen it so many times, and I can't recall a sense of confusion, the first time. Hitch doesn't have the viewer chasing "McGuffins," throughout. You see everything that happens. The inspector, has a hunch, and cleverly tests it ... VOILA! "Gotcha!" My standout recollection of "Dial M," wasn't about the plot. About 10 years ago (more?), a local theater ran it in 3-D, as it was first presented. It's the only 3-D presentation that I've seen. It was a bit disorienting, at first. I had a little "twinge in the tummy." But, that didn't last much beyond the opening credits  . I'll bet that Hitch had fun with choreographing some of the scenes/movements, to make the most of that technique. |
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Jun 17, 2024 19:27:58 GMT
And Hitchcock had the best use of a 3-D effect during its short-lived early 1950s craze.
Most other films just threw things at the audience.
But in DIAL, when Grace Kelly is being strangled, her hand reaches out in desperation for help to the audience before grasping the scissors.
Great performance by Ray Millard.
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Jun 18, 2024 12:28:23 GMT
Especially, things in the film that has to do with keys towards the end of the film. I did not understand what the detective had accomplished with the keys until my second or third viewing. |
|
|
|
Post by divtal on Jun 18, 2024 16:52:22 GMT
And Hitchcock had the best use of a 3-D effect during its short-lived early 1950s craze. Most other films just threw things at the audience. But in DIAL, when Grace Kelly is being strangled, her hand reaches out in desperation for help to the audience before grasping the scissors. Great performance by Ray Millard. Right! The "reach" is quite impressive in 3-D. Also, during the scene where Tony is telling Swan what he wants done, Hitch shoots from above, so you see the whole layout of the apartment in one view. I remember thinking that it was a clever use of 3-D. However, that was so long ago that I can't recall what, specifically, why I thought that ... nothing was "coming at" the audience. I think that Hitch liked to play with new cinematic techniques. The ending of The Birds leaves something to be desired. I've wondered if he just wanted to see what he could do with the overlay of bird swarms, with live action. |
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Jun 23, 2024 0:41:20 GMT
I never understood the key thing, either. Also, why would Grace Kelly's character keep a single key loose in her handbag like that? Why not on a pretty little key ring so it would be easy to pull out of the bag (I keep my keys on a bright yellow miniature rubber chicken so they're easier to find in my purse). Of course, that would eliminate the confusion over the keys in the story, but I didn't get that plot device anyway.
Ray Milland was a hideous, oily windbag in the movie, and Robert Cummings just wasn't attractive enough to be the other guy. I liked John Williams, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Jun 30, 2024 5:02:34 GMT
Ray Milland was good, in the last tycoon. Just sayin.
|
|
|
|
Post by louise on Aug 25, 2024 11:54:38 GMT
I did find all the stuff about the keys a bit difficult to follow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Aug 29, 2024 20:39:33 GMT
Dial M for Murder reaired on TCM last weekend, and I understood everything except for the placement of the keys. From what I remember, Tony instructed Swann to use the key under the staircase to get inside. After he finishes the murder, Swann was to return the key underneath the staircase and stage the murder as a burglary gone wrong. However, since Swann was killed, the key was not returned and then I get confused from there.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Aug 29, 2024 21:18:55 GMT
Actually, Swann had put the latchkey back under the staircase carpet immediately after he unlocked the apartment door.
|
|
|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Sept 5, 2024 5:08:50 GMT
A film, that's too confusing for it's own good!
There are films that are confusing that I think are good. This isn't one of them!
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Sept 5, 2024 22:35:18 GMT
A film, that's too confusing for it's own good! There are films that are confusing that I think are good. This isn't one of them! Once you have things fixed in your mind, they seem simple. But even when you try to explain them... 1) Tony steals Margo's latch key from her handbag to put under the stair carpet for Swann 2) Tony takes Swann's own key from the dead man's pocket assuming it's Margo's, and returns it to her handbag (and audiences make the same mistake, assuming Swann didn't get the chance to return the key to the stair) 3) Later, Insp. Hubbard, figuring out the key mixup and having found the right key under the stair carpet, switches his overcoat with Tony's so that he'll be able to get back into the apartment and Tony won't 4) Hubbard arranges for Margo's release, and she won't be able to get in either, because it's Swann's key in her handbag, which Hubbard then arranges to have returned to the station for Tony's retrieval 5) When Tony returns and discovers he can't get in with the key from Margo's handbag, he realizes her key's been under the carpet since the night Swann was killed, and when he uses it, Hubbard has the proof he needs of Tony's guilt ...they still sound confusing. But honestly, things like that never bother me. After years of sitting through long speeches by everyone from Nick Charles to Columbo to Hercule Poirot explaining complicated murder plots to police and gathered suspects, I almost always lose track of the details before they're finished. That's the main reason Hitchcock didn't do whodunnits: he was more interested in engaging emotions than intellects. So I just shrug and think, "I'll take their word for it." |
|
