Skip to main content

Will you provide me with a perfect murder?

Dial M for Murder
(1954)

(SPOILERS) Not generally regarded as in the upper echelon of Hitchcocks, and certainly one the director, in his self-deprecating way, regarded as a stop-gap, taking on the Broadway hit “because it was coasting, playing it safe”. What’s remarkable about Dial M for Murder, however, is the manner in which its director makes the limits of the original medium irrelevant, not by “ventilating the play”, as Truffaut put it, but through averring that “the basic quality of the play is precisely its confinement within the proscenium”.


In other words, it’s all still pretty much set in one room, and as Peter Bogdanovich observed “It is a triumph of shooting a talky play in a small circumstance”. Hitch’s advice to “Just shoot the play” may sound simple, but it fails to explain why so many “just shot” plays make such arid, inert films. It takes an auteur to know intuitively how to bring out the material, even though, for the most part, there’s little in Dial M for Murder that draws attention to itself in terms of stylistic flourish. Hitchcock really does make its success seem deceptively simple. There was vaunted 3D involved (I haven’t watched that version), at the insistence of the studio, although the director dismissed its importance, commenting that there were “very few effects directly in relief”.


The exception stylistically is, unsurprisingly, the central (attempted) murder sequence, as Swann (Anthony Dawson, Professor Dent in Dr. No), blackmailed by Tony Wendice (Ray Milland) into murdering his adulterous wife Margot (Grace Kelly) attempts, rather ineptly, to strangle her. Hitchcock ratchets up the tension ruthlessly, with Swann unable to make his move due to a pesky intrusive telephone cable, and when he strikes, the struggle finds Margot falling back onto a desk, her hand outstretched towards the camera (all the better for 3D) grasping for some sort of implement, until she locates a pair of scissors that she promptly plunges into her assailant’s back. Who then proceeds to jerk upwards, and particularly grimly, fall backwards, further embedding the makeshift weapon.


If that’s the most cinematically effective scene of tension, though, there’s nevertheless a masterful line running throughout, taking in the classic Hitchcock approach of making us feel for the bad guy, be it the obstacles Swann encounters in his attempted murder or smooth, urbane Tony realising his watch has stopped and that his best-laid plans may be botched. Indeed, as Bogdanovich notes, Hitchcock’s casting of Milland as someone to root for is merely underlined by how unlikeable Robert Cummings’ Mark Halliday is.


Hitchcock might have cast someone closer to Kelly’s age (Cummings was five years younger than Milland, but still twenty older than Kelly) to suggest that her attraction/carrying on was reasonable, but instead he puts her in a red dress (formerly white, when we first see her having breakfast with Tony) and gives Mark a line in self-assured petulance. We’re irritated that he appears to have worked out Tony’s scheme precisely. Less so that Chief Inspector Hubbard (John Williams, also in the director’s The Paradine Case and To Catch a Thief), an affable sort, is revealed to nurse his own suspicions and seems just as annoyed by Halliday as the audience (“They talk about flat-footed policemen. May the saints protect us from the gifted amateur”).


Kelly would go on to be identified as the ultimate Hitchcock ice queen, but Margot is nothing much to shout about as character, aside from her heroic success against Swann. There’s an imaginatively minimalist shot of her trial (the camera is on her as we hear the verdict), but she disappears from much of the latter third before returning to the scene of the crime where she requires a pep talk in fortitude (“Try and hang on just a little longer”). Apart from being Grace Kelly (no small thing), Margot has little going for her. Certainly, woeful judgement since she has a blissful life with a chump to look forward to.


While the transition from stage to screen is all down to Hitchcock as far as credit goes (Frederick Knott adapted his own play), this would be nothing without Milland’s enormously charming performance. The early invitation to Swann to murder finds Tony, entirely casually and confidently, clearing up fingerprints after the man he has already assured himself will do the deed. That he remains unflappable when plans go awry makes him one of the most endearing Hitchcock villains. Indeed, you want to let him off for the final scene alone, in which, rumbled, he gives up any aspiration to escape and cheerful compliments his captor (“Congratulations, Inspector”) before offering drinks to all present.


The conceit of a perfect murder (used for the title of the 1998 remake, which is respectable in its own right thanks to expert casting – Michael Douglas, Gwyneth Paltrow and Viggo Mortenson – and choosing a different tack to the original) is a bit of a dodge really, though, as Mark suggests such a deed is only possible “On paper”. As a fiction writer, though, he inevitably deals in plots where the murderer is eventually brought to justice; it’s generally in reality that the murderer gets away with his crime.


Dial M for Murder may not be many people’s absolute favourite Hitchcock film, then, but it’s one in which his nonchalant confidence in knowing precisely what was required to bring the material to the screen is unparalleled. He even makes the most economical of cameos (on a framed reunion dinner photo that Tony shows Swann).


 Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.