Dial "M" For Murder DVD???? (1 Viewer)

[BrianCC]

I mentioned this in another thread.... Dial M for Murder will be shown in original 3D at the 3D Filmfest in Los Angeles on Friday September 19th. More info at the 3dfilmfest.com site.

 

[rich_d]

Speaking of the master director

It's Hitch's birthday today.

If you go to google.com they did a nice tribute to him ...

 

[Steve Phillips]

I don't know that Hitchcock *HATED* 3-D, it is just that he was frustrated by the limitations of the Natural Vision cameras, because they made it hard for him to get some of the shots he wanted. This was probably all the more frustrating as by the time the film was being made, they were aware that the film would likely be released in flat format only anyway. It is true that Jack Warner insisted the film be shot in 3-D, though.

Still, Hitchcock was never one to shy away from new technologies or cinema experiments. ROPE, anyone? I would bet that had the 3-D craze lasted a little longer, he might have been much more excited about creating a 3-D movie on his *own* terms.

What is most interesting is that even if the effort was half-hearted, he still managed to create a great 3-D flick.

DIAL M was released widely in 3-D by Warner in 1982, in polarized format, but they combined they left and right eye images on one strip of film, so it didn't work as well as the original dual projector polarized version.

A 3-D videodisc appeared in Japan (field sequential format) in 1990, fully sanctioned by Warner, so they shouldn't have a problem doing it here and now. They can always include a flat print on the disc for those who don't want to see the film in the original version.

 

[Jim_K]

While I'd love to have both the 3-D & 2-D versions of the film on the future DVD, there's no way I'll pass this one up for lack of 3-D.

 

[oscar_merkx]

one of the few Hitch I have not seen yet

 

[Bill Burns]

Patrick wrote:

That's not really the point of what Stevens wanted.

I'm not trying to characterize Stevens, per se, but rather to illustrate what is, essentially, a philosophical argument -- when you remove an element of a film used in its creation (something the original release embraced in either a limited or wide facility), you alter the history of that film -- you, to either small or great degree, "remake it," or if you favor one version of the film and dismiss others when multiple versions were made and released with filmmaker or studio approval, you diminish the full impact and/or history of the film.

I realize I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth, because I've made it clear that I want the 3D version and don't much care about 2D, though of course it was reportedly released by and large in 2D, with limited 3D runs. Hitchcock may have even favored 2D for the picture when all was said and done (has this been determined?). So I'm not necessarily following my own rule in the version I favor, but I am saying that both should be available; while I'd personally be happy with just 3D, the decision to make only this version available would raise a few philosophical objections from my end of things as well. I'd be happy, but the film wouldn't be best served. 2D and 3D, simultaneously available, best honors the history of the picture and the final details of its production.

This gets back, ultimately, to what I suggested first off a few posts ago: a new kind of OAR argument. Whereas in cropping a wide film we're talking about removing physical picture area, and in turning mono or stereo into 5.1 we're talking about remaking an element of the film (redesigning its sonic impact), it all amounts to the same thing, aesthetically: alteration. In this new OAR argument (Original Axis Ratio: x to y to z), we're discussing actual width and height (x and y) and perceived depth (z). The film was shot with the expectation that an audience (the portion of the audience to which the 3D version was released) would see the film's visual composition in three apparent axes (depth now apparent not within the confines of a 2D space, the flat motion picture screen, but within the same apparent 3D space occupied by that screen -- in other words, while we always see "real" height and width in front of us on a screen, and perceive a depth within a 2D image, 3D filmmaking places the use of depth on an equivalent playing field with height and width, something perceived as if it were truly in front of us as viewers, rather than something conceptualized within a 2D space). I can't say if a director, expecting the audience to focus on certain elements of perceived depth, will reframe width and height to emphasize or otherwise account for that depth, but it seems possible (different lens choices by he/she or the cinematographer, etc.). Even if a given shot is blocked, framed, lit, and otherwise structured precisely the same for 2D and 3D, when that camera is rolling the director, the cinematographer, and other relevant creative voices are anticipating its 3D impact on an audience (by which I don't mean whether things are tossed at an audience, but rather the impact its 3D nature will have on their involvement in the picture ... the same way one might consider a background shadow or depth of focus in their impact on an audience). The third dimension (z axis composition, depth) is a structural tool used by a filmmaker. To remove it removes part of the film, even if 2D versions are also rightly considered valid.

So ... chop away image area on The Diary of Anne Frank, and while you can still follow the story and even enjoy the film (it'll move you, the performances are just as good, etc.), you're not seeing it as it was designed to be seen. That a director expresses frustration with or dislike for a tool (and Stevens went on to make The Greatest Story Ever Told at 2.76:1! So take all such reports with some grain of salt) in his or her arsenal is irrelevant: if it was used, it should be preserved.

These arguments are relatively easy to make, today, for audio and image area preservation -- Criterion lead the way with both in the late 80's and through the 90's, and the industry caught on. I'm unaware of any 3D films set for release by Criterion, though, so it remains for some other content provider to take up this particular torch. "Depth is our friend!"

Unlike my other examples (or unlike many specific films that fall under those examples, anyway), a 3D film shown in 2D is often historically correct in and of itself, because these films were often (usually?) designed to play in 2D, sometimes limitedly, sometimes widely. But it is also historically incomplete, and that's the point. A 3D film has a dual nature, and that dual nature must be preserved for audiences if they're to experience the picture in the fullest possible (given that it's home video) representation of its aesthetic and historical context. Thus 2D and 3D versions should be simultaneously presented (or rather made available side by side). Those who wish the see the film as it was shot, in 3D, may do so; those who wish to see the film in a 2D version also seen at the time, perhaps limitedly, perhaps widely, may do so, and completists who wish to own a representation of what all audiences saw at the time may purchase both.

This argument has its flaws: many films have been released in multiple color processes, multiple cuts for international audiences, multiple languages, etc., and many excellent home video representations of the film choose to show only one of these "versions." But I see it a bit differently -- unlike a cut demanded by a foreign market, or a soundtrack similarly demanded, and unlike multiple color systems chosen after the fact, 3D is right there on the set, used directly by the makers in crafting their film. It's an intrinsic part of the final product, and while a 2D product may also be anticipated and endorsed by the makers, to subjugate the 3D version to that 2D version is to deny today's audience a part of the experience designed for the film by the makers as they made it.

Or maybe I'm just full of bunk. But I think the above is valid, and I just won't buy anything made in 3D until it's offered in 3D. I may make an exception for House of Wax that I might own Mystery of the Wax Museum, but I haven't quite decided yet.

 

[Brian Knolhoff]

Since I only have sight in one eye, I guess I hope they release SOME version without 3-D.

-Brian

 

[Bob Furmanek]

"I don't know that Hitchcock *HATED* 3-D, it is just that he was frustrated by the limitations of the Natural Vision cameras."

Steve, DIAL M was photographed with the Warner Bros. stereo camera rig, which was a slightly different configuration than the Natural Vision camera and offered much greater flexibility.

I don't buy into this whole "Hitchcock hated 3-D" argument. Sure, he may not have been pleased with it's limitations, but he had enough clout at that time to refuse to shoot in that format. I believe Hitchcock's comments about a "Nine day wonder" refers more to the release of the film than the process. When is he supposed to have made those comments? During producion, or many years later? That would be very telling.

I have to check the actual production dates, but I bet it was filmed before September, 1953. That's when CinemaScope hit theatres (THE ROBE) and 3-D production came to a complete standstill in Hollywood. By time DIAL M hit theatres the following May, 3-D was just about dead. Very few exhibitors were playing the new releases in their stereoscopic versions, and the last of the 3-D films still un-released at that time (BOUNTY HUNTER, DIAMOND WIZARD, SON OF SINBAD) went out flat only.

Bob

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Bob:

There are a couple of Warner Bros. memos reproduced in the book "Hitchcock's Notebooks" (none saying anything about the 3-D, however) that indicate the film was finished sometime in October or November, 1953. One is dated October 26th and indicates a screening the day before for the composer Dimitri Tiomkin, and also mentions that they need to get a photo of the proper procedure of a judge donning his wig. Another memo dated November 4 mentions that they obtained an actual judge's wig and the correct procedure, so there may have actually been a reshoot of that scene around that time.

EDIT - Another memo states that the first preview of the finished film was on February 4, 1954 and was a rousing success.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thanks Pete, that's very interesting. That would mean the film started shooting just at the time when 3-D movie attendance dropped off considerably at the boxoffice. (It would bounce back a bit in the Winter, with successful releases like Hondo, Kiss Me Kate, Cease Fire and Miss Sadie Thompson.) However, in the Fall of 1953, it was starting to appear that 3-D movies would disappear as quickly as they came. Many people don't realize that 3-D was really only popular for a few months: April through September of 1953.

Perhaps his reluctance to shoot in the process was due to the feeling that, by time the film was ready, nobody would even show it in its depth version.

Bob

 

[Nelson Au]

Not to add any fuel to the fire here, but I thought that Creature From the Black Lagoon was 3-D, I don't recall any comments then about asking Universal to do the DVD in 3-D. But I could have missed that thread. And it was a 1954 film, well after the dates dicussed above. (Leonard Maltin's movie book confirms in 3-D)

I do recall watching Creature From the Black Lagoon on Creature Features 20 or more years ago and it was shown in 3-D on TV. Looked pretty blurry too! And Dial M for Murder was shown and discussed how Hitchcock placed objects in the foreground during pans to give the sense of depth.

I am happy to enjoy Dial M on laserdisc now and look forward to a DVD.

Nelson

 

[SteveP]

I may be wrong, but the "nine day wonder" remark I seem to recall from Hitchcock's interviews with Francois Truffaut in 1966.

CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON was, indeed, a 3-D release.

 

[GregK]

I do recall watching Creature From the Black Lagoon on Creature Features 20 or more years ago and it was shown in 3-D on TV. Looked pretty blurry too!

The anaglyph 3-D conversions for TV were simply horrible. They in no way represent the stereoscopic originals.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

3-D movies continued to be released throughout the Summer of 1954, and one title (REVENGE OF THE CREATURE - the only 3-D sequel) was released in March of 1955. The dates that I gave in my earlier post (April through September, 1953) were referring to the period when the process was the most popular in terms of ticket sales.

For instance, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON played in 3-D for its first-run engagement at New York's huge Paramount theater. However, when it went into second-run on the RKO circuit, and played theaters throughout the New York City area, it was shown flat. The irony is that the companion feature (Warner Bros. PHANTOM OF THE RUE MORGUE) was showing with it in 3-D! Isn't that bizarre? I suspect it had to do with the distributor and the way in which they sold the movie.

I'm sorry for any confusion.

Bob

P.S. - Greg is absolutely right. CREATURE in its original dual-strip Polaroid 3-D is vastly superior to the red/blue anaglyph conversion. Try to see it on September 14th at the World 3-D Film Expo. You'll be amazed!

 

[Nelson Au]

Thanks for the reply Bob, I'm honored.

After all this discussion, I finally opened my DVD of Creature from the Black Lagoon from 2000 and I saw your piece on how 3-D was projected in the bonus materials documentary on the film.

Cool to see you here amongst us.

Nelson

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thanks very much Nelson, and I'm glad that you enjoyed the segment. I was sick as a dog that day, but somehow got through the interview. I hope that I explained the details of Polaroid projection, and maybe it will help to erase this myth that Creature (and the other 1950's depth films) were anaglyph. Even the recent Spy Kids literature made that claim, and it was repeated by such papers as the New York Times. Research anyone?

I recently wrote a very brief piece on 1950's 3-D for the official souvenir DVD of the World Expo. This will be a fantastic disc for anybody interested in these films. The DVD will contain original coming attraction trailers from 45 of the 50 3-D films made during that time. There will also be rare anaglyph test footage from the 1930's, original movie poster art, publicity materials, and loads of cool stuff!

Here's the text:

1953 was truly the golden year for stereoscopic film production in Hollywood. After the release of Arch Oboler's independently produced BWANA DEVIL in November of 1952, the studios were quick to notice the tremendous success the low-budget film was enjoying at theatres across the country. 3-D films quickly went on the production schedule at nearly every studio in Hollywood. Within the first nine months of 1953, close to fifty features would be photographed in 3-D. Some of the top box-office stars appeared in this new "Miracle process that was revolutionizing the motion picture industry," including John Wayne, Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis, Kathryn Grayson, Howard Keel, Jane Russell, Randolph Scott, Rhonda Fleming, Robert Mitchum, Jack Palance, Rita Hayworth, Edward G. Robinson, Grace Kelly, Ray Milland, Donna Reed, Rock Hudson and of course, "Mr. 3-D" Vincent Price - the only actor to have the distinction of appearing in a quartet of three-dimensional features (House of Wax, Dangerous Mission, Son of Sinbad and The Mad Magician.)

April through August were the most successful months, and every major city across the country offered a wide variety of 3-D movies for their audiences. Titles like House of Wax, Fort Ti, It Came from Outer Space, The Maze, Charge at Feather River, Second Chance and I the Jury were doing tremendous business.

However, by the Fall of 1953, box-office receipts were starting to dwindle, and exhibitors were noticing that 3-D films were not performing well in their sub-run, neighborhood theatre engagements. Even ticket sales at the major downtown theatres were beginning to drop off. Bad presentation (out-of-sync projectors, improperly balanced lamp-houses, etc.) along with cheap flimsy glasses, were combining to kill the golden goose.

By September, when 20th Century Fox premiered THE ROBE as the first production in CinemaScope ("The Modern Miracle You See Without the Use of Special Glasses") it was starting to seem that 3-D would disappear as quickly as it came. The studios dropped their requirement that exhibitors play out the 3-D engagements before the films would be available for booking in their standard flat versions. Because of that, several releases during this period (The Glass Web, Flight to Tangier, The Nebraskan, Those Redheads from Seattle) played most of their engagements flat.

But the process wasn't dead yet. Several high quality productions were released in November and December 1953 (Kiss Me Kate, Cease Fire, Hondo and Miss Sadie Thompson) and 3-D movies enjoyed a brief resurgence during the Winter. The Polaroid Corporation developed new devices which enabled projectionists to present the two strips of film in perfect synchronization. They even introduced clip-on, as well as new plastic frame, 3-D glasses. Several successful 3-D films appeared in the first few months of 1954, including The French Line, Phantom of the Rue Morgue and Creature from the Black Lagoon. However, the majority of 3-D films released during this time period played mostly flat engagements, including Money from Home, Dangerous Mission, Jesse James vs. the Daltons and Taza, Son of Cochise. Some films, like Dragonfly Squadron, Jivaro and Top Banana, were released in their flat versions only.

By the Summer of 1954, 3-D on the marquee meant poison at the box-office. 20th Century Fox released Gorilla at Large in May, and it was the last feature to have a wide distribution in its stereoscopic version. The last of the depth features received very few, if any, 3-D play-dates (Dial M for Murder, Gog, Southwest Passage) or were only shown flat (The Diamond Wizard, Bounty Hunter, Son of Sinbad.)

One last film was released in March of 1955 (Revenge of the Creature - the only 3-D sequel) and with that, the Golden Age of 3-D movies came to an end.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Nice job, Bob.

Seems I've heard you recite some of those stats recently...

 

[SteveP]

My recently deceased father, years ago, told me about having seen some 3-D material in the 1930's.

 

[Thomas T]

Grace Kelly on Hitch and 3D:

"Hitchcock was terribly encumbered and frustrated by having to do the picture in 3D. The camera was the size of a room. The machine was so gigantic and Hitch had a terrible time. He wanted to remain very faithful to the play, cutting away from the main room only when absolutely necessary, but with this camera it was like having to go into a boxing ring with your hands tied. But he was so extraordinary. I never saw him lose patience, he never became angry. I would get furious for him when I saw the frustrations and the things he wanted to do and the technicians said, "Oh no, with the camera we can't do this and we can't do that. We all knew at the time that it would never be shown in 3D. We knew it was a dying fad (the film was shot July 30, 1953 thru September 25, 1953) and the film would be released in a normal flat version but this is what Mr. Warner wanted"

Donald Spoto, Hitchcock's biographer:

"The process did not interest Hitchcock who recognized it for what it was - essentially anti-cinematic with its constant reminder that they were "out there" and not drawn, viusally and emotionally, into the story, its action and its mood. At this point, the director's only desire was to get through the filming as quickly and unceremoniously as possible".

 

[Steve Phillips]

I think all that proves is what we stated earlier: Hitch was annoyed by the limitations of the cameras and by the fact that he knew the film would be seen most widely flat anyway.

I still think had he been able to work with the *concept* of 3-D on his own terms and with a project he had full control over, he might have been intrigued by the possibilities.

There are a lot of directors out there who are interested in 3-D but are daunted by the projection hassle.