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

[rich_d]

The 3D presentation of Dial M was a revelation. I can't count how many times I've seen the film, but this was like seeing a new movie. Just one example: I don't think I'd ever realized how prominently Margo's handbag is featured throughout the first "act", but in 3D you're aware of it sitting in the foreground in shot after shot while critical (I was about to say "key") conversations play out behind it.

I saw Dial M for Murder the other day at the Film Forum and would agree that it does present a different experience than the 2D effort. One that does highlight certain props such as the handbag.

On the other hand, some of the props highlighted (since most of the film takes place in the central room of a small apartment)you tire of quickly - such as seeing the same central lamps and chandelier given prominence.

The film opened with a trailer for Gun Fury (1953). This was a terrific trailer which also did not project much out to the audience but was far more interesting in the objects given depth (such as people, rocks and plants). I have not seen the film in 3D but if the full movie was even a small percentage of the quality that I saw in the trailer ... it would be something I would really want to see. Others at intermission also commented that the visuals of Dial M for Murder did not seem to come close to matching up with the expectations of the initial trailer.

I was surprised that there was an intermission. Certainly the film is not long. Perhaps the additional eye strain that I felt (after the film) from watching this 3D movie is the reason for the intermission ... I don't know. Fortunately, my 3D glasses (I don't wear glasses) were in terrific shape. I would also agree that the two projection system is far superior than anything I've seen in single projection red/blue mode.

The colors seem to be not as vibrant as the 2D effort. For example, Mark Halliday wears a blue suit that is not very vibrant and darker than I remember it. Still pictures showing Grace Kelly's nightgown seem a healthy shade of blue - but the 3D result seems a very pale blue/white. Perhaps it differs by color or result of the production company's effort. Then again, one could hardly complain about the very rich brown color of Grace's hand bag. Kinda puzzling but the overall impression was the colors seem muted/drained.

The film forum is suppose to have more 3D movies coming in March. One caution, the screens at the film forum are not large.

Peter,

What size is the screen at the Lafayette Theatre? I would like to see more 3D efforts in dual projection so I have a better basis of comparison and appreciation.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

The Film Forum has a very small screen and is a converted parking garage. The Lafayette is a beautifully restored movie palace, and I'm sure that Pete can give the exact screen dimensions.

This is the way someone described the Film Forum: it has all the architectural splendor and theatrical ambience of a concrete bunker!

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

The Lafayette is a beautifully restored movie palace, and I'm sure that Pete can give the exact screen dimensions.

While I haven't finished fitting the new lenses to the new screen and masking, we should be getting around a 24-foot wide picture with Academy ratio films.

Pete

www.bigscreenclassics.com/3days3d.htm

 

[Juan C]

Sorry to bump this old thread, but didn't find a better one...

Warners has released Dial M for Murder in two different aspect ratios: 1.33:1 for North America and 1.78:1 for Europe. See comparison and screen captures on DVD Beaver.

There is a Hitchcock forum where they voice their anger at the different AR used in R2. They've put up a comparison shot:



On imdb the original theatrical aspect ratio listed as Academy 1.37:1, but they've sometimes been wrong in the past.

Can someone confirm the OAR for this film?

 

[Patrick McCart]

Dial M For Murder was most likely shot for Academy.

The film was actually shot between July 30 and September 25 of 1953 and held over to May 29 the following year. So, it was essentially shot before "The Robe" was even released..

I tried out both 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 matting on some screencaps in Photoshop and 1.85:1 is simply too tight. A few shots look good, but too many don't. 1.66:1 is OK, but it still looks awkward. It looks like the titles were made to be 1.66 safe, though.

Sure, the 1.78:1 transfer has more horizontal information, more image doesn't certify correct framing or correct aspect ratio.

 

[Juan C]

Thanks for the quick reply Patrick.

Great information about shooting dates. As it was released the same year as Rear Window and with the same DP, I was thinking it could be 1.66:1 as well.

 

[ArthurMy]

I've ordered the DVD and will report on it. My guess is it was shown in 1:85 in certain theaters, just like Rear Window. Some of the screen caps look really good, I must say.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Patrick is absolutely right about the shooting and release dates, but keep this in mind: all studios began shooting for some type of widescreen theatrical presentation in April/May of 1953. The aspect ratios ranged from 1.66 to 2.1, as well as CinemaScope. WB was composing for 1.75, and DMFM was certainly filmed after this decision had been made. The frame grab is a good point of reference. Look at all the unnecesary information at the top and bottom of the picture.

This is not speculation, and can be verified by doing research in all the industry trade magazines at the time.
I'm sure it was presented "widescreen" in all the major engagements. By time it was released in 1954, the only theaters still running features in 1.37 would have been the local, neighborhood houses that hadn't invested in a new screen and lenses.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

For some official WB studio documentation from that time, check out this link:

http://www.bigscreenclassics.com/specscifithemmemo2.htm

 

[Steve Phillips]

The memo in the link is great!


Though many of the 3-D movies were shot with allowances for cropping, I'm still glad they usually revive them in 1:37 to 1 format.

In my opinion, the extra headroom enhances the appreciation of the spatial differences the depth provides. It would seem that cropping could in some cases work against the 3-D.

Likely only the very early 3-D movies would suffer too much though, based on the info and dates Bob references in a previous post.

I've got a lot of old newspaper ads from the time, and in most cases a wide screen was mentioned in the ads for the bigger theatres. Obviously most audiences saw these movies in some sort of cropped widescreen 3-D or flat.

As for DIAL M, nearly everyone (if not everyone) saw it projected flat in 1954 anyway so cropping couldn't hurt 3-D that wasn't there!

 

[ArthurMy]

Thanks, Bob for the post. I, too, remembered that they were shooting for widescreen back then. And, having looked at the screencaps at dvdbeaver, every single shot, to my eye, looks better in 1:85 (or 1:76). I can't wait to get the DVD to see how it looks. That's why it baffles me when certain films like The Bad Seed are released in Academy when they most certainly would not have been shown that way - and yet, no one says boo about it.

 

[RolandL]

Having seen the film in dual projection 3-D a few years ago, I would not waste my money on a flat DVD release. Maybe someday they will release it on DVD in 3-D. The best you can get now is the 3-d field-sequential version that you see on EBAY.