I swear I saw this movie in B+W
Now I am watching it in color yet my mother always told me it was in color. I swear I've ONLY seen it in black and white!
Someone tell me I'm not crazy lol.
Now I am watching it in color yet my mother always told me it was in color. I swear I've ONLY seen it in black and white!
Someone tell me I'm not crazy lol.
I'm pretty sure that the first time I saw it, this movie was in black and white. I was thinking the same thing when I saw this movie tonight!
shareIt just seems different than what I remember and it's a movie that I love too.
shareThis was in black and white... They went back and did the color years later like they have done with The Lucy Show. I remember because I saw the black and white version just before doing this show in school about 2 years ago. We went back to that and did our stage show in all black and white
share[deleted]
Yeah, I have the same problem because I grew up in the 50s. I dream in color, but when I wake up, I can only remember them in black and white.
shareblack and white televisions tend to have that effect...
shareI'M 27!
share[deleted]
lolamaemamawrote:
It's not that you saw it on a black and white TV. (Honestly? That was your best guess? Ha!) It's that the movie was colourized.From Bosley Crowther's original reviewPublished: May 29, 1954
Excellent color and color combinations add to the flow and variety of the drama's moods. Shot for 3-D but offered here in "standard," the film is vividly pictorial right straight through.movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9A03E3D7133EE53BBC4151DFB366838F64 9EDE_______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255 share
No way was this a black and white fim that was colorized. The NYT link that you posted does not indicate that, and colorized films always look like crap, which this definitely does not. I think that the op may have just confused this with another film in their memory.
sharegoodtobehappy wrote:
No way was this a black and white fim that was colorized. The NYT link that you posted does not indicate that...From your post, it is possible that you think that I am saying the film was colorized. I am not.Just to be sure that there is no misunderstanding, I am quoting a post by lolamaemama, which he has since removed, in which he says that the film was colorized.The New York Times quote is a response to his post. It makes clear that the film was shot in, and originally released in, color.______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255 share
ppllkk, I wasn't sure what you meant when you quoted that post, glad you don't agree with it.
sharegoodtobehappy wrote:
ppllkk, I wasn't sure what you meant when you quoted that post...People quote previous posts to make it clear what this post is responding to. It makes it much easier for someone who is glancing through the posts later on. (IMDb does not make markup easy, but it is trivial if you use Firefox.)Since the New York Times quote directly contradicted the post that I was quoting, I did not feel that further comment was necessary. Sorry I confused you._______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255 share
Being also a fan of DMFM I had to look it up on Wikipedia. Lots of info. Like how it began with a showing on BBC TV 1952. Also the screenplay & stage play were same writer. That may account for Hitch's sticking so closely to original.
A few changes like the names of two main characters and bit of broadening out
of the single setting. Hitch was just coming off abandoned effort to do a novel so maybe felt some usual time pressures so why mess with a proven thing.
Anyway maybe some people actually saw the BBC TV version on a b/w TV set? Or were told about it?
Link has a theater poster in color suggesting the 3-D was color. Doubt any 3-D done in b/w. There is also a standard 2-D version that got the major showings says article since 3-D was going out of favor even then. Same camera tech as used in House of Wax which is still one of best in that style.
fwiw along lines of b/w, article does make mention of Hitch's 'appearance' in the film. See link.
Someone should do a 1/2 hr show on PBS with all the clips that highlight Hitch's surprise moment in most of his films, even Lifeboat. Think he isn't in The Rope but not sure the few he doesn't pop up in some way.
And I gotta give a little plug to Robert Cummings. That guy was a real talent along with the pretty boy quality. Not easy to be eye candy and still deliver.
Link: Warner said June '12 to release film on Blu-ray in 3-D Oct 9, '12.
Also some Bollywood attempts with the film.... nuf said about that.
DMFM certainly has entered pop & film culture. PBS NY is showing it tonight. Host just said it was filmed in 36 days. Grace Kelly said Hitch was disengaged during filing speaking more about his next one, Rear Window.
Host mentioned couple bits not in wikipedia. Seems Kelly had several affairs during her filmings, in this case Ray Milland. And Hitch took immediate liking to this blond and he handled her choices of clothing for films. Supposedly once said in reference to her in a gold dress, "There's hills in them thar gold".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dial_M_for_Murder
"And Hitch took immediate liking to this blond and he handled her choices of clothing for films."
Funny how the IMDB trivia entry for this film says almost the exact opposite.
Doubt any 3-D done in b/w.
Many golden era 3-D films were shot in black and white:
Creature from the Black Lagoon
Revenge of the Creature
The Maze
It Came From Outer Space
Man in the Dark
The Maze
The Mad Magician
Wow I saw most of those along the way cept maybe The Maze. Never gave much
thought to them being in 3-D tho certainly in b/w for cheaps. The big budg
3-D ones I rem were mainly the color ones. Just (think in color?) the
large 3-D hits of that era like House of Wax and on up stand out. Don't
think super bigs like The Robe were 3-D since they counted on the super wide
screen to compete with that. And super wide was a great feeling originally.
Certainly the sci-fi b/w are camp classics but I just think of them as being
in same group with Them!, The Thing, all the ape ones. voodoo, and the like.
The Tingler and all those pod people kind were usually 2-D I think. Course
maybe some small theaters just showed the 3-D b/w ones in 2-D for weekend
kids matinees. Sort of recall a theater in Philly suburb that had 3 kid shows
on a Sat. - with time out for a YoYo demo!
[deleted]
Man, I'm glad this thread exists...
I watched this film maybe 4 or 5 months ago when I first bought it. Loved it and decided to watch it again tonight.
It was in color, I swear the first time I watched it, it was in B/W.
Problem is I was using the same DVD I watched when I saw it first, so I'm confused! Love this film though.
I'm not anti-society, societies anti-me!
The poster says in Warner Color! The head of Technicolor told me, it was filmed in color!!!!
shareI just watched it and it was in black and white. your not crazy, its your mother.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
It was definitely filmed and released in color. At the time of the film, studios were growing wary that television was causing more and more people to stay home and out of the cinemas. This fear led to more and more films being shot in color. Hitchcock had made Rope and Under Capricorn in color in the late 1940s, but his next three pictures were made in black and white. The studio wanted to bring audiences in to the cinemas by offering widescreen pictures, color, and 3D.
I believe Hitchcock was given the choice between shooting it in widescreen or in 3D. He chose 3D. It was always going to be shot in color. By the time the film was released, the 3D fad was pretty much over. Most of the theaters showed the movie in 2-D.
I believe the movie was shown on TV in either the 1950s or 1960s. People would have seen the movie in black and white on TV. All home releases of the movie have been in color. The Blu-ray version released this year also includes a 3D-Bluray.
I believe Hitchcock was given the choice between shooting it in widescreen or in 3D. He chose 3D.The film was shot to be projected at the widescreen ratio of 1.85:1, which was the then-new policy at Warner Brothers. Though it is not anamorphic, it is indeed considered widescreen as well as 3-D.
I originally watched it in B&W.
Then again we had a B&W tv at the time.
Its that man again!!
I'm watching it just now on TCM (in color). It is a dismally faded and faulty print - as indeed many prints on TCM. And I'm just wondering: If TCM hold the rights to show the film(s), why do they not show the finest print. Is it for legal or technical reasons? I mean it can't be because they will not pay the 20 dollars for the dvd/blue-ray... Anybody?
shareIt's playing on TV atm (in colour) and I was thinking the same thing, I borrowed the dvd from my uni library a year ago and it was a B&W version.
Yeah! I too have seen it in black and white! I'm watching it again now, maybe my forth time, its in color... I was confused at first but I like it color. Grace's red lace dress is dazzling!
shareriddick124 wrote:
It's playing on TV atm (in colour) and I was thinking the same thingSince I cannot figure out what you are replying to even using "nest," I don't know which of a couple of things you could be thinking.
I borrowed the dvd from my uni library a year ago and it was a B&W version.That is interesting because it is reproducible. If you are still in school there, you could take it out again -- or just look it up in the catalog -- and tell us which version it is.