Am I the only one... - Dial M for Murder (1954) Discussion

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MissIlsaLund 17 years ago

If it was Jimmy Stewart, then certainly. But i don't know Ray Millard very well and he didn't convince me.

Haha, yeah. If Hitchcock wanted us to empathize with the husband he would have cast an actually likable actor.

Hildy- Don't be hasty. Remember my dimple. Love, Walter.

reply

[–] jackboot 15 years ago

Actually, I had the opposite reaction. I found the Ray Milland character much too likable and charming to want to see him get caught. I've always enjoyed his work, from such films as "Easy Living", "The Uninvited" and "Ministry of Fear". I don't get Jimmy Stewart in a role like this. It just wouldn't have worked at all. That would be very poor casting.

It seems that Grace Kelly spent almost all of her time onscreen being a sort of nag and put upon sufferer. Of course, she was being framed for murder and was on her way to being hanged, so it's understandable that she'd react that way, but unfortunately, since she was so quickly put in that position, I didn't feel we had a great amount of time to develop any fondness for her (and she was SO likable as Lisa Freemont in Rear Window!! Wow!!!). And she was a cheater, having this affair with the, regrettably, unlikable Bob Cummings character, and I didn't find that at all endearing. So much so, that I wanted to see her, and her home-wrecking lover boy Cummings, suffer.

I would love to see it onstage some day.

reply

[–] topher713 17 years ago

I felt exactly the same way.

reply

[–] wrenniejen 17 years ago

It does seem odd that a cheating wife is presented in a fairly sympathetic light - particularly in the 1950s...

reply

[–] Miketevee 17 years ago

I aggree with the poster who said if it was Jimmy Stewart, or Cary Grant maybe. Ray Milland seems too cold.

For classic mystery lovers:
http://jdcarr.com/forum/

reply

[–] mojojobob 17 years ago

While I agree his performance made him seem guilty (overly agitated the entire movie, except the lengthy scene at the beginning), it didn't keep me from hoping that he got away with it. The other two characters seemed less likable. I think this is purposefully done, having the plotter be the protagonist. I also think that the detective is portrayed in a less desirable light, not like a seemingly all knowing Sherlock Holmes.
http://whatsnewinspace.blogspot.com

reply

[–] Altho73 17 years ago

I totally disliked that Halliday guy. What makes me reach for the sick bag is when he tries to persuade Tony to confess to the police that he hired a hit man to murder his wife, so that Halliday can then snatch his wife whilst Tony is locked away in some hell hole prison.

reply

[–] angelofvic 17 years ago

It does seem odd that a cheating wife is presented in a fairly sympathetic light - particularly in the 1950s...

Well, Tony only married her for her money, so he was cold towards her and planned to bump her off at the first sign of infidelity -- not because he loved her, but because he stood to loose her money if she left him.

. . . . . . . .

reply

[–] jackboot 15 years ago

Well, Tony only married her for her money, so he was cold towards her and planned to bump her off at the first sign of infidelity -- not because he loved her, but because he stood to loose her money if she left him.

Except that she does say that he had been treating her so well, that she could no longer continue the affair with that awful Bob Cummings character, Halliday. So, if he married her for his money and he realized that he ultimately needed her and was willing to make the effort to make her happy, then it was not a bad marriage, even if it was not an ideal marriage.

Of course, the husband's change of heart and newfound affection for his wife was just a ruse so that he could bump her off.

reply

[–] Gintoro 11 years ago

me too... it would be much more interesting movie with open ending...

reply

[–] wanbaclone 17 years ago

Hitchcock routinely played with the allegiance of his audience. Think Psycho: (spoilers) we WANT Anthony Perkins to clean up the murder and not be found out.

~The man is a liar and murderer, and I say that with all due respect.~

reply

[–] TheDuchessofM 17 years ago

I did!

reply

[–] killingyouguy 17 years ago

I enjoyed the movie up until the point it looked like he wasn't going to get away with it. So about 8/10's of the movie was great, then it was going to end up like all the other mysteries. Bad guy never wins. So it goes from being great to being another typical mystery. If he'd gotten away it would have been more unique. And it's so similar to Strangers on a Train that it would have been nice if it differentiated by having him get away. And the explainations at the end weren't as good as Wendice's game. And as if the cops would still be looking into it after she'd be sentenced and was about to be executed. No, the ending ruined it. Sad really, oh well.

reply

[–] puirt-a-beul 17 years ago

Ummm ... you mean the one who cold-bloodedly planned the murder of his wife?
And then blackmailed another bloke into doing it?

Sure! He's got my full backing! He's such a decent chap!!

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

[–] wtl471629 17 years ago

puirt Good one! :)

reply

[–] skeletonrecords 17 years ago

Well that's the point isn't it?
We're led to believe that Tony will get away with it, because the other 2 people are IMMORAL yet, just at the end Tony gets caught.

Basically, no one wins. One character is caught by the law and the other 2 are caught by their own guilt. Hitchcock was always good at casting the "victims" in an immoral light. So we, as the audience, don't really know who to root for.

I'm glad that the Tony character was cold because otherwise it would be very easy for us to root for the other two - but no, we're left to decide which "sins" we are more comfortable with.

reply

[–] tseybert 10 years ago

I don't have much trouble with being sympathetic with the people who weren't plotting a murder and blackmailing another fellow to do the killing for them.

Janet! Donkeys!

reply

[–] jarmovie 17 years ago

No, jmobleyj, you're not alone. I wanted him to get away with it too.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Serenella 17 years ago

No, it's not just you. I wanted him to get away with it too.

reply

[–] erdmenger11 17 years ago

yea i also wanted him to get away with it

reply

[–] joan_h-smith-1 17 years ago

And so did I.

(By the way, I really didn't want Bates (Psycho) to get away with what he had done, though.)

reply

[–] armagezon 17 years ago

HAHAHA!!!I just saw the movie and wanted to post the exact same thread!!!I find it cool that most of you wanted him not to be caught,i myself swor when he opened the door!!!I wish he had gotten away!

pacino,nicholson,deniro,hanks in a movie by scorcese,written by tarantino...am i asking too much?

reply