jjgittes Blog

Under discussion:

Dial M for Murder  (1954)

I only wrote down two notes during my watching of DIAL M FOR MURDER last month on Reel 13: "They cut right to the chase" and "Why does Hitchcock love tennis players?" The former is a reference to the efficiency with which the film begins (efficiency is one of many Hitchcock trademark qualities) – the film opens with Grace Kelly kissing her American lover. They talk briefly, Ray Milland (a retired tennis player in this film) enters and the murder plot begins. No time wasted. The second note refers to the random abundance of tennis players in Hitchcock's milieu (STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, which aired on Reel 13 in May, is another notable example). It's not really that relevant, but it struck me as interesting.

It's not these notes, in particular, that strike me as much as the infinitesimal amount of them. I usually fill a whole page worth of notes when watching any Reel 13 film, Classic or Indie. I think there are three reasons why DIAL M FOR MURDER didn't motivate me to put pen to paper as much: 1) It's a film I've seen a million times, including recently enough at the 2006 Bryant Park Summer Film Festival, 2) it's a good film – very solid and well made (do you expect anything less from Hitch?) and therefore, I was left with very little to complain about and 3) it's a pretty simple film. It's based on a stage play and Hitchcock doesn't try to make it anymore ambitious than that. Almost all the action takes place in the Milland/Kelly living room and the majority of the film is discussion. The built-in tension, plus Hitchcock's adept camerawork and pacing help to prevent the talkiness of the script from ever getting overly dull.

With all that said, the simplicity of DIAL M FOR MURDER (and Hitchcock would probably agree with me) prevents it from being a great movie. In all likelihood, it was a small project that he could work on while he prepared some of his other triumphs of the 50's like REAR WINDOW (1957), VERTIGO (1958), NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959). It's not emotionally complex like VERTIGO or an epic cross-country adventure like NORTH BY NORTHWEST. It's not even a whodunit, since we know the perp from the outset. It's more of a howdunit and that is and always has been its appeal. Despite its lack of ambition, DIAL M FOR MURDER achieves its goals and as a result, provides for a pleasant and interesting 105 minutes of entertainment.

Under discussion:

Lust for Life  (1956)

LUST FOR LIFE, a recent Reel 13 Classic that aired on August 9th, was one of many 50's films that I studied intensely for an article I was writing for a nationwide periodical (future Reel 13 films MOBY DICK and GIANT are others). My chief issue with LUST FOR LIFE has always been that it attempts to cover too much ground in the life of Vincent Van Gogh. The result of which is that every aspect of his life feels rushed and therefore empty – from his time as a missionary with the coal miners to his brief relationship with the older woman Christine to his bizarre, heated and intense "friendship" with Paul Gaughin (Anthony Quinn). None of these potentially interesting detours in Van Gogh's life ever seem to last long enough on screen to resonate emotionally. On the other hand, the film is a masterful achievement in color cinematography (appropriately, the live recreation of Van Gogh's paintings are particularly impressive) and surprisingly, a very effective and thorough portrayal of mental illness – especially for the 1950's.

If the film is successful from that standpoint, it's no thanks to Kirk Douglas as Van Gogh himself. He campaigned heavily for the role, eventually optioning the source book himself to guarantee himself the opportunity. But as it happens, he just doesn't have the chops. He is frequently melodramatic, employing the wide-eyed, screaming approach to his complex character. But director Vincente Minnelli manages to counter-balance Douglas' histrionics with some great shot choices that do a fabulous job of offering insight into Vincent's mental state – his framing and angles allow the viewer to get inside the head of the troubled painter. Additionally, Miklos Rosza's beautifully nuanced score helps greatly in these moments, with dissonant music that echoed the tension and strain that Van Gogh seemed to constantly feel (although the sound mix of the copy that aired on Reel 13 was bizarrely problematic – consistently going in and out in volume). These elements contributed to making Van Gogh's psychosis palpable.

So, it is my conclusion that this was the element of Van Gogh's life that they should have tried to focus on. The film currently only covers a period between 1879 and Vincent's death in 1890, but it is such a tumultuous eleven years that no part of it ever has enough screen time. Van Gogh is constantly moving and passing through relationships, which makes eleven years seem like thirty. If they had tightened up their narrative and began with Vincent disappearing to Arles, they could have added more detail to his relationship with Gaughin, which led to the famous ear incident. These last three years of his life not only featured the most mental instability, but was also the most creatively prolific of his career, which is even further argument that had they concentrated on just those last few years of his life – those years in which the film really starts to take off - the whole experience might have been more effective.

(for more information on "Lust for Life" or any other Reel 13 Classic, check out www.reel13.org)