Hitchcock in 3D! Is is worth it?

There were a couple of different things that occurred in my last trip to the Eastman House to view a film. One, I was sitting much farther back than my usual (yet unofficial) middle seat in the fourth row as well as sitting at an angle. Second, the film I was watching, Hitchcock's thriller based on a play Dial M for Murder, was in 3D. Now, I had no idea this film was shot in 3D yet the first time I saw this film on the Eastman schedule, I was intrigued by how the master of suspense would make use of the added perspective. I was familiar with the film as well as the famous killing scene (WARNING: if you have not seen this film but would like the suspense to be retain for your first view I think it is a good time to tell you not to read any further) but this whole notion of the third dimension struck me as curious.


Now, I'll give a short spiel of how I feel about 3D, and it might come of as slightly hard-edged, but here is goes. I generally see nothing spectacular in the use of 3D, in that it adds nothing to the narrative expression of the film. Yes, most of it is used for a certain level of immersion yet 2D can do that just as well, and that is one  huge yet subtle reason why 2D has reigned supreme and the third dimension gives no threat in replacing it as the dominate mode of perspective. Yes, popularly, it is an attracting element to have, especially in these overblown blockbuster films. Nevertheless, it doesn't add to the narrative and I am not willing to spend that much money to see a film in that manner. Plus, there is a curious annoyance I find when wearing the glasses; it almost seems like the screen gets small. Maybe it is illusory (well, actually it is, but whatever) but this phenomenon alleviates any of the classic grandeur I feel when I am at a theatre seeing many stars, like Grace Kelly, larger than life.


Many people who have disliked Dial M for Murder think it lacks any flash of Hitchcock's other films and that there is a very analytic approach to it all that seems banal. It is a fair assessment; the film is based off a play and is constructed like a play-film since it really only takes place in one room. I feel, though, that it brings out more wit and thought rather than activity, which is done well with solid performances by the main characters and a entertaining performance by Robert Cumming as the detective. It is a film in which many of the characters are thrown into situations that seem impossible to get out. I found the scene in which Tony essentially dismantles Swann's whole way of life and history as psychologically intense and complex. Aesthetically, Hitchcock, uses space as a way to explore character tension as well as highlight objects of interest towards certain characters and related to the crime. In fact, I saw some shot compositions that made use of 3D remarkably to the point that I regarded the the depth as a certain realm of character tension and dynamism.


A prime example, of course, is the climatic scene where Swann attempts to kill Mary. The short, yet lingering and suspenseful, moments are heightened by the perceived depth that is illuminated by the third dimension as Swann's hands slowly approach an unsuspecting Mary. I would also like to think the lighting, a high contrast setup which leaves much of Swann's body in shadow, helps to draws us into this perspective. Later in the film, after the attempt went terribly wrong, Tony must sneak a key back into Mary's handbag. Hitchcock's composition uses depth to increase the anxiety of Tony. Tony, slouched over the dead body of Swann, where he thinks the key is, is in the foreground, with the handbag on a table in the middle ground and Mary in the background in one shot. Then, the scene cuts and the handbag appears on the opposite side of the frame in the extreme foreground while Tony appears in the background. The 3D brings out, literally, the points of interest the hold with them the most suspense and importance. The interplay between these two shots, which seem almost worthless to explain with the use of three dimensional screenshots, use depth as a way to entice tension between characters, where their distance between one another and objects of interest correlates to this tension.

It is funny, for as much as I don't care for 3D, I felt it was appropriate for this film, especially due to the setting limitations due to the source material. The film, as it unfolds in narrative, unfolds new ways of looking at the room, as it seems to parallel the characters' new way of looking at the same situation. The 3D, though it is not extraordinary at these points, makes these new shots more revealing and makes us regard shifts in character dynamics with more concern, as when Mark starts creating this pseudo-absurd idea that Tony planned the whole crime (before the truth was revealed) and the way in which Mark moves around the room with excitement and a slight case of blind ambition for the love of Mary. 


I watched the film, as I said before, from an angle, the crowd was visible between me and the screen. They were having a good time with this film, which has as much humor as it does mystery, and Hitchcock seems to enjoy making fun of his homeland in the character of the detective, whose mannerisms, in a more subtle way, echo the later performances of Monty Python. Hitchcock has a way of injecting profusely dry humor in moments of cynical seriousness, in much of the same way as filmmakers like the Coen brothers do. It works, and in this film, it is done well and the audience responded to such elements. Dial M for Murder is a great Hitchcock film in which is might be hard for me to return to it with one less dimension. Now, I'm not a convert or anything, the ticket was six bucks for this film, anyways, but I can see what filmmakers could possibly do but don't since they align their techniques to 3D attractions at amusement parks.