The 4th Wonderful Grace Kelly Blogathon: Dial M for Murder (1954)

banner-5Virginie at The Wonderful World of Cinema and Emily at The Flapper Dame are hosting The 4th Wonderful Grace Kelly Blogathon to honour Grace Kelly, the icon of beauty and elegance. She was an outstanding actress, who worked most notably with Alfred Hitchcock (see Rear Window (1954) and To Catch a Thief (1955)). In Dial M for Murder, Kelly is Margot Wendice, the wealthy wife of an ex professional tennis player Tony Wendice, played by Ray Milland. She is to become the centre of the plot whereby the husband hires a hitman to kill the wife. Kelly’s character (that wonderful lady in red, and then in blue) comes off as a beautiful, brave and stoic woman who wants personal happiness, and would have stolen the show completely if not for the intricate, clever and psychologically-interesting plot, and the cunning personality of Tony Wendice, played brilliantly by Milland.  

Dial M for MurderDial M for Murder [1954] – ★★★★

You know you are in for a treat when a film you are about to see is made by Alfred Hitchcock. This time around, the director is basing his film on a screenplay by Frederick Knott and is concerned with the proving of guilt, rather than with the usual “whodunit” mystery. Dial M for Murder starts with the blackmail and the deceit by the wife of her husband, but it ends in an unexpected area. The interesting thing about this film is that we know from the beginning who is the (attempted) murderer, and we follow every step to the conclusion, but we are still in for some surprises. Initially, that is because the murder of Margot, as planned by her husband Tony, does not exactly go according to plan.

Margot, Tony’s wife, and Mark Halliday, a murder-mystery writer, are a couple in love, and Margot starts to receive anonymous messages blackmailing her about the love letter from Mark which she kept in her bag and which got stolen. Tony invites an old school acquaintance Charles to his apartment to blackmail him in turn so that he murders his wife. This is so Tony inherits the money of Margot after her death (he already senses she wants to leave him). Charles dutifully arrives to carry out his evil deed at Wendice’s place of residence, but few things go according to plan. Hitchcock is interested in human psychology, in the motivations of killers and in the plotting of a perfect crime. Thus, special attention in the movie is paid to why Tony may want to kill his wife, why Margot may be interested in killing Charles (her alleged blackmailer), and what unseen, psychological game (or a contest of wits) may be going on between the killer and the detective. 

Dial M for Murder picThe attention to detail and camera-work are also exceptional in this movie. Everything in Dial M for Murder turns on those little details and objects, be it Margot’s little maroon-coloured bag, the keys to their house or the love letter. Tony himself is obsessed with the timing and little details of his own planned murder, telling Charles the precise time he will call home so that his wife may answer (and Charles may, at this point, start to murder her), and Tony is also obsessed with fingerprints, making sure that they are not traceable to either Charles or himself. The incredible thing about the film is that even when the twist is known, the plot does not stop with its surprises. Tony knows his plan to murder Margot failed, but he still manages to turn failures to his advantages. He starts to think quick on his feet, devising a plan B and carrying it out successfully (or so he initially thinks).

The film may not be strong on emotional investment or romance, and some characters are thinly drawn, but if we realise that the focus here was on a perfect crime committed in one single location, this is not such a big criticism for a film that primarily wants to show and underline the thinking processes of the killer and the detective. The characters that matter the most are drawn clearly. It is pure pleasure to watch Milland because he is so “deliciously dislikeable” in his role. He comes across as a ruthless psychopath that only thinks about personal gain, and the fact that in the end he wants some brandy and congratulates everyone on the job of discovering the attempted murderer just shows how little he cares about virtually everything in life. Then comes Inspector Hubbard to the scene, who is there “to solve” or rather understand the attempted murder committed. Williams, playing Hubbard, may be an imposing figure, but it is still a relief to find the character so unassuming and even self-deprecating. Inspector definitely tries to flatter Tony and pretends to go with his story (that is the way to treat egoistical characters like Tony), but Hubbard’s brilliant thinking also leads to him orchestrating the most intense and admirable traps for a criminal on screen. 

Dial M for Murder may not be the best of Hitchcock’s creations, but the film has a clever, thought-provoking plot with tense moments, whose logical conclusion proves very satisfying upon watching and will please many fans of detective thrillers. The film also benefits from strong direction and acting work: Kelly is convincing as Margot, a woman who wants happiness and justice, Milland, as her husband, is the personification of cunningness and psychopathy, and John Williams, as Inspector Hubbard, is that grey-cells-working-fast detective who will make any ending of a detective story memorable. 

30 thoughts on “The 4th Wonderful Grace Kelly Blogathon: Dial M for Murder (1954)”

  1. Some great insights into what I feel is a solid Hitchcock story which takes (as you point out) a different approach from the regular whodunit. I’ve read reviews that have buried this film but I feel it deserves far better in an assessment of its’ qualities. As you also state, the focus is the relationship between the detective and the killer – and I often see their interaction as a dance where one is waiting for the other to trip up and make a mistake. Grace Kelly is simply breath-taking and I love the shot you have included of her in red. Thanks for a great write-up!


  2. Fascinating review! I love how you discussed the importance of details in this film. It’s so true!
    I have to say, in my opinion, this was Grace Kelly’s best performances in a Hitchcock film. It shows a lot of nuances.
    Thanks a lot for your participation to our blogathon!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I rank Dial M for Murder pretty highly in Hitchcock’s filmography. It may not have the iconic visuals of his other great work but I agree the plot is strong. To me it’s one of his best-told and most gripping.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I am not sure how high I will rank it because I have so many favourites, Psycho, The Birds, Rope, etc. but I guess, as people mentioned above, it deserves a place among Hitchcock’s best. Hats off also to the director for producing such consistently excellent body of work.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. I feel Dial M is an under rated Hitchcock classic- and many are turned off by it because its a “limited setting movie” but this is much better than Lifeboat (in my opinion!) and has a real suspicion about it- that phone call moment is so chilling!!! and again the visuals here are completely taken for granted- Grace’s clothes ell a story as do the lighting and camera angles! and Milliard probably his best role- even better than his oscar performance for Lost weekend- here is more dimensional of a character! Thank you so much for writing in the blogtathon and I will see you at the next one!!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes, exactly that – it is underrated because it is one location movie. The same story is with Hitchcock’s Rope, which is also one location movie, and some people do not “get” it or enjoy it as much as other films. That’s a pity. And, you are so right, those camera angles did play such an important part in Dial M for Murder. When the investigation ongoing or when Tony explains how the murder should be carried out, there is a ceiling? camera looking down, that was impressive, and you can feel how Hitchcock is concerned with every element of this mystery and the way it should be presented to us.

      Thanks for having me as a participant and I can see what a great success the blogathon was.


  5. I really enjoyed your take on this! Especially how you delved into what really drives the film. Grace’s performance in this film has grown on me overtime, and I totally agree that if Milland hadn’t played the role of her husband, she would’ve stolen the film.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Brilliant film. The story and the performances are both equally terrific. It’s hard to disagree that is really Ray Milland’s shining moment, but Grace lends some solid support.

    The stunning red dress she wears in this is one of my favourite screen costumes.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Oh, goodness, what a movie this was. It’s nearly a screwball if it wasn’t so thrilling and intense. Characters coming in and out of screen, motivations flying here and there. It’s been so long since I’ve last seen it – I should probably watch it again. Great review.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Agreed: the characters are not complex, but it’s more about the murder and the fall-out. Like you said, Hitchcock gives us a satisfying conclusion.

    I had the chance to see this on the big screen, in 3D, and I really enjoyed it. The fatal moment where Grace Kelly grabs her scissors worked really well in that format.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. […] “You can only get the suspense element going by giving the audience information [beforehand]“, used to say Alfred Hitchcock (The Birds [1963], Psycho [1960]). A “deliciously” thrilling, “murdering” premise is at the core of Rope – two friends, who consider themselves above the morality of other men, kill another young men, their acquittance and an “inferior”. One invitee to their aftermath-feast is their former Professor (Stewart) who starts to suspect the duo’s horrifying deed. This underrated film is claustrophobic, suspenseful, thrilling and through-provoking. Hitchcock also successfully converted into a film a play by Frederick Knott titled Dial M for Murder. […]


  10. Hello, I enjoyed reading your excellent analysis of an underappreciated Hitchcock film. I am always impressed by Milland when he’s in the phone booth calling Margot and how he masks his distress in that scene with his voice but not his face.

    I’d like to invite you to a blogathon I’m hosting next month about Bernard Herrmann. Would love to have you join us. I’ll leave the link below for you if you’re interested.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That’s a great idea for a blogathon and thanks very much for inviting me. I know we are spoilt for choice when it comes to Herrmann and you are right to allow only one entry per film, but it seems that most popular films have already been chosen, so I can’t say I commit 100%. I am still to see Brian De Palma’s Obsession which Bernard Herrmann scored, but I can’t guarantee I can provide a review. Sisters by Brian De Palma is also interesting, but I think I already wrote about it on another website…

      Liked by 1 person

  11. You’re most welcome! I couldn’t agree more, we really are spoiled when it comes to Herrmann. He left behind so much for us to appreciate. To focus on his early career I chose to narrow the blogathon down to films from the beginning of his career to 1965. I’m not sure if you came across this post yet, but I’ve compiled a list of unclaimed films. I’ll leave the link below for you if you’re interested.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.