Dial M for Murder - 3D (Alfred Hitchcock, 1954)

DIAL M FOR MURDER IN 3D 
reviewed by Kiomars Vejdani

To grasp the full dramatic impact of Dial M for Murder it must be seen in its 3D format, the way it was envisioned and conceived by Hitchcock.

Although 3D films have been in existence since 1920's  (with Anaglyph system, creating separate images for each eye with the use of complementary red and green colours), the real birth  3D cinema started in early 1950's  with the advent of Polaroid  system (using polarised light to create two separate images).   Among the forerunners of using the system was Warner Brothers starting with House of Wax, followed by some other 3D films such as Charge at the Feather River, Hondo, and of course,  Hitchcock’’s Dial M for Murder.      

However,  due to the difficulties of the system, after a short while the companies were discouraged to continue with its use.  (It was expensive due to having to print two prints to be projected simultaneously by two separate projectors.  Besides the incomplete harmony and synchronisation of the two images could give the audience a severe headache. )

 The 3D system was forgotten and out of use for about three decades before its use was started again in 1980's.  Later it was technically refined (especially with contribution from IMAX 3D) and routinely used commercially specially for its spectacular effects.  A more serious use of  3D was taken up by James Cameron in his artistic creation of the magical world of Avatar.  . His efforts were followed by works of Wim Wenders in Pina and Werner Herzog in Caves of Our Forgotten Dreams.  Two documentary films worlds apart in their choice of subjects but having a common aim of using 3D effect to create a physical space to give their films an extra dimension in reality. . Later they were joined by Martin Scorsese in Hugo by using 3D effect to give the nostalgic world of silent cinema and the magic of Georges Melies a concrete and tangible reality.  These film makers were all aiming at use of  3D as part of film language.

The Greatest Documentaries of All Time

شماره اول آگوست ماهنامۀ سينمايي «سايت اند ساوند» نتايج يك رأي‌گيري تازه را چاپ كرده است؛ اين‌بار انتخاب بهترين مستندهاي تاريخ سينما توسط 340 منتقد و فيلمساز. من هم يكي از شركت كنندگان هستم.

نتايج نهايي عبارتند از:

مردي با دوربين فيلم‌برداري (ژيگا ورتوف، 1929)

شوا (كلود لانزمان، 1985)

بي‌آفتاب (كريس ماركر، 1982)

شب و مه (آلن رنه، 1955)

خط باريك آبي (ارول موريس، 1989)

خاطرات يك تابستان (ژان روش و ادگار مورن، 1961)

نانوك شمال (رابرت فلاهرتي، 1922)

خوشه‌چينان و من (آنيس واردا، 2000)

پشت سر را نگاه نكن (دي اِي پني‌بيكر، 1967)

باغ‌هاي خاكستري (برادران مِي‌زِلز، 1975)

Warp Without Weft (On David Fincher)

تار، بدونِ پود (و يكي دو استثناء)

يك سال پيش از آن‌كه هفت نظر همه را متوجه پديدۀ فينچر كند – كه مثل همه پديده‌هاي امروز آميزه‌اي بود از واقعيت و اغراق – اولين نماهاي كارگرداني شده توسط او – كشف شده توسط ما - در ويدئوكليپ Love is strong گروه رولينگ استونز ميخكوب كننده بودند. آن‌زمان MTV در اوج تب «ويدئوكليپ مولف»، اسم كارگردان را هم زير اسم قطعه و آلبوم و گروه مي‌نوشت. كيت ريچاردز گروه رولينگ استونز به هيولاي عظيمي تبديل شده بود كه كينگ كونگ‌وار به آسمان‌خراش‌ها لگد مي‌زد. ميك جگر از روي بزرگ‌راه‌ها مي‌پريد. طبل چارلي واتز يك منبع آب عظيم بود كه با چوب‌هايي به بزرگي تير برق روي آن درام مي‌زد. آدم‌هاي اين فيلم كوتاه مضطرب كننده، گيج، بيمار، تنها و ترسناك بودند. وقتي استونزهاي غول‌پيكر از شهر سياه و سفيد دور مي‌شدند و به طرف دشت مي‌رفتند، اسم فينچر آن زير ظاهر مي‌شد.

فيلم‌هاي فينچر روي ايده‌هايي ايده‌هاي پرطمطراق و تكان‌دهنده كه براي رسيدن به هيجان و توجه محض در فيلمي كوتاه مناسب‌ترند بنا شده‌اند. اما فيلم‌نامه‌هاي او هميشه با جزيياتي موثر اين ايده‌ها را پر و بال مي‌دهند و فيلم بزرگ‌ و بزرگ‌تر مي‌شود، اما گسترش آن فقط در سطح است. فينچر تمايل دارد تا جايي كه چشم كار مي‌كند و تمام افق ديد بيننده را تصاوير او اشغال كنند. او مثل اشترنبرگ، افولس و وايلر هنرمند تصاوير متراكم است،؛ اما ايده‌هايش ساده‌تر از آنند كه بتوانند زير بار تصاوير دوام بياورند. در آخر فقط يك صحنه كوچك عايدمان مي‌شود. صحنه‌اي كه مي‌توانست هرچه زودتر ظاهر شود و فيلم را به پايان برساند، در دقيقه چهل، يك ساعت بعد يا پنج ساعت بعد. بنابراين وقتي هميشه كششي براي رسيدن به اين صحنه واپسين وجود دارد، ما با فن‌سالاري منضبط روبروييم. مكانيزمي كه او آفريده آن‌قدر فريبنده هست كه بخواهيم فيلم را بلافاصله يك‌بار ديگر (زودياك)، يا بارها (هفت) ببينيم. اما اگر اين پايان را تصادفاً – مثل بنجامين باتن – جايي در وسط‌هاي فيلم بگذارد، فيلم يك ساعت قبل از روشن شدن چراغ‌هاي سالن و قبل از آن‌كه آپاراتچي، تماشاگر و منتقد با خبر بشوند، تمام شده است.

Film Ads in Iran#9: John Ford

7 Women

Film Ads in Iran#31: The Frogmen (1951)

The Frogmen (Lloyd Bacon, 1951)

Iranian New Wave Masters Interviewed

With the precious help of Houshang Golmakani I have interviewed the key figures of Iranian New Wave cinema, Dariush Mehrjui, Kamran Shirdel and Masoud Kimiai.

Not surprisingly, the attempt to interview the key figures of Iranian New Wave cinema turned out to be an intercontinental affair. Tracking down the masters of that period, who are scattered across the world, proved that their lives were as “interrupted” as their cinema.

 In the following interviews we asked three directors to give their answers to each of these four questions: (1) “How conscious were you of a New Wave in Iranian cinema during the 1970s?” (2) “What did you achieve in your film(s) in this period which hadn’t already been tried in Iranian cinema?” (3) “After four or five decades, how do you think those films stand in your career, and in a larger context, in the history of Iranian cinema?” And (4) “What were your cinematic influences?”

READ THE INTERVIEWS HERE

Iranian Documentary Today

حرفه: مستندساز

سينماي مستند ايران هميشه از سينماي داستاني‌اش جسورانه‌تر و نوآورانه‌تر بوده است. درست است كه بسياري از اساتيد سينماي ايران مانند عباس كيارستمي، كامران شيردل و پرويز كيمياوي كارشان را با سينماي مستند آغاز كرده‌اند، اما براي آن‌ها معمولاً فيلم مستند سكويي براي رسيدن به سينماي داستاني بوده است. اما مستندساز امروز ايراني فيلم مستند را بيش از هرگونۀ ديگر سينمايي مي‌ستايد و ارج مي‌نهد. مستندسازان امروز ايران در سينماي مستند هستند، به خاطر خود سينماي مستند. سينماي مستند امروز ايران هم هدف است و هم وسيله.

مستند ايراني امروز دفتر خاطرات فيلمساز است؛ اتاق تاريك اعترافات اوست. در جامعه‌اي كه دربارۀ هرچيز در طول تاريخ مدرن صد ساله‌اش با خجالت حرف زده شده اين سينما صراحتي باورنكردني دارد. سينماي است با روحيه‌اي صلح‌طلب كه تشنه گفتگو با ديگران است. مصمم است كه تصوير مخدوش ايران را بازسازي كند، اما دربارۀ زواياي تاريك زندگي در ايران هيچ تعارفي نمي‌كند. احساسي كه در همه اين مستندها  وجود دارد بين تلاشي شجاهانه براي زندگي، خلق زيبايي و زنده نگه‌داشتن خوشي‌ها با ماليخولياي مهاجرت، جدايي، تنهايي و هراس از جنگ دوپاره‌ شده، اما سبك فيلم‌ها يكدستي‌اي دارد كه تنها مي‌تواند شاهدي باشد بر استقامت فرهنگي و تدوام روحيۀ سينمادوستي در يكي از سينمادوست‌ترين كشورهاي جهان.

Cinemadoosti: Film Folklore in Iran

I have written an essay for Sight & Sound about the Iranian unique reinvention of cinephilia which can be read on their website, here.

Poetics of Space: Berlin vs. IBM

Shots from The Third Generation [Die Dritte Generation] (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1979)
City: West Berlin
Background building: Gedächtniskirche at Breitscheidplatz
The film on TV: The Devil, Probably [Le diable probablement] (Robert Bresson, 1977)

Cinemadoosti: Documenting Iran

My short essay written as the introduction to the Open City Docs' retrospective of Iranian cinephile documentaries. The screenings will take place between June 17-22 , 2014, in various venues in London. On Saturday 21 June we are hosting a special event called Celluloid Underground, which will be chaired by me. All this is dedicated to Mahnaz Mohammadi.

For more than half a century the Iranian documentary movement has been synonymous with a cinema of boldness and revisionism, which reflects a spirit of cultural resistance in the most unexpected ways. Iranian documentary film today differentiates itself from that of the pre-revolutionary period, in employing a diversity of styles – something quite unique in the history of Iranian cinema. One can detect an almost systematic depiction of minorities and marginal figures, and the geographical focus is shifted away from Tehran to other cities and cultures across the country. Even more striking is the strong presence of women filmmakers in a male dominated industry.

Contemporary Iranian documentary filmmaking reveals a widespread urge among artists for establishing dialogues within Iranian society. The work becomes a personal diary for the filmmakers, and their dark confession room. Within a traditional society whose cinema stammers every time it comes to addressing the private world, the new documentary movement is brutally honest and open.

There is a clear determination throughout these films to reconstruct the distorted image of Iran frequently held by those outside of the country; although no compromises are made with regard to the darker aspects of life in Iran – the suppression, the censorship and the contradictions. Even those documentary films drawn from the Iranian diaspora are emotionally torn between a passion for life and the cinema, and a melancholic contemplation on migration, exile and solitude. In spite of their mixed, sometime conflicting emotional registers, these films are stylistically as consistent as a Persian rug.

This brilliant, yet deprived area of film culture is still relatively unknown inside Iran. Iranian state television, the only source of audiovisual broadcasting within the country, refuses to show documentary films by the new generation and cinemas are only booked to screen popular fictional films. Despite these obstacles, the movement is far from being defeated or weakened. The existence of documentary film in Iran is vital. It is one of the last means by which a meaningful order can be given to the fragmented images of the country scattered across virtual communities, mobile phones and kept within old family albums. The Iranian documentarian today is able to combine disparate, historical media to create a highly personal narrative, and at the same time project questions and feelings that are part of the collective unconscious of Iran in the 21st century.

Iranian documentary filmmaking offers much-needed, alternative images of Iran and reveals continual artistic innovation where there is still a resistance to certain forms of personal expression. Recalling the words by which Robert Schumann once described the music of Franz Liszt, one gains a clear understanding from the artists represented in this programme, that filmmaking for them today “is no longer a question of this or that style [but] the pure expression of a bold nature determined to conquer fate not with dangerous weapons but by peaceful means of art.”