A perfect murder – a review: or how one's personal life influences enjoyment.

A wife is having an affair. Her husband finds out and wants to kill her for that (and the large inheritance of course). But how does one murder one’s wife – perfectly that is?

I like (almost love) the 1998 movie: a perfect murder. But the reason why is rather more subjective then, let’s say professional. Let’s just count my life down:

Childhood.
My mother is a bed-time storyteller ‘per default’. But even she –with her unlimited supply of fairytales- was, at certain moments in time, at her wits end. So she decided to tell me ‘crime stories’ instead. Especially those stories told by Agatha Christie and Alfred Hitchcock. Me, being six at the time (when does story-time truly end one might ask?) loved it. Particularly the ones in which a criminal gets caught by a simple mistake even six-year-old me could understand.

keep in mind that I was –at the time- desperately trying to steal candy from the candy jar without being caught.

My mother was unbeknownst giving me advice.

Preteen.
I saw Dial ‘M’ for murder (1954) for the first time. I loved every second of it. I loved Grace Kelly for reasons I didn’t fully understand yet. And I loathed Ray Millard because he was so coy about the fact that he was trying to kill his wife.
I also enjoyed seeing  Anthony Dawson as the poor smuck set up to be the by-proxy killer. This is the same guy who got himself killed by James Bond in Dr. No (1962). This actor will always be known as the ‘second in command’. I pity him for that; but then again, ‘we’ (the public) will also always love him for that!

What I especially enjoyed at this young age is the amount of planning that goes into committing a perfect crime. A trick that works just as well for planning your homework.

Teenager.
When I was a teenager I won a prize: one year of free movie tickets (two tickets a month). Since I didn’t have anyone to go with me at the time I saw a lot of movies. One of them being a remake of my, personal favourite movie: Dial ‘M’ for murder this time called: A perfect murder (which is, by the way, a ‘perfect’ title).
At the time, I was shocked! This movie was far too American (and overacted).

And this was long before I saw the Christopher Plummer's version (1981). I only saw that (brave attempt of a) movie recently.

Here we have Michael Douglas playing the darker version of Gordon Gekko. Gwyneth Paltrow balancing her way between a coy anti-feminist house-wife and a strong independent woman. And the whole threat for the woman facing a possible death-sentence for a crime she didn’t commit was left way out the door. But most of all; the shock of seeing David Suchet (Mr. Hercule Poirot himself) as a clueless detective broke the movie for me.

At the time I didn’t like the movie much. I enjoyed the fact that Hollywood dared to try another version of a ‘perfect movie’ (more about ‘prefect’ later). But since I didn't like it I moved on.

As I grew up.
As I grew up I started to reject this movie more and more. For the various reasons I’ve hinted at (above). I didn’t see if for at least ten years.
It took time, for me, to accept the fact that A perfect murder isn't a very 'perfect’ movie. But it would be rather dismissive of me to call it a ‘bad’ movie. Or even a ‘bad’ remake for that matter.

Growing older.
It was only when I ‘proudly’ wore the old T-shirt of this movie (another contest I won back then –true story) in a factory-cleaning-job ,that I started to realize the work that’s involved ‘making’ this movie. It all has to do with the simple brilliant poster that featured prominently on my T-shirt. Each time I took the T-shirt out of the wash to get to work I was reminded of the movie. And one day I rewatched it.

The way Michael Douglas posed on the poster (and my T-shirt): brilliant!

Daring the crime.
It is a pretty brave thing to remake a classic. And by the time A perfect murder was made Dial ‘M’ for murder was considered a classic. It was pretty much up there with Psycho (1960) and Vertigo (1958). Not in the ‘top 3’. But important nonetheless!

The original Dial ‘M’ for murder,though, isn’t one of the great ‘Hitchcock-ian’ movies. It’s pretty much a stage play caught on screen (much like Rope [1948] – but with a lot less tricks-up-the-sleeve). The main gimmick of this movie was the 3D-aspect (whatever James Cameron tells you; the technology isn’t that ‘new’). So there is a wonderful shot in this movie which involves (the great) Grace Kelly reaching ‘into the audience’ for her scissors.
The rest of the movie, however, is rather coy. Just people talking.

Hitchcock probably liked the idea of 3D, but he certainly wasn’t going to let it get into the way of good storytelling.
And that’s what Dial ‘M’ for murder really is; It’s a small –stage play- story with some beneficial 3D effects in the tension scenes. But most of all it is a solid tale about a man wanting to murder his wife.

Hitchcock, in this sense, transpired the ‘gimmick of the age’ by giving the movie an unbreakable story that could still work without all the ‘mumbo jumbo’ (of 3D).

So, to be honest, the original wasn't that untouchable to begin with. As long as the remake didn’t hurt the core story too much it would be fine. In this sense the challenge the producers posed to the remaking moviemakers was a simple: “remake Dial ‘M’ for murder. This time without the 3D shenanigans!”

This challenge would’ve been easy, if not for the additional requirement: “make it contemporary!”.
The question of whoever made this choice will never be answered. But one thing is perfectly clear: the choice of the era made all the difference.

Can we make a perfect murder: today?
So now you –the movie maker- are posed with a challenge. What to do? What is the budget? How far can we take this story?
Budget-wise the first choice was made rather easily: since he move would be contemporary the looming death-sentence would be scripted out.

Second; contemporary, means upping the characters. The wife has become more active and (incidentally) so does the husband.
So the wife has to perform an investigation of her own (and destroy he husband along the way). And the husband actually has to kill somebody!

It’s the late 90s we’re talking about. A new ‘view’ on matters as it were. Which also means turning the tables and making the wife’s secret lover the murder-by-proxy.

Getting Old.
Once you realize this, pieces fall into place. The original movie was perfect for its time. The later movie was perfect for ITS time. And, honestly, one shouldn’t compare the two!
So, as I became older I started to enjoy A perfect movie on its own merrit. Meaning: without the baggage of its predecessor, and in this context of the era the movie works like a charm.

The way Gwyneth Palrow uses the gun in the final scene is logical (right for the time) in every sense. The way Michael Douglas’s character bends the truth throughout the movie is flawless and very probable for a ‘high functioning sociopath’ as most bankers are (remember my comment about Gordon Gekko).
For a 1998 movie A perfect murder is quite good! It is the ultimate movie of the year because this is exactly what we wanted back then. But, alas, it got dragged down by its (superior) predecessor.