Skip to main content

Is there a difference between crows and blackbirds?

The Birds
(1963)

(SPOILERS) Perhaps the most impressive thing about The Birds is how palpably it succeeds in spite of itself. Other Hitchcocks have been beleaguered by a lead not quite delivering the goods, such that the overall piece has suffered (for example, Foreign Correspondent). Often with the consequence of drawing attention to supporting characters (the aforementioned, and also Stage Fright). Here, Hitch has two so-so leading players, and yet you could almost believe he was deliberately making that work in the material’s favour. Certainly, the horror movie where the setting and the horror is the star, and the players neither here nor there, would become something of a staple in the decades ahead, usually as envisioned by grossly inferior filmmakers. And that’s the key. Because The Birds is the last great film of a master and as influential on the genre as its predecessor, Psycho. As much as aspects of it have aged – the special effects, but not nearly as much as you’d think – its essential power is as vital as ever.

Mrs Bundy: I have never known birds of different species to flock together.

Of course, there were those at the time who decried it as a lesser work. Hitch was, after all, asking for trouble. He’d gone from a low budget megahit made with a TV crew to being able to pick whatever he wanted; studios, well Universal, anticipated another bonanza. He was thus making a would-be blockbuster. And while he’d done that before (North by Northwest), this was all about his chutzpah, with no stars in sight to share the burden. Pauline Kael called complained “the effects take over…  and he fails to make the plot situations convincing. The script…  is weak, and the acting is so awkward that one doesn’t know how to take the characters”.

Salesman: Kill ‘em all. Get rid of the messy animals.

A good deal of this is fair comment, but what Kael misses is that Hitch’s overall confection triumphantly overcomes the limitations of its parts. Indeed, one might argue this is the truest definition of a classic film from the director, since it is rarely the case that he is dealing with entirely coherent plots or flawless casts. It’s the atmosphere that makes The Birds. The attention to build up, to rise and fall that comes with the waves of attacks. To silence (there is no score) and sound (the bird attacks, the attention to ambient sound, particularly with the last scene).

This is the stuff of great horror movies (although, in a sign of things to come, the director also takes the opportunity to go for it in the gore stakes. It’s an indicator, if one were necessary, that restriction can be the mother of creativity). Psycho gets the lion’s share of the attention for its influence on subsequent moviemakers and the genre itself, but The Birds’ influence is more elemental and fundamental. In Psycho, everything is laid bare. In The Birds, nothing is. Nature has rebelled, but the why is conspicuously and intentionally absent. It’s this that also makes it the granddaddy of apocalypse pictures, from zombies to, ah, the wind.

Mrs Bundy: It is mankind, rather, who insists upon making it difficult for life to exist on this planet.

But it has to be said, after the tour de force of Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh in Psycho, this comes across as if Hitch decided that film’s Vera Miles and John Gavin should be front and centre throughout. Except that I think both (Miles, definitely) would have been more interesting than Tippi Hedren and Rod Taylor. The former represents a bland facsimile of the Hitchcock blonde, without the mettle to really make a mark. The latter is a virtual parody of the rugged leading man, boasting a couple of bona fide big movie leads around this time (including The Time Machine) before drifting into B pictures. It’s as if, say, there was an attempt to fashion Jason Clarke as a leading man…

Melanie: I want to go through life jumping into fountains naked.

Except that, going back to the notion that one might almost see this as intentional, both of them sort of work as two-dimensional stock types. Hedren’s “wealthy, shallow playgirl” Melanie Daniels, chasing the man (Tayor’s Mitch Brenner) who scorns and rebukes her (Hedren, of course, suffered torments both physical and psychological on the shoot). It means the extended lead in, the bait-and-switch of a romantic comedy designed in much the same way as Psycho’s theft plot, engenders little engagement on the part of the viewer (who, obviously has been prepped by the title and is there for the good stuff). In Psycho, Leigh’s intense predicament makes for a perfectly decent premise in itself, even before Norman shows up with sandwiches. There’s no such lure in The Birds.

Mother in Diner: I think you’re the cause of all this. I think you’re evil. Evil!

And yet, the easily identifiable caricatures are in it for the picture’s long haul and should be considered in those terms. Taylor is just “there”, to manfully manhandle avian intrusions where necessary. Hedren’s essential brittleness works wonders when it comes to being confronted by Doreen Lang’s hysterical, witch-burning local, intent on laying the blame (this is clearly where The Mist gets its small-town paranoia). Jessica Tandy as Mitch’s over-possessive mother bears the brunt of the cackest-handed dialogue, insanely over-telegraphing the character’s motivations (“If your father were here…”) but hers is probably also the best performance in the picture.

The most striking one, though, comes from Suzanne Pleshette (later of Support Your Local Gunfighter) as Mitch’s spurned ex Annie Hayworth, now stuck hanging around as the local schoolteacher, obsessing over the man she can’t have. Hitch wondered if he’d been correct to kill her off, noting she survived until the finale in Evan Hunter’s original screenplay, where she was victim of the attack he transposed to Melanie. Thematically, it makes perfect sense, but in terms of sympathetic characterisation it’s a huge mistake, as Annie is muchmore winning than Melanie, and Pleshette’s performance much more potent in its jaded stoicism.

Mrs Bundy: I hardly think a few birds are going to bring about the end of the world.

Tom Milne in Time Out saw the film as the director at his best, calling The Birdsfierce and Freudian as well as great cinematic fun”. It’s certainly the case that the often brain-numbing cod psychology of previous Hitchcocks (Spellbound, Psycho) works to the picture’s benefit this time, because absolutely none of it is explained, even if it is frequently almost leeringly implied.

The scene of speculation in the café serves the function of a surrogate for unravelling the mystery, but as John Carpenter – who also created an unmotivated force of evil in Michael Myers – suggested, the real explanation is most plausibly that the birds are “a complete experience of the inner lives of our characters”. The love birds are something of a red herring in that regard. Instead, the attacks represent Melanie’s id unleashed, conniving that, through fowl means, she gets her man. Ensuring Cathy (Veronica Cartwright) comes onside is a piece of cake. Dispatching the competition (Annie) is, of course, essential. But bringing Lydia round requires something especially devious; the most astute move is that Melanie herself must be vulnerable, kindling Lydia’s mothering instinct. As a result, Melanie must be pecked into near catatonia at the climax.

Because he realised it so well, it’s easy to ignore that someone else calling the shots might have made attacking avians ridiculous and silly. For every killer shark (Jaws) or insidious ant (Phase IV) there are boring bees (The Swarm) or less than scary spiders (Arachnophobia). Hitchcock shoots with precision and clear understanding of what his effects are supposed to achieve. And for the most part, they stand the test of time. Instead, it’s those obvious blue screen shots of people “doing stuff” that tend to let the side down (“If ever he could get away without locations he would” said Pat Hitchcock).

Melanie: I sometimes go to bird shops on Fridays.

There are some truly great sequences here. The director’s twistedness is fully to the fore, particularly in the evident glee with which his birds attack small children; definitely not something you’d get now. There’s also the classic set up of the petrol station sequence, only slightly let down by the unintentionally laughable – Hitch thought it was stylistically distinctive – cuts to Melanie reacting to each new piece of mayhem. My favourite, though, is the build up outside the school, as Melanie sits smoking while birds slowly gather on the climbing frame behind her, all the while to the accompaniment of the class singing.

Hitchcock would continue directing for another decade and a half, but he’d find it increasingly difficult to regain his old mojo, either through attaching himself to unworthy material or failing to martial his old inventive flair with any consistency. Nevertheless, The Birds, and Psycho before it, evidence a filmmaker finding new ways not only to tell stories but also to wow audiences into his seventh decade. That’s no small achievement and testifies to his enduring talent and longevity.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

It’ll be like living in the top drawer of a glass box.

Someone’s Watching Me! (1978) (SPOILERS) The first of a pair of TV movies John Carpenter directed in the 1970s, but Someone’s Watching Me! is more affiliated, in genre terms, to his breakout hit ( Halloween ) and reasonably successful writing job ( The Eyes of Laura Mars ) of the same year than the also-small-screen Elvis . Carpenter wrote a slew of gun-for-hire scripts during this period – some of which went on to see the twilight of day during the 1990s – so directing Someone’s Watching Me! was not a given. It’s well-enough made and has its moments of suspense, but you sorely miss a signature Carpenter theme – it was by Harry Sukman, his penultimate work, the final being Salem’s Lot – and it really does feel very TV movie-ish.

As in the hokey kids’ show guy?

A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t think Mr Rogers could have been any creepier had Kevin Spacey played him. It isn’t just the baggage Tom Hanks brings, and whether or not he’s the adrenochrome lord to the stars and/or in Guantanamo and/or dead and/or going to make a perfectly dreadful Colonel Tom Parker and an equally awful Geppetto; it’s that his performance is so constipated and mannered an imitation of Mr Rogers’ genuineness that this “biopic” takes on a fundamentally sinister turn. His every scene with a youngster isn’t so much exuding benevolent empathy as suggestive of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang ’s Child Catcher let loose in a TV studio (and again, this bodes well for Geppetto). Extend that to A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood ’s conceit, that Mr Rogers’ life is one of a sociopathic shrink milking angst from his victims/patients in order to get some kind of satiating high – a bit like a rejuvenating drug, on that score – and you have a deeply unsettli

Who’s got the Figgy Port?

Loki (2021) (SPOILERS) Can something be of redeemable value and shot through with woke (the answer is: Mad Max: Fury Road )? The two attributes certainly sound essentially irreconcilable, and Loki ’s tendencies – obviously, with new improved super-progressive Kevin Feige touting Disney’s uber-agenda – undeniably get in the way of what might have been a top-tier MCU entry from realising its full potential. But there are nevertheless solid bursts of highly engaging storytelling in the mix here, for all its less cherishable motivations. It also boasts an effortlessly commanding lead performance from Tom Hiddleston; that alone puts Loki head and shoulders above the other limited series thus far.

I'm offering you a half-share in the universe.

Doctor Who Season 8 – Worst to Best I’m not sure I’d watched Season Eight chronologically before. While I have no hesitation in placing it as the second-best Pertwee season, based on its stories, I’m not sure it pays the same dividends watched as a unit. Simply, there’s too much Master, even as Roger Delgado never gets boring to watch and the stories themselves offer sufficient variety. His presence, turning up like clockwork, is inevitably repetitive. There were no particular revelatory reassessments resulting from this visit, then, except that, taken together – and as The Directing Route extra on the Blu-ray set highlights – it’s often much more visually inventive than what would follow. And that Michael Ferguson should probably have been on permanent attachment throughout this era.

What's a movie star need a rocket for anyway?

The Rocketeer (1991) (SPOILERS) The Rocketeer has a fantastic poster. One of the best of the last thirty years (and while that may seem like faint praise, what with poster design being a dying art – I’m looking at you Marvel, or Amazon and the recent The Tomorrow War – it isn’t meant to be). The movie itself, however, tends towards stodge. Unremarkable pictures with a wide/cult fanbase, conditioned by childhood nostalgia, are ten-a-penny – Willow for example – and in this case, there was also a reasonably warm critical reception. But such an embrace can’t alter that Joe Johnston makes an inveterately bland, tepid movie director. His “feel” for period here got him The First Avenger: Captain America gig, a bland, tepid movie tending towards stodge. So at least he’s consistent.

By whom will this be rectified? Your ridiculously ineffectual assassins?

The X-Files 3.2: Paperclip Paperclip recovers ground after The Blessing Way stumbled slightly in its detour, and does so with some of the series’ most compelling dramatics so far. As well as more of Albert performing prayer rituals for the sick (perhaps we could spend some time with the poor guy over breakfast, or going to the movies? No, all he’s allowed is stock Native American mysticism).

Here’s Bloody Justice for you.

Laughter in Paradise (1951) (SPOILERS) The beginning of a comedic run for director-producer Mario Zampa that spanned much of the 1950s, invariably aided by writers Michael Pertwee and Jack Davies (the latter went on to pen a spate of Norman Wisdom pictures including The Early Bird , and also comedy rally classic Monte Carlo or Bust! ) As usual with these Pertwee jaunts, Laughter in Paradise boasts a sparky premise – renowned practical joker bequeaths a fortune to four relatives, on condition they complete selected tasks that tickle him – and more than enough resultant situational humour.

That’s what it’s all about. Interrupting someone’s life.

Following (1998) (SPOILERS) The Nolanverse begins here. And for someone now delivering the highest-powered movie juggernauts globally – that are not superhero or James Cameron movies – and ones intrinsically linked with the “art” of predictive programming, it’s interesting to note familiar themes of identity and limited perception of reality in this low-key, low-budget and low-running time (we won’t see much of the latter again) debut. And, naturally, non-linear storytelling. Oh, and that cool, impersonal – some might say clinical – approach to character, subject and story is also present and correct.

Damn prairie dog burrow!

Tremors (1990) (SPOILERS) I suspect the reason the horror comedy – or the sci-fi comedy, come to that – doesn’t tend to be the slam-dunk goldmine many assume it must be, is because it takes a certain sensibility to do it right. Everyone isn’t a Joe Dante or Sam Raimi, or a John Landis, John Carpenter, Edgar Wright, Christopher Landon or even a Peter Jackson or Tim Burton, and the genre is littered with financial failures, some of them very good failures (and a good number of them from the names mentioned). Tremors was one, only proving a hit on video (hence six sequels at last count). It also failed to make Ron Underwood a directing legend.

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008) (SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanley was well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley , our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“ too syrupy ”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog.  Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has c