Options
Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds
I watched this golden oldie last night having recorded it one late night last week.
Its a little dated, but still a great thriller though.
Tippi Hedren became a legend in here own right when after making Marnie for Hitchcock, she was eventually shunned by other movie studios cos Hitchcock told other producers that "she was difficult to work with".
According to the story, Tippi Hedren shunned Hitchock's sexual advances and his attempt to control her life, so he practically destroyed her career. He was trying to make her another typical "Ice-Cool Blonde" like Grace Kelly and Kim Novak a few years before. Although, she did go on to make more than 40 movies, none of them memorable, and ended up with small roles in TV films (blink, and you will miss her.)
Still, The Birds is a great movie to remember her by, even though she is stil alive at the grand old age of 80.
Its a little dated, but still a great thriller though.
Tippi Hedren became a legend in here own right when after making Marnie for Hitchcock, she was eventually shunned by other movie studios cos Hitchcock told other producers that "she was difficult to work with".
According to the story, Tippi Hedren shunned Hitchock's sexual advances and his attempt to control her life, so he practically destroyed her career. He was trying to make her another typical "Ice-Cool Blonde" like Grace Kelly and Kim Novak a few years before. Although, she did go on to make more than 40 movies, none of them memorable, and ended up with small roles in TV films (blink, and you will miss her.)
Still, The Birds is a great movie to remember her by, even though she is stil alive at the grand old age of 80.
0
Comments
It is a very eerie film of it's time, dated I agree. Lets not moan though, the remake is probably just around the corner:(
'Birds bring beauty into this world' rails the oddbod ornithologist during the film's central attack sequence where the humans are holed up in the diner. And, what Hitchcock dislodges our nerves for two hours to prove, is that they can just as easily take it out again, with no need of anything as crass as an explanation. The film is an absolute masterpiece, and contains one of his great sick jokes - check out the logs in the Brenner fireplace near the end.
Regards
Mark
Or one of the greatest climaxes, depending on your subjective perspective.
I remember reading in the Empire magazine last year that there were plans of a remake.There was a sequel to "The Birds" called "The Birds II: Land's End" which was made for the tv.Tippi Hedren is in the sequel but she plays a different character.
Notice that there is no music in the film at all just bird calls.
I remember when I first saw it feeling scared. The man with his eyes pecked out was horrible. It's scary because its so ordinary and random, imagine if birds did start attacking us!
How ageist - like telling someone they're 'a good shag, for an old one' :mad:
Age does not dictate capability!
well i just watched modern horrors these days..does it matter if it is an old film, ? It seems old to me..well it is cos three years after its made i was born..:D
Ooh I thought you were younger TBH, about my age
No, of course it doesn't matter if it's an old film
Up the oldies IMO!! I sometimes watch older films now that I first saw as a teenager, and find that my perception of what is and isn't scary/thrilling has certainly changed over the years, because now I can really concentrate on and appreciate the stories and psychological aspects of older films, whereas they went over my head as a flighty youth. ('flighty' ho ho... "the birds is coming!!!" as ran the ads)
It has an amazing climax-I wont give it away for those who have'nt seen it.
You wil either love the ending or hate it.
Its one of those.
Another insightful post from Mark lol. At least it adds to your post count eh.
I still watch the film on occasion. I'd love to live in a little place like that where everyone knows each other and it's a little community outside the city.
Tippi Hedren was interviewed on Front Row on Monday (BBC radio4) which was interesting, it's also available on listen again.
I can remember watching it on tv as a kid, and it scared the hell out of me.
The scene with the guys eyes pecked out was truly shocking for the time, and as someone else rightly said it was all the more shocking for having no soundtrack to 'signal' the scary moments...they just came from nowhere and truly unsettled you.
Other favorite sequences would be the sequence with the people holed up in the diner...the sense of fear and paranoia is superb...there really is no answer or reason given for what is happening and why, leaving it open for people to throw accusations and let their imaginations run riot.
I also love the birds point-of-view shot from high above the diner just after the car explodes, a breathtaking shot for a movie of it's time, and following the birds as they increase in number and descend on the town to cause chaos.
And of course the sequence with Tippi Hedren sitting in the schoolyard, and the birds slowly gathering on the climbing frame. It's quite a testament to the skill of Hitchcock, that he can make a creature as innocent and small as a common bird so threatening and terrifying. You only have to look at some of the abortive attempts to do similar things with rabbits, frogs, bee's, worms and sharks throughout the years to realise what a unique skill that takes.
And the ending...first time I saw it as a kid I think I felt cheated...because at that time movies were fairly conventional and you had never seen anything like that before. But over the years (and it's a film I have watched many, many times) I have grown to appreciate it for what it is.
I think the ending helps to preserve the mystery, and particularly the sense of dread and foreboding. An ending where the birds would have somehow been overcome, wiped out or defeated would have undone all of that menace and sense of fear generated up to that point.
Essentially, you would have left the theatre thinking 'whew, thank god for that...it's only a movie'. But instead you felt that the birds could have concievably defeated and destroyed mankind. It'suncomfortable, and it's not a cheerful thought to leave an audience with...but it's not meant to be, and I think it's one of the main reasons why the movie retains it's power to disturb and unsettle people even after all these years.
Regards
Mark
Satisfaction? You want satisfaction, listen to the Stones.
Satisfaction is what you get from Disney movies, from silly comedies, from feel-good rom-com's and from big, dumb overblown action movies.
The word 'satisfaction' should not even figure in the lexicon of any horror movie.
'Satisfying' suggests you want the ending wrapped up in a very obvious, easy-to-understand, logical little bow, so that you can leave the theatre and forget all about it afterwards
I don't want horror movies to 'satisfy' me, I guage a good horror movie as one that leaves me with a feeling of unease, of dread, of horror etc even after I have watched it. That's powerful stuff, and one that few horror movies can pull off.
The ending of this movie left me feeling uneasy, left me wondering what happened next, and allowed me to let my imagination run wild. Above all it made me feel uneasy, and like many people I know who have seen the movie it is an ending we still talk about to this day.
That's a sign of powerful, assured and uncompromising filmaking...give me that over a 'satisfying' ending any day.
No, it simply means some need has been met. The meeting of that need is entirely subjective and personal and varies from person to person. I want a pleasing-to-me ending irrespective of genre. Nothing happening, with zero explanation as to why nothing happened, is not pleasing-to-me, therefore it is unsatisfactory. The genre of the film has no relevance.
Regards
Mark
Me too...never been a Stones fan.
I still disagree...I think you are falling into the trap of dictating to filmakers how you want them to make movies.
It is not their job to tailor-make movies to suit audiences preferences and whims. Oh, granted there are some that do...but these would hardly be what you would call strong, visionary directors who have a clear idea and a determination to make a movie their own way, rather hack directors who do as they are told by the studio's.
Any director worth his salt will make the movie THEY want to make, and not allow their vision to be compromised.
We already have the ridiculous test screening process, where rough cuts of movies are shown to a cross section of the public who vote on what aspects of the movie they did not like...and if they think the ending is a 'downer', in a lot of cases the studios have re-shot the ending to make it a happy one.
I seriously do not think that we should ever reach a situation where a filmaker should crave acceptance from an audience, and be forced to change or adapt their original vision as a result.
It is not the job of a filmaker to 'please' you. It is their job to make movies, but to make the movies as they see fit...their vision, their ideals...their movie.
Nothing happening...? Man, have you no imagination? Are you not able to accept the concept of a filmaker allowing you to use your own imagination?
In fact, as I commented before the whole concept of why the birds are attacking is left open to speculation throughout the whole movie, and this sense of not knowing why it is happening is central to the sense of paranoiam as well as the sense of fear and dread...fear of the unknown.
So to have given an explanation, or to have had a conventional ending IMO would have undone everything that had gone before.
In fact, as much as people may argue about the 'unsatisfactory' ending now, I firmly believe that if it had been given a conventional, neatly-explained ending, just as many people would also now be arguing at how the ending ruined the movie, and made a mockery of all that had gone before.