The Birds: A Follow Up

Somebody's given me kudos, so I suppose I need to follow up.

I was told that I did not look at the film in a historical context and that if I had done so, I would have enjoyed the film.

I understand that Hitchcock's inability to scare me was most likely due to primitive cinematic technique; the visual effects of his time cannot in any way compare to those of ours, and that is certainly not his fault. This, however, is not my problem with the film's horror aspects. In that regard, the film lacks variation. Each one of Hitchcock's portrayals of bird attacks is incredibly similar to the one before it. No new elements are brought into the film, and Hitchcock tries to build suspense by making each attack more and more intense and generate more and more of a reaction in the film's characters, but it does not really affect me. So, I suppose I'm sorry?

Having given this a bit more thought, I think that Hitchcock should have paid more attention to the psychological side of this story. After all, we have here a real villain. Zombies, vampires, and aliens are just overrated because they simply cannot resonate with the audience as something to which they relate, something they see in their everyday lives that will bring their minds back to the film every time they catch a glimpse of it. That being said, there needs to be a reason for our villain to attack. Zombies need to be disturbed, Dracula needs to be in love, and aliens want to take over the world. I believe I put this in my original post, but I will say it again - my main problem with the film is that it is missing this why-factor. Why the birds? Why Bodega Bay? Why now? Hitchcock shies away from explaining of his madness and instead tries to heighten it.

There is nothing wrong with ending a film full of questions - many of my favorites do. Having said that, these questions should usually pertain to either the action after the film's end, or looking at the film in a new context - peeling back the plots original layers to reveal subplots, themes, etc. The question that Hitchcock leaves open in this film, however, deals with the original plot, which, if you haven't picked up already, I believe to be virtually nonexistent. This is his fault.

Now I don't want anyone to believe that I think every film should have some enlightening philosophical truth that inspires to you to go out and change the world at the end. I do not (though Kris will have you think otherwise). I do, however, think that in logically flowing stories, things need to happen for a reason. Here, there is no reason. There is no motivation. There is no disturbance. All that happens is Melanie Daniels arrives at Bodega Bay and birds start attacking. Plain and simple. End of story. Take out the cat.

By the way, I'm going to watch Vertigo right now, so if someone's simply offended that I didn't like Hitchcock, back off. I'm making an effort.

The Birds

"I have never known birds of different species to flock together. The very concept is unimaginable. Why, if that happened, we wouldn't stand a chance! How could we possibly hope to fight them?"
-Mrs. Bundy, the elderly ornithologist

Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Writers: Daphe Du Maurier (story), Evan Hunter (screenplay)
Starring: Tippi Hedren, Rod Taylor
Release Date: 1963
Genre: Horror, Suspense
Runtime: 1 hr, 59 mins
Awards: 1 Oscar Nomination

Tomatometer Rating: 97%
My Rating: 0 stars

The Birds @ IMDb
The Birds @ Rotten Tomatoes

Note: I’m not incredibly familiar with Hitchcock’s work, though I plan to solve that problem this coming weekend by watching both Vertigo and Psycho. Perhaps that will give me more of an insight into this film.

I simply did not get this movie. There. I said it.

The Birds follows Melanie Daniels (Hedren) as she ventures out from her native San Francisco to far off Bodega Bay without any motivation at all other than to briefly pay a visit to a man whom she hardly knows: Mitchell Brenner (Taylor). Upon her arrival weird things begin to happen as, without any motivation at all, birds randomly begin praying on the men, women, and children of Bodega Bay.

It is painfully obvious from the film’s opening moments that Hitchcock was not the least bit worried with the caliber of acting present in his masterpiece. Tippi Hedren is one-faced and one-voiced through the entire film; she does not listen and react as people normally do in conversation, but rather waits for her specified pause and reads her lines. The Hedren-induced monotony goes untreated, and at times she looks like an amateur next to tween Veronica Cartwright as Mitchell Brenner’s twelve-year-old sister Cathy.

Hitchcock’s multi-person dialogue scenes are not much better; in fact, I counted perhaps two people in the entire film who give remotely interesting performances, one of them being Taylor as Mitchell Brenner. The other is a relatively untouched character, an older woman who, as an ornithological expert, tells of the reasons why the supposed “bird attacks” on Bodega Bay are not at all possible. She is convincing (which was, by itself, certainly a breath of fresh air) and even riveting, yet her performance is short and, like much of the film, leaves the audience unfulfilled.

All of that being said, however, The Birds was not meant to be an exposition of fine dramatics, but rather a thrilling work with its strengths rooted in suspense and visual effects. In this, though, the film is once again a disappointment.

In terms of the visual effects, I do not really feel as if I can properly judge since I am not an expert in the standards of the time. That being said, I don’t see how anyone can find anything that Hitchcock can put on the screen scary. There. I said it.

In terms of suspense, yes, Hitchcock leaves the audience on the edge of their seats begging to see what happens next, but it is what happens next that disappoints. There is no climax, no incredible end to the suspense. Basically, I think that Hitchcock got a little too carried away and never really finished his story. There is no great loss of emotional importance to the audience. There is no great scene of revelation in which all of the chaos is explained. At film’s end, I am left asking why. Why the birds? Why Bodega Bay? Why Melanie Daniels? Why? Hitchcock answers none of this. He merely tries and fails to scare me.

As for my last word, I’ll say this: Hitchcock’s The Birds builds suspense with a poorly acted story and slightly compelling visual effects until the film’s disappointing conclusion that leaves the viewer confused and unsatisfied.


Images care of Goroadachi.com and Trekearth.com.

Modern Times

Director: Charlie Chaplin
Writer: Charlie Chaplin
Starring: Charlie Chaplin, Paulette Goddard
Release Date: 1936
Genre: Silent, Comedy
Runtime: 87 min
Awards: selected for preservation in the U.S. National Film Registry (1989)

Tomatometer Rating: 100%
My Rating: 2 1/2 stars

Modern Times @ IMDb
Modern Times @ Rotten Tomatoes

Charlie Chaplin is brilliant; I’ll give him that much. That being said, however, I’m absolutely convinced that Chaplin’s works translated much better onto the stage than they ever did to film.

Modern Times is widely considered to be Chaplin’s magnum opus. The film follows his most notable character, “The Tramp”, as he struggles to find stability and success in a newly revolutionized society plagued by rapid industrialization and widespread crime. In addition to being a standard fare slapstick comedy, the film brings politics into the mix, with obvious dissent towards industrialization, capitalism, elitism, and the criminal justice system.

As per the usual, Chaplin is addicting; his energy and dedication to each comic moment make watching him an absolutely incredible experience. He is a physically marvel – a master of bodily control; this is, of course, what made Chaplin the greatest and most famous mime to ever grace the planet (second perhaps only to Marcel Marceau).

As a film, however, Modern Times simply doesn’t work. It is episodic in the most extreme sense of the word, as the film is deliberately divided into 5 acts. This organization would work if only all of the acts were incredibly compelling and interesting, when in reality, they are most certainly not. The film begins with the perhaps its most gripping scene, a portrayal of The Tramp’s life as a factory worker as he deals with the troubles of working on an assembly line and is forced test a crude feeding machine, both of which lead him toward an eventual nervous breakdown. The factory is host to Chaplin’s best physical work in the entire film, as well as his most entertaining use of his surroundings, and one of the most famous shots in all of cinema (in which The Tramp gets sucked into a giant machine and rides a track of gears and axels until he is rescued).

From there, however, the entire movie is almost completely downhill. Chaplin’s physical comedy is not nearly as engaging as it was in the factory, and there is little he can do to play off his uninteresting counterpart, the Gamin (portrayed by Paulette Goddard).

Chaplin does make an effort to save the film towards the end, with a brilliant impromptu song-and-dance routine in a café as he tries to secure a job. Though it is too little too late, this bit is sheer genius and, along with the factory scene, could easily stand on its own without the rest of the film.

If nothing else, Modern Times is certainly a great perspective for how the other half lives (to quote Jacob Riis). It is fun, and though slow, is certainly worth watching.



Visit this link to view Chaplin's most famous shot in which he gets sucked into a machine at the end of an assembly line and enters a magical maze of gears and axels. Primitive cinematic beauty.