Review #1739: The Birds.
Cast:
Tippi Hedren (Melanie Daniels), Rod Taylor (Mitch Brenner), Jessica Tandy (Lydia Brenner), Veronica Cartwright (Cathy Brenner), Suzanne Pleshette (Annie Hayworth), Ethel Griffies (Mrs. Bundy), Charles McGraw (Sebastian Sholes), and Lonny Chapman (Deke Carter) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock (#219 - Rope, #223 - North by Northwest, #446 - Spellbound, #447 - Psycho, #450 - Vertigo, #455 - Rear Window, #553 - Strangers on a Train, #800 - Shadow of a Doubt, #910 - Notorious, #963 - The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog, #964 - The Ring (1927), #965 - Downhill, #970 - Mr. and Mrs. Smith, #977 - Frenzy, and #1343 - The 39 Steps)
Review:
The thing about doing a creature feature is that one has to really allow themselves to become immersed in the idea that the director (or writer) wants to show in taking something you could see any day of the week and make it something that could potentially unnerve you, or at the very least pique your curiosity. I suppose if anybody seemed up to the task of trying to make a movie about birds, Alfred Hitchcock (described by some as "The Master of Suspense") would spring to mind quickly. Of course, this happens to be the first film that was directed by Hitchcock after the success of Psycho (1960), which has been argued to be his most famous work. Perhaps the biggest credit is the use of the sodium vapor process to get the shots of the birds to look effective (as opposed to the bluescreen process), and Hitchcock brought in Ub Iwerks (of Walt Disney Studios, the leader in the process) to work on the film - the process involves a variety of things such a yellow screen, an optical printer and two different elements of the footage. Evan Hunter (best known for his work in crime fiction with the 87th Precinct novels and a writer on Alfred Hitchcock Presents for two episodes) was brought in to write the script (for his part, he would later state that Hitchcock would "take outrageous liberties with what I had written" with what he allowed his actors to do with the script). This was adapted from the short story of the same name by Daphne Du Maurier, which had first been published in 1952 as part of her collection The Apple Tree (radio adaptations had been done of the story, incidentally). Hitchcock had adapted her works before with Jamaica Inn (1939) and Rebecca (1940). Apparently, Du Maurier did not like this adaptation, probably because it changes the setting from England to California while going from a focus on a family in a cottage to an offbeat coupling and a controlling parent. Of course, one inspiration that helped Hitchcock involved him hearing about a 1961 attack in Capitola, California that involved birds crashing into buildings with disorientation (three decades later, it was discovered that this occurred due to the birds eating algae that had become toxic). Hitchcock would ultimately do three further films in the 1960s that resulted in varying levels of success before he closed his career with thrillers in Frenzy (1972) and Family Plot (1976).
Perhaps there was too much responsibility placed on the shoulders of a green actress. Hedren (a model for over a decade) was approached by Hitchcock after he had seen her in a commercial while watching The Today Show, and she soon signed a seven year contract; she had assumed she would soon be on the aforementioned Presents program, but actually he aimed for turning her into a film actress that would debut in a lead role (complete with screen tests and training); perhaps amusingly, she would appear in the "sequel" three decades later with The Birds II: Land's End (1994), which is about as much one needs to really know about. Of course, maybe one really needs a certain type of understanding of what it means to cultivate suspense that might seem familiar for those who would see future films such as Jaws (1975) or Tremors (1990). Perhaps one cannot be too harsh for a film that is meticulously executed in its shots and effects, one that is a worthy movie to look at with patience. All of this is a crock for me to say what became evident before the last shot: dignified lingering in a bit of muck is at the end of the day still one that has a bit of muck on it that needs picking no matter how pretty it is. Simply put, it lingers for quite a bit of time on folks that barely justifies having two hours with them, as if I really need an entire justification for someone wanting to go on a whim to somebody's place and give them lovebirds; it is far more interesting with thrills than anything it tries to do in humor or with family drama, that much is for sure. Maybe the tension reflects the times that the birds attack, but we are still talking about a movie that only gets some of its tense atmosphere with the right amount of cohesiveness. You can put all the window dressing you want about what the film represents in themes, but I don't see it as being any more useful in execution than something like Them! (1954), which if you recall involved mutated ants. But at least one can say the effects are well done, particularly since it was a blend of animated and live birds for various shots. So yes, there is a main group of actors, and they are fairly decent here despite my misgivings about just who matters or doesn't matter. Hedren might seem a bit anxious here, but she does eventually grow into the suspense (i.e. when the film stops trying to make me care so much about her journey into the Bay) that helps us get more and more gripped in tensing one's nerves. Taylor is stuck in the middle, as if one is begging him to be more involved with the birds than with the aforementioned Bay element, and the parts with Tandy are more "move the hand along" than anything - overall, not flat, but still. Tandy is okay, but being okay in a Hitchcock film with clinging mothers is a weird distinction (of course Cartwright being just an okay kid also makes it weird). Pleshette honestly is the most inviting presence, and she only has a few moments to really spring interest in being the earthy contrast when paired against Hedren (again, this is probably personal preference).
Honestly, testing one's patience in life could probably be assessed by how you view the sequence in the diner, where there is a discussion that goes on and on about supposed bird attacks and so on (gee, are the birds around?); one bird attack later where everyone is a bit rattled, a hysterical lady yammers on about who to possibly blame and honestly the one thing that works comes when Hedren slaps her and moves on to other things. I suppose I am not fair to the first hour, since the birds attack twice in that same span of time. But hey, there are moments that plod along in each hour, more so in the sequence involving an incessant playing of "Risseldy Rosseldy" in an attempt to build suspense that only results in an earworm. I guess there are benefits to making a monster movie that doesn't explain its story or end its reign of terror with a pat resolution (Hitchcock did not even want to have any kind of credits to follow after the last shot of the film, but Universal added in a brief studio logo shot). Oh please, my brain says: how much does one need to say about why birds are attacking when most people have both positive and negative memories that involve birds in the first place? But I guess that makes it an interesting predecessor to later films that wouldn't spring to easy solutions (such as say Halloween, for example), and for that one has to appreciate its efforts. Besides, if one really wants to watch someone try to make a movie about birds with absolute zero execution of tension or characters (complete with a brief shot of Hedren!), Birdemic (2010/2013) is right there to make you appreciate filmmaking or the bounds of using your time wisely. As a whole, being an overrated movie can still mean one has made a good movie if the right hands are at the wheel, and Hitchcock for the most part does what is needed to make things stay on course for a thriller. It certainly was an interesting step for Hitchcock in his fifth decade of filmmaking, that much is for sure, and it works out for any Hitchcock devotee for all of its qualities (flaws or no flaws) whenever your curiosity for birds is at hand.
Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.
Next Time: Spider Baby (1967).
