WTF???

I must have seen it a dozen times in my youth. That is all i remember.
Still smile thinking of Mel Brooks spoof scene.

But this was like Dawn of the Dead with seagulls and crows and a twist of S. King’s The Mist, all of them way more recent, of course.

But i just can’t figure out what the fuzz was all about.

0-0

My wife and I watched Psycho and The Birds earlier this year. Second time for me, for both of them.

I also found The Birds underwhelming. There are some good scenes. I found the aerial shot very impressive, and I recall enjoying a scene in the diner, and the scene with the birds on the jungle gym.

The female protagonist is a darn psychopath. She's a dang stalker. I found the male lead to be likeable.

I recognize some incredible merits to he film but the script was sort of fragmented and rushed in certain parts, so please no screaming heresy at me.

The actors perfomance was stiff most of the time and over acted the rest of the time.

Yes, the lady was a serious stalker. Rod Taylor behave like he was hung like a donkey and attracted girls as flies… The characters and the situation were a curious match.

There must have aspects of this movie that my young self overlooked and was happy with what he got out of the movie and my current self has trouble overlooking

0-0

Don't fall into the trap of applying values of the mid-2020's to anything at all made SIXTY YEARS ago! (Movies, cars, guns...etc)

Imagine, instead, how we as human beings will be viewed in the 2080's and beyond. I'll suggest that it will be something similar to how we view Witch Burning in the 1600's. It's all in your perspective.

Hitchcock as a director was noted for his droll humor and stiff acting, and Tippi Hedrin's character reflected that -- she was a caricature. Hugh Hefner's ideal woman, as mocked by Hitchcock. You have to view his movies as such.

Personally, I like The Birds, but possibly because I saw it in the theater when it was released. I grew up in the 1950's and 1960's and it fit well with the times. That's all I ask of it.

What was remarkable about The Birds was that the movie was such a departure from Hitchcock's signature style. He could create terror or other intense emotions through plotline, direction and camera angles alone. You rarely physically saw anything visually graphic or explicit. He was that good, and was deservedly called the "master of suspense".

The movie was ground-breaking in many ways, for example the first time animals were seen attacking humans in an organized way, making it a precursor to similar modern disaster films. But that's not why it's so remembered.

In The Birds you actually saw people with their eyes gouged out or being viciously attacked. Your reaction would fade once past the initial shock, and the very reason it's Hitchcock's most (in)famous movie is the fact that it was so unHitchcock.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: kkina,

Something I’ve never seen any reference to is that “The Birds” was first presented as a half hour (IIRC) radio broadcast. I heard it as a kid on Armed Forces Radio when my father was stationed in France, in probably 1960 or so. At the time it was apparently a British production because there was some reference made to “the Americans.” A few years later when the movie was released and I was back in the US, my thought was, “I know that story.”

The original story was in French, written by Daphne DuMaurier. We studied it in French class in the early 1960's. Compared with the movie, it was just a skeleton of a plot.
In a similar way Hemingway's short story The Killers was fluffed into a feature length movie.

 
This happened in our front yard a few years ago. You hardly ever see a turkey vulture on the ground unless they are dining.
 

Yea but...Tippi Hedren AND Suzanne Pleshette and me in the throes of puberty...

^^^^^^^^^
Yeah, helluva thing for kids like you and me who grew up on Annette Funicello!

The Birds is a movie like 2001 where the film is intentionally light on plot and heavy on the experience.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
The original story was in French, written by Daphne DuMaurier.

Another interesting fact; thanks.

I grew up in the little Sonoma County, CA town of Sebastopol, which is only about 7 miles from Bodega and 10 miles from Bodega Bay. It was very amusing to see how Hitchcock changed the geography for the movie. IIRC the "Bodega Bay School" was actually in Bodega. There is a scene in which it appears Bodega Bay has far more streets than it should. Looking back, I can appreciate better the Aston-Martin DB3 roadster.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Another interesting fact; thanks.

The Birds was the 3rd adaptation of her work that Hitchcock made with the first being an unknown movie called Jamaica Inn and the 2nd being his first US film in Rebecca.

Hitchcock was special. By today'standards the special effects are laughable. I have seen most of his films. Screen Arts was a favorite of mine in College. Rebecca was great.

I found a short clip that illustrates Hitchcock's more customary methodology. Two bungling burglars (you might recognize one of them) surprise a homeowner (played by E.G. Marshall) in his basement. A struggle ensues, and Marshall temporarily escapes. But the camera never follows to the exact moment of capture. Instead it just hangs there, enticing the viewer to use their imagination as to how the brawl might have taken place.

Hard to imagine any modern director letting slip a chance to show some awesome graphic martial arts superhero sequence. All Hitchcock had to do was hold the camera still. Completely different approach than The Birds.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: kkina,