MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Two Drives: Psycho and The Birds

Two Drives: Psycho and The Birds


One of the "roles" of Hitchcock's The Birds, it has always seemed to me, is its role as being "an echo of Psycho."

Hitchcock, in trying to top Psycho, certainly came up with a new plot and new characters and a new setting and (mainly) new set-pieces for his follow-up film. But "Psycho" rather haunts "The Birds" start to finish, as Hitchcock , consciously or unconsciously, re-stages scenes and motifs from Psycho IN The Birds.

The biggest of these is the attack in the upstairs bedroom on Melanie Daniels(Tippi Hedren) at the end of The Birds. The edit pattern (close-ups on victim trying to escape an enclosed space and flailing VS POV shots of the murderous attacker) is EXACTLY that of the shower scene. Except this time, the effects make THIS scene a MUCH more spectacular and impressive technical achievement than the shower murder.

Except the shower scene is still more powerful, because: (a) it was first; (b) the terror quotient is much stronger(a human maniac versus special effects birds; the lonely isolation of the Bates Motel verus a house with a family downstairs) and (c) the victim DIES.

But still, that upstairs room attack in The Birds is pretty spectacular on its own terms, and at least matches the shower scene as a Hitchcock montage death scene(well, Near-death, this time), in execution (and there would be one more ode to the shower scene, years later: the strangulation part of the Frenzy rape-murder.)

But if the upstairs room attack is the big "bow" from The Birds to Psycho, there are a few others:

ONE: The scene in which Annie Hayworth talks with Melanie Daniels at Annie's home, at night. The scene is a match-up for: Norman talking in the parlor with Marion. In both cases, the female protagonist is a "guest"(Marion has taken a motel room; Melanie is a temporary boarder); the host projects a certain isolation and lonelieness, and eventually, the subject matter is: Mother. Mrs. Bates, for Norman. Mrs. Brenner, for Annie. But the issue isn't just "content." It is style. The camera angles on Annie are similar to those on Norman in the earlier film, as is the "separation out" of the other person(Marion, Melanie) so as to "remain detached" from the drama. And both films capture in these scenes, very well, the quietude and spookiness of "night inside an isolated place." We are on guard. Oddly, Psycho has us on guard for some very horrible things about to happen, but The Birds has us on guard for...less? Just birds?

TWO: Before the bird attacks begin in earnest, we have the meet-cute, banter-much courtship of lawyer Mitch Brenner(Rod Taylor) and Melanie Daniels. The through line is that Mitch IS a litigator, and he spends a lot of time interrogating Melanie, and he's not cute about it. He punches quick and hard and relentlessly and his goal is: to expose her lies. ("But you just said...and now you're saying..") I've always loved this element of Mitch Brenner because it underlines something I've noticed about why I don't enjoy the company of lawyers: they won't just let you exaggerate, or "white lie" or save your face. They have to dig in, expose your contradictions, lightly humiliate you. (I'm serious, its like a game to them.) In their professional work(taking depositions, cross-examination), lawyers can be as mean as they want to, doing this. But Mitch Brenner shows us a guy who can't turn it off...has to cross-examine Melanie, kinda/sorta doesn't like her even as he is attracted to her.

The Psycho connection? Arbogast. The staging and staccato cutting and dialogue of several Mitch/Melanie chat interrogations follows the hip staging of Arbogast questioning Norman. In The Birds, you can almost feel Hitchcock's pleasure in " getting to do it again.' Hitch KNEW that the Norman-Arbogast sequence in Psycho was perhaps the most fun in the picture; he brings it back -- with a love story angle -- in The Birds.

THREE: Two drives. Both Psycho and The Birds concern themselves with female protagonists who start the story around 3:00 pm on a Friday(Marion in a hotel room with her lover; Melanie in a bird shop -- you can see the time on the clock on the wall), in a big city. Phoenix, Arizona. San Francisco, California.

Soon, both women are "compelled" into making long car journies -- alone -- to a distant destination. In each case, the ultimate goal at that destination is: a man (Sam...Mitch.)

But the motivations are different. In the "high pressure" world of Psycho, Marion has embezzled $40,000 and her journey is a paranoid one..the "getaway" of an amateur thief who has nonetheless undertaken a major crime(IF she takes it to completion.) In the less "high pressure" world of The Birds, Melanie is compelled to make the drive to Bodega Bay because she wants to deliver a gift of living creatures -- love birds -- who cannot be left alone outside of Mitch's SF apartment over the weekend while he is in Bodega Bay.

reply

The "motivational man" in each case presents a different situation. Marion has been involved with Sam for quite some time it seems. Sexual relations already seem to be (SEEM to be; 1960) part of the relationship and Marion is just about desperate to get the impoverished man to marry her(another very 1960 predicament.)

But Mitch is a "brand new thing" for Melanie. Just met him -- and was victimized by him(as part of a nasty practical joke) and lightly insulted by him(in a courtship ritual that reminded me of how boys and girls first flirt in grade school) and..is interested in him. Melanie's journey to Bodega Bay, posits The Birds, is the usual first step in a courtship of the Doris Day/Rock Hudson school of romance and marital bliss.

Its interesting. Hitchcock made Psycho first, and the long car drive of Marion(Mary, in the book) with the stolen cash to join Sam came from Robert Bloch's novel. When Hitchcock made The Birds, all he had was a short story(by Daphne Du Maurier) and he and screenwriter Evan Hunter elected to create an entire new set of characters, to set the story in a new locale(California, from England) and to offer up a new plot. That "new plot" -- whaddya know? -- starts out with the female protagonist taking a long drive to a man. So in some ways, The Birds is based on...Psycho.



reply

Again, Psycho came first. So when Hitchcock made Psycho -- on a self-imposed low budget -- he found himself presenting the long drive of Marion Crane in the most "cramped and claustrophobic" manner imaginable. Black and white photography. Close-ups on Janet Leigh behind the wheel of her car that ranged from real close to REALLY close (her face fills the screen, you can see the pores on her beautiful but slightly aging face.) POV shots of only what is directly in front of her(freeway lanes -- Highway 99 -- through the dusty, brushy near-desert farmlands of the Central California Valley.) Process plates in the window behind her that show us what she's leaving behind: MORE dusty, brushy farmlands.

I love one great match-up of the POV ahead and the process plate behind Leigh. POV ahead: we see a train coming towards us, next to the freeway. Process plate behind Leigh: the train keeps moving on down the track away from her moving car. (This is about the precision of how Hitchcock had this scene made: a separate "camera car" took the same trip up Highway 99 that Marion takes, and the forward-looking camera got POV shots ahead of Marion, and the rear-looking camera showed what was behind Marion; then Hitchcock and his team made process plates for the rear views and edited the forward views into POVs. THINK of the work involved to make sure that the forward POV of the train matched the shot with Leigh and the train moving past her, in process...)

"Marion's drive" has other powerful elements, of course. Speaking of precision: how day slowly turns into dusk slowly turns into the dead of night. How sprinkles of rain become lumpy dollops of rain on the windshield becomes a driving downpour. How "imagined voices" echo through Marion's mind and underline the futility of her flight and the possible consequences of her theft("I"ll replace that money with her fine, soft , flesh.") And how Bernard Herrmann's driving score(a reorchestration of his driving credit music) races and slams and drives Marion crazy as it matches the swish swish swish of the wiper blades.

Classic stuff.



reply

When Hitchcock staged "Melanie's drive" for The Birds one film later(and more like two years later -- the longest distance between films in Hitchcock's career to that point), he seems to have realized that he had scripted a drive that COULD be staged like Marion's drive, but that SHOULD NOT be staged like Marion's drive. Changes in presentation were made, accordingly.

For one thing, Hitchcock had Technicolor this time, so he could show colorful terrain. And the drive from San Francisco to Bodega Bay north along the California coast IS gorgeous. Thick pine trees, green mountains -- the ocean in the distance.

Whereas Hitch kept the soundstage camera close on Janet Leigh's drive in Psycho -- we NEVER get a long shot of her car moving along the highway from a distance -- Hitch elected to give us quite a few high long shots of Melanie's tiny little sports car (with its open air top) buzzing up the highway to Bodega Bay, often with side views of the pines, the mountains, a bit of the ocean.

The gorgeous "openness" of Melanie's drive works against retaining the kind of terror that Psycho generated -- Psycho was creepy before it got terrifying -- but Hitchcock in The Birds offers a different type of unease here, I think.

It is this: the idea that its long, long, long, LONG way from San Francisco to Bodega Bay(even if we are told it is only two hours along the coast) and Bodega Bay is very, very, VERY isolated. Once you get up there...getting back is going to be hard. Especially if birds have taken over the town and are capable of chasing and attacking you on your way back to civilization.

reply

Consider: whereas characters in The Birds specify the distance from SF to Bodega Bay(2 hours by coastal road; one hour by inland freeway), Hitchcock was very ambiguous about the distance from Phoenix Arizona to fictional Fairvale in Psycho. But since fictional Fairvale was in "real" Shasta County, California, a researcher could find that Marion's drive(a two-day affair with overnight sleeping by the side of the road), was something more like EIGHT hours, over a thousand miles of driving. Simply put, Marion in Psycho is days away from her home in Phoenix once she reaches the Bates Motel, whereas Melanie is only hours away from San Francisco in Bodega Bay -- but the journey back will be treacherous for Melanie.

Other differences in Melanie's drive: Bernard Herrmann was hired for The Birds, but Hitchcock (possibly jealous of Herrmann's contribution to Psycho?) didn't let him write any music for The Birds. Instead we get "bird sound effects" and...a lot of silence. The Birds is really a movie without a musical score at all. And hence, whereas Marion's drive was a tour de force of Herrmann's scoring at its most frenzied...Melanie's drive has no music at all.

It works...but this is the beginning of Hitchcock's new-found "infatuation with silence." Whereas the Psycho murders had great screeching terror music , the killings in Torn Curtain and Frenzy had no music at all; the result was a heightened reality and a lack of entertainment. Here, Melanie's drive to Bodega Bay has none of the nerve-wracking pressure of Marion's drive in Psycho -- no music makes it so. (But still...the sense of isolation and a great distance from SF to Bodega Bay IS conveyed.)



reply

Hitchcock was famous for running a strain of humor through his works, and The Birds finds it, too. During Melanie's drive, this is conveyed with the playful close-ups to the two little love birds on their shared perch, tilting left-to-right on some turns, and then right-to-left on other turns, in accord with Melanie's high speed curve driving(a throwback to Grace Kelly on the Monaco road curves in To Catch a Thief) .

I always felt that the utter comic playfulness of those lovebirds during Melanie's drive was almost Hitchcock's way of "apologizing for how horrifying Psycho was." Psycho had those horrible murders and that sickening reveal of Norman's other crimes -- comes now a Technicolor movie with a cute little sight gag about liddle biddy love birds. And of course, those love birds will become very symbolic -- allowed to make the escape trip with the Brenners and Melanie at the end("They haven't hurt anyone," notes Kathy - - are they a symbol of "peace with the birds?")

I suppose, though that a DePalma-esque nasty type could have ended The Birds with the love birds pecking out Kathy's eyes in the car...

As Melanie concludes her drive up the pine-covered coastline to Bodega Bay, she makes her descent into the town and we're reminded of Hitchcock's penchant for "matte painting fantasy renditions of his locales." Bodega Bay in the long shots is a painting into which Melanie's real car drives, but I for one, always LOVED that about Hitchcock's World(it was Disney's world too - and it would become the world of Spielberg and Lucas.)



reply

Its a really nifty "mix and match" of images that bring Melanie into Bodega Bay: a matte painting of the entire town layout in the high shots. Some location process work in the car window behind Melanie of the roads into the real Bodega Bay, and the piece de resistance: a Universal back-lot area into which Hitchcock(and art director Robert Boyle) had built on a north Hollywood hillside -- , a gas station, part of a main street, and part of the Tides restaurant. "This is downtown Bodega Bay": a set. Its an old Hitchcock confidence about giving the audience SOME of the location of the story(here built on a backlot) -- and allowing them to imagine the rest.

reply

I suppose what's interesting about how Melanie finally arrives in Bodega Bay..after an easy Saturday morning's drive...is how it contrasts with how Marion finally arrives at the Bates Motel, after a grueling two-day, all-day trip...which slowly emerges out of the rain, the darkness, and the blur of windshield wipers to reveal itself only slightly in the eerie night darkness. Bodega Bay is more "welcoming" to Melanie -- and yet, still, a decidedly more remote, empty and isolated locale than the teeming San Francisco which she has just left.

And there you have it. Two Hitchcock pictures, the second influenced by the first, the second needing to create its own world and its own story. Any number of shared scenes, but any number of differences, too.

Including: two different drives.

reply

"...the shower scene is still more powerful, because: (a) it was first; (b) the terror quotient is much stronger(a human maniac versus special effects birds; the lonely isolation of the Bates Motel verus a house with a family downstairs) and (c) the victim DIES."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
If I may suggest a (d): shock vs suspense.

Marion's murder comes out of nowhere. Even if there are relatively few people surviving who first saw Psycho not knowing what to expect, leaving a majority of living viewers who knew full well going in, we understand that "out of nowhere" set-up.

Melanie's attack is the culmination of drawn-out suspense. She hears sounds from upstairs, doesn't wake the others, gets a flashlight and slowly ascends - alone - while viewers' minds are screaming, "DON'T!" Maybe Mitch, Lydia or even Kathy will apprehend her in the nick of time before she opens that door. Or maybe as soon as she does, the avian horde will invade the house and get them all. So many possible outcomes to worry about.

Now, it is true that the parlor scene has suggested some foreboding about the crazy old lady up in the house. And we've heard her fury for ourselves. So when we see that bathroom door open behind Marion, there's an "Oh, NO" sense of suspense.

But here's an interesting comparison: from the time that door opens until the shower curtain is pushed aside and we see the crazy old woman with knife raised, it's 12 seconds. And the actual stabbing lasts only 20.

From the moment Melanie hears sounds until she steps into the upstairs bedroom, over 2 minutes elapse. And the attack itself lasts another 2 until her rescue. It's relentless.

For viewers of The Birds who had seen Psycho, there's added juice. As you suggest, Hitchcock takes advantage of the foundations laid by the previous film, even as its shower murder laid the foundation for Arbogast's.

And two different stair ascents.

reply

"...the shower scene is still more powerful, because: (a) it was first; (b) the terror quotient is much stronger(a human maniac versus special effects birds; the lonely isolation of the Bates Motel verus a house with a family downstairs) and (c) the victim DIES."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
If I may suggest a (d): shock vs suspense.

---

You most certainly may, doghouse!

---

Marion's murder comes out of nowhere. Even if there are relatively few people surviving who first saw Psycho not knowing what to expect, leaving a majority of living viewers who knew full well going in, we understand that "out of nowhere" set-up.

---
Despite my notation that Hitchcock made a 1960 trailer for Psycho that discussed and showed a bit of the shower murder, I take the point that millions of people first saw that movie not knowing and that, in any event, the movie plays that murder for maximum outta nowhere shock.

---

reply

Melanie's attack is the culmination of drawn-out suspense. She hears sounds from upstairs, doesn't wake the others, gets a flashlight and slowly ascends - alone - while viewers' minds are screaming, "DON'T!" Maybe Mitch, Lydia or even Kathy will apprehend her in the nick of time before she opens that door. Or maybe as soon as she does, the avian horde will invade the house and get them all. So many possible outcomes to worry about.

--

Yes, The Birds by its very construction can't hide the fact that what's waiting upstairs is...birds. That's a funny thing about The Birds. The POSTER tells us its gonna be about attacking birds. The TRAILER tells us its gonna be about attacking birds. But in the MOVIE, the characters DON'T KNOW the story is going to be about attacking birds for the longest time..a hint there(hey, that gull hit Melanie on the forehead!) a hint there("hey! that bird slammed into Annie's door), a hint everywhere(all those birds on the wire that Mitch notices.)

I suppose its true that the suspense in The Birds comes from the fact, as you note that there are always "so many possible outcomes to worry about" -- we are invited to contemplate just how and where the birds are going to attack NEXT. (Down the chimney? At the schoolhouse? The gas station? That upstairs room?)



reply

Now, it is true that the parlor scene has suggested some foreboding about the crazy old lady up in the house. And we've heard her fury for ourselves. So when we see that bathroom door open behind Marion, there's an "Oh, NO" sense of suspense.

---

Its so hard to guess how folks handled Psycho with no prep...though I think it is a FUN guess. Norman says things in that parlor scene about Mother("Its not as if she's a maniac, a raving thing....its just that she goes a little mad sometimes" ) that help prepare us for her attack. (Of course she IS a maniac, a raving thing...) And we heard her vocal rage. I think those preliminary hints were necessary to accept -- quickly when she appeared at the shower curtain -- that this woman with the knife is going to use it to kill, she's the real deal. A monster.



But here's an interesting comparison: from the time that door opens until the shower curtain is pushed aside and we see the crazy old woman with knife raised, it's 12 seconds. And the actual stabbing lasts only 20.

From the moment Melanie hears sounds until she steps into the upstairs bedroom, over 2 minutes elapse. And the attack itself lasts another 2 until her rescue. It's relentless.

---

That's a pretty amazing comparison. Hitchcock could vary his pace, right down to seconds. A fairly short stretch from bathroom door to shower curtain, a fairly short stretch of actual stabbing.

But TWO MINUTES of attack on Melanie? I had no idea. I suppose because its pretty much a "non-fatal attack"(and by birds instead of a human against whom audiences close their eyes in terror)...Hitch COULD go on.

On the other hand, perhaps he lost his sense of pace from Psycho to The Birds. Melanie DOES spend a lot of time climbing those stairs.

---

reply

For viewers of The Birds who had seen Psycho, there's added juice. As you suggest, Hitchcock takes advantage of the foundations laid by the previous film, even as its shower murder laid the foundation for Arbogast's.

---

That's interesting to me. Within Psycho (which, as I say, almost works as well as a "educational thriller flow chart' as a story plot) the "surprise shock" of the shower murder sets up the "suspense shock" of the Arbogast murder. Hitchcock called it to Truffaut thus: "We have established that this woman had come down and slashed a woman to pieces under the shower. The suspense elements were all there. All we needed to show was the detective climbing the stairs."

But "movie to movie," The Birds was meant to demonstrate that Hitchcock could be -- yet again -- the maker of a shocker that would -- yet again -- terrify audiences as he did with Psycho. Could he beat the shower murder? Could he beat the staircase murder?(A REAL screamer for the audiences what with the jump out.)

It remains interesting to me that he really couldn't pull it off with The Birds, and not for lack of trying. The farmer with the pecked-out eyes. The man with blood on his face who tries to get into the phone booth with Melanie. And the final attack ON Melanie which shows us in no uncertain terms how the birds can kill(its rather like how, at the end of Jaws, we finally get a clear look at the shark eating Quint after all the earlier rather hidden killings.)

SOME folks were as scared by The Birds as Psycho , but evidently not enough: The Birds barely earned half of Psycho's earnings. Something DIDN'T work. I ascribe it to birds not being as scary as a psychopath, and to the lack of music in The Birds on the order of the Psycho screeching (thought the birds screeching at their loudest in The Birds have some of that nerve-jangling impact of the Psycho screeches.)

reply

And two different stair ascents.

---

I have read the 1963 Newsweek review of The Birds, and it notes:

"Hitchcock stages much the same staircase scene from Psycho and on much the same staircase."

That always struck me as (the usual) not-too-good critical prowess of those old time reviewers. The staircase in The Birds is NOT the same as the one in Psycho -- it has a corner to turn and is a more "homey" staircase for use in a more modern home. The Psycho house staircase is one straight ascent -- no corner -- and older, more Gothic.

And of course, while what happens to Melanie at the top of the stairs(once she goes into a room) is much more like what happens to Marion than what happens to Arbogast.

That said, I always like to bring in a THIRD staircase ascent, and show how Hitchcock made the right choices on all three:

ONE: Arbogast's staircase ascent in Psycho.
TWO: Blaney's staircase ascent in Frenzy.
THREE: Melanie's staircase ascent in The Birds.

Famous now is how Hitchcock's assistants filmed Arbogast's ascent in Psycho(while he was sick with the flu) and displeased him by breaking the shots into close-ups of his hand on the rail, his feet from the side climbing, etc. "That's a killer climbing the stairs, not a victim about to be attacked," Hitchcock said. So he re-shot Arbogast's ascent as a single continuous shot(cut away from sometimes) of Arbogast coming up the stairs, with the audience slightly ahead of him and looking down at him as he climbed. "A simple shot of a man climbing the stairs," Hitchcock said. Also, a medium shot -- no close-ups on his face, because Hitchcock is saving a BIG close-up for Arbo's face when it is slashed.

reply

Hitchcock had to wait 12 more years and all the way to Frenzy to be able to use close-up shots of a killer climbing the stairs to kill someone, and there was irony attached: The "killer" climbing the stairs is the closest thing we have to a hero in Frenzy -- wrong man Richard Blaney, a tempermental jerk -- and he is climbing the stairs to "kill a killer." (A killer we can't WAIT to see killed, by the way -- the monstrous sex killer Bob Rusk.)

But what's interesting is that between Arbogast's "victim's walk" up the stairs in Psycho and Blaney's "killer's walk" up the stairs in Frenzy comes Melanie's "victim's walk" in The Birds...and it is more like Blaney's walk than Arbogast's! How can that be?

I think that can be because the staircases in The Birds and Frenzy ARE similar (there is a turn on the stairs with each one) and because since Hitchcock won't be staging final action until Melanie/Blaney actually get into the rooms at the top, he can afford to use close-ups (hands, feet, faces) to accompany Melanie and Blaney up the stairs.

And this: both Melanie and Blaney get one final shot(before entering the rooms at the top) of their hand on the doorknob of the room before entering -- a great big close-up in each case suggesting that they are about to "cross the line into final action."

Arbogast never gets to the door, or puts his hand on the doorknob, because of course by the time he reaches the top of the stairs, we get that magnificent overhead shot of Mother running out leading to that magnificent shot of Arbogast's slashed face before his fall.

You might say that while Psycho, The Birds, and Frenzy ALL have a great staircase climb, ONLY Psycho has a really unique take on what's gonna happen at the top of the stairs.

reply

I might add that while it doesn't have much to do with the direction of actors, Hitchocck's direction of SHOTS is pretty damn impressive as one looks to the choices he made on the staircase ascents of those three films. Different sizes of shots(close-ups, medium shots, overhead long shots), different lengths of shots, different types of shots(two with hands on doorknobs, but hey -- Topaz has a great shot of a hand on a doorknob, too.)

The result is that each movie got its own style and tone and Hitchcock ended up NOT totally repeating himself from film (Psycho) to film (The Birds) to film (Frenzy.)

And let's throw this in: though the attack on Melanie in the upstairs room is a lot like the shower murder, critic Robin Wood found much of Melanie's trip up the stairs to correspond to...(wait for it)...Lila Crane's overall exploration of the Bates House in Psycho. Its like "OK, let's leave Marion and Arbogast out of this...what about Lila?"

Well, what about Lila? Let's just say that Hitchcock rigged up for Lila the ULTIMATE exploration of the Bates House...a journey that Marion Crane never got to make and that Arbogast was killed before making and thus...Psycho has its own powers to protect.

reply

"I always like to bring in a THIRD staircase ascent, and show how Hitchcock made the right choices on all three:

ONE: Arbogast's staircase ascent in Psycho.
TWO: Blaney's staircase ascent in Frenzy.
THREE: Melanie's staircase ascent in The Birds."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I was rather hoping you would.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Famous now is how Hitchcock's assistants filmed Arbogast's ascent in Psycho(while he was sick with the flu) and displeased him by breaking the shots into close-ups of his hand on the rail, his feet from the side climbing, etc. "That's a killer climbing the stairs, not a victim about to be attacked," Hitchcock said...Hitchcock had to wait 12 more years and all the way to Frenzy to be able to use close-up shots of a killer climbing the stairs to kill someone."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
That was very much on my mind when first seeing Frenzy. I remembered the story from the Truffaut book and thought, "A-HA! There it is."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"But what's interesting is that between Arbogast's "victim's walk" up the stairs in Psycho and Blaney's "killer's walk" up the stairs in Frenzy comes Melanie's "victim's walk" in The Birds...and it is more like Blaney's walk than Arbogast's! How can that be?

I think that can be because the staircases in The Birds and Frenzy ARE similar (there is a turn on the stairs with each one) and because since Hitchcock won't be staging final action until Melanie/Blaney actually get into the rooms at the top, he can afford to use close-ups (hands, feet, faces) to accompany Melanie and Blaney up the stairs."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
True. However: there are only two POV shots in the Frenzy scene, both before Blaney begins climbing and only the second of the "moving POV" type.

Cont'd...

reply

Once he begins his ascent, all the detail is him: the grim resolve on his face; one hand on the banister; the other gripping the tire iron; his feet. And the camera moves with him and stays close; we're climbing right alongside.

Melanie's ascent is full of those "moving POVs" allowing us to share what she sees (and her apprehension), alternating with rather objective shots of her that, most importantly, are from above, looking down at her, much like those of Arbogast...where the alternating shots show us what he DOESN'T see. There, I think, is your "unique take on what's gonna happen at the top of the stairs."

And although no stairs are involved, I'd throw in Lila's climb up the hill toward the house: moving POVs alternating with objective shots of her from above. We have an idea of what's waiting up there, and fear it, just as with Melanie, but the payoff is delayed. With Arbo, we know what's waiting, but he doesn't. With Blaney, we think we know what's up there but - Surprise! - we don't. And with Melanie, we get exactly what we expect and fear.

By mixing and matching, Hitchcock gives us four different climbs to four different effects.

reply

"I always like to bring in a THIRD staircase ascent, and show how Hitchcock made the right choices on all three:

ONE: Arbogast's staircase ascent in Psycho.
TWO: Blaney's staircase ascent in Frenzy.
THREE: Melanie's staircase ascent in The Birds."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I was rather hoping you would.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ha. Perhaps you knew I'd take the bait. I know I've discussed these ascents before, but in a different context then from now.

Part of "now" is the realization that the gift of following perhaps any beloved filmmaker is seeing how THEIR mental organization helps to educated one's OWN mental organization. With Hitchcock, recognizing certain of his patterns and techniques across several films is both educational and..relaxing?

--

"Famous now is how Hitchcock's assistants filmed Arbogast's ascent in Psycho(while he was sick with the flu) and displeased him by breaking the shots into close-ups of his hand on the rail, his feet from the side climbing, etc. "That's a killer climbing the stairs, not a victim about to be attacked," Hitchcock said...Hitchcock had to wait 12 more years and all the way to Frenzy to be able to use close-up shots of a killer climbing the stairs to kill someone."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
That was very much on my mind when first seeing Frenzy. I remembered the story from the Truffaut book and thought, "A-HA! There it is."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '

Me, too. I remember almost laughing at the realization: "Look, there are THOSE shots! He finally got to do it THAT way!"


reply

Indeed, I would expect that a certain amount of the "comeback power" of Frenzy -- after the experiments of Marnie, Torn Curtain, and Topaz -- was that Frenzy DID reference shots and scenes from Psycho and The Birds. Psycho/The Birds/Frenzy almost become a "trilogy of technique" what with all the staircases, killers(psycho birds as well as psycho humans), murder scenes, etc.

Indeed, recall that while the central staircases in Psycho and Frenzy are crucial, in each case, to TWO staircase scenes:

Psycho:

Arbogast murder
Norman goes up to get Mother

Frenzy

Babs murder(Farewell to Babs)
Blaney goes up to kill Rusk

That said, I think the staircase in The Birds only gets used bigtime once -- but it gets used quite a lot there.

reply

True. However: there are only two POV shots in the Frenzy scene, both before Blaney begins climbing and only the second of the "moving POV" type.

--

I am not remembering these scenes with the precision I should..and I'm not near the DVD player to go check. Appreciated from you, therefore: the differentiation of how many POV shots there are in the Frenzy scene versus The Birds scene.

---

Once he begins his ascent, all the detail is him: the grim resolve on his face; one hand on the banister; the other gripping the tire iron; his feet. And the camera moves with him and stays close; we're climbing right alongside.

Melanie's ascent is full of those "moving POVs" allowing us to share what she sees (and her apprehension), alternating with rather objective shots of her that, most importantly, are from above, looking down at her, much like those of Arbogast...where the alternating shots show us what he DOESN'T see. There, I think, is your "unique take on what's gonna happen at the top of the stairs."

---

Very interesting delineations. I forgot how much of the footage on Blaney is on him AS a killer. Determined. The tire iron in his hand. Again, Hitchcock isn't looking to film this scene with Blaney as "menaced"(though, hey, he COULD be -- what if Rusk's ready for him at the top of the stairs with...well, something. Not a knife? Not a necktie? Another tire iron? Hah --but seriously, this is why Rusk isn't that scary. He doesn't use a knife, he can't "jump a victim".)

Whereas not only is Melanie taking a staircase ascent with danger involved, but Hitchcock can AFFORD(as he could not with Arbogast) to give us some travelling POV shots. Boy, things are pretty cut and dried for Arbogast's ascent, given all the tricks Hitchcock doe NOT use. Though Arbogast's ascent includes that all-too-classic cutaway to the door opening on the carpet at the top of the stairs...

reply

And although no stairs are involved, I'd throw in Lila's climb up the hill toward the house: moving POVs alternating with objective shots of her from above. We have an idea of what's waiting up there, and fear it, just as with Melanie, but the payoff is delayed.

---

With Psycho, I've always valued how Hitchcock , in the earlier scene where Arbogast climbed that hill -- captured that ascent in one long take long shot(yep, my favorite shoe in the movie, as I've said.) But what Hitchcock is ALSO doing there is saying: "I'm not going to give Arbogast the alternating POV shots going up to the house. Its too early on and he is not as important as Lila Crane. I will save those shots for LILA."

(Side-bar from the memoirs of director Don Siegel: for The Shootist, he first filmed Richard Boone entering an empty bar for his final shootout with John Wayne by having the camera follow Boone into the bar. Wayne saw that being shot and told Siegel "film me going in the same way," and Siegel said "No...I want to capture you entering the bar in one big shot with your three opponents reflected in the mirror." Siegel -- like Hitchcock before him -- understood that shot selection and differentiation is very important. Though I suppose both directors also got when you should repeat or rhyme a shot, too.)

reply

---
With Arbo, we know what's waiting, but he doesn't.

---

The most classic suspense set-up in all of Hitchcock -- moreso that the shower scene. One reason why this particular clip was often used to teach "Hitchcock 101 A."

And yet: a few writers noted that it was hardly inevitable how Mother came running out at Arbo. One writer said he fully expected Arbogast to get into the bedroom before being attacked, which is why he screamed even louder when Mother came running out first.

---

With Blaney, we think we know what's up there but - Surprise! - we don't.

---

Its quite a surprise -- the sound effects are key here: the "crunch" of the tire iron against the sleeper's skull and then the "jangle" of the woman's bracelet as her hand falls to the floor -- OMG, its not Rusk! Its his latest victim! Legal question: can you kill a dead person? (Answer: no.)

---

And with Melanie, we get exactly what we expect and fear.

---

Yes, I suppose with that one, there's only so long the surprise can hold. What's cool, I think , is Hitchocck's stylistic idea that the birds attack WITHOUT screeching -- all we hear are the flutter of their wings, they are being SLY -- they don't want to wake up the Brenners! It rather gives the birds a "murderous intent" mentality on par with how the shark starts to hunt the shark hunters at the end of Jaws -- given animals more intelligence than they should have.

And this: at least one snarky critic said that "Melanie sees a bunch of birds in the room, walks in and closes the door behind her like a dope." No, the dope was the critic. Melanie enters the room, sees the birds, and is knocked backwards against the door, closing it and preventing her escape.



reply

By mixing and matching, Hitchcock gives us four different climbs to four different effects.

---

Might as well make it five -- add Arbogast's hill climb and you are there.

Of course, Hitchcock knew that walks "upwards" -- up stairs, up hills, just UP -- are a dramatic device of movement that can always be powerful.

I'm reminded of a joke Michael Caine told Carson way back before Caine won his two Oscars.

Caine said, "I haven't won an Oscar yet, Johnny, because I haven't gotten a role yet where I get to do this:

(Caine stands up, tilts his head back, and looks up into the distance.)

Caine: "Y'see, Johnny? I need to get a role where I can look up and be profound and dramatic."

Hitchcock got that. Though there were no Oscar noms for Balsam, Miles, Hedren, or Finch for looking up.

reply

"With Psycho, I've always valued how Hitchcock , in the earlier scene where Arbogast climbed that hill -- captured that ascent in one long take long shot(yep, my favorite shoe in the movie, as I've said.)"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Here's where my memory for detail goes bad. Try as I might, I couldn't visualize that shot. No recollection whatever. So I took a look at it.

I remembered the music cue alright: Herrmann got his strings to sound almost like horns (French and trombone, I'd say). Everything that led up to it, all very familiar: Arbo's car driving into the shot; snooping around the office and parlor; stepping out to the spot where he'd first seen "Mother" in the window. And everything that came after once he entered the house.

But I drew a blank on the long static shot of him climbing that zig-zaggy set of stone steps up to the house. It was like I was seeing it for the first time, for which I'm unable to account.

Maybe I'm just having one of those "senior moments." They come so often these days.

reply

Here's where my memory for detail goes bad. Try as I might, I couldn't visualize that shot. No recollection whatever.

--

One man's "shot he will never forget" is another man's "WHAT shot?"

---

So I took a look at it.

I remembered the music cue alright: Herrmann got his strings to sound almost like horns (French and trombone, I'd say). Everything that led up to it, all very familiar: Arbo's car driving into the shot; snooping around the office and parlor; stepping out to the spot where he'd first seen "Mother" in the window. And everything that came after once he entered the house.

--
Most film clips about "Arbogast's murder" start with him in the foyer; the one on Dick Cavett started with him reaching the house porch(and looking back down the hillside behind him -- sad, really, its his last outside view of ANYTHING.)

But if one is really being picky, "Arbogast's murder starts on the dissolve from him leaving the phone booth to his car returning to the Bates Motel. And the sequence then splits rather neatly into four parts:

ONE: The intricate "long shot with camera move" starting on the distant NORMAN, who sees Arbo return before we do. Norman moves "stage right" and disappears into the "V" of the two motel buildings -- GREAT misdirection by Hitch -- Norman's "way over there to the right" (we can assume he goe to hide in a room); Mother is "way over there to the left"(up in the house.) Of course a re-check(courtesy of Lila's later walk from the motel up to the house) shows us that there is a passage way at the "V" of the building ...and THAT's how Norman got up the hill and into the house and dressed ahead of Arbogast getting to Mother's bedroom.



reply

TWO: Arbogast exits his car (sliding across the passenger seat) and walks on a "direct diagonal" towards the motel office that continues right on up(as "space") to the house and Mother's window. Now we get some medium shots of Arbogast investigating the motel office(where he has been) and the motel parlor(where he has not.) The main reason for these shots is to "eat the time necessary for Norman to get up to the house and get dressed to kill." (I think Hitchcock timed Perkins running up there with a stop watch to time Arbo in the motel office and parlor.) Now, though this sequence has "twist ending protection" reasons, it is also hyper-suspenseful in the slasher movie tradition: camera tight on Arbogast when he bends down to examine the safe -- mother COULD be waiting right behind him with knife. Terror . (And we get Arbo's reaction to the stuffed birds.)

THREE: Arbogast exits the office , walks to the end of the motel porch, stops, looks up. POV: The house(and Herrmmann's "three notes of madness" on the soundtrack. Arbogast launches towards the hill in a close-up, immediately followed by "my favorite shot": Arbogast's long, long, long walk up the steps to the house, in which Hitchcock drinks in the suspense and makes a "visual statement" I think: Gothic horror meets contemporary detective noir. The setting and atmosphere of Psycho really pays off here -- the left side of the motel IS in this shot so as to yet again "pair up" the shabby motel and the Gothic mansion. As a matter of physical acting, Balsam's gait and pace are pretty impressive, too -- this is "movie star walking. Next in this sequence comes Arbogast reaching the house porch(with Mother's window burning above and Herrmann's "three notes of madness" one more time.)

FOUR: The Famous Arbogast Murder Scene -- all in the house, with Herrmann's great humming "wall of sound" strings to accompany the detective up to the screeching strings and screen immortality.

reply

And again, for me, the memory that before I had Psycho on video tape, I had PARTS of Psycho on audio tape. I taped pretty much all of the Arbogast sequence and thus memorized his lines with Norman and their cadence.

But as for the overall murder sequence, to listen to Herrmann's various cues as Arbo got out of his car, looked around the office and parlor, decided to climb the hill, entered the house, climbed the stairs -- I could picture the entire scene and I had all the music from the scene. (Yep, it all ends with screeching violins, the sounds of feet tumbling downstairs and that horrible final scream.)

I might add that in 1975 - also well before VHS -- they put out a "Jaws soundtrack" album and using one of the final cuts on the album(the shark keeps coming at Scheider until Scheider blows up the shark) I could picture THAT entire scene, and I did, and it was fun -- right up to the part where all you get is the music suddenly stopping...and then suddenly relaxing.

What goes in when the music stops?

Scheider: Smile, you son of a bitch!
Bang (fires rifle)
Boom (air tank in shark's mouth blows up, plus shark)

You could TELL where the line and explosion would fit.

A Universal executive joked about the Jaws soundtrack album: "We sold a million copies of an album that just goes "dum dum dum" for two sides."

Au contraire. The record gave us all the big scenes in the movie but in MUSICAL form. Our imaginations did the rest. We'd wait 7 more years for a VHS copy with the images and dialogue.

reply

"I forgot how much of the footage on Blaney is on him AS a killer. Determined. The tire iron in his hand. Again, Hitchcock isn't looking to film this scene with Blaney as "menaced"(though, hey, he COULD be -- what if Rusk's ready for him at the top of the stairs with...well, something. Not a knife? Not a necktie? Another tire iron? Hah --but seriously, this is why Rusk isn't that scary. He doesn't use a knife, he can't "jump a victim".)"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Not a necktie?" Well, he could do an Anthony Dawson on Blaney's Grace Kelly. But that's not Rusk's style.

If Frenzy has a primary weakness, it's in the character of Blaney. He's never likeable, and our sympathies lie with him only because of his innocence. He's the third of Hitchcock's surly, less-than-sympathetic "wrong men" after Stage Fright's Jonathan Cooper (who turns out not to be "wrong" at all) and Strangers' Guy Haines (to be fair, Guy is as much blandly nebbishy as he is surly). Blaney's unpleasantness at least serves that stair climb: there's no doubt that this powder keg of a guy is capable of bashing his erstwhile friend's head in.

While the appeal of a colorful villain who's at least as interesting as the nominal hero is easy enough to understand, Hitchcock achieved the perfect balance only twice: Notorious and NXNW.

Well, maybe three times: Willie in Lifeboat. But he's got eight "heroes" to contend with and outsmart.

reply

"I forgot how much of the footage on Blaney is on him AS a killer. Determined. The tire iron in his hand. Again, Hitchcock isn't looking to film this scene with Blaney as "menaced"(though, hey, he COULD be -- what if Rusk's ready for him at the top of the stairs with...well, something. Not a knife? Not a necktie? Another tire iron? Hah --but seriously, this is why Rusk isn't that scary. He doesn't use a knife, he can't "jump a victim".)"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Not a necktie?" Well, he could do an Anthony Dawson on Blaney's Grace Kelly. But that's not Rusk's style.

---

True. I've given this a lot of thought over the years: Frenzy was well reviewed and a small hit, but it wasn't Psycho. Why? There are lots of whys but one of the whys is that Rusk doesn't create that all purpose terror of a monster that kills women AND men. When Mother runs out and uses her knife(and a staircase) to kill Arbogast "just like that," everybody's scared, man and woman alike.

But Frenzy with Rusk's rape-murders of women only(and of "helpless women" --- seen then and now as rather insulting on Hitchcock's part) removed the Mrs Bates factor(the Boo factor as I call it.)

That said, Rusk is terrifying in other ways (all on view in the Brenda Blaney scene) and certainly a human monster, and Frenzy does take up that topic from Psycho in a new, more studious way(no twist ending, we watch Rusk as the psycho for almost all his time in the picture.)


reply

Whether or not Rusk might be waiting to attack Blaney at the top of the stairs(which I don't really think the scene tries to sell, as Blaney ascended) Frenzy also studiously avoids any big fight between the two men, any final confrontation. Which is a bit frustrating. Sam Loomis got to overpower Norman Bates; and in the biggest fistfight finale in all of Hitchocck, Guy and Bruno duked it out on a crazy carousel, to the death. No, we just get "Mr. Rusk, you're not wearing your tie"(from a DIFFERENT character, Oxford) and The End. (But I trust folks know MY ending for Frenzy. After "The End," Blaney crosses the room with that tire iron and smacks Rusk in the face and groin. Its only fair.)

This dilemma (fight or no fight?) recurred one film later, in Family Plot in which Bruce Dern was established as the hero and William Devane as the villain -- two youngish , toughish guys (and Dern had a big dukeroo with John Wayne in The Cowboys of 1972, and Devane would kick ass and take names in Rolling Thunder.) Would Dern and Devane mix it up in a big fight? Nope. Came the climax of Family Plot, Dern just quickly locked Devane in a room with his partner, Karen Black. The end. It made Hitchcockian sense -- Dern couldn't know if Devane had a gun, didn't want to provoke a fight, just lock the guy up in his own hidden room, and be done with it. Still -- its not Guy and Bruno on the carousel.

reply

"Ha. Perhaps you knew I'd take the bait."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I prefer to think of it as a dangling thread rather than bait. ; )

It came to mind, but I ran up against that character limit and, frankly, couldn't think of enough to say about it at the time to justify starting another post. Hence, the hope that you would.

In doing a mental inventory of stair ascents in Hitchcock (there aren't all that many others; Vertigo does give us two), another springs to mind: Strangers On a Train. In this one, the climber is both victim and assailant: entering a darkened house to, presumably, kill Bruno's father, Guy is forced into a murder contract he doesn't wish to fulfill.

In a way, it establishes the menu items from which Hitchcock would choose in staging those later ascents: POVs, some of them moving, intercut with objective shots of the climber from above accentuating his vulnerability (as with Arbo and Melanie). This time, the danger at the top of the first flight is right there in the open: a giant Great Dane.

The payoff, revealing the dog as a docile hand-licker, is fumbled with too-abrupt editing, but the point is made, and Guy can continue his climb up the second flight in the most prosaic of crane shots.

reply

[deleted]

In doing a mental inventory of stair ascents in Hitchcock (there aren't all that many others; Vertigo does give us two),

---

Yes, and those two are DOOZIES...and based on probably the most spectacular stairwell/staircase in Hitchcock history...

--another springs to mind: Strangers On a Train. In this one, the climber is both victim and assailant: entering a darkened house to, presumably, kill Bruno's father, Guy is forced into a murder contract he doesn't wish to fulfill.

---

Yep, this is certainly an early version of the staircase ascents though I'm starting to realize: Guy, Melanie and Blaney all share ascent sequences with close-ups on faces, hands , feet, etc.

Only Arbogast gets that rather straightforward and uncluttered ascent up HIS staircase -- and all in what might be called "a medium long shot" -- no close-ups for this ascent. We are just supposed to look down at him in mounting terror as Arbogast draws closer to something we KNOW is gonna be bad(except evidently for some audience members - they have written about this - -who expected Arbo at this juncture in the picture to confront Mother and somehow stop her, arrest her. Honestly, some people were REALLY surprised when "the law got killed."



reply

In a way, it establishes the menu items from which Hitchcock would choose in staging those later ascents: POVs, some of them moving, intercut with objective shots of the climber from above accentuating his vulnerability (as with Arbo and Melanie).

---

Hitchcock's great line "self-plagarism is style" enters in here. He made 53 movies over 6 decades. The technology improved and color came in. But over all these years, he could RETURN to sequences and shot selections from the past, do them in new ways, and in so doing create "auteur nostalgia"(Yeah, Hitch, do this ONE MORE TIME.)

---
This time, the danger at the top of the first flight is right there in the open: a giant Great Dane.

---

You see? Hitch rarely TOTALLY plagiarized himself. The staircase shots might be the same, but the elements -- here, the danger -- are different. What's at the top of those stairs? A monster mother, a Great Dane...killer birds? Hitchcock decides.

---
The payoff, revealing the dog as a docile hand-licker, is fumbled with too-abrupt editing,

--

Hitch's movies are a history of some great moments and some moments that don't quite play right -- this is one of THOSE.

---
but the point is made, and Guy can continue his climb up the second flight in the most prosaic of crane shots.

---
Where, waiting for him in bed is NOT Papa Anthony...but Bruno -- who rises up from the sheets like a ghost in a moment that got a scream when I saw this in revival. Think about it: this is sort of a precursor of Rusk NOT being in his bed when Blaney comes.


reply

In a way, it establishes the menu items from which Hitchcock would choose in staging those later ascents: POVs, some of them moving, intercut with objective shots of the climber from above accentuating his vulnerability (as with Arbo and Melanie).

---

Hitchcock's great line "self-plagarism is style" enters in here. He made 53 movies over 6 decades. The technology improved and color came in. But over all these years, he could RETURN to sequences and shot selections from the past, do them in new ways, and in so doing create "auteur nostalgia"(Yeah, Hitch -- do this to us ONE MORE TIME.)

---
This time, the danger at the top of the first flight is right there in the open: a giant Great Dane.

---

You see? Hitch rarely TOTALLY plagiarized himself. The staircase shots might be the same, but the elements -- here, the danger -- are different. What's at the top of those stairs? A monster mother, a Great Dane...killer birds? Hitchcock decides.

---
The payoff, revealing the dog as a docile hand-licker, is fumbled with too-abrupt editing,

--

Hitch's movies are a history of some great moments and some moments that don't quite play right -- this is one of THOSE.

---
but the point is made, and Guy can continue his climb up the second flight in the most prosaic of crane shots.

---
Where, waiting for him in bed is NOT Papa Anthony...but Bruno -- who rises up from the sheets like a ghost in a moment that got a scream when I saw this in revival. Think about it: this is sort of a precursor of Rusk NOT being in his bed when Blaney comes.

reply

If Frenzy has a primary weakness, it's in the character of Blaney. He's never likeable, and our sympathies lie with him only because of his innocence.

---

Its very weird. Blaney(called BlamEY in the book, and older there) in the source novel was fallen on hard time times and grumpy, but Hitchcock and screenwriter Anthony Shaffer really went to town making him even nastier in the film. Its as if Hitchcock could not HELP but play Blaney's anger out all the way to the end. The character didn't HAVE to be this nasty, but Hitchcock seems to say, "Yes, he does." There is some inconsistency in his writing, too -- Blaney is quite kind to Babs and times(but he needs her), and Blaney is quite friendly with Rusk(but Rusk pushes the good friendly feelings as part of his "game.") Still, he blows up at all the wrong times (as a pub customer, with Brenda at her women's club, with his friends who after all, DID shelter him) and we just aren't with him by film's end.

Rusk, of course, is a great guy for his first three scenes -- we latch onto him as OUR pal -- and then he's revealed to be this horrible, horrible, man. Hitchcock is having some dark fun here.

reply

He's the third of Hitchcock's surly, less-than-sympathetic "wrong men" after Stage Fright's Jonathan Cooper (who turns out not to be "wrong" at all) and Strangers' Guy Haines (to be fair, Guy is as much blandly nebbishy as he is surly).

---

Yeah, Cooper's not wrong after all, which makes his hero role moot -- and Guy, well, Farley Granger seems to have been rehabilitated over the years as good enough as Guy -- but he wasn't a star and Bruno overtakes everything.

--
---Blaney's unpleasantness at least serves that stair climb: there's no doubt that this powder keg of a guy is capable of bashing his erstwhile friend's head in.

Yep. And some irony here. If Blaney HAD killed Rusk, he WOULD have returned to prison(Blaney says "I might as well do what I got put in here for.") Maybe a reduced term, but a term nonetheless. Circumstances make him a free man. Lucky.

reply

While the appeal of a colorful villain who's at least as interesting as the nominal hero is easy enough to understand, Hitchcock achieved the perfect balance only twice: Notorious and NXNW.

---

Starting with NXNW, that's because he cast a major star as the hero (Grant) AND a major star as the villain(Mason.)

But more often the imbalance of hero to villain, played one way or the other.

There are no villains to match Grant in To Catch a Thief; he might BE the villain in Suspicion.

James Stewart drew as villains, for the most part, character people in Rope, Rear Window, and The Man Who Knew Too Much. The Vertigo villain(also a character man; he has about five lines in Advise and Consent) pretty much disappears from the film early -- he's not important. I'd say only character man Raymond Burr really gave Stewart a villain of power to conjure with -- the two guys in Rope rather cancel each other out.

Meanwhile, its pretty well known that Bruno, Norman, and Rusk are more compelling than Guy, Sam, and Blaney. And Ray Milland moreso than Bob Cummings. But Hitchcock seemed to be very much in favor of this being the case, with all of the villains in these films. Maybe the actor has top billing(Perkins, Milland), maybe not(Walker, Foster)...but they are the leads.

Uncle Charlie and Young Charlie MIGHT be another case for a "square match-up" -- indeed Teresa Wright has top billing over Joseph Cotton.

And as for Notorious? Well, Claude Rains wasn't established as a top leading man like James Mason would be, but as character guys went, he was up there with the best (Casablanca uber alles?) and he lent surprising sympathy and sadness to Alexander Sebastian the "victim" who is nonetheless part of a plan to kill millions and in on the plan to kill his wife(though Hitchocck made sure we understood him even in that plan).

reply

Well, maybe three times: Willie in Lifeboat. But he's got eight "heroes" to contend with and outsmart.

--

Willie was formidable. And I guess Hitchcock drew some heat from pro-Allie WWII critics about how Willie was so capable in outsmarting all the allies on the boat. But in the end, he does NOT outsmart them, and they viciously kill him(all except the African-American seaman....)

Key to casting Willie was to cast an overweight, rather roly poly man with a twinkly, child-like face: Walter Slezak. He's almost huggable, though as the story progresses, his murderous ruthlessness emerges. And also: Slezak's overweight sympathetic bad guy has a match in William Bendix who is also overweight and even MORE sympathetic. They are rather doppelgangers, good and bad.

reply

"Uncle Charlie and Young Charlie MIGHT be another case for a "square match-up" -- indeed Teresa Wright has top billing over Joseph Cotton."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More than "might." Of course they are. I'm ashamed of myself for overlooking it (I'll chalk it up to another "senior moment").

And it may be the most resonant and intriguing of the bunch: an innocent and naive young woman; the worldly, cynically charming relative she's known and worshiped her entire life.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"...Claude Rains wasn't established as a top leading man like James Mason would be, but as character guys went, he was up there with the best (Casablanca uber alles?) and he lent surprising sympathy and sadness to Alexander Sebastian..."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I'll stick by this one. I'm thinking not in terms of star power but the relative levels of interest, dimension and dramatic weight with which the "heroic" and "villainous" aspects of the story are handled and delivered. Although not as efficient and confident a criminal mastermind as Vandamm, Alex is a more complex, conflicted and deeply wrought character.




reply

"Key to casting Willie was to cast an overweight, rather roly poly man with a twinkly, child-like face: Walter Slezak. He's almost huggable, though as the story progresses, his murderous ruthlessness emerges."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lifeboat was my first exposure to Slezak. In fact, at the age of 10 or 11, it was one of the first Hitchcock films I saw. Slezak has since become part of my collection of "I'll watch him in anything" actors. I watched him in two "anythings" in just the last 48 hours.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Slezak's overweight sympathetic bad guy has a match in William Bendix who is also overweight and even MORE sympathetic. They are rather doppelgangers, good and bad."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
That's true, isn't it? Never thought about that before, but they're linked in multiple ways. "My name is Schmidt but I changed it to Smith. That's what I've got against these guys more than anything. They made me ashamed of the name I was born with. I've got relatives in Germany and for all I know, he may be one of 'em." Willie saves Gus's life; Willie ends Gus's life. Slezak's naturally wavy hair has been tightly curled, which matches Bendix's, and they're even costumed almost identically.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Up to then, I'd known Bendix only from reruns of The Life Of Reilly ("What a revoltin' development dis is!") and, possibly, one of his Burke's Law guest shots.

I loved that show. Always tongue-in-cheek, it gave its weekly parade of guest suspects, each an established actor, chances to stretch themselves and have some fun: Macdonald Carey as the egotistical star of a TV detective show; Aldo Ray as a flamboyant, martial-arts-trained Hollywood poodle groomer.

reply

"Uncle Charlie and Young Charlie MIGHT be another case for a "square match-up" -- indeed Teresa Wright has top billing over Joseph Cotton."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More than "might." Of course they are. I'm ashamed of myself for overlooking it (I'll chalk it up to another "senior moment").

---

Senior moments? You and me both. And I myself almost take pride that when I spin off a post and suggest "these are the only characters I can think of who are like that"(as an example) -- its always a great cue for someone to remind ME the ones I forgot.

Hitchcock had a LOT of characters, a LOT of actors, a LOT of scenes. That's why he is fertile for entertaining discussion , and a bit of nostalgia, IMHO.

---


And it may be the most resonant and intriguing of the bunch: an innocent and naive young woman; the worldly, cynically charming relative she's known and worshiped her entire life.

---

For all my "quick and dirty" rejection of "forties movies," I sure have a lot of them that I love, mainly Hitchcocks but only CERTAIN Hitchcocks(Shadow of a Doubt, Notorious, Saboteur - yes; Spellbound and Suspicion, not so much.) There will always be some higher emotional connection to Psycho and NXNW; but I can watch Shadow of a Doubt with a cool appreciation for -- yet again -- how Hitchocck GOT AWAY with such content in such a censored time. Young Charlie AND her mother both have borderline incestuous love for Uncle Charlie; that's one thing. Uncle Charlie's brutal speeches about the rich widows he kills and the "stys" among "nice" houses -- its practically worse than obscenity, those speeches. And Young Charlie must grow up hard.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"

reply

"...Claude Rains wasn't established as a top leading man like James Mason would be, but as character guys went, he was up there with the best (Casablanca uber alles?) and he lent surprising sympathy and sadness to Alexander Sebastian..."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I'll stick by this one.

---

As well you should -- and I appreciate the refinement of my "star power" analysis.

---

I'm thinking not in terms of star power but the relative levels of interest, dimension and dramatic weight with which the "heroic" and "villainous" aspects of the story are handled and delivered.

---

Yes. I suppose this is a bit like mean Blaney and nice Rusk to come years later. Grant's Devlin is, overall, a more mean, cruel and(let's face it) handsome man than Sebastian; he's got the arrogance of looking like Cary Grant without Grant's usually self-deprecation. Rains is certainly handsome enough, and courtly enough, and kind enough, to outrank Grant in certain ways as Bergman's lover/husband but...

...you still get this feeling that Grant and Bergman are the Big Man on Campus and the Homecoming Queen playing a prank on the campus rich nerd (mainly when Rains discovers the two kissing -- yes they HAVE to do it to save themselves, but the effect is just as awful on the poor Nazi guy.)

--
Although not as efficient and confident a criminal mastermind as Vandamm, Alex is a more complex, conflicted and deeply wrought character.

--

Well, I think we have to return to Hitchcock himself calling NXNW a "fantasy" with no real characters of depth. That's not quite true -- we have complex feelings about Thornhill, Eve and Vandamm, but the action rather overtakes their abilty to "dig deep." And Vandamm is, of course, a forerunner of villains from Goldfinger to Hans Gruber(Die Hard)...HIMSELF refined from forties villains like Otto Kruger in Saboteur. It was a continuing development in movies. The elegant spymaster, the elegant head terrorist, etc.

reply

"Key to casting Willie was to cast an overweight, rather roly poly man with a twinkly, child-like face: Walter Slezak. He's almost huggable, though as the story progresses, his murderous ruthlessness emerges."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lifeboat was my first exposure to Slezak. In fact, at the age of 10 or 11, it was one of the first Hitchcock films I saw. Slezak has since become part of my collection of "I'll watch him in anything" actors. I watched him in two "anythings" in just the last 48 hours.

---

He had a great face and a great voice. I've stumbled on him in other films(I think he was a Fox player, yes?) and he was always good. He could be good or bad He even played a TV Batman villain...The Clock King.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

reply

"Slezak's overweight sympathetic bad guy has a match in William Bendix who is also overweight and even MORE sympathetic. They are rather doppelgangers, good and bad."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
That's true, isn't it? Never thought about that before, but they're linked in multiple ways.

---

It may have taken me a time or two to spot it for myself, but yes, I think so -- and the two men have that sad conversation before Willie elects to kill Gus -- they SEEM to be connecting(as two overweight, maybe overlooked men), but Willie has his ruthless principles, Gus is a crippled dove(leg amputated), there is only so much water and...

---


"My name is Schmidt but I changed it to Smith. That's what I've got against these guys more than anything. They made me ashamed of the name I was born with. I've got relatives in Germany and for all I know, he may be one of 'em."

---

And right when Willie kills Gus, he says "remember your name is Schmidt." This is the kind of "see it all ways" approach that Hitchcock(and his writers John Steinbeck and Jo Sterling) could give even a WWII propaganda tale. Willie has his REASONS, his belief system.

--
Willie saves Gus's life; Willie ends Gus's life.

--

As the circumstances demand...

---
Slezak's naturally wavy hair has been tightly curled, which matches Bendix's, and they're even costumed almost identically.

---


Yes. I'm reminded that Hitchcock asked actor Barry Foster to curl HIS hair to greater resemble real life psycho Neville Heath in Frenzy, so here might be another matter of "using the hairstyle" to make a statement: Willie and Gus are brothers under the skin -- possibly even more of a reason for the rest to go berserk and beat/drown Willie(a 1944 scene with some of the brutality of, say, Arbogast's killing to come -- Willie even ends up with blood on his brow, like the detective.)



Thanks for pointing it out.

reply

About that brutality. Toss Lifeboat in there with Shadow of a Doubt and Notorious in demonstating how Hitchcock managed to slip right past the Hays Code censors in matter of sex, violence, and "certain details."

To wit, in Lifeboat: John Hodiak's sailor notes that when the torpedo hit, he was in the bathroom: "I got caught with my pants --" I don't think he gets to say "down," but he gets close enough that you KNOW what he was doing, and that was a no-no in 1944.

I also think its made clear that Tallulah Bankhead and Hodiak somehow manage to have sex while the others are sleeping(its how they look at each other, before and after.)

Then there is the stark horror of the amputation of Gus's leg, and the mercilessness of his killing by Willie, and the brutality of the killing OF Willie.

Not to mention the early scene with the dead baby and the mother who manages to hang herself from the boat.

In short, by 1944 standards, I'd guess that Lifeboat almost played at a "Psycho" level of sex and violence -- but it was couched in a WWII drama so it didn't play like a shocker.

Its a great movie -- a personal favorite of one of my past significant others; I love it for HER.

And what I"ll always remember from MY first viewing of Lifeboat was that opening shot on the smokestack of the ship. You expect the camera to pan down to the entire ship, but when it pans down...the smokestack is going under water - we have to IMAGINE the ship. Now gone to Davy Jones Locker..

reply


Up to then, I'd known Bendix only from reruns of The Life Of Reilly ("What a revoltin' development dis is!")

---

I grew up with that show in re-runs(in the 60's) and he was rather a funny guy from that show. Then I started to see his forties movies, where he could play good or bad(The Blue Dahlia), but always with that Bronx mensch acting. He was a CLASSIC forties character actor, and I'm glad Hitchcock got to use him once (Hitch seemed to miss out as many character people as he got -- he never got to use Edward Andrews or Arthur O'Connell, for two later ones.)

reply

and, possibly, one of his Burke's Law guest shots.

I loved that show. Always tongue-in-cheek, it gave its weekly parade of guest suspects, each an established actor, chances to stretch themselves and have some fun: Macdonald Carey as the egotistical star of a TV detective show; Aldo Ray as a flamboyant, martial-arts-trained Hollywood poodle groomer.

--

I trust you've seen some of my loving posts for that show. I enjoyed it when I first watched it as a kid, and later, when I really UNDERSTOOD the nature of the guest suspect lists, I liked it better.

For instance, Burke's Law was a series where a lot of forties movie actors(not quite stars) made their "last stop": William Bendix, Billy De Wolfe, Lizabeth Scott. Health care wasn't what it is today, a lot of these folks didn't live very long into the sixties, its a "last chance" to see them(Bendix included). But the show made sure to use The Smothers Brothers and Frankie Avalon as suspects, too. Great whodunit, great women(sixties series had a LOT of beautiful women), great action(usually). I miss Burke's Law.

And Aldo Ray was trippy as that poodle groomer...

reply

The killing of Willie accomplishes what Marion's murder does, but through entirely different means: in one uninterrupted longshot, the staging, rather than the editing, depicts something that we never actually see.

They're equally visceral: Psycho's rapid-fire montage puts us in the shower with victim and killer, the disorienting frenzy of both action and editing fragmenting time and space; Lifeboat forces us to stand stock still with Joe, unable to move or even look away as it all plays out before our eyes in real time.

One's like seeing a train wreck; the other like being in it. Both shocks to the senses.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"And what I"ll always remember from MY first viewing of Lifeboat was that opening shot on the smokestack of the ship."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It came to a rather ignominious fate: finding its way into a stock footage library and rented out 15 years later (and tinted blue) for the closing shot of The Last Voyage, released in 1960 by MGM.

After going to all the trouble and expense of partially sinking the on-the-way-to-scrapyard ĂŽle de France (which had rescued Ruth Roman and other passengers from the Andrea Doria), accomplishing some truly impressive effects as the sea is literally at the heels of lead players racing along the submerging deck, cheapens Hitchcock's great, economical-yet-epic footage for a fadeout that reeks of penny-pinching slapdash-ery.

reply

The killing of Willie accomplishes what Marion's murder does, but through entirely different means: in one uninterrupted longshot, the staging, rather than the editing, depicts something that we never actually see.
--

That's a nice piece of comparative analysis, doghouse.

I'm reminded that one of the payoffs of being a Hitchcock buff, is that he is a 'one man film school" -- you can see him making different decisions in different movies, about how to present set-pieces and scenes(especially murders) in different ways to express different cinematic(and emotional, and social) themes.

Willie probably COULD have been killed in a flurry of fast edits(Hitchcock was already doing that in movies like Saboteur), but what Hitchcock needed here was, I think what Truffaut called "an attack by a pack of dogs" on the hated Willie. (HERE's a guy who gets the treatment I would have liked to see Bob Rusk get, btw.)

Hitchcock also brings in concepts here like the cramped quarters of the lifeboat and the "distance"(small) across the way to where the killing takes place, and, importantly, the fact that what the mob REALLY wants to do is to drive Willie into the ocean where he pushed Gus -- to get rid of Willie forever, to sacrifice him to the dangerous watery depths that surround the lifeboat(its a very treacherous locale, as in Jaws: fall overboard -- you die.)

----

reply

They're equally visceral: Psycho's rapid-fire montage puts us in the shower with victim and killer, the disorienting frenzy of both action and editing fragmenting time and space; Lifeboat forces us to stand stock still with Joe, unable to move or even look away as it all plays out before our eyes in real time.

---

Yes. Joe's location and presence and role as "the conscience" of the scene is important.

---

One's like seeing a train wreck; the other like being in it. Both shocks to the senses.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Well put and either way you cut it -- that's the power of Hitchcock to take his audience INTO his scenes, and a reminder that, as one critic called him, Hitchcock was a "one man Murder Incorporated," devoting much of his career -- in specific scenes -- to violent deaths. (As QT would, decades later)

reply

"And what I"ll always remember from MY first viewing of Lifeboat was that opening shot on the smokestack of the ship."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It came to a rather ignominious fate: finding its way into a stock footage library and rented out 15 years later (and tinted blue) for the closing shot of The Last Voyage, released in 1960 by MGM.

--

I did not KNOW that. (As Johnny Carson would say, but I'm serious in my intrigue about this.)

---

After going to all the trouble and expense of partially sinking the on-the-way-to-scrapyard ĂŽle de France (which had rescued Ruth Roman and other passengers from the Andrea Doria), accomplishing some truly impressive effects as the sea is literally at the heels of lead players racing along the submerging deck, cheapens Hitchcock's great, economical-yet-epic footage for a fadeout that reeks of penny-pinching slapdash-ery.

--

I recall from TV Guide blurbs of the time that much was made of how a REAL ship was REALLY scrapped to give this film a sense of reality but -- if you knew Lifeboat and Hitchcock -- it had to be a crashing insult.

reply

Some "richochet trivia" on The Last Voyage:

It came out in 1960, the same year as Psycho.

It starred Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone, soon after their success in Sirk's Written on the Wind(also starring Rock Hudson and Lauren Bacall; Malone won the Oscar.)

When the local ABC channel debuted Psycho late at night on Saturday, November 18, 1967 -- the local CBS channel put up a fight and broadcast "Written on the Wind" against it. I'm sure a few folks chose "Written on the Wind" over Psycho...but I never met any of them that week, not among kids.

reply

1960 was also the year of Robert Stack's hit TV series(which went on before then and past then): The Untouchables, which is referenced in Billy Wilder's 1960 hit(and Best Picture), The Apartment. One of the married guy's lovers balks at going out on Thursday night "But that's Bob Stack on The Untouchables!" (The married guy says, "OK, so we'll watch it at the apartment!" Appointment TV.)

"Bob Stack on The Untouchables" was certainly Stack's claim to fame, even as he was a viable movie star for a time. His robotic, staccato tough cop's voice was just this side of Jack Webb's Joe Friday for bizarre, borderline self-parody(and yet, NOT.)

On another OT thread, I get into how Robert Stack eventually ended up on a 1968 Universal TV series The Name of the Game, in rotation with stars Tony Franciosa(cool) and Gene Barry(suave.) Stack's weird robot ended up making his "Name of the Game" episodes his alone -- I guess I'll wrap up by saying that Bob Stack sure had a weird career. And he used "Airplane" and "Unsolved Mysteries" to keep it going. It was one of those hard, strange, start-at-the-top and tread water acting careers.

Of course, I loved the movie made out of The Untouchables, which in no way is like the staccato b/w show.

reply

>>Except the shower scene is still more powerful, because: (a) it was first; (b) the terror quotient is much stronger(a human maniac versus special effects birds; the lonely isolation of the Bates Motel verus a house with a family downstairs) and (c) the victim DIES.<<

I'm still bummed by the shower scene from Bates Motel. No comparison. I think Bates Motel was to bring Psycho to a new generation, but instead it brought its own story. I would hope the younger generation went and saw the original movie after watching the tv series.

The other creepy part was the way Arbogast was killed. I mean to have your face slit open and then fall backwards down the stairs only to break your back and just have to lay there while being stabbed to the hilt was too much. In Bates Motel, Cody's father got pushed down the stairs by Norman, broke his neck, and died. That could just be involuntary manslaughter.

In Bates Motel, the killing with most impact was Ms. Watson's, but we didn't see any killing. The other big deal was Norma marrying the Sheriff for the insurance money lol. Any others?

reply

I'm still bummed by the shower scene from Bates Motel. No comparison.

---

No, I didn't think so, either. Goes to show you: the elements may be there, but it is how you use them that counts.

---

I think Bates Motel was to bring Psycho to a new generation, but instead it brought its own story. I would hope the younger generation went and saw the original movie after watching the tv series.

---

I hope so, too. The stories are entirely different in tone and the film-making is entirely different in style. Of course, there's a half century between movie and series....

----

reply

The other creepy part was the way Arbogast was killed. I mean to have your face slit open and then fall backwards down the stairs only to break your back and just have to lay there while being stabbed to the hilt was too much.

---

Yes, it was a pretty horrible way to go and no way could have Arbogast anticipated his end,even as a tough detective who likely takes some risks in his work. One wonders how that slash to his face FELT to him -- painful? or just surprising? But it was soon too late for him to worry -- he's plummeting down the stairs, hitting the floor, getting finished off. Its a bad death.

--

In Bates Motel, Cody's father got pushed down the stairs by Norman, broke his neck, and died. That could just be involuntary manslaughter.

---

A key aspect of the Arbogast murder is that it COULD have been executed as a simple "staircase push," but Mother added the knifeplay...she was out to annihilate this intruder...also interesting: whereas some other "staircase fall scenes" in other movies and TV shows, show us the victim "dead from the fall" -- Arbogast is STILL ALIVE when he hits bottom. Mother has to finish him off(honestly, what if Arbogast had simply died from a broken neck at the bottom and expired instantly? Mother would have nothing more do do.) The horror quotient in this quick scene haunted people forever.

---


reply

RE: The Birds

This may be more related to Hitchcock saying you can't build up the audience in suspense and not RELIEVE that suspense. And in the RIGHT way.

With The Birds, he left the ending open ended.

Was it some kind of metaphor? I thought it meant humankind did something bad and this was nature's weird, unnatural response. It's similar to humankind destroying the environment with with excess CO2 and we get AGW.

reply

RE: The Birds

This may be more related to Hitchcock saying you can't build up the audience in suspense and not RELIEVE that suspense. And in the RIGHT way.

With The Birds, he left the ending open ended.

---

Well, I gotta say ...you got me with that one. The Birds IS Hitchcock's "Sopranos" ending in certain key ways, and I won't talk myself out of that.

Except maybe for 'nuance."

David Chase built up his entire series on "where will it end on Tony Soprano?" Now that could have been death, or to prison, or perhaps even to a trial(but Uncle Junior showed us you can win those.) Or Tony could have ended like, say Michael Corleone in Godfather I(alive, his future ahead of him.) THAT ending was the ending of "The Sorpanos, Season Two" and probably the best example of how to end that way(I think Season Two had a great ending, the best of the seasons.)

But in those final five minutes, Chase used "Hitchcockian suspense techniques" to get the audience all riled up and ready for SOMETHING...and then gave us nothing.

Meanwhile, Hitchcock with The Birds elected to make a story with an art-film veneer and a philosophical depth: a contemplation of the End of the Word. Any OTHER "monster movie" (Godzilla, Rodan, the giant ants in Them) ends with the creature or creatures destroyed and mankind "safe to live another day." Hitchcock with the Birds said, "I can't give you that. I won't give you that."

The radio reports we hear at the end of The Birds suggest that maybe -- just maybe -- the attacks were isolated to Bodega Bay(and a little of Santa Rosa), its a "one off rebellion" and, as the radio guy says "the military may be called in." But maybe, just maybe..the birds are here to stay. And mankind will have to learn to live with their murderous attacks..or submit and go extinct.

reply

The possibility of "humankind going extinct" at the end of The Birds was much on people's minds in 1963. The US and Russia had nuclear weapons. Students in all countries were being told to "duck and cover" under their desks and though they(we? ME?) didn't quite take it seriously, the idea that "the world go blow up" was always on our minds, if subconsciously.

Stanley Kramer's 1959 movie "On the Beach" (with Anthony Perkins fourth-billed over the title) took up the topic of the US and Russia exchanging nukes and the whole world dying...slowly down to a group of doomed survivors in Austrailia, waiting for the radioactivity to float in on the winds from the rest of the world, and kill them. THAT was a dramatic story - -and not a big hit - and The Birds kind of tells the same story. Maybe that it is another reason why The Birds, while a hit(monster movies are)...was not as big a hit as Psycho(where things end, and the solo killer is put away.)

Typing this, I'm optimistic to say that in 1963 when The Birds came out, a lot of people didn't think the world WOULD get survive to the 70's, or the 80s, or the 90s...there would be no world in which The Sopranos would even be made. But we did survive to make The Sopranos, and we are all here today -- less our elders who have passed and moved on.

reply

Was it some kind of metaphor?

---

Hitchcock allowed critics to consider The Birds as such. As a practical matter, he was massively rich and successful from Psycho and his TV show on the one hand, and worshiped by a group of French critics(and others) on the other -- but he hadn't won a Best Director Oscar yet, and I think that the "important themes" of The Birds were part of Hitchcock's campaign(yes, an OSCAR campaign) to be taken more seriously. Alas, the Academy only nominated The Birds for Best Special Effects...and gave the win to Cleopatra.

--

I thought it meant humankind did something bad and this was nature's weird, unnatural response.

--

Since Hitchcock never gave us a final reason WHY the birds attacked, this one is as good as any. Its "on the list," and Hitchcock personally alluded to it in his trailer. Of course, it leads to a lot of hemming and hawing - in "the animal world," animals do something bad to each other(like attack, kill, eat each other) all the time. We're all part of the food chain.

---

It's similar to humankind destroying the environment with with excess CO2 and we get AGW.

---

Well, the nuclear threat of yesteryear is now the climate change threat of today -- and the nuclear threat never REALLY went away. Meanwhile -- now as then -- things aren't cut and dried. Everybody's arguing.

This is all above my pay grade for a "relaxing" look at the movies, hah. So I think that's all I'll say on this topic. The top scientists in the world are on this.

PS. The Sopranos did come along late enough in history to witness something Hitchcock did not live to see: 9/11. Yet another smaller dose of "the end of the world." Cheers!

reply

but he hadn't won a Best Director Oscar yet, and I think that the "important themes" of The Birds were part of Hitchcock's campaign(yes, an OSCAR campaign) to be taken more seriously. Alas, the Academy only nominated The Birds for Best Special Effects...and gave the win to Cleopatra.

=======

I'll admit, I've never seen Cleopatra, and although I like The Birds, I can't imagine why Hitch thought it was Oscar-worthy. That hour-long story about the relationships when most people just wanted to see bird attacks? Even back then, before the short attention spans of today, I can imagine people in the audience thinking, 'Just get to the attacks already.' That's how it was promoted, anyway.

It should have won for Special Effects though. For the time, they were amazing.

reply

I'll admit, I've never seen Cleopatra, and although I like The Birds, I can't imagine why Hitch thought it was Oscar-worthy.

---

As he began work on the movie, he gave his new screenwriter Evan Hunter, a tour of his office bungalow and reached his five Best Director nomination plaques...Psycho being the most recent. "Always a bridesmaid, never a bride" Hitch told Hunter. I've always taken that story as a cue for Hitchcock TRYING to make a "very serious movie" with The Birds. I think the film's slow first hour, and "deep dive" into the family psychodrama, and the shrill screaming of characters at one another was part of Hitchcock's plan to create "Oscar bait." But Hitchcock didn't really know HOW to make Oscar bait.

---

That hour-long story about the relationships when most people just wanted to see bird attacks? Even back then, before the short attention spans of today, I can imagine people in the audience thinking, 'Just get to the attacks already.'

---

I think that was a big problem then. Today, it would be impossible to put that hour in that way(Michael Bay's been threatening a "Birds" remake since 1998, but you CAN'T remake that version of The Birds.) And again, I think part of that long crawl to action was Hitchcock "getting serious."

---

That's how it was promoted, anyway.

---

Non-stop bird attacks? Yes, the ads and trailers suggested as much. Again...The Birds made less than half of Psycho's gross. Lots of reasons why.

Even though, famously, Psycho started slow, too, but it had a sex scene, a theft, and some suspense before reaching THE shock in movies...nobody cared about the "slow start" once the shower scene happened.

----

reply

(The Birds) should have won for Special Effects though. For the time, they were amazing.

---

Fully agreed, and better than Cleopatra's and -- more still -- the whole POINT of making "The Birds." This was one of those projects where Hitchcock set himself a near-impossible goal, and met it. Whatever the problems with the script and some of the acting, The Birds is as much a landmark film as Psycho in that one particular regard -- special effects AND whatever else it took (live trained birds, puppet birds) to "direct" the birds to attack, and to stand still, and -- in one great bit of acting -- to bite Rod Taylor on the finger as he passes on the porch. Amazing.

I love that final shot of birds "as far as the eye can see," but I love the shot right before it: low angle on a line of crows sitting on the Brenner front porch rail as if saying "See you later guys -- this is OUR house now."

Did those birds give a great performance or what?

reply