MovieChat Forums > christomacin > Replies
christomacin's Replies
Some people are trying to remake EWS into the film THEY wanted to see, rather than the film that it is. In other words, they want a lurid "thriller" ending. I DO think there actually is some symbolism going on with the daughter in the toy shop, but it's much more subtle and interesting than a kidnapping subplot.
First of all, I don't get anyone would claim we are seeing a literal kidnapping, just from a common sense point of view, Helena is FOLLOWING the two bald men away from her parents. They are "following" her and aren't even looking at her at all. The fact that the two old bald men and the young long-haired waiter we see at Zeigler's in the beginning show up again at the end is interesting, how ever.
Two points need to be made, the first being her name Helena is a variation on the name of Zeigler's wife, which is Ilena, both of which are derived from the name Helena. The second is the scene where Alice is helping Helena with her homework, which is a math problem figuring out "which man has more money".
The significance of the name, I believe, is a reference to the story of Helen of Troy. Helen left her husband and family and ran of with Paris. In some versions she goes willingly, in others, she is abducted. In any case, this story is reminiscent of Alice's story of running off with the naval officer.
The significance of the math problem is that it's almost as if Helena is being iscbll being trained and groomed from an early age to make a "good match" with a wealthy man.
So, Helena being "abducted", or at the very least lured into following after the wealthy bald old men, is symbolic of the potential life path Helena might take in the future. Will she end up a kept trophy wife like Zeigler's wife and namesake Ilena, perfectly aware of her husband infidelity and perhaps even complicit in his orgies and other corrupt activities?
Thanks for sticking up for me, and for elevating this conversation with your knowledgeable imput.
Heading? It's been on since 2014.
So, my reading of the film was seemingly correct, even if the timing of the Cuban Missile Crisis was coincidental. That being said, the events of 1962 must have made a significant on Hitchcok, as he returned to that very topic a few years later with "Topaz". I had no idea Hitchcock even made those statments. So, thanks for bringing that to light.
Regardless, I think there must be something deeper Hitchcock had in mind with The Birds that isn't discussed a great deal. I mean, the love birds being the only avian creatures that don't attack has to mean SOMETHING. The "it's the end of the world!" segment in the diner is pretty on the nose, surely. The god-like view of the town of Bodega Bay going up in flames is very suggestive, as well. The end of the film with the ray of sunshine peeking through ominous clouds makes a lot more sense when you look at it through the lens of apocalypse and (maybe, if we're lucky) salvation.
It's the only Hitchcock film that doesn't have any logical explanation for it's events, and almost invites such interpretations. Well, perhaps Hitchcock teases us in "Family Plot" as to whether Blanche has psychic abilities, but that's done so tongue in cheek it's hard to take it seriously. Many of noted in other films Hitchcock's sense of guilt, and transferrance of guilt, which probably does have something to do with his upbringing. However, only a handful of Hitchcock films deal with spiritual themes more directly, such as "I Confess" and "The Wrong Man". Maybe we could call those two plus "The Birds" his "Catholic Trilogy"?
P.S. I'm not Catholic or even particularly a believer of any kind of religion at all, but I know Hitchcock was, so I don't think it's unreasonable to look for hints of it in his work, the rare times he let it peek through. This is I why I got so cross with the poster above and said some things I probably shouldn't have been baited into.
No, but he is familiar with a certain green substance.
You forgot Lolita: Humbert, Lolita, and her mother.
I think only Danny from The Shining and Helena from Eyes Wide Shut are truly significant characters as far as Kubrick's themes are concerned.
For what it's worth, Kubrick's household was four people: Kubrick, wife and two daughters.
If this really was a prophecy, it was a truly cruel and false one. I guess back then people were still under the delusion that "good always triumphs", with a nice three act structure and everything all wrapped up with a pretty little ribbon. It doesn't.
Regardless of how one feels about Trump, it's abundantly clear now this is NOT a prophecy. Hollywood fantasies about "good always winning out in the end" always were a lie anyway, so no surprise.
And the fact that Cushing himself was dealing with his wife's death in real life at the time, making it especially poignant.
They had a name for it in the British film industry back then: "Kensington Gore".
How did Magee know Major Rogers had a valuable picture on his wall if he couldn't see?
No. Most normal adults don't by merch from politicians. Cultists, on the other hand....
Another fucking MAGA nut.
"biased"
Yes, you are, Fuck Faces. A rare moment of agreement.
He wanted to deport illegals first, who he said we're coming to rape and kill us. Then he started talking about dogs and cats, suggesting LEGAL Haitian immigrants be deported. Now he's ratcheting up rhetoric against outright American citizens. Just a "joke going too far", or something else. Is Orange the new Brown (shirt), and is Puerto Rico the new Guantanamo?
Jabbering apes gonna jabber, I guess. You'll not get any coherent response from this silly simian.
Most elections between 1972 and 1988 were, blowouts, aside from 1976. Aside from 2000, between 1992 and 2020, you had some that produced clear winners but no blowouts (2004, 2008, 2012). These were decided quickly. Others like 2016 and 2020 were decided within 24 hours. 2020 is only considered "controversial", unlike the even closer elections of 1960, 1968, 1976, and 2000, because of the reckless and assholish behavior of Trump and his supporters.
If Pacino and Brando had both been nominated for for Best Actor it might have split the votes, possibly opening a path for Peter O'Toole to win for his brilliant performance in The Ruling Class.
Depends on what Israel's reason we're for doing so. If, for instance, Turkey was responsible for an attack on Israel first than NATO could opt out of defending them. An October 7th style attack by Turkey or ifs proxies would give cover not to support it.
Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands (owned by Britain) and that didn't trigger Article 5, so there is wiggle room and flexibility.