I agree that movies were clunkier, in general, back then. And plot expectations were different. But here’s a short list of movies that came out that same year:
Dr Strangelove
The Pink Panther
The Unsinkable Molly Brown
Mary Poppins
Fist Full of Dollars
My Fair Lady
The Great Escape
Not sure I would call those movies clunky. And if you expand it to include movies from ‘that period’, you could add greatly to that list.
I saw “Marnie” at my local bijou when I was 12 years old. Had my parents known what it was all about they never would have allowed it. I thought it was a pretty cool thriller at the time, but what did I know. Subsequent viewings have led me to feel it’s a disturbing film on many levels. Marnie is a psychological mess because of her trauma as a child. Mark Rutledge is a sadist who enjoys mentally torturing her, much like Hitchcock mentally tortured Ms. Hedren during the filming. No one in the film is the least bit likeable. I couldn’t watch it today, and I like a lot of Hitch’s films. Even his misfires (like “Torn Curtain” and “Topaz”) have some merit.
The age of the actors is irrelevant. It’s that age of the characters that is important. Are they good in the part? If so, it’s good casting.
Actors play both older than their actual age and younger than their actual age.
I don’t know about clunky, but I have a problem with Hitch’s idea of suspense. Not all the Way through, mind you, but the big showdown in Rear Window is just so drawn out, I’m like “Come on, already!”.
The same is true with the carousel scene in Strangers on a Train, and the Mt Rushmore scene in NxNW*. With a bonus of, who in their right mind would climb out on a dangerous sheer granite face, when they could just double back in the dark? I like all these movies, but after several viewings, I just get annoyed at the fake suspense.
And despite my small hijack here, I’ve never seen The Birds!
*the plot holes, on the other hand, really do bother me, a lot, but the characters make up for it.
That’s true. I was using the ages of the actors as a sort-of benchmark to the ages perhaps the characters might be. Looking at them that way, Rod Taylor certainly could have had a younger sister Veronica Cartwright’s age.
Wow. Color me amazed. I withdraw my contention about contemporary movie practice. I have certainly seen The Birds before, but in my defective memory I’d placed it about 10 years earlier than it was.
At this point I totally convert to your POV. By the time Birds was made, Hitchcock was apparently enough of an anachronistic elder stateman to still get stuff made, but his style had not kept up with the changes in movie-making since his heyday.
I assume you meant “not debating.” But my point was that I’m not sure it would qualify as odd at the time. Hence, “perhaps unremarkable.”
I mean, I was always amazed that my mom was practically the same age as my oldest cousin, but my mom never talked about it being weird or unusual. She’s never mentioned anyone else thinking it was weird. She was about 20 when The Birds came out. I’m thinking that people who would have been watching the film didn’t think it was odd at all.
I was waiting for the Big Reveal at the end which would tell us why the birds had been acting in this way - and felt rather cheated that we didn’t get one (haven’t seen it for years).
I would disagree with this. The actual age of an actor will color their character. Movies have many moving parts and they need to flow and support the film. That could be the score, the camera work, the pacing and, yes, the appropriate actors. Actors, even good ones, that distract from the plot isn’t good casting.
For example, Tom Cruise was cast as Jack Reacher. But if you read this thread, you might come away thinking that was not a good casting choice, even though he was excellent in it, simply because of his size.
Despite of how good an actor is, if they are too old, too tall, too white, or too anything that provides a distraction, I would question whether it is good casting.
Yes, I did, Thanks and sorry.
Cary Grant was 55 when he made North by Northwest, much older than the character. The actress who played his mother was only seven years older than him.
I don’t see how anyone who has seen North By Northwest can say it’s ‘clunky’ or ‘glacial.’
I thought it might be interesting to read a critical review of The Birds. These excerpts are from the April 1, 1963 edition of The New York Times. (It may be paywalled.)
…Making a terrifying menace out of what is assumed to be one of nature’s most innocent creatures and one of man’s most melodious friends, Mr. Hitchcock and his associates have constructed a horror film that should raise the hackles of the most courageous and put goose-pimples on the toughest hide.
…But whether or not it is intended that you should find significance in this film, it is sufficiently equipped with other elements to make the senses reel. Mr. Hitchcock, as is his fashion, has constructed it beautifully, so that the emotions are carefully worked up to the point where they can be slugged.
…Notice how clear and naturalistic the narrative elements are: a plausible confrontation, beautiful scenery, a literal enactment of a playful intrigue – all very nicely arranged.
Then, sneakily, Mr. Hitchcock tweaks us with a tentative touch of the bizarre. The plausible is interrupted by a peculiar avian caprice. A seagull attacks a young woman. Flocks of angry gulls whirl in the air. A swarm of sparrows swoops down a chimney and whirrs madly through the living room. And, then, before we know it, he is flying in shock waves of birds and the wild, mad, fantastic encounter with a phenomenon of nature is on.
There may be no explanation for it (except that symbolic one, perhaps), but the fierceness and frightfulness of it are sufficient to cause shocks and chills. And that is, no doubt, what Mr. Hitchcock primarily intends.
He was being true to du Maurier’s book in that regard.
To be fair, the final film we watched last weekend was Psycho. Which I actually enjoyed. My main issue was with the ending. Way too drawn out. As JAQ said, “Come on, already!”
And then the Charlie Chan-esque explanation to everyone in the drawing room exposition scene following the end. However, I forgive this a little out of nostalgia - I used to love them as a kid.
The only part of Birds I remember, because I laughed so hard at it, was the scene in the diner where all the patrons are talking about the bird violence, and a woman sitting with her kids tells the waiter, “Can you please ask them to lower their voices? They’re frightening the children.”
Agreed. I love Hitchcock films but I’ll never watch Marnie again. I’d rather watch his silent films made before The Lodger than watch Marnie.
As far as the overblown and glacial pace, the remake of The Man Who Knew Too Much definitely qualifies. I much prefer Hitch’s shorter and more enjoyable original B&W film.
And yeah, I give Topaz and Torn Curtain the occasional rewatch
My youngest aunt is closer to my age than to my mom’s age.
RE Charade age gap between Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn:
I can’t find the cite now, but I read somewhere that Cary Grant thought it was unseemly for his character to be chasing a much-younger Audrey. So it was switched to have her coming on to him with him resisting. That replaced the ick factor with charm and fun. Audrey Hepburn had that quality in common with Grace Kelly that she could be a classic, polished, high-class lady (are we still allowed to use that word?) with banked and hidden fires of passion.
My mother was the second oldest child and oldest girl of 10. First child born in 1921, last one in 1944. I’m only four years younger than my aunt.
I think it’s cool that there’s an actress who has starred in two of the most popular horror movies ever made: Veronica Cartwright, who was in both The Birds and Alien.