I remember the first time it was on broadcast TV (1968). My mother was a Hitchcock fan and was sorely disappointed in the ending, finally resigning to say “Well, that’s Hitchcock!”. At least we still only had a black and white TV set, so that wasn’t a disappointment.
Just so people know, the schoolhouse is in the town of Bodega, which is inland, not Bodega Bay, which is on the water. I was involved with a workshop that met in one of the hotels in Bodega Bay, particularly because it was far from everything. I love the place.
Patrick Jarring was his stage name.
Yes. And John Wayne was 42 in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, when he played someone on the verge of retirement – in his 60s.
People always point out Jesse Royce Landis in North by Northwest, but she was perfectly convincing in her role.
The actual age of the actor is irrelevant because it’s not the actor in the movie. It’s the character that appears.
Hitchcock said the only reason that explanation was to basically pander to the audience who would object that Norman was never explained. It’s also clear that he thought the “explanation” explains nothing, as the final shot shows.
He went without an explanation with The Birds and people complained, so he was right about Psycho.
I meant to mention this…thanks!
Another fan of Bodega Bay here. I was up there last week to score the best clam chowder on the west coast at Spud Point Crab Company for lunch. (I take it up to Bodega Head, find a parking spot with a view, and slurp it down…yum!) I also stopped in at the Tides Fish Market to get some smoked albacore. They have a mock-up of the cafe from the movie there complete with crows on the roof and a TV in the window playing a video loop of phone booth scene. I cruised through Bodega on my way back and was a little disappointed to see the cardboard stand-up of Hitch was gone from the front of the antique store there.
My Favorite Hitchcock moment, from memory: in Saboteur, Bob Cummings is running from the law and ends up at a cabin deep in the woods. The old guy in the cabin is blind, and alone in the woods, and for some insane reason, feels it necessary to wear a tie.
Was The Birds the first movie that used a swarm as an existential menace? Lots of movies have done that now, but it’s a primal, possibly fairly universal source of fear that maybe hadn’t really been tapped into before. Seemingly innocuous animals singly become creepy when you up their numbers to a swarm.
Beginning of the End in 1957 used locusts. Of course, they were giant radioactive mutant locusts, but it was a swarm. The thing to remember is that du Maurier’s story was popular enough to have been dramatized several times before Hitchcock made a movie out of it.
If you haven’t read the original short story, it’s a quick read, albeit a rather big pdf.
Considering that Hitchcock was born in 1899 (just 10 years after Chaplin), it should come as no surprise that his films seem dated by today’s standards.
It seems to me that my dad was a surprise, being fifteen years younger than the oldest. My mother was twenty two when she had me, and once when she went to church with me she was asked if we were sisters. She couldn’t wait to tell my dad.
I’m not sure I follow. Are you suggesting because he was born a long time ago, he brought those ‘old-time’ sensibilities along with him?
Presumably, being in the industry, he was up on all the latest trends and techniques in movie making. Here’s some films made before The Birds was released, some many years before:
Citizen Kane (1941)
Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)
Singin’ in the Rain (1952)
12 Angry Men (1957)
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
A Place in the Sun (1951)
From Here to Eternity (1953)
Casablanca (1942)
Gone with the Wind (1939)
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
So it’s not like he didn’t have inspiration to draw from.
Hitch was only 64 when he made the birds. Sidney Lumet, for example, made the fantastic and contemporary ‘Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead’; when he was 83, and he was born 1924.
I think Hitchcock just had his own style. And it worked for him - many people adore his movies.
Yeah. Just suggesting it. I’m not an expert on films or Hitchcock. I get the impression that, once he learned the basics and found his “voice,” he wasn’t much interested in looking to others for inspiration. I think he was more interested in looking inward to further develop his style. Like anyone in the industry, he probably stayed up to date on technology (lenses, development processes, etc.), but I suspect he drew on his own inspiration insofar as how he used that knowledge.
There has to be something about this in that book by Truffaut.
ETA: In looking up his date of birth, I learned that his wife Alma Reville was born just hours after him. Their birthdates differ by one day. This is just a bit of trivia and has nothing to do with the OP or @Lucas_Jackson’s post.
The opera was even worse. Not making that up, either.
Also consider The Naked Jungle (1954) (if you can consider ants as a swarm). I saw this when perhaps ten years old, about the same time I saw The Birds, and it freaked me out about the same.
IMDb: : The Naked Jungle
The Naked Jungle (1954) - IMDb
Anything can happen in the real world. In the movies things have to make sense.
Not quite IMO.
In the movies things ought to make sense. Unless it’s an explicit plot point that they don’t. The latter being another flavor of Checkov’s gun. It’ll make sense later; if not then you’re right it was a mistake.
Or if the movie is just intended to be a wild surreal exploration of crazy.
A friend of mine was the youngest of thirteen with a 30-year gap. I commented it must be weird having a brother thirty years older than you. he said not really because brother was out of the house long before he was aware of anything – he hardly knew the guy.
The movie looks like a crock of hog drippings, based on the trailer.
I enjoyed the short story that inspired it.