Dear Hugh,
I responded to your tweet about "The Birds" but wanted to address your error further.
My Beloved Bride and I attended the Dallas showing of the film. It was fabulous. You said, "It is too dated, too corny, to scare anymore, but it does entertain and often simply amuses for the cliches and the over-acting."
I figured you were trying to gloss over the event on your way to set up your piece about flocks of reporters on the attack. I have no trouble with that part. But you are seriously mistaken if you really believe what you said about the film.
The only thing that is dated is the special effects technology. The rest was Alfred Hitchcock. It's a classic in the true sense of the word. It doesn't become dated. Like Steven Spielberg, Hitchcock is a master of the small but important, the disarming gesture, the unspoken line, a master of managing and directing a wide range of talent, including children. Allow me to describe a scene to set up my comments to you:
Melanie rents a room from Annie, as a pretext for being in Bodega Bay to see Mitch. Annie's affair with Mitch is over, but she is still in love with him. As Melanie talks to Mitch on the phone, we hear a very ordinary and even circumspect conversation from Melanie's side. For much of the few brief minutes, the camera is on Annie, shot from her right side as she sits in an easy chair. Anne says nothing and at one point turns her head away from the camera, then back. Yet the look on her face, and its message, is as clear as if it were spoken. Annie has had this conversation with Mitch. She knows what will be its outcome, that eventually Melanie will be cast aside as she was, but still Annie yearns for Mitch.
This is only one of many such scenes in the film. Far from overacting, Hitchcock can only be blamed for bordering on being too subtle at times. There is no musical score in the film, aside from Melanie playing part of a Debussy Arabesque. There are long minutes of near silence -- no dialogue, only background noise. The editing is crisp yet visceral. The pacing is natural and believable. The film offers no preposterous explanations of the events -- no explanations at all -- and fades to black as the car rounds the last bend on its escape from the horror.
The film was totally stunning in its restored, big-screen showing. We felt as if we'd never seen it before. While I believe I know why you used the film in your article, I suggest you reconsider what seemed to me a casual dismissal of what is without question a great cinematic piece.
Sincerely,
Aaron Dyer
Dallas, Texas
I responded to your tweet about "The Birds" but wanted to address your error further.
My Beloved Bride and I attended the Dallas showing of the film. It was fabulous. You said, "It is too dated, too corny, to scare anymore, but it does entertain and often simply amuses for the cliches and the over-acting."
I figured you were trying to gloss over the event on your way to set up your piece about flocks of reporters on the attack. I have no trouble with that part. But you are seriously mistaken if you really believe what you said about the film.
The only thing that is dated is the special effects technology. The rest was Alfred Hitchcock. It's a classic in the true sense of the word. It doesn't become dated. Like Steven Spielberg, Hitchcock is a master of the small but important, the disarming gesture, the unspoken line, a master of managing and directing a wide range of talent, including children. Allow me to describe a scene to set up my comments to you:
Melanie rents a room from Annie, as a pretext for being in Bodega Bay to see Mitch. Annie's affair with Mitch is over, but she is still in love with him. As Melanie talks to Mitch on the phone, we hear a very ordinary and even circumspect conversation from Melanie's side. For much of the few brief minutes, the camera is on Annie, shot from her right side as she sits in an easy chair. Anne says nothing and at one point turns her head away from the camera, then back. Yet the look on her face, and its message, is as clear as if it were spoken. Annie has had this conversation with Mitch. She knows what will be its outcome, that eventually Melanie will be cast aside as she was, but still Annie yearns for Mitch.
This is only one of many such scenes in the film. Far from overacting, Hitchcock can only be blamed for bordering on being too subtle at times. There is no musical score in the film, aside from Melanie playing part of a Debussy Arabesque. There are long minutes of near silence -- no dialogue, only background noise. The editing is crisp yet visceral. The pacing is natural and believable. The film offers no preposterous explanations of the events -- no explanations at all -- and fades to black as the car rounds the last bend on its escape from the horror.
The film was totally stunning in its restored, big-screen showing. We felt as if we'd never seen it before. While I believe I know why you used the film in your article, I suggest you reconsider what seemed to me a casual dismissal of what is without question a great cinematic piece.
Sincerely,
Aaron Dyer
Dallas, Texas
RSS Feed
