MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > SIAP. Found this tv movie about Hitch a...

SIAP. Found this tv movie about Hitch and Tippi Hedrin of The Birds fame.


https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNTc0NzA4MDU3OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNTE2Mzg1OA@@._V1_UY268_CR12,0,182,268_AL_.jpg

It's called The Girl and it paints Hitch in a, what's the word... DARKER light.

It stars Sienna Miller playing Tippi Hedrin, but it will probably start a fight on who was more beautiful or prettier.

Has anybody else watched this? Thoughts?

ETA: Speaking of which Tippi Hedrin was in the news a couple days ago -- https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/the-birds-star-tippi-hedren-quarantine-routine

reply

The Girl came out just a few months before Hitchcock (2012) w. Hopkins, Mirren, Johannson, etc.. They were much discussed on this board (i.e., its IMDb predecessor) at the time.... neither was *awful* but neither was especially warmly greeted. My memory of them's a little blurry now... Tippi H. got a lot of mileage out of The Girl for her increasingly dark take on her time with Hitch so *that* was also much discussed at the time.

I remember liking the performances quite a lot: Miller was fine, Imelda Staunton was a real ringer for Alma, and Toby Jones, while far too small to be Hitch, was fine. I remember finding the South African locations used for Northern Calif. to be very distracting. I forget the script's details of Hitch's 'dark obsessiveness' about Hedren but I was prepared to believe most of it at least so *that* wasn't much of a problem for me. Rather my problems were, IIRC, mainly just that the story wasn't that interesting or involving.

reply

I found the Fox News article because I didn't want to be biased against Tippi Hedrin as to what she was famous for besides her beauty. I knew she was the mother to Melanie Griffith, and it seems the beauty genes run in her family. I didn't know she is grandmother to Dakota Johnson and more -- https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2018/09/1862/1048/rts5751.jpg?ve=1&tl=1. In terms of Hitchcock movies, she did do Marnie with Sean Connery.

Here is another 2016 article on Tippi -- https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/tippi-hedren-clarifies-claims-she-made-about-alfred-hitchcock-in-new-memoir

reply

It's called The Girl and it paints Hitch in a, what's the word... DARKER light.

It stars Sienna Miller playing Tippi Hedrin, but it will probably start a fight on who was more beautiful or prettier.

Has anybody else watched this? Thoughts?

---

I saw it. In one of those "coincidences" that pop up in movies and TV from time to time, the fall of 2012 saw TWO biographical movies about Alfred Hitchcock and his private life -- while making two of his greatest movies during the time of his greatest fame.

"Hitchcock" came to movie theaters -- it was about the making of "Psycho." "The Girl" came to HBO cable -- it was about the making of "The Birds."

I can't recall which one was released first -- logic would dictate the movie about 1960's Psycho would come before the movie about 1963's The Birds.

The problem with both movies -- whether the higher budget Hitchcock or the made-for-cable The Girl -- was that neither movie could really show us the greatness of those two movies, neither could fully recreate their size and shape and look. Yes, the Psycho film did a version of the shower murder(a crackpot fantasy in which Hitchcock as a director "fakely" stabs in rage at Scarlett Johannssen's Janet Leigh in the shower scene), but legal rights kept them from REALLY recreating the sets and scenes from Psycho at all.

The Girl came even less close to showing how the great special effects attack scenes of The Birds looked or felt. One bit where a man with a bird on his shoulder and a bloody face runs up to "Tippi" at her phone booth is kind of laugable -- it looks like the filming of an Ed Wood movie, not a Hitchcock.





reply

That said, neither "Hitchcock" nor "The Girl" is really about the movies that they are about. They are about Hitchcock himself, as a famous, overweight, egotistical, insecure man -- and with whatever "twisted" feelings he may have had about actresses and women in general.

"Hitchcock" focusses on his relationship with his wife Alma(Helen Mirren, this is an all-star affair, with Anthony Hopkins as Hitch.) "The Girl" focusses on the now-famous but never entirely proven "sexual harassment" of Tippi Hedren by Hitchcock.
In "The Girl," the less starry Toby Jones(as Hitch) and Imelda Staunton(as Alma) are moved away from the main event, which is Hitchcock lording over Tippi Hedren(Sienna Miller, the one kinda/sorta star of the movie.)

Its funny about Toby Jones -- he ended up twice playing "the other version" of famous men: Truman Capote(Phillip Seymour Hoffman won for his version) and Alfred Hitchcock(no awards for Hopkins, but -- a better Hitchcock I think, more fully rounded as a man.)

I think the main thing is this: whereas "Hitchcock"(about Psycho) gave us a Hitchcock with whom we could relate(and the film ends up with a romantic happy ending for Alma and Hitch), "The Girl" intends to give us the Monstrous Sex Predator version of Hitch that seems to be connected pretty much ONLY to the Tippi Hedren story.



reply

So many of his other actresses LOVED working with Hitchcock (Joan Fontaine twice; Ingrid Bergman three times, Grace Kelly three times in a row, Eva Marie Saint and Janet Leigh one memorable time only) that the Tippi Hedren story always seems at odds with "the real Hitch." Here is what was possible: Hitchcock -- massively successful coming off of his TV show, NXNW and above all, Psycho -- decided to 'make a movie star out of a nobody" -- Tippi Hedren -- and then imposed that egotistical power ON her -- in a way he never could with the major female stars with whom he previously worked.

I can buy Hitchcock's villainy there ONLY as that way. But overall, I'm afraid I don't buy it. I've read a LOT of books about Hitchcock, about his actresses...and a couple about Tippi Hedren.

We can be sympathetic to Tippi Hedren in this way: she was making a living as a model, and she had a popular TV commercial(often shown on the Today show) that drew Hitch's attention. But suddenly, Tippi Hedren was moved to the front of the line, and given the leading roles in not one, but TWO Hitchcock movies, made as he was at the peak of his success. It must have been dizzying for Hedren. Critics came at her with knives, you know -- they had no respect for this woman who had not proved herself as a movie star, or even on stage, first. And the fact that The Birds(somewhat) and Marnie(a lot) suddenly looked like movies of decline after the Vertigo/NXNW/Psycho triad...Tippi ended up taking the hit for THAT, too.

In the final analysis, I feel that neither Hitchcock(about Psycho) nor The Girl(about The Birds, and, a little bit, Marnie) really captured much of anything about the real Hitchcock, the towering achievement of his films, or the excitement of the individual films.

You could say that Hitchcock "won" -- neither film could compete with the real man, and his real world, and his real historical power.

reply

Then you probably read Tippi Hedrin's memoir from 2016. The other connection I had after reading the latest Fox News article was that she is tied to big cats and is a big cat fan. She talks about the bill that came out back then and must know Carole Baskin of Big Cat Rescue. Baskin in has her connection to being tied to the big cat zoos portrayed in Tiger King of Netflix fame.

reply

I thought it was well done. The acting was good and believable. Yes it shows Hitch had issues, however didn't paint him in with the monster brush Me Tooers would have liked. Fact is his wife was old and he was working with young starlets; what's a director to do?

reply

ETA: Speaking of which Tippi Hedren was in the news a couple days ago -- https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/the-birds-star-tippi-hedren-quarantine-routine

---

I wonder how Ms. Hedren got picked for a quarantine check-in?

She's 90, which puts her in the high, high risk zone.

Let's keep some good thoughts for her.

reply

I thought it was well done. The acting was good and believable. Yes it shows Hitch had issues, however didn't paint him in with the monster brush Me Tooers would have liked.

--

Toby Jones was odd casting. He got the voice right, but he really had a totally different physical look and face from Hitchcock...there's a touch of a "little person" look to him. With Jones in the role, Hitchcock came off perhaps as more ugly and weird looking than the real Hitchcock (who could actually have a rather warm and pleasant face when he relaxed.)

--

Fact is his wife was old and he was working with young starlets; what's a director to do?

---

What the record mostly shows is that Hitchcock loved his wife Alma very much -- as a lifelong companion and business partner more than anything else and -- surrounded indeed by young, sexy stars and starlets -- probably went a little nuts.

Look, long before "Metoo" came along, you had any number of men saying, quite frankly in interviews, "I went into the movie business because I wanted to get girls" (not women, girls.) It is a target rich environment where beautiful women are around all the time and -- when you are a producer or a director or a casting agent -- have to do what you say. Women are now often those producers and directors, which alleviates the problem somewhat...unless the power women are lesbian...

reply

Note in passing: a book on the making of Marnie offers a weird new take on Hitchocck's "troubles with Tippi." According to the female co-star Diane Baker(a Hitchcock BRUNETTE), once Tippi and Hitchcock weren't speaking to each other on the set of Marnie (Hitchcock directed her through other people)...Hitchcock AND ALMA took it upon themselves to rather "surround" Diane Baker on the set and tell her how much she reminded them of ..Grace Kelly. Alma rather took her husband's side AGAINST Tippi for professional reasons, and tried to entice Diane Baker into becoming "the director's favorite on Marnie." Baker didn't cooperate.

reply

>>According to the female co-star Diane Baker(a Hitchcock BRUNETTE),<<

It's interesting that the ultimate Hitchcock BRUNETTE ends up in the form of Suzanne Pleshette in The Birds. She is interested in Rod Taylor's character and she plays a school teacher in Bodega Bay. Then she meets Tippi Hedrin's character and quickly realizes that she is her rival. However, she remains nice to Tippi Hedrin and doesn't come out with fangs showing. She does a good job as the Hitchcock BRUNETTE in The Birds and is stereotypically killed trying to save the daughter played by Veronica Cartwright. This makes for clear sailing for Rod Taylor and Tippi Hedrin and against the birds.

It's a shame that kids and even young adults today look at The Birds as a comedy instead of horror as the special effects are dated and it's laughable that regular birds could turn against humans and cause such havoc.

reply

It's interesting that the ultimate Hitchcock BRUNETTE ends up in the form of Suzanne Pleshette in The Birds.

---

Yes. As a further explication of "patterns" in Hitchcock; the triangle of blonde(Hedren)-man(Taylor) and brunette(Pleshette) turns up again just one film later in Marnie with blonde(Hedren)-man(Connery) and brunette(Baker.) Even more interesting: the novel of Marnie had Marnie in a triangle with two MEN(Connery's character and another man); Hitchcock had his writers "flip" the sexes in the triangle -- and made the other woman a brunette.

And I tell ya -- for me personally -- Pleshette and Baker are much more sexy and alluring than Tippi Hedren, albeit in different ways: earthy and throaty for Pleshette, patrician but sexy for Baker.

--

She is interested in Rod Taylor's character and she plays a school teacher in Bodega Bay. Then she meets Tippi Hedrin's character and quickly realizes that she is her rival. However, she remains nice to Tippi Hedrin and doesn't come out with fangs showing.

--

And in a very weird, very cruel scene early in the film(pre Bird attacks), Pleshette has to just sit there as Hedren takes a flirtatious call from Taylor --at PLESHETTE's house. Hedren is sadistic in taking the call in front of Pleshette; Taylor was sadistic in making the call in the first place. Its a very mean scene. You could say that Hedren and Taylor later PAY for their meanness -- except that Pleshette pays more, with her life, for not being mean at all. Hitch is saying: justice is blind, it comes for the deserving and the undeserving.

---

reply

She does a good job as the Hitchcock BRUNETTE in The Birds and is stereotypically killed trying to save the daughter played by Veronica Cartwright. This makes for clear sailing for Rod Taylor and Tippi Hedrin and against the birds.

--

Ha. There used to be an "unwritten rule" in movies about triangles -- one of the two rivals had to die. In Westerns a lot with men. That said, Diane Baker doesn't die in Marnie.

In The Birds -- in a matter congruent with the "weirdness" of the characters -- Annie has moved from SF to Bodega Bay to be near Mitch -- and to STAY near Mitch even after the romance has ended(even taking a teaching job there.) Does Pleshette hope to one day "get her man back?" That sadistic phone call from Mitch to Tippi tells us: Mitch does NOT want this.

Its worth noting that, removing NXNW and its romantic spy chase thriller plot -- the Hitchcock movies from The Wrong Man through Marnie are noteable for a deep "psychiatric emphasis." There are actual psychiatrists IN The Wrong Man, Vertigo and Psycho -- but The Birds posits a psychological SITUATION: the Brenner family dynamic(the father is dead, Mitch is now husband to his mother and father to his sister); the confluence of women trying to free Mitch from his family, the sado-masochism among all characters, plus: Mitch in a story dominated by women.





reply

It's a shame that kids and even young adults today look at The Birds as a comedy instead of horror as the special effects are dated and it's laughable that regular birds could turn against humans and cause such havoc.

---

I saw The Birds on 1963 release. I was a "single digit" age. And it didn't scare me. Except for the part with the farmer with his eyes pecked out and I was warned(by my mother) to close my eyes -- at least Hitchcock gave us time to prepare. For the rest of it, I thought it might be rather "cool" and exciting -- if birds were to chase my friends and me from school(nobody gets killed after all.) Maybe I was just an ice-cold kid -- I've always said if my folks had just allowed me to see Psycho when I was young, it probably never would have bothered me as much as how other kids described it to me(much bloodier.)

That said, the older I got as I watched The Birds again and again, I got more of the "doomsday" sense of the tale. The birds stopped being fun -- I saw them as predatory and merciless -- and when they "take over at the end" I felt a sense of doom. How good the world isn't REALLY like that, I thought. Except these days...it kind of is.

I think the effects are magnificent -- especially the high shot over Bodega Bay and the gas station fire; and the final shot of the film(birds as far as the eye can see.) That they are NOT CGI shots only makes them more of an achievement(wrote Truffaut of The Birds, "Hitchcock is the ultimate athlete of film"; ironic when you think about it.)

reply

I thought that Gen Y and Gen Z may not care as much about what happened in cinema in the past and how it developed. I'm not sure if this is due to information overload as kids or what. For example, my generation may have forgotten some of what it took to get silent movies made. I remember cast of thousands and a spectacle in 70 mm for Ben Hur, but saw it on TV and didn't realize what it took until I was an adult. (Speaking of which, I have to check these films out when I have time -- https://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/lists/10-great-films-shot-70mm.) The big deal was Panavision and the widescreen or letter box, but even that started earlier in theaters, but did not filter down to tv. We thought pan and scan was it.

I think when more digital format came out with laser disc that we realized what Hollywood had done. With Hitchcock, we are talking more film and grainy or realistic look on film, but the superimposed birds don't look as real or threatening although maybe this was the start of today's green or blue screen special effects. I don't know. Today, we have more background movement in order to give a 3-D effect to the subject in foreground and I don't think that was done in The Birds.

reply

I thought that Gen Y and Gen Z may not care as much about what happened in cinema in the past and how it developed. I'm not sure if this is due to information overload as kids or what.

--

They seem to be. (The paucity of young posts on old films here at moviechat bespeaks of it.)

The theory I have developed is that in my generation, "movies on TV" did NOT allow for many movies to be seen for TV for YEARS. North by Northwest was released in 1959; it came to TV in 1967-- that's 8 years! The movies allowed on TV in the 60's were mainly from the 30s, 40s, and 50s, and so I personally got trained on Gary Cooper, James Cagney and Bogart as movie stars. I had to go to the movies to see Paul Newman and Steve McQueen(and The Beatles.)

---

For example, my generation may have forgotten some of what it took to get silent movies made.

--

In my teen years, I was gifted with a book called "The Parades' Gone By," about the silent era. I recall reading it with interest but never really developing a "taste" for silent film - beyond really liking the Buster Keaton films that were sometimes specially shown on PBS in a "showcase." Still, I RESPECTED the silents, and Hitchcock(who started in silents) always spoke well of how a silent film must tell a story in visuals mainly -- and concisely.

As for how silent were made, there was a somewhat badly written Peter Bogdanovich movie called Nickelodeon, which nonetheless told the tale of the "wild west" days of silent films in America...with "combines" competing to make movies almost like organized crime gangs, and "movie stars" being created as a "thing" before the makers realized what a movie star WAS(the fans taught them.) A not-good movie with a good historical story to tell.

---

reply

I remember cast of thousands and a spectacle in 70 mm for Ben Hur, but saw it on TV and didn't realize what it took until I was an adult.

---

Ben-Hur and movies of its ilk (El Cid and Cleopatra and Spartacus, for three) look well nigh miraculous today with their REAL cast of thousands -- of extras in battle scenes or at the chariot races. REAL people, as far as the eye can see. Today, that would be too expensive -- we get CGI crowds instead(see: Gladiator.)

These movies were mounted, of course, to compete with black and white TV programming. And it worked -- though the coming of color TV programming cut into the profit margin. The OTHER way to draw people to theaters was with a cheap black and white movie like Psycho -- no cast of thousands, just violence and sex and scary shocks far beyond what TV shows could do. (And a few years after Psycho came the R rating, with nudity and simulated sex and cussing.)


reply

I have to check these films out when I have time -- https://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/lists/10-great-films-shot-70mm.)

--

That's a great list of "the big kids on the block."

---

The big deal was Panavision and the widescreen or letter box, but even that started earlier in theaters, but did not filter down to tv. We thought pan and scan was it.

---

TV networks and local stations would not show a movie in letterbox for decades. They didn't like the idea of "black space above and below the image." So we got pan and scan, which today, just seems crazy, doesn't it? A scene that had two people talking to each other in the same frame would pan and scan with just ONE person talking, the other person a disembodied voice.

Hitchcock refused to ever work in Panavision or Cinemascope. He said he liked to use close-ups for effect and wide screen ruined them... "leaving too much space on the screen." He did acquiese to VistaVision for several of his Paramount movies (and for North by Northwest for MGM -- Paramount LOANED OUT the process). I've never seen that as "true" wide screen. Our experts here at the Board know how to explain VistaVision. I did like how the "VistaVision logo" and special theme music came flying out of the Paramount mountain at the beginning of The Trouble With Harry and Vertigo, for two.

reply

I think when more digital format came out with laser disc that we realized what Hollywood had done. With Hitchcock, we are talking more film and grainy or realistic look on film,

---

Yes, it was rather a "digital doublecross" - digital rendered some of Hitchcock's shots and effects "fake." Or "more fake."

--

but the superimposed birds don't look as real or threatening although maybe this was the start of today's green or blue screen special effects. I don't know. Today, we have more background movement in order to give a 3-D effect to the subject in foreground and I don't think that was done in The Birds.

--

I am sure that a modern "Birds" could look more realistic in the effects, but I remain awed by what Hitchcock did in The Birds. He himself rather patted himself on the back(JUSTIFIABLY) for giving himself the technical challenge and meeting it. He required his birds to "behave" for things like the shot high above Bodega Bay and the final spectacular shot, and they did...and some of the birds were "fake," and some were real(like the one that knocks the gas station attendant down) and some were puppets.

The Birds got a lot of bad reviews in 1963 from snobbish anti-Hitchcock critics(Hitch had a cadre of them, they really felt he was overrated) and I always felt that while I could agree with them on the script and characters of The Birds, NO WAY could I agree with them that it was a "minor" effects achievement.


reply

For instance: there is wit in that shot over Bodega Bay, as first one bird, then two, then a few more, float -- literally FLOAT -- into the screen and HOVER above the town before making their move to divebomb the town. Its INCREDIBLE. I understand that footage was shot from a Cliffside, with REAL birds hovering as bread was thrown to them, then they were filmed diving down -- and THEN, later, this footage was superimposed onto the matte painting of downtown Bodega Bay(which, within it, had pace for REAL footage of the path of the fire from the gas station.

And later: a key thing about the attack on Melanie (in a scene that gets called "the attic attack" -- but I don't think its an attic) is the SOUND here. Whereas earlier in the film, the birds screech and squawk loudly, here, they are nearly silent, and all we hear are the flutter of their wings. Hitchcock remarked that this was intentional. These are sadistic, diabolical birds. Psycho birds, you might say. They know that people are downstairs, so they attack "silently" so no one will hear them("Now we've got you," HItchocck said, "we will kill you without a sound") -- Melanie can't scream til the end. Great sound direction -- but The Birds got no sound nominations at the Oscars at all.

No respect at all.

reply

Interesting comments of a period gone by that may never return. However, Hitchcock was a master and I did find a scene in Birds where the background is moving so the front characters give it more depth like 3-D. See if you can spot it here -- https://youtu.be/As4yCD8YQjo. I think he used rear projection, but still a nice scene.

Okay, the chlldren running away from the school didn't make much sense as there was no need to, but it did provide drama. What parent wouldn't be frightened with their children being pecked in the head until bloody. I'm sure there was some reason Suzanne Pleschette's character didn't stick around, but that's beyond my pay grade.

reply