MovieChat Forums > The Birds (1963) Discussion > Could it have been better with music?

Could it have been better with music?


Let's face it, Hitchcock's film without music is like (as Hitchcock would say) 'a pair of scissors without gleam....tasteless'

As a major Hitchcock fan it pointless denying that without the music scores his films (especially the Hermann scored ones) like Psycho, Vertigo, North By Northwest would be marginally flatter!

I don't dislike The Birds by any means, I think it's a great Hitchcock thriller, maybe not exactly Top 10 material, but there's no denying it's a still recognisable in popular culture, ask a general film fan about Hitchcock and Psycho and The Birds are the most famous!

So why does there seem to be a lot of negative views on the film? Maybe it hasn't dated that well, but then I got to thinking could a music score have saved it?

Imagine a pulsing Herrmann score to accompany the dramatic scenes, bold and dramatic not as sinister and icily terrifying as Psycho but something to really raise he suspense.

Psycho proved that Herrmann was capable of providing the most memorable of music, music we still all recognise today and I'm sure he could have created an equally memorable score for The Birds, maybe then it may have earned a greater reputation as a Hitchcock classic?

Thoughts guys?

reply

I think the main irony of not using music is the fact that birds make music--and in 'The Birds', they aren't in a music-making mood.
Other points--well, I think this IS a classic Hitchcock movie that works on all levels. You say 'could a music score have saved it?' It doesn't need saving.
Example: The jungle bar scene outside the school, where Melanie waits---we hear the school children sing that hypnotic song--a cappella--WITHOUT MUSIC. And it's arguably the most tension building scene in all of Hitchcock. I think a music score would be a disaster. No music in The Birds is one of its strong points.
Another example--(spoilers)as a Hitchcock fan, you've probably seen 'Torn Curtain'--the murder scene in the farm house--Hitchcock heard Herrmann's score for this scene and decided not to use it(and decided not to use Herrmann)---you can hear it on the DVD extras. This scene in the farmhouse, the killing of the German by sticking him in a gas oven works better without music. See if you agree.

reply

Totally get it, and you've made great points about Hitchcock's use of 'no music'. Torn Curtian kitchen murder works spectacularly well without music, as does the infamous rape/murder of Brenda Blaney in Frenzy!
Also the majority of Rear Window uses very little music, other than the sounds of radios and music being played across the courtyard!

And of course lets not forget Hitch didn't originally wanted no music in the shower scene! So could it be that maybe scenes of high suspense DON'T need music, but maybe the big shock moments do!

Arbogasts murder for example features very soft, almost inaudible, music in the suspenseful climb of the Bates staircase, up until the shocking moment of his murder then the music BLASTS! So could it be that the suspense sequences of The Birds DONT need music a la the jungle gym scene but the shock moments, for example the final attack on Melanie maybe needed that 'lift', I don't know that this would have made it better but it's food for thought!

reply

Yeah, I know, "the bird cries make the music", but on the other hand, Jerry Goldsmith was really coming into his own at this time, scoring some frightening music for The Twilight Zone with Boris Karloff's Thriller and Rock Hudson's Seconds not far ahead. His oddball, fresh approach to film music, especially for "uncanny" films, was second to none. Sure, he hadn't done any really "big" films at the time The Birds was produced, but I would bet he could have created a truly interesting, off-beat, and memorable score fo this movie - one that would outlive and exceed the film in popularity.

reply

I love great scores especially Bernard Herman(n)? but it's a bonus. Music can't save a movie. It might fool your subconscious into thinking you watched a good movie, but the excellence of a score could merely divert your attention from real flaws or supply emotions which the script failed to excite. It could ruin a movie if it gets in the way. Kind of like laugh tracks. Just heard a piece on public radio. Shark Week might start playing more positive music 'cause viewers are reacting negatively to the scary shark score and are therefore less likely to support shark conservation. Try it, next time you get dumped or fall in love, play music opposite to your mood and record your thoughts to the experience. You might find you won't be as sad during the heart break and you won't be flying as high after the thunderbolt hits.

reply

Are you joking?! The birds are the score.

reply

I think that Hitchcock's experiment of a no musical score film works for 'The Birds. The children singing a simple song while Melanie sat apprehensively outside the school was the only music needed. Hermann could not have built the tension any better with his music for that scene. The peacefulness of children singing while the ravens gradually packed the jungle gym behind Melanie was just right.

reply

What's interesting is that Hitchcock was just coming off of Psycho, which had the greatest score that Bernard Herrmann ever gave a Hitchcock film -- with Vertigo right behind that, and North by Northwest right behind that...and all the scores from The Trouble With Harry through The Wrong Man before that.

Hitchcock gave Herrmann a bonus for the Psycho score once the movie hit big -- Hitch had to know that the screeching violins during the murders and climax took Psycho into the stratosphere for audience screaming.

And yet -- and some Hitchcock colleagues have spoken to this -- Hitchcock just might have been a bit JEALOUS about how important Herrmann's music was to Psycho.

So what does Hitchcock do?

He puts NO music in The Birds. He DOES hire Herrmann to "advise on sound"(the bird shrieks are rather like the psycho screaming strings). But instead of giving Herrman an entire screen credit to himself(as he got for Psycho, and its gets applaluse when the movie is shown on the big screen), Herrmann has to SHARE his Birds credit with the guys who designed the birds' screeches.

It was a bit of a comedown for Herrmann.

And then Herrmann got to score one more Hitchcock film -- Marnie.

And then Hitchcock FIRED Herrmann off the next Hitchcock film -- Torn Curtain.

So it would seem to me that if there's a reason The Birds has no score, its Hitchcock's jealously of Herrmann.

And we will never know how great a score Herrmann could have given to The Birds, but we could have "had our cake and eaten it ,too" the great bird sounds AND a great Herrmann score.

reply

Good information about the difficulties between Herrmann and Hitchcock. I think that Herrmann was a bit rebellious. He deliberately went against Hitchcock's needs for 'Torn Curtain' I believe.

reply

I think you're off track on this, "Bernie you made my film even better, I hate you." Doesn't make sense. He helped shape the bird sounds like a score but I'm sure it wasn't any strain on his talent or his time. In case you don't know Hitchcock conceived the shower scene having no music. Herrmann scored it anyway and when he reminded Hitch that it wasn't designed to have music, Hitch replied, "Totally inappropriate!" and gave Herrmann his scoring screen credit prominently right before his own, an unheard of gesture. On MARNIE the studio requested, and got, lyrics to the main theme, recorded by Nat King Cole if I remember right and thankfully not used in the film. On TORN CURTAIN it was the studio, Universal, that wanted a hip James Bond spy movie-like score (those soundtracks sold a lot of records). Remember that the Hitchcock films that followed were all Universal Pictures. And don't forget Herrmann had a big ego and I'm sure he blamed Hitchcock as much as the studio for the rejection. Although he won an Oscar for his first year in Hollywood, scoring a double nomination for CITIZEN KANE and ALL THAT MONEY CAN BUY (aka THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER) he quit the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences, exactly when I don't know, hence no Oscar nominations for VERTIGO, NORTH BY NORTHWEST, PSYCHO or MARNIE or JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS. (Never found out the reason). It was only after his death that his last two scores (OBSESSION & TAXI DRIVER) were submitted for nominations, which they got, with both scores losing out to Jerry Goldsmith's work on THE OMEN.

reply

I think you're off track on this,

---

Well, that's certainly OK...I don't hold to my theories with much fervor. They are perhaps...educated guesses.

Here's a different one to perhaps illustrate how my mind works. Hitchcock decided to move the novel, The Rainbird Pattern, from England to America when he turned it into Family Plot in 1976. He elected not to name the city in which it is set -- but rather to "mix" location footage shot in both Los Angeles and San Francisco into ONE weird city that one wag called "either San Angeles or Los Francisco." The question is why did he do that?

My answers is twofold -- one for each city. He didn't want to specify San Francisco because he didn't want to compete with his great(greatest?) movie filmed there -- Vertigo. (Grace Cathedral appears in both Vertigo and Family Plot; in Vertigo, it is behind James Stewart when he first looks at Kim Novak's apartment building as Madeleine, in Family Plot, the bishop is kidnapped there.) I'll grant you that The Birds opens in San Francisco, but soon it is off to the very real Bodega Bay. As for not specifying Los Angeles, I don't think Hitchcock felt of that much more than his "company town." Los Angeles features in the newspaper and Marion's false statement about her hometown in Psycho, and Saboteur starts in Glendale(an LA suburb) but other than that...no.

So that's my GUESS about why Hitchcock mixed two cities into a fake one in Family Plot, and this is my guess about one reason why there is no music in The Birds.

(CONT)

reply

"Bernie you made my film even better, I hate you." Doesn't make sense.

---
Ha. Well, that's certainly my theory in a nutshell. "Hate," might be too harsh a rule. But somewhat jealous, yes. Here Herrmann goes from a position of great prominence in the credits not only of Psycho, but of North by Northwest and Vertigo, to having to SHARE his screen credit with the guys who did the electronic bird sounds. It just looked rather like a comedown, and I wonder why.

Also, here is Hitchcock coming from knowing how much the music contributed to Psycho and maybe -- not liking to share the credit for one of his movies, even as (1) he doubled Herrmann's pay for Psycho once it hit so big and (2) he claimed that 33% of Psycho's power came from the Herrmann score. (Hmm...1/3. Seems a little low, though a critic said the same thing -- 1/3 Hitchcock, 1/3 Herrmann...and 1/3 Anthony Perkins.)

Elsewhere, Hitchcock made these lightly disparaging comments about movie music: "Music in the movies is really just sound" (Oh, yeah? How about the instrumental passages of Moon River in Breakfast at Tiffany's? That's emotional music...not sound.) And when one interviewer asked Hitchcock "Do you think the music was particularly good in any one of your movies?" Hitchcock replied "No, I can't think of any."

So here's Hitchcock somewhere, sometime "downplaying" movie music and maybe he just didn't want Herrmann getting too MUCH credit for his great work on some of the most important Hitchcock movies. So with "The Birds," the idea just drifts into Hitchcock's head: "Hey, maybe I should not use music in this movie at all. Movie music is just sounds. I'll just use sounds."

CONT

reply

In case you don't know Hitchcock conceived the shower scene having no music. Herrmann scored it anyway and when he reminded Hitch that it wasn't designed to have music, Hitch replied, "Totally inappropriate!" and gave Herrmann his scoring screen credit prominently right before his own, an unheard of gesture.

---

I did know this, and much of what you say below --and I'm very glad to meet someone who knows all of these things and has their own opinions on them. Its good to have someone to share the discussion with.

Above on the shower scene with no score, YES -- Herrmann may have literally saved the movie by putting music ON the shower scene. Hitchcock was ready to cut the movie down into a multi-part episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents until Herrmann said "wait, I want to try something with music." BOOM. Though the story also goes that Herrmann at first only put the music over the two murders -- HITCHCOCK then requested that the music be added to the fruit cellar climax, too.

---

On MARNIE the studio requested, and got, lyrics to the main theme, recorded by Nat King Cole if I remember right and thankfully not used in the film.

---

Yes, and the Torn Curtain score has some "sweet romantic music" (by its ultimate composer, John Addison) that became a single by the Johnny Mann Singers, with lyrics. Not much of a single.

Hitchcock in the 60s perhaps would have needed to hire Henry Mancini, or Johnny Mandel, or Johnny Williams(aka John Williams) so as to generate a hit 60's single. As Herrmann told Hitchcock, "You don't make pop movies...so you can't have a pop score."

--
CONT

reply

On TORN CURTAIN it was the studio, Universal, that wanted a hip James Bond spy movie-like score (those soundtracks sold a lot of records).

---

Yes, they did. Certainly the movies with Henry Mancini scores. Hitchcock's fellow auteur Howard Hawks used Mancini on the John Wayne in Africa movie "Hatari" and got the "Baby Elephant Walk" single. Tiffany's got the Moon River Single. And the movies Days of Wine and Roses and Dear Heart titles WERE the titles of their singles.

I own the Torn Curtain album. That Johnny Mann single is nowhere near the hip quality of a Mancini. John Addison's credit overture(which also comes back for the bus chase) IS exciting, but not all that much different from a Herrmann overture...different instruments, different "flavor" - but mainly exciting like North by Northwest.

---

reply

Remember that the Hitchcock films that followed were all Universal Pictures. And don't forget Herrmann had a big ego and I'm sure he blamed Hitchcock as much as the studio for the rejection.

--

Both are very important -- Universal imposing itself on Hitchcock (via Hitchcock's "friend," superagent turned studio chief Lew Wasserman) and Herrmann getting upset that Hitchcock capitulated TO Universal

One piece of evidence we have from this period is a telegram from Hitchcock to Herrmann after Marnie and before Torn Curtain, essentially warning Herrmann to "get his music hip" :

Hitchcock wrote:

THE AUDIENCE IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE TO WHICH WE USED TO CATER IT IS YOUNG VIGOROUS AND DEMANDING STOP IT IS THIS FACT THAT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY ALMOST ALL THE EUROPEAN FILMMAKERS WHERE THEY HAVE SOUGHT TO INTRODUCE A BEAT AND A RHYTHM THAT IS MORE IN TUNE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FORESAID AUDIENCE STOP THIS IS WHY I AM ASKING YOU TO APPROACH THIS PROBLEM RECEPTIVE AND IF POSSIBLE ENTHUSIASTIC MIND STOP IF YOU CANNOT DO THIS, THAN I AM THE LOSER STOP I HAVE MADE UP MY MIND THAT THIS APPROACH TO THE MUSIC IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL STOP

("STOP" equals a period in a telegram.)

Two things at play here, I think. One is that Hitchcock was very fearful of losing his job with Universal, even though he was a "great." Peers like Frank Capra and John Ford were being fired and not getting work because they were too old fashioned. Lesser directors of the same age all lost jobs quickly and were "retired."

But also: Hitchcock WAS trying to get hip and stay with the times (Ford and Capra were not.) He was willing to work with Sean Connery and Paul Newman rather than James Stewart and Cary Grant. And it is little remarked that Hitchcock didn't HIRE his usual cinematographer, Robert Burks, for Torn Curtain. He went with a different DP and went for a different "look." Hitchcock may have felt that he had to get rid of Herrmann so as to "modernize."


reply

As I said somewhere else, if Hitchcock had been a bit younger and able to start over he should have bolted for Hollywood and gone back to Britain after being "let go". His only significant film after The Birds (or Marnie, if you like), was Frenzy... made in Britain.

reply

As I said somewhere else, if Hitchcock had been a bit younger and able to start over he should have bolted for Hollywood and gone back to Britain after being "let go". His only significant film after The Birds (or Marnie, if you like), was Frenzy... made in Britain.

--

Indeed. Well, its worth bringing that over to this discussion as well, because Hitchcock did seem to make somewhat of a "deal with the devil" when his "friend" Lew Wasserman lured him from the very posh and respected Paramount to the more cheapjack Universal. (Which was Universal-International at the time; The Birds returned to the "Universal" logo -- evidently at Hitchcock's request.)

Now, all accounts are that Lew Wasserman WAS a true friend to Hitchcock. They considered themselves "above the rest" and Wasserman kept making Hitchcock richer at Universal. But the trade-off was that Wasserman never really gave Hitchcock the quality production he needed(I think Torn Curtain looks way too cheap to have Paul Newman and Julie Andrews as peak stars in it), he forced things on Hitchcock(like Julie Andrews in Torn Curtain) and he often said NO to Hitchcock (no original Frenzy, no Mary Rose.)

What Wasserman mainly did for Hitchcock was to allow him to work well into the 70's , in a decade in which many of Hitchcock's peers were retired. Of course, there was something "reversible" going on here: Alfred Hitchcock was a STAR, HIS thrillers were something people still wanted to see. Even as big a name as William Wyler became rather a "journeyman," going from Funny Girl to some social drama in the South. But a Hitchcock movie was always an event; nobody else could make them.

reply

Interesting: not only did Hitchcock not put music on The Birds, but -- after so famously allowing Herrmann's famous music over the murders in Psycho -- he filmed two later, even more brutal murders for Torn Curtain and Frenzy...and put no music over THEM. Which only made the two murders more brutal and realistic...and no fun at all(the Psycho murders WERE fun; people screamed.)

For the murder in Torn Curtain -- the killing of East German spy Gromek -- Herrmann DID score murder music. Hitchcock threw that music out, but Scorsese used it in his Cape Fear remake(1991) and Tarantino used in twice in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood(2019) ..over both of the flame thrower scenes with Leo DiCaprio. So "un-used Herrmann murder music for Hitchcock" was used instead by two later, great auteur filmmakers.

reply

Although he won an Oscar for his first year in Hollywood, scoring a double nomination for CITIZEN KANE and ALL THAT MONEY CAN BUY (aka THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER) he quit the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences, exactly when I don't know, hence no Oscar nominations for VERTIGO, NORTH BY NORTHWEST, PSYCHO or MARNIE or JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS. (Never found out the reason). It was only after his death that his last two scores (OBSESSION & TAXI DRIVER) were submitted for nominations, which they got, with both scores losing out to Jerry Goldsmith's work on THE OMEN.

--

In the history of Oscar snubs, Herrmann isn't far behind Hitchcock in getting snubbed so often for such great work that "the Academy" looks like an academy of idiots, a joke. ALL of the un-nominated scores should have been nominated, and though there was a lot of great movie music in those days, I'd say that Vertigo and Psycho should have won (Psycho would have had to beat Exodus, though -- that score had an instrumental that was a power radio hit in 1960 and '61.)

More irony: Herrmann is brought back from oblivion by DePalma(Obsession) and Scorsese(Taxi Driver)...dies of a heart attack. Nominated posthumously for those two scores in the same year(1976.) And Herrmann STILL loses. Even Jerry Goldsmith was confused.

Perhaps Herrmann's quitting of the Academy left the Academy(mainly only the music branch?) forever disposed to not nominate him or to let him win. Part of the reason Herrmann left the Academy, I have read, was some sort of feud with Dimitri Tiomkin -- who scored quite a few Hitchcocks himself -- Shadow of a Doubt, Strangers on a Train, I Confess, Dial M -- with not quite as good scores as Herrmanns.

reply

To bad Herrmann and Hitchcock didn't team up sooner. Imagine every Hitchcock movie from Strangers on a Train onwards had been scored by Herrmann.

reply

To bad Herrmann and Hitchcock didn't team up sooner. Imagine every Hitchcock movie from Strangers on a Train onwards had been scored by Herrmann.

--

Yes, I have thought about that. A problem with Dimitri Tiomkin's Hitchcock scores after Shadow of a Doubt(a Universal movie) is that they were all for Warner Brother and they rather all sound the same, in the same "Warner Brother echo chamber" sound system. Worse-- Strangers on a Train and Dial M have scores that don't sound much different than Tiomkin's score for a WESTERN -- Hawks' Rio Bravo -- and THAT one is in the "Warner Brothers echo chamber" sound system as well.

I give Tiomkin some points for the opening sequence -- after the credits -- in Strangers on a Train, in which the visual of the shoes and the train station motif combine to create a rather powerful effect -- Bruno's shoes get "big music," Guy's shoes get "quiet music." But that's about it.

Rear Window was ranked by the American Film Institute .as one of only four Hitchcock movies on the list of the 100 Best Movies ever made. The other three are Vertigo, North by Northwest, and Psycho -- all with Herrmann scores, and thus Rear Window doesn't "fit" with its fellow HItchcocks. That said, Rear Window ALMOST does have a score , either -- after the jazz-tinged opening credit music ends, the movie is "scored" with the musical musings of the songwriter at his piano and pop records like " That's Amore." This makes Rear Window at once ANOTHER Hitchcock movie without a score , and a Hitchcock movie WITH a pop tune("That's Amore" -- which isn't really FROM Rear Window.)

Irony: Bernard Herrmann's first score for Hitchcock was for The Trouble With Harry, a movie with little "thriller danger to it" -- its more of a black comedy with romance. So Herrmann couldnt' really "pour it on" for Hitchcock until The Man Who Knew Too Much with ITS big thrills, one year later.

reply

Presumably, they could have hooked even earlier in the 1940s, but that run between Strangers and The Birds was really something, which is why I started the clock there.

reply

but that run between Strangers and The Birds was really something, which is why I started the clock there.

--

I think, "when all is said and done," that that exact period -- from Strangers on a Train through The Birds --IS "when Hitchcock was Hitchcock." Its his Golden Era.

Oh, he was the Boy Wonder in England in the 30's, and he made some classics in the 40s. But so many of those films followed certain "norms" (no real action, no set pieces, no shocking murders) that Hitchcock himself demolished -- and Strangers on a Train is when he really came back and made himself "the star of the show." In more ways than one.

The TV series starts in 1955(the year of both To Catch a Thief AND The Trouble with Harry; Hitchcock was everywhere), Hitchcock now became a TV star and famous celebrity and his subsequent movies became events. there is a grand climax with th Big Three of Vertigo, NXNW, and Psycho(his only three movies with BOTH a Herrmann score AND a Saul Bass credit sequence) and then The Birds -- somewhat lesser than Psycho but spectacular in its own way -- is the final movie where Hitchcock went "all out"(while still a famous TV star with a running series.)

I say of the 1951-1963 period: there were hits that were classics(Strangers on a Train, Rear Window, NXNW, Psycho), there were classics that weren't hits(Vertigo, The Wrong Man, The Trouble With Harry), there were hits that weren't classics(To Catch a Thief, The Man Who Knew Too Much.) And there was The Birds -- a hit, yes, a classic...maybe.

And Herrmann should have scored them all.

And this(I've noted before) Hitchcock fired Herrmann from Torn Curtain, but Herrmann lived on JUST ENOUGH YEARS to have scored Torn Curtain, Topaz, Frenzy and Family Plot. A sad irony.

reply

CONT

The run ends with The Birds. But Frenzy is a special case. It was promoted almost as an attempt to "bring Hitchcock back from the dead." Like Madeleine in Vertigo. Hitchcock's TV series had been off the air for years, and while respected, he was no longer "hot" or active much.

But for Frenzy, Hitchcock made a "funny trailer" in which he talked like he did on his TV show and in the Psycho and Birds trailers. And the movie was about a psycho(in both the Psycho and Frenzy trailers, Hitchcock talks of "a horrible murder"). And it did well enough that we young Hitchcock fans could ALMOST feel like "everything was back to normal, Hitchcock was back!"

But he wasn't back. He wasn't back any more than Madeleine was back in Vertigo. Frenzy was a false positive. We'd get a less well-made final film -- Family Plot. And then Hitchcock retired, and then he died.

Frenzy was a bit of hope that went unrewarded...it came too late in the game.

reply

This obsession with generating a hit song for Hitchcock's films seems rather short-sighted to me. They were thinking about soundtrack sales and got sidetracked.

reply

This obsession with generating a hit song for Hitchcock's films seems rather short-sighted to me. They were thinking about soundtrack sales and got sidetracked.

---

Yes. Herrmann had it right -- Hitchcock didn't MAKE pop movies, so a pop single from a film of his wouldn't feel right. In the 60's that is -- Hitchcock DID have a hit single in the 50s -- Doris Day's "Que, Sera, Sera" from The Man Who Knew Too Much(it won the Oscar for Best Song and became Day's signature tune, even as she dismissed it on first singing as "a children's song.")

But "Que Sera Sera" has a certain Hitchcockian portentuousness to it...."the future's not ours to see, what will be, will be." Its from the 50's, its a bit heavy.

I can't see a Hitchcock movie with "Moon River" in it, or "Baby Elephant Walk," or Johnny(John) Williams smooth and lush "Make Me Rainbows" (from Fitzwilly, you could look it up -- its sort of like the Johnny Mann singers single from Torn Curtain.)

I mean...where was that hit single from Psycho? "Days of Showers and Staircases"?

reply

How about "A Mother Is A Boy's Best Friend" sung by Anthony Perkins? A real chart-topper.

reply

How about "A Mother Is A Boy's Best Friend" sung by Anthony Perkins? A real chart-topper

--

Ha. Much better than my idea. Set it to the music of "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend" and there's your hit single.

Indeed, Anthony Perkins did have at least one hit radio single -- "Moonlight Swim" -- and for once I'm not old enough to remember THAT one. I read about it. Perkins released one or two albums-- he was a teen heartthrob of greater pedigree than Fabian but with the same fan base. And recall that Perkins left the set of Psycho the week the shower scene was shot -- to rehearse a musical(Greenwillow) on Broadway.

reply

https://youtu.be/LFYc74fJOPI

NORRRMAAAAANNNN! You've been going on a "moonlight swim" with those filthy girls again, haven't you?

reply

Excellent! There you go. There it is.

Let's just imagine that as the "hit pop single from Psycho."

reply

LIKE...GWAR?🤔

reply

I didn’t notice there was no score! Interesting.

reply

I didn’t notice there was no score! Interesting.

---

Yes. There is one earlier Hitchcock film with no score at all -- Lifeboat (1944) -- in which all the characters are alone on a lifeboat on the open sea and the lack of music makes them seem all the more alone and abandoned.

"The Birds" didn't have music...but the "electronic bird sounds" were, to Hitchcock's mind , just like a score. He said "movie music isn't really music...its just sounds." I'd say Hitch was wrong about that, and The Birds proves it. Sound effects are different than music.

reply

Honestly, I don't think music would have made any real difference, and it certainly wouldn't have affected my criticisms of the film.

Which are centered around the fact that the core of the film is a sadistic delight in destruction - the destruction of a town, or a budding romance, and of the beautiful woman that turned Hitchcock down. There's no character development or redemption, just havoc being gradually stepped up.

reply

"There's no character development or redemption"

This I don't agree with. The lovebirds are an important symbol in the film. They never get aggressive or violent even though all the other birds do. I think this is significant. As for the human characters, the mother (Jessica Tandy) and Melanie (Tippi Hedren) start off on the wrong foot and are antagonistic. Mitch (Rod Taylor) and Melanie also start off very antagonistically. There is also tension between Annie (Suzanne Pleshette) and Melanie. By the end of the film, all of these characters are reconciled and come to care for each other. I think one of the key themes of the film is love and reconciliation in the face of a harsh and indifferent universe. When they drive off at the end of the film, we do see the birds have taken over (that's true), BUT there is also a shaft of sunlight coming through the clouds in the distance. This suggests at least the possibility of hope at the end of the film.

P.S. In real life, one of the "lovebirds" killed the other one on set. I guess they couldn't agree over which one got top billing in the credits. He he.

reply

No, the fact that there was no music made it even more chilling.

reply

Interesting comments all around here.

The sound effects in The Birds are as unique and historic as anything else that was truly great in Hitchcock. Even though other men created the sound effects, and Bernard Herrmann helped "orchestrate" them...they were Hitchcock's idea and they give The Birds a personality all its own...particularly at the very end where there are birds as far as the eye can see -- even as our eyes our flooded with the SIGHT of "the birds have taken over" our ears HEAR that finality...the fluttering, only lightly squawking birds(they are waiting, not attacking) tell us: "this is the birds world now."

Hitchcock "directs" the sound for certain effects. Notice how when Melanie is attacked in the attic room near the end, all we mainly hear are "quiet fluttering feathers" with just a little squawking. Hitchcock said: "The birds have trapped Melanie and they will kill her quietly so that nobody will hear." Doesn't work out that way but imagine the villainy of birds who DECIDE to attack quietly.

But this was LOST: remember how when Mother came rushing out of her bedroom at Arbogast with knife upraised in Psycho? Herrmann's screeching violins are much louder and faster and more shocking than in the shower scene so -- audiences screamed suddenly from the scare -- this got a BIG scream in the theater.

Well, what if that music had come up when Melanie entered the room with the birds? Maybe THAT would have been a big scream scene too.

I don't think it was.

And imagine if Hitchcock had put Herrmann's screeching violins over the shot of the farmer with the pecked out eyes just as his body is discovered by Lydia. Coudla been BIG screams -- as I recall, there were some screams, but not Psycho level screams.

In other words, by not putting traditional "shock music" on the soundtrack, Hitchcock lost some of the screambility of Psycho when he made The Birds. And he paid for that -- The Birds made less than half the box office of Psycho.

reply

A number of reviews of The Birds in 1963 noted that "it isn't as scary as Psycho." One critic wrote that "Hitchcock seems to be pulling his punches here, perhaps in reaction to the outrage over the violence in Psycho."

This is somewhat true. Though the farmer with the pecked-out eyes is shocking, and the attack on Melanie at the end is as violent as the shower murder(except Melanie survives), the film is perhaps more into action than shock.

Case in point: the big scene where the birds chase the schoolkids down the hill road. Its pretty spectacular to watch -- like Cary Grant running from the crop duster in North by Northwest with Psycho fast-cutting BUT...no children are killed. One boy takes a bloody peck to the cheek, and a girl falls down and breaks her glasses. But the very nature of the scene can't be as scary as the Psycho murders because...Hitchcock wasn't going to kill children (Spielberg in Jaws 12 years later, DID -- the Kintner boy.)

Hell, I first saw The Birds when I WAS a boy...and I thought it would be cool to be chased at my school by birds. Beats the boredom of classes.

reply