Agree that the characters in "Psycho" are better developed, or at least, Norman and Marion are.
---
Hitchcock rather agreed -- he said "the characters in the second half are merely figures" -- which seemed to track with critic Robin Wood's contention that Lila, Arbogast and Sam were just "tools for the search" and represented US as we went through all the terrors in the house.
But through the writing and the acting(Balsam especially, but Miles too, and yes, even Gavin) these "figures" were very interesting characters, I think. I think Hitchcock in pushing The Birds characters as more "in-depth" was, frankly, fishing for Oscar -- the one goal that had eluded him.
--
In fact, it could be argued that "Psycho" is largely a character study of Norman.
--
Though would track with Robin Wood's assessment. We are with Marion for 30 minutes mainly to misdirect us and "eat up time"(albeit with a classic story of paranoia and guilt); once Marion meets Norman, the movie moves Norman to the center and we watch all the characters interact with him even as we spend "private time" with him cleaning up Marion's murder, etc.
---
Most of the film's suspense is in fact built around a long dive into the depths of Norman's abnormal psychology.
---
Yep. One of the most fascinatingly "inscrutable" characters in screen history. And so powerful a character that it was rather unfair for ANYONE in The Birds to try to match him. The Birds was Hitchcock's valiant attempt to match or exceed Psycho, and he couldn't really. Because Psycho was so UNIQUE a story, with such a UNIQUE lead in Norman Bates(a "villain" portrayed weirdly as a "hero" of sorts.)
---
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
4 years ago
"The Birds" would be a better film if it'd done the same for Melanie, but we don't delve into her depths and we aren't given the feeling that she has any depths, she's just presented as a beautiful thing being destroyed by the Birds.
---
No, neither Melanie as a character or Tippi Hedren as an actress get to those depths. Interestingly, Tippi Hedren one film later as "Marnie" gets closer to the Norman Bates abnormal mentality(less the homicidal urges.)
But this: there is a scene early in The Birds where Melanie talks at night in the home of Annie, WITH Annie-- and if you look at the camera angles and placement of the women, this scene is clearly intended to MATCH the famous parlor scene between Norman and Marion. At this point in the story, Annie is perhaps the most psychologically damaged character in "The Birds"(she is a San Franciscan dumped by Mitch, but living near him as if haunted by him), and Annie makes direct references to Lydia NOT being someone like Mrs. Bates(Lydia is not "clinging and demanding" but rather widowed and terrified of abandonment.) So this scene LOOKS like the parlor scene in Psycho, but cannot really escape the shadow OF the Psycho parlor scene.
---
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
4 years ago
but we're fascinated by Norman all the same, and well. Melanie is never fascinating.
---
No, she's not very fascinating. And she's rather oddly drawn-up. We're told of her penchant for practical jokes and for being a "party girl," but we see a pretty staid, dull, and shallow "rich girl." Mitch is poorly written , too. He's a criminal DEFENSE ATTORNEY(represents "thugs," says his sister) but he acts like a judgmental law-and-order PROSECUTOR with Melanie. Melanie and Mitch simply don't make much sense. For this, I can only blame screenwriter Evan Hunter -- who was quite an accomplished novelist, but couldn't deliver the goods here.
I would add that one reason that Norman IS fascinating is that his placid exterior masks the most vicious and arbitrary of killers. Hitchcock went to that well one more time -- with homicidal rapist-strangler Bob Rusk in Frenzy. Frenzy screenwriter Anthony Shaffer said "homicidal psychopaths are fascinating, aren't they?" ...and Rusk is interesting in roughly the same way as Norman: a "nice guy"(more cheery and extroverted than Norman) who masks a sexual maniac within. A monster. If Rusk isn't as fascinating as Norman, I suppose it is because a non-star plays him, and he simply doesn't get the screen time or back story to matter as much as Norman.
---
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
4 years ago
Now the main characters of both "Psycho" and "The Birds" end the film seemingly catatonic and broken,
---
...and this DOES elevate The Birds closer to the achievement of Psycho. Both films -- in different ways -- play as very serious and profound works that entertained audiences even as they were taken "to the dark side."
On a "micro" level, the surviving Psycho characters will be guilty and haunted forever by what happened to Marion Crane(maybe to Arbogast, too -- Marion got HIM killed when she stole the money in the first place and he was hired to find her.) On a "macro" level, the surviving characters in The Birds may be facing a world that will NEVER be the same.
Sobering films. And yet -- exciting and fun. And The Birds is an incredible technical achievement, far more difficult to pull off than Psycho.
reply
share