Monday

November 12, 2010

Our last movie screening of the semester happened this week in class, and in all honesty, I am a little bummed. I have really liked this class, and have really enjoyed watching the Hitchcock movies. Coming into the class I have only seen a couple of them, so it was always fun getting into these classic films I have never seen before. We chose a great one to end on.

The Birds.

In class we were shown two quotes in regards to the films. The first from Alfred Hitchcock - "[The film] is about complacency" and the other is some Robin Wood, who said the film "is about arbitrary and unpredictable."

Taking both of these quotes and trying to understand what each meant in terms of the movie is going to be kind of tough, but I'll give it a go.

As Hitchcock referred to the film as being about complacency, I can only guess what is meant by that. What I believe he meant by this was that there are all things we take for granted in our lives. These range in importance from the oxygen we breath, without thinking about it, to the simplicity of pressing a gas pedal to make a several ton car move along a road. These things are pretty amazing aspects of our lives that we dont even think about. It is easy to never think about them. That is until they dont work, or dont work right. It seems like the second we get complacent with those types of things they tend to give us issues. I think that is what Hitchcock means in this statement. So many things in our lives just happen, we dont think about them, but they go as planned 99.999% of the time. What were to happen if one of those items did not go as it normally does? If the natural order of things were to be disrupted, we would not know how to handle it. And this is what occurs in the film. The natural order is disrupted and an entire town encounters a very large issue.

In terms of the statement by Robin Wood, I believe he went for a different angle on the same type of concept. I believe he took on the idea of the movie as in to say, what were to happen if the things around us were not as we saw them? Instead of a bird staying away from humans, it would attack when you least expected it. Take nature as a general concept, imagine that every once and a while it would just decide to infringe on our space via the animals, trees, or whatever. Our lives would be a lot different than what they are. Imagine being stopped at a stop light and a tree just fell over with no reason right onto your car. What a different would that would be! Again, I think it is along the concept of flipping the order of our world around and asking the question: What if it was not as ideal as it is now?

Another concept that one person in class brought up that I thought was interesting was that the birds did not start attacking the town until Melanie Daniels, the main character, came up to the little town in Northern California from the large San Francisco. The idea was that the birds were, in a way, protecting themselves from the outside influence and someone who represented a different lifestyle and way of living. She comes from a cement jungle filled with cars and people, much different from this small town that she enters. I thought this was a very interesting concept, and could be something to look deeper into. The only issue that I saw with the theory was that there was mention of one of a local boat's crews getting attacked before Melanie even got there. So it did not start when she got there. So whatever that correlation is something that could be investigated further. I am sure there is some interesting representation that could be found in this subject.

Another question that was raised in class was: Why did Hitchcock include subtle material that most wont see?

I think if anything portrayed Hitchcock as a director, this could be it. Hitchcock, as we know, is an autuer. The movies he made were his artistic vision, and he controlled every element from beginning to end. They were his babies. Because he liked to be in so much control during the process, and be able to portray events/characters/sets/etc. in such a paticular way, I believe that the subtle things in each movie are just a way in which he puts that much more Hitchcockian elements into them. Yes, many will never be known, many wont be understood, but I can imagine every time Hitchcock were to sit back watching one of his movies, and seeing these subtle objects, he would smile or nod in approval. He would know exactly what they meant, what they represented, and why he put them there. And no one else would. It seems like an ultimate knowledge/power trip for a man who appeared to live off of it.

No comments:

Post a Comment