Classic movie site with rare images, original ads, and behind-the-scenes photos, with informative and insightful commentary. We like to have fun with movies!
Archive and Links
grbrpix@aol.com
Search Index Here




Monday, December 25, 2023

Another Doing in Movies What Most Would Hesitate to Do


Melanie Daniels Plays the Game Called Access and Opportunity


The Birds
for me is less about avian assault and more about other things. It is nature in an uproar against backdrop of human nature we all encounter, being of hill called access-and-opportunity that everyone climbs, some repeatedly, many to limited or no success, access-and-opportunity being what it takes to identify a relationship we want to pursue, and measures needed to pursue it. This is whole of Birds concern for a first forty-five minutes, unique/compelling by itself as who hasn’t gone to sometimes extraordinary length to contrive a second meeting after promise from a first? Tippi Hedren as Melanie Daniels speaks with but is not introduced to Mitch Brenner, former attracted/intrigued from chance encounter at a shop selling mostly birds and tropical fish. Melanie is there to collect a “full-grown mynah bird” that promises to talk, comedic set-up for chance contact with Mitch, a Lubitsch-style open where things might develop only if these two somehow get together a second time. There is suggestive tilting on topic of love birds and mating habits of same, Mitch seeking a pair for his sister’s birthday. Banter gets Melanie interested, but how to follow-up on this first introduction that is not an introduction? Mitch recognizes Melanie from newspapers reporting her heiress antics, Mitch having fun at Melanie’s expense for brief moments this acquaintance will last. He will leave as casually as he arrived, minus love birds, but that doesn’t matter. Melanie sees the desirable mynah that is Mitch fly away and determines to find out who he is, rushing behind to take down a license plate number as her quarry drives off. How many in real life have done this or something like it? I did on one occasion which came to nothing, the fun in putting myself by way of a second encounter if I chose to chase it, challenge being to frame such and make it seem as random as the first. How often do such schemes work? Maybe seldom, if ever … or should we just say never?


 


Melanie learns the first law of access and opportunity, which is to make access and arrange opportunity. Some (most?) would say this is stalking and figure the flirtation better forgot. But what if Melanie sensed Mitch for the soulmate he would become? A person less resourceful would discount destiny crooking its finger and trust her soulmate to emerge from elsewhere, but how many soulmates does one encounter in a lifetime? Honest enough respondents will admit few, in fact none if they are really honest. We’re intrigued by Melanie’s urgency to track Mitch and maybe snare him, movies being about people willing to do things the rest of us lack energy or initiative for. Melanie must enter Mitch’s world, an entirely separate one from her own. Tracing the plate, getting an address, determining that Mitch practices law for a living, these but starters toward “happening” to run into him again, latter more awkward for him realizing effort she went to. To tip off strong interest is generally a kiss of doom. Mitch might think Melanie too aggressive, and yes, acquiring love birds and driving them an hour and a half up the California coast to Bodega Bay where the Brenners have a home goes past enterprising to plain nervy. But, Hitchcock and writers ask, how many perfect loves were lost because one or the other party failed to seize the bit that would enable an encore? Access and opportunity knocks upon all doors, as in here’s how to interpose yourself between inaction and resulting disappointment that make up too much of life. Melanie’s is the bold stroke, showing up at Bodega Bay in hope mutual interest will develop with Mitch, but what of eternal ninety/ten rule that dictates majority of desired things won’t work out as opposed to piddling ten percent that might? Chances are greater Mitch will be put off, alarmed even, that Melanie has gone to all this effort just to see him again. And what if he already had a girlfriend, fiancée, or even a wife? Plug yourself into Melanie's circumstance and picture the risk she runs.



A gull swooping down to attack is agency to shift Melanie and Mitch’s relationship to something shared in the face of a now mutual struggle. Will Mitch and Melanie in years to come thank that errant gull for bringing them truly together? Access and opportunity often mean going to outlandish effort toward your objective. I have a friend who years ago met an object of interest, realized it was one/only occasion to see her, unless he schemed otherwise. Toward that end, he asked around and found she worked as a nurse at a local hospital. How to cross paths again and make it seem coincidence? His idea was to go and get an adjustable arm sling, put it on, and show up where the Object of Interest was, their second rendezvous a fortuity as stealthily shaped by him. Was she wise? Nothing would have killed the moment like exposing the ruse, “you can’t fool me” putting paid to the association before it began. Those truer wise might play along where they see or sense value in their pursuer, however blundering his/her effort. So what happened to this particular couple? They married, stayed married, had three children and so far, seven grandchildren. This then was Access and Opportunity writ large, device to generally not work, but worth a reach perhaps toward that elusive ten percent. Result to contrary may be chalked up to failure being after all a better teacher than success. There is no broader avenue than access and opportunity for making a fool of oneself. Our sympathy is with Melanie Daniels for putting herself in ridicule’s way, approaching Bodega strangers, pretending to know people or belong at places she does not. Melanie crossing the waterway, a wide one, in a rented putt-putt boat is as vulnerable to profound embarrassment as any Hitchcock character could be. Did the Master ever hold us in such suspense as Melanie making her slow approach and entering Mitch’s home unobserved and without invitation to deliver the love birds?




Melanie earns plaudits for her persistence, even as it obliges her to mislead those she’d use to access what she wants, including Mitch once they meet again and it is plainly obvious she made the drive to Bodega seeking him. Access/opportunity often employs trickery to achieve ends, outright lying too where necessary. Melanie goes to a stranger, Annie Hayworth, to get the name of Mitch’s sister, Annie aware that the mission involves more than that, even as Melanie evades and again misleads as she did with Bodega’s postmaster. We could ask Melanie if even an ideal outcome was worth measures she took. I don’t know of a director better equipped than Hitchcock to explore A/O and what it provokes us to do. Mitch’s home being “across the bay” is no obstacle so long as there is a boat and Melanie can hire it. We gather she’ll survive future onslaught that are titular birds, as this is one determined woman. She has within twenty minutes earned our rooting interest plus sympathy going forward. Mitch observes Melanie through binoculars well after she has delivered the lovebirds and is making her way back. He seems pleased and flattered that she has sought him out. What promises to be continuation of light romantic comedy is wrested away sudden by the gull’s attack, an incident to bond Melanie and Mitch at outset of fearsome events. Attitudes shift as he becomes solicitous and protective of her. A relationship between Melanie and Mitch shall commence, awkwardness in the getting there forgiven and forgot, way clear for The Birds to unfurl its horrors now that we are fully invested in these characters.

More of The Birds at Greenbriar HERE.

5 Comments:

Blogger Peteski said...

How often do such schemes work?

More often than you think.

7:28 PM  
Blogger Tommie Hicks said...

When this movie was first televised, I was not allowed to watch it.

12:11 PM  
Blogger DBenson said...

Hepburn in "Bringing Up Baby" is another heiress who sets her sights on a handsome (and incidentally spoken for) stranger, but we accept it because she's pretty and funny. Lombard in "My Man Godfrey" is sexually harassing the help, but again we accept it because she's pretty and funny. Proper romantic comedy usually boils down to boy meets girl, either one of them falls in love, and that one spends the rest of the movie getting the other one to come around. The subset of screwball comedy frequently offers wacky ladies -- Manic Pixie Dream Girls, as they were dubbed for a while -- prying repressed males from their moorings. In comedy at large it's usually a male chasing a girl out of his league, and it's often a matter of "winning" or "earning" her rather than mutual chemistry.

What if Hitchcock had an unattractive heroine -- even Hollywood's idea of "unattractive" -- chasing Taylor, eventually bonding with him as the world seemed to be ending around them? It might, in the first part at least, have played as more outright comic. Or as pathos, since her actions would read as desperation rather than romance (Romcom stalkers generally look as though they don't HAVE to stalk anybody). But it's a moot issue, since Hitchcock knew he needed pretty faces and familiar, conventional movie romance to ease the audience into this one. He also knew he needed those elements to sell tickets.

6:36 PM  
Blogger Kevin K. said...

All I can tell you about my single days is that women who threw themselves at me were turn-offs -- just as, I would guess, guys who threw themselves at them. Casual conversations always provided a better chance to go places. Oh, and my wife and I strongly disliked Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby. Her character is insane, and audiences would likely reject a male character behaving the same way.

9:16 AM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Dan Mercer on screen courtship and THE BIRDS:


I was watching “Living on Love” this morning as Whitney Bourne was demonstrating that, indeed, comedy is hard, maybe too hard. A dozen or so alarm clocks placed in her apartment by James Dunn began to ring, one after the other, while she was trying to sleep. The poor girl was driven quite mad. Evidently, the device intended to lure the object of one’s desire ought not to alienate said object at the same time. As always, however, the sympathetic engagement of the screenwriter is crucial. A couple of scenes later, even after Miss Bourne reciprocated Mr. Dunn’s gesture by having the sellers of zebras, cows, and monkeys visit him to solicit a purchase, the two were laughing together as they indulged in that staple of Depression-era filmmaking, the Art of Dunking a Doughnut.

Your observations about the stratagems of the “Tippi” Hedren character in “The Birds” are quite cogent. She is indeed a bold girl to seek a conjunction with Rod Taylor on the basis of what is obviously an artifice, though whether Mr. Taylor would overlook that or pierce the veil, as it were, would depend entirely upon his regard for Miss Hedren. As the saying goes, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Even so, I would add that practical considerations are also involved, in that moviegoers would go into the theater with the expectation that the attractive heads of the billed leading man and leading lady would at some point merge on screen in a kiss. Some contrivance, cute or otherwise, will be necessary for that to come about. Also, in a suspense film such as this one, the audience should have a degree of sympathy for the protagonists, if they’re to care about what happens to them. Some banter and a light flirtation can help that considerably.

Thematically, Miss Hedren’s character is one who seeks to bend reality around her expectations, hence her explotation of the laws of access and opportunity. Very shortly after she begins her crossing of the bay, she will find herself confronted by a reality as vast as it is indifferent to what she expects.

4:58 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

grbrpix@aol.com
  • December 2005
  • January 2006
  • February 2006
  • March 2006
  • April 2006
  • May 2006
  • June 2006
  • July 2006
  • August 2006
  • September 2006
  • October 2006
  • November 2006
  • December 2006
  • January 2007
  • February 2007
  • March 2007
  • April 2007
  • May 2007
  • June 2007
  • July 2007
  • August 2007
  • September 2007
  • October 2007
  • November 2007
  • December 2007
  • January 2008
  • February 2008
  • March 2008
  • April 2008
  • May 2008
  • June 2008
  • July 2008
  • August 2008
  • September 2008
  • October 2008
  • November 2008
  • December 2008
  • January 2009
  • February 2009
  • March 2009
  • April 2009
  • May 2009
  • June 2009
  • July 2009
  • August 2009
  • September 2009
  • October 2009
  • November 2009
  • December 2009
  • January 2010
  • February 2010
  • March 2010
  • April 2010
  • May 2010
  • June 2010
  • July 2010
  • August 2010
  • September 2010
  • October 2010
  • November 2010
  • December 2010
  • January 2011
  • February 2011
  • March 2011
  • April 2011
  • May 2011
  • June 2011
  • July 2011
  • August 2011
  • September 2011
  • October 2011
  • November 2011
  • December 2011
  • January 2012
  • February 2012
  • March 2012
  • April 2012
  • May 2012
  • June 2012
  • July 2012
  • August 2012
  • September 2012
  • October 2012
  • November 2012
  • December 2012
  • January 2013
  • February 2013
  • March 2013
  • April 2013
  • May 2013
  • June 2013
  • July 2013
  • August 2013
  • September 2013
  • October 2013
  • November 2013
  • December 2013
  • January 2014
  • February 2014
  • March 2014
  • April 2014
  • May 2014
  • June 2014
  • July 2014
  • August 2014
  • September 2014
  • October 2014
  • November 2014
  • December 2014
  • January 2015
  • February 2015
  • March 2015
  • April 2015
  • May 2015
  • June 2015
  • July 2015
  • August 2015
  • September 2015
  • October 2015
  • November 2015
  • December 2015
  • January 2016
  • February 2016
  • March 2016
  • April 2016
  • May 2016
  • June 2016
  • July 2016
  • August 2016
  • September 2016
  • October 2016
  • November 2016
  • December 2016
  • January 2017
  • February 2017
  • March 2017
  • April 2017
  • May 2017
  • June 2017
  • July 2017
  • August 2017
  • September 2017
  • October 2017
  • November 2017
  • December 2017
  • January 2018
  • February 2018
  • March 2018
  • April 2018
  • May 2018
  • June 2018
  • July 2018
  • August 2018
  • September 2018
  • October 2018
  • November 2018
  • December 2018
  • January 2019
  • February 2019
  • March 2019
  • April 2019
  • May 2019
  • June 2019
  • July 2019
  • August 2019
  • September 2019
  • October 2019
  • November 2019
  • December 2019
  • January 2020
  • February 2020
  • March 2020
  • April 2020
  • May 2020
  • June 2020
  • July 2020
  • August 2020
  • September 2020
  • October 2020
  • November 2020
  • December 2020
  • January 2021
  • February 2021
  • March 2021
  • April 2021
  • May 2021
  • June 2021
  • July 2021
  • August 2021
  • September 2021
  • October 2021
  • November 2021
  • December 2021
  • January 2022
  • February 2022
  • March 2022
  • April 2022
  • May 2022
  • June 2022
  • July 2022
  • August 2022
  • September 2022
  • October 2022
  • November 2022
  • December 2022
  • January 2023
  • February 2023
  • March 2023
  • April 2023
  • May 2023
  • June 2023
  • July 2023
  • August 2023
  • September 2023
  • October 2023
  • November 2023
  • December 2023
  • January 2024
  • February 2024
  • March 2024
  • April 2024
  • May 2024
  • June 2024
  • July 2024
  • August 2024
  • September 2024