The Birds
Alfred Hitchcock’s original logline. I didn’t find best.
Jean-Marie MazaleyratPenpusher
Acting in concert, birds start attacking people for no apparent reason.
Share
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Jean-Marie:
You have raised a host of interesting issues specific to the movie, “The Birds” and to plotting in
general that I think could generate enough posts to easily set another record. And it seems we don’t
agree on many of the issues. Great! The basis for a true dialectic, clashing theses and antitheses from which, hopefully, will emerge syntheses of deeper understanding of plotting by of all parties to the discussion.
So a-w-a-y we go! Where to begin?
I agree with you that “The Birds” is an unconventional movie. Which at that point in his career, Hitchcock had the creative license — and creative chops — to pull off. (I have neither.)
But as Tony Edward and I pointed out in the other thread, contrary to your sweeping generalization, most of the basic elements are there: a protagonist, conflict, an antagonist, stakes.
I pointed out that the protagonist, Melanie, does have a character flaw. And now you, too, say she has one. But we disagree as to what it is.
What do we mean when we use the term “character flaw”? I’m going to leave that question dangling for now and hope we get back to it later. I think there’s a lot of wheat and chaff to thrash out on that one.
For now, I will merely throw out an admittedly simplistic definition of the character flaw: it’s the defining characteristic, introduced in Act 1, that gets the protagonist into trouble for the rest of the story.
Melanie does not display one millisecond of “fear and helplessness” in Act 1. So that can’t be her character flaw. “Fear and helplessness” is displayed much later in the story after she is attacked by birds. But the “fear and helplessness” is shared by everyone else in the movie. The “character flaw” is specific to the main character, not to the whole cast.
You also stated:
>>Basically : The birds is the same as JAWS without the Sheriff Brody and the Mayor Vaughan.
Well, yes, but…
The order of antagonists is not “the mayor then the shark”. The shark is far and away the first and greatest antagonist. The shark attacks first THEN the mayor reacts and resists. That’s the causal and temporal chain of events.
The antagonist can be an animal, a force of nature. I agree with you that in “Jaws” the animal is
complemented with a corresponding human antagonist. The dramatic function of the human antagonist is to frustrate the protagonist’s effort to defeat the animal protagonist. And that is the conventional way of doing it. But Hitchcock doesn’t follow that convention in “The Birds”. There is only one apparent antagonist, the birds.
Enough blathering for now.
Hi dpg,
Beautiful sp?cialist feud! 😉
What you says is well thought out, and you and Tony Edward are as right as I am, because what opposes us are just little shades of difference,
About Melanie’s flaw, I asked myself : would the things be different if she was Mitch’s sister, or the wife of a family’s friend?
In my opinion, the answer is no. In this case her emotion is not a flaw in relation to the plot.
By cons, it is related to the relationship that develops between her and Mitch, which (I think) is the sub-plot of the movie.
As you said, The Birds is not a conventional movie, and I try not to analyze it as a conventional movie.
I agree with you about the antagonists in Jaws, I just wanted to place them in the order in which Brody must confront them personally:
– First Vaughan and the shark hunters who wreak havoc in Amity,
– Then the shark he goes hunting with Quint.
All the best for you two. 🙂
JM
And what is part of Hichcock’s genius -I think- was to make a movie in wich the heroes and other conventional characterizations are related to the sub-plot and not to the plot!
Another interesting aspect of the plot is that Melanie’s character doesn’t follow the conventional transformational arc prescribed in screenwriting books: character flaw —> dramatic problem+antagonist —> crisis —> nadir —> epiphany —> resolution of character flaw —> triumph over problem+antagonist.
Whatever her flaw is, I don’t recall her ever coming to any epiphany about it. (You’re recall of the movie is better than mine — does she?) It certainly doesn’t personally empower her to take up arms against a sea of seagulls or any other birds and defeat them.
In Jaws, as far as I can tell, the only “flaw” Chief Brody has is not one of character in any moral or ethical sense. He’s an honest dude, a straight up guy. He just has a phobia about venturing into the deep waters of the ocean. And, of course, what does he have to do to kill the shark? Go into deep water.
It strikes me as kind of gimmicky– something they figured they had to give him so he would have an internal conflict to overcome.
Which raises the question: must every protagonist have a character flaw? And must that flaw be a negative defect? Can a virtue , in the context of a particular plot, become a character flaw?
Hi dpg,
About Melanie, I think that we have to look for her journey into the development of her relationship with Mitch, because into the main thread -birds attacks-, they are just ordinary people.
I think that Hitchcock put this subplot as a hook for audience and to make his story experienced from a specific POV, but that he was not very concerned in it: I.E. he lets Annie (Mitch’s ex-lover) be killed by the birds whereas she would be an interesting character interfering with (in?) the Mitch-Melanie relationship.
This is why M?lanie’s journey is paused up to the end when the main thread gains in importance.
The end is ambigous: Why the birds don’t attack the car and do lovebirds have something to do with that?
He said that mystery does not interest the audience but he ends his movie on a mystery. Perhaps to let the audience with a sort of frustration that extend its anxiety …?
About flaw: This is definitely a gadget to increase spectator interest.
I.E. James Bond, who is the perfect hero without any personal flaw: In many of JB movies, the introduction shows him into a short story related to the main, in which he overcomes some major obstacle but is affected by it. This affect will become his flaw in the main story.
About virtue : Yes a virtue can be a flaw. I think that one of the best examples is in Hitchcock’s “I CONFESS” : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Confess_(film)
Another one is in “LIAR, LIAR”
And of course, a defect can be a force.
All the best.
Hi dpg,
About Melanie, I think that we have to look for her journey into the development of her relationship with Mitch, because into the main thread -birds attacks-, they are just ordinary people.
I think that Hitchcock put this subplot as a hook for audience and to make his story experienced from a specific POV, but that he was not very concerned in it: I.E. he lets Annie (Mitch’s ex-lover) be killed by the birds whereas she would be an interesting character interfering with (in) the Mitch-Melanie relationship.
This is why M?lanie’s journey is paused up to the end when the main thread gains in importance.
The end is ambigous: Why the birds don’t attack the car and do lovebirds have something to do with that?
He said that mystery does not interest the audience but he ends his movie on a mystery. Perhaps to let the audience with a sort of frustration that extend its anxiety …?
About flaw: This is definitely a gadget to increase spectator interest.
I.E. James Bond, who is the perfect hero without any personal flaw: In many of JB movies, the introduction shows him into a short story related to the main, in which he overcomes (or fails to) some major obstacle but is affected by it. This affect will be his flaw in the main story (often an excessive need of revenge and disavowal or repudiation from his hierarchy).
(It is quite the same for Indiana Jones!)
About virtue : Yes a virtue can be a flaw. I think that one of the best examples is in Hitchcock’s “I CONFESS” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Confess_(film)
A other one is in LIAR, LIAR
And a deffect can be a force, of course.
All the best.
Hitchcock on the distinction he makes between mystery and suspense:
Hitchock says in that clip that he never made a mystery. But “The Birds” is a mystery to me in the sense that I never am told why the birds are attacking or what finally happens with them.
The best single sentence I have ever read on plotting is: “The plot is a conspiracy against the protagonist.”
“I Confess” is an good example, a plot the conspires against a priest to turn his virtue, his vow, into
a “flaw”.
In “Liar, Liar” the virtue of absolute honesty is imposed upon the lawyer because of his real character
flaw, his tendency NOT to tell the truth.
A plot can conspire to turn a minor, seemingly innocuous flaw into a major problem. Thus,Indiana Jones is given a minor “flaw”, a phobia for snakes. As in “Jaws”, the plot conspires to make it a major problem, forcing him to overcome his phobia for the sake of the objective goal.
I like this sentence : “The plot is a conspiracy against the protagonist.”
>>I think that Hitchcock put this subplot as a hook for audience and to make his story experienced from a specific POV, but that he was not very concerned in it:
Yes. The hook for the story is the attacking birds; he uses the The Melanie-Mitch relationship is a subplot are in service of the hook.
About “I Confess”: What I particularly like about the movie is Hitchcock’s use of dilemma, a powerful dramatic element that seems to get short shrift in the screenwriting books I’ve read. They skim over the element as if it were so obvious what a dilemma is that nothing more need be said. It’s a hard decision a character has to be make. Now onto the next element in a good plot…
Well, yes, it’s a hard decision, but why is it so hard?
Because of the nature of the choices: They are EQUALLY desirable, or EQUALLY undesirable — and he can and must only choose one of them. Or else. So the character is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.
Which is the predicament facing the priest in “I Confess”.
Just thought I’d pop my two cents in in regards to the topic of virtues and flaws — not in relation to ‘The Birds’ but in general as this is a great topic…
By nature of a virtue being a virtue personally I don’t think they could ever really be described as a flaw per se — only in the way that, say, an AGGRAVATED Virtue can be a flaw — Being SOOO generous/ honest/ charitable/ honorable that it is to the detriment of self. In ‘Liar Liar’ Honesty is not Jim C’s flaw, it’s the fact that he is a Liar, being prepared to lie to get ahead in his career to the detriment of his family/ loved ones. It’s not until he accepts this fact, claiming that he is “…a Bad Father… I’m a bad Father!” that things start to turn around for him. Yes — his world turns upside down when his son bestows upon him what is at first seemingly a curse — but is in fact a blessing as it forces Jim’s Character to face reality and become a better Father and Husband.
Anyway — great posts dpg, Jean, and Anon. 😉
>>In ?Liar Liar? Honesty is not Jim C?s flaw, it?s the fact that he is a Liar,
That’s the way I see it.
I have come to view the whole notion of “flaw” somewhat differently than what is taught by script writing gurus. Jean-Marie pointed out that franchise heroes like James Bond essentially have no dramatic flaw.
And I can think of some non-franchise movies where the protagonist has no dramatic flaw in the conventional sense; that is, a character defect, a moral weakness that gets them into deep trouble. Yet they get into deep trouble. How can that happen?
Case in point: in the movie “Gladiator”, what is Maximus’ character flaw in Act 1 that gets him in deep trouble for the rest of the film?
That’s a great question dpg — off the top of my head I couldn’t offer an answer — but definitely will look into it…
But — Maybe Pride — I only say this by looking at Commodus, who falls prey to the negative side of the thematic premise (whatever that EXACTLY is…his pride certainly leads to his downfall), whilst Maximus accepts his fate as a slave/ gladiator… But in the end it’s a tragedy as Maximus dies — so maybe he never fully accepts the virtuous side of the thematic premise… I don’t know — really good question.
Hello you two,
May I tell you the way I undestand Liar Liar :
– Fletcher is both the protagonist and the antagonist: a two-faced people like JANUS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus)
– His heroe?s journey will makes him able to switch the two.
– That perfectly concord with the myth of JANUS who was the god of beginnings, transitions and endings.
Beginning:
– Fletcher-One is a liar and according to his way of life, this is a force. His flaw is his son?s vow which prevents him to lie.
– Fletcher-Two loves his son, he likes to play with him… His flaw is that he is a liar giving precedence to his job and breaking his promises.
Transition:
– Fletcher-One tries desperatly to delay the case, then wins without liying when he discocers his client lay about her age, making her marriage invalid.
– Fletcher-Two discovers that his client is interested only by money, then shouts at the judge to reverse the decision, what makes him taken to jail for contempt of court. This makes him able to undestand his situation towards his son and his ex-wife.
Ending:
– Fletcher-One is dead in jail as a liar.
– Fletcher-Two struggles to win back his son and his wife, and wins.
JANUS should be the god of screenwriters, I think.
All the best.
JM 🙂
Commodus is riddled with flaws including the hots for his sister.
But for the purpose of the plot, I think the crucial positive-negative value dyad is political ambition, the desire for power. Maximus has no political ambition; his initially refuses the emperor’s offer; he just wants to go home to his family. Which is why, Marcus Aurelius points out, he is the right man for the job.
In contrast, Commodus is exceedingly ambitious (he says as much in his showdown with his father, Marcus Aurelius). He lusts for power. Allied with that ambition is a lack of scruples; he’ll do whatever it takes to get what he wants.
You have a point — maybe he is flawless. Definitely a flawless performance from Rusty.
Very interesting way of framing it, Jean-Marie. In effect, Fletcher only worthy foe, his worst enemy, is himself. He is given a rival for his ex-wife’s affection and opposing lawyers to combat in court, but they are merely foils, inferior adversaries.
But his virtue is initially involuntary. It’s miraculously imposed; it’s not one he chooses. And he has a problem with this virtue: at first he doesn’t know how to use it wisely, to good effect. He just makes a fool of himself.
In addition to the mythical analogue, there’s another classic analogue similarity from fiction: Dr. Jekyll-Mr. Hyde. (And from Jungian psychology Persona-Shadow, Freudian: Ego-Id.)
I don’t think Rusty Maximus has a character flaw as conventionally defined these days.
I bring up “Gladiator” because I recently read a piece by a scripting guru who whacked and slashed at the character of Maximus in order to cram him into the Procrustean bed of his paradigm of the character flaw. An amazing, amusing performance, but I was not persuaded.
Maybe his flaw is his loyalty and confidence so he don’t beware enough Commodus
How can virtues like that be a “flaw”?
Jean-Marie:
Your insights into the lawyer character of “Liar, Liar” has been simmering on the front and back burners of my mind every since.
The more they simmer, the more I have thought of others movies where the character seems to be his own primary antagonist, his own worst enemy. The external opposition are mere foils, minor-antagonists at best.
Citizen Kane — Charles Foster Kane has character flaws and obstacles. He make many enemies along the way, but is there one continuous antagonist he is up against through entire arc of the movie?
Groundhog Day – Phil, the weather reporter, is his own worst enemy. His character flaw is his narcissism and selfishness. He has a worthy love interest — but where’s his external antagonist?
Adaptation – Charlie Kaufman, the screenwriter, is riddled with self-doubt and insecurity. He doesn’t need an external antagonist hell-bent on destroying his career because he is own worst enemy.
Taking it a step further who is Juno’s antagonist? She obviously made a major mistake, but is that spunky kid her own worst enemy throughout the movie?
In light of the above (and other examples that could be cited) it seems to me we may have to rethink our discussion of some loglines. There may be perfectly righteous plots that are exceptions to the standard formula we keep trying to impose on the corresponding loglines: when something happens, a protagonist must struggle against an antagonist in order to…
Hi dpg,
I think you pointed the right thing.
Groundhog Day and Liar Liar are the archetype of this situation.
I think about an other one in wich it is the same: The Others, with Nicole Kidman.(+++)
This is an interesting movie because our paradigms (construction, characterization, hero’s journey) are well exploited to make a very strange story, in wich the “resurrection” is a very amazing thing!
I didn’t fing the logline of Te Others.
I’ll write one and I ‘ll put i in Classics
You’re right dpg… A logline is as formulaic as the story / film it’s representing… IMO, the only rule is that you’ve got to be as true to yourself and your story as possible… A good logline draws me in because it implies an interesting struggle, against oneself or an external force, and the stakes are high for both success or failure. It needs to ring true, as in, be logical, but also be different — stand out….
There should be no ‘standard’ logline in the same way there should be no ‘standard’ film.
Great thread dpg and Jean ; |
We tend to judge people as ourselves
If he were less loyal, honest and confident, he would be more suspicious about Comodus.
and he is had twice by Comodus:
– At the beginning
– And at the end when Comodus wounds him with his dagger before the fight.
Hi Tony,
I see in my email box that you posted a message which don’t appear here, but I have no sufficient permissions to approve it (this is a problem with my Worldpress account I think).
I put it bellow:
Tony Edward says :
You’re right dpg… A logline is as formulaic as the story / film it’s representing… IMO, the only rule is that you’ve got to be as true to yourself and your story as possible… A good logline draws me in because it implies an interesting struggle, against oneself or an external force, and the stakes are high for both success or failure. It needs to ring true, as in, be logical, but also be different — stand out….
There should be no ‘standard’ logline in the same way there should be no ‘standard’ film.
Great thread dpg and Jean ; |
And what is magical … It appears just when I post the copy above! 🙂
Thanks for that Jean 😉
Another thing I find really interesting is that in regards to films like Groundhog Day, The Others, Adaptation where the Protag is in fact the Antag, this is not actually the case for most of the film; usually there an external Antag that is in fact a false Antag — i.e. in Groundhog Day I’d say the antag for the majority of the film is in fact Groundhog day itself… In The Other’s, the antag for the majority of the film is the mysterious ‘Others’ and it’s not until the end when we realise who these others are, and what Nicole K has done that we learn this is not the case… Adaptation is a weird one, I think your right dpg, in that Charlie is definitely his worst enemy for the majority of the film — it’s funny how it ends though, as Myrell Streep’s character in fact becomes the antagonist in the Hollywood-like 3rd Act…. and it’s gotta be one of the best films for budding screenwriters ever… “mmm… I should have muffin..”
>>If he were less loyal, honest and confident, he would be more suspicious about Comodus.
Marcus Aurelius: “Commodus is not a moral man, you have known that since you were young. Commodus cannot rule. He must not rule. You are the son that I should have had.”
Maximus doesn’t deny this. His next statement is: “I need some time, Sire.”
I think that is his fatal mistake, his hamartia, if you will. If ever there was a moment to Carpe Diem… but Maximus hesitates.
Why does Maximus hesitate? He didn’t become Rome’s greatest general by being the kind of guy who vacillates.
It seems to me he hesitates because Marcus Aurelius has set him on the horns of a dilemma. On one horn: if he declines the offer and goes home, Commodus becomes emperor.
On the other horn: if he accepts the call, he can’t go home, and he becomes ensnared in Empire politics. Which he loathes. It’s not his strength: he’s a general, not a politician. (In contrast, playing politics is Commodus’s long suit.)
Marcus Aurelius errs in having such a low opinion of his son’s character he also underestimates his son’s ambition and ruthlessness: “Commodus will accept my decision. He knows that you command the loyalty of the army.”
Yeah, right.
>>And at the end when Comodus wounds him with his dagger before the fight.
Maximus is in chains; he can’t defend himself.
Of course, the whole movie plays fast and loose with history. And the plot threads are kind of thin in places.
All Marcus Aurelius had to do was NOT confront Commodus until he had Maximus locked in. And then have Maximus at his right side to guarantee his safety, and his daughter, Lucilla, as a witness when he confronted Commodus.
But then, there would have been no movie about gladiators.
Anyway, I find it an interesting example of how to plot an Act 1/Act 2 reversal of fortune of a strong, decent character.
Hi dpg,
That’s true!
That’s true!
Hi Lads,
This is well underway to being the longest ‘classics’ thread in history (If its not already)… and has transformed from ‘The Birds’ to ‘The Gladiator’ but regardless…
You make a really interesting point dpg. Maybe it’s a case of where the antagonist is so vile and persistent in their pursuit to destroy the protagonist that the protag doesn’t need a flaw per se to overcome… Maximus is pure awesome and Commodus is pure evil — a balanced rivalry..(Like the Nazi’s against Indy…)? He’s the best General in Rome, revered — but Commodus has absolute power — Maximus’ flaw might simply be a physical one, in that, he’s enslaved…
Jean’s points are interesting though — in a sense he’s on the money, in that even though Maximus has an understanding that Commodus is an immoral twisted evil snake, he still might underestimate the level of vile and cunning he could stoop to… He doesn’t see the knife coming at the end…
Thanks Jean — usually I approve things straight away — 😉
— hey dpg and Jean (again…) — just been having a play with a potential thematic/ moral/ psychological premise for ‘Gladiator’ (just cos it’s been playing on my mind…)
“Blind ambition to the detriment of others leads to self destruction, but self sacrifice for the sake of others leads to salvation.”
Probably a bit basic, but I think it works. All Rusty does is for the people — I would need to see/ read it again, but does Maximus hesitate for want of his family when given the opportunity to rule?
Even though Maximus dies, the final shot we have is of him running his hand over the wheat by his home and he is reunited with his family — yes, it’s the afterlife or what have you, but still salvation…
Hi Guys
I put three new topics in Classics about three non conventional movies
Tony:
As usual, you raise some interesting issues. And I wish I had the time to respond in full. But I don’t. So for now I will opine that I am not so sure the conventional formulation of the moral premise works for “Gladiator”. I hope we can explore this further as time permits.
I agree with you dpg, not conventional… I might be doing what your screenwriting guru (?) was trying to do … ; I’ve just got my head up in the proverbial of moral premises at the mo…
Anyways — you take as much time in replying as you like — this thread will hold the record for a while to come methinks… ;
Tony Edward:
Are you familiar with “The Moral Premise” by Stanley D. Williams?
Ya. Tis a good read ;)… Except for his example that cites 7th Heaven 😉
Tony Edward:
Re: The Moral Premise. What’s your takeway? The one or two ideas you thought most useful?
The notion of a “moment of grace” intrigued me. Is there that kind of moment for Maximus in “Gladiator”? I dunno.
>> Except for his example that cites 7th Heaven
Never saw an episode, so I can’t say. But I do agree with his idea that as a general plotting principle, no matter how many threads, story lines, themes — whatever– that are woven into a story, there should be one that constitutes the central spine from FADE IN: to FADE OUT: .
Or as as I envision it, the clothesline on which all the other laundry is hung. And I’m guessing that the logline is usually about the clothesline.
My takeaway — It makes a helluva lotta sense. I hate the idea of ‘writing by numbers’, and it’s not that, but offers some of the best advice I’ve found in regards to ensuring characters and plot have a deep honest/ truthful meaning — or maybe more to the point… a point! Since reading it I’ve been seeing ‘Moment’s of Grace’ everywhere… even finding it in the most recent ‘Hangover’ offering (why DID I pay to see that??) — the scene where Alan lies to Jade’s son, telling him he’s his real Father, but then realizes for the first time what a terrible son he has been to his own Father…
I also really like his coverage of other guru’s… particularly his, for want of a better word, trashing of Syd Field — who I think means well but who’s advice I think it is potentially detrimental to the writing process.
The other really cool thing about it is his dealing of movies and writers who don’t consciously map their stories out based on a moral premise but inadvertently end up with the same result simply because of their exposure to and love of great films… In the end I think it comes down to your faith in your story and your faith in your abilities as a writer to tell that story… Having a well stated Moral Premise gives you a strong springboard to your argument(s), which take the form of characters and their POV — who are forced into action — and if you are true to the premise you will find the best, or truest, resolution — now just to put all that into practice…
…and on the 7th heaven bit — you ain’t missing much. It’s actually a good example he cites, it’s just such a cheeeeezy show it was hard to swallow the example 😉
and btw – dare I ask what part of the world you’re in?
…and one other thought on it — it can act like a lie detector for your story..
>> Syd Field
Agree. So overrated. But in Hollyweird, as in other businesses, what matters is not being the best; what matters is being the first.
>>who don?t consciously map their stories out based on a moral premise but inadvertently end up with
Yes. I’m discovering that the hard way as I wrestle with my current story.
And I think there are some compelling moral ideas in “Gladiator”. Which were probably discovered later rather than sooner in the writing process. The script went through many re-writes and shouting matches with Russell Crowe who never hesitated to storm off the set when he didn’t like his lines.
But I’m in the U.S. on the wrong side, the wrong hemisphere of the earth from you. So I’ll have to pick up this thread later.
regards.
Tony Edward (et al):
I’m thinking of spinning off a “classic” logline for a wide range (and free range!) discussion based upon ideas in “The Moral Premise: Harnessing Virtue & Vice for Box Office Success” by Stanley D Williams. The movie I have in mind is one the book frequently cites: “An Officer and a Gentleman”.
Would you be interested?
For sure dpg — love to hear your take. From my end though, it’s been a veeeeeerrrry looooonnggg time since I’ve seen it (An Officer and a Gentlemen), I was probably a bit young to grasp it at the time and have never been a massive fan of Richard Gere — I’ll track it down though, and have been meaning to since reading Stanley D Williams book.
Or any of the other movies he uses as exemplars such as “Braveheart”, “Terminator 2”, “Die Hard” and “The Incredibles”.
Or any other movie in mind you would be interested in using to put Williams’ book to the test. (I also thought of posting a logline for “Gladiator” and comparing it with “Hunger Games” vis-a-vis the book.)
Great idea… you roll the dice with a post and we’ll take it from there..?
Hi you two,
I didn’t know “the Moral Premise”. It seems to be more original and interesting than many of screenwriting blathering books.
I’ll read it and I’ll return soon with some renewed ideas maybe 🙂
Who is the protagonist?
You need the setting.
What’s the result?
Alfred Hitchcock already made this (???)