Easy answers make for a better film…

George Clooney is apparently considering starring in a remake of Alfred Hitchcock’s The BirdsThe Birds really isn’t a great film (although it’s got some great stuff in it), but certainly it’s a ‘classic’ in terms of grandfathering the subsequently huge genre of animal attack films. 

This quote from a studio exec regarding the remake spells trouble, however:  “We think we have a very contemporary take. In the original, the birds just showed up, and it was kind of like, why are the birds here? This time, there’s a reason why they’re here and (people) have had something to do with it. There’s an environmental slant to what could create nature fighting back.”

Gee, that’s fresh.  There’s only been about a BILLION “revenge of nature” films with explicit explanations like this, such as the recent The Happening.  And probably not a single one of them has been a better movie for it.  Indeed, one of the real strengths of The Birds is that no such easy answers are provided.  It adds to the tension of the film not to know exactly what is going on.  And I don’t think many folks consider Jaws 4 better than Jaws, despite the fact that in the Jaws 4 we know ‘why’ the shark is attacking.  “This time it’s personal.”

What do I know, though?  I only watch movies, I don’t make them. 

  • Blackadder

    I agree adding an “explanation” will not enhance the story. As I recall the original short story by Daphne du Maurier didn’t really have any explanation; the birds just turned on us for the hell of it, I guess. In general I’m opposed to all remakes and try not to support them with my patronage. A great film got it right the first time, and a lousy film probably has basic defects that go beyond budget or acting. I guess a case could be made for remaking borderline cases that had a good idea in theory but failed in execution.

  • Someone should introduce the exec to The Birds 2. Perferable at a high velocty,

  • fish eye no miko

    [facepalm]

    Frankly, I’ve seen enough movies with completely stupid “explanations” for the odd events happening (have you heard one of the explanations for the monster in Cloverfield? Oy…) that I kind of prefer NO explanation, unless it’s 1) well done and 2)actually helps lead to a resolution or is important to the plot in some other way. If it’s just a lame-ass explanation for the sake of it, cut it out and add more monster maulings or character scenes or something. ANYthing.

  • Petoht

    All the cool kids are adding environmental spins to classic movies. I mean, the new Day The Earth Stood Still will be totally awesome, right? Right?

  • jason hyde

    This trend towards excessive explaining in horror movies is really sad, as if horror isn’t more horrifying when it’s completely inexplicable and random. Now we get back stories for characters like Leatherface and Michael Myers that are completely hackneyed and I think diminish their effectiveness. Same with Darth Vader. All we needed to know about his past we got from Obi Wan in the original films. I don’t think we needed three more films full of back story that didn’t really add all that much.

    Pretty much the best thing about The Birds is the fact that it’s never explained and never resolved. Take that away, and you’ve got a pretty standard animals attacking movie, and there’s enough of those cluttering up the Sci-Fi Channel nowadays.

    I’m convinced that soon we’ll see a Frankenstein film that spends more time on the back stories behind every single part used to make him than on what he does once he’s assembled. Or maybe we’ll learn that Cthulhu was picked on as a wee unspeakable horror and all he really wants is a hug.

  • JoshG

    Sorry if this is a bit off topic but the Washington Times had an article on the state of current American horror movies and I thought people might be interested in it:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/31/us-horror-cedes-primacy-to-foreign-cinema/