Remaking "The Birds"...for sure

email this story
read comments (27)
post a comment

The notion of Naomi Watts playing the Tippi Hedren role in a Michael Bay-produced remake of Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds (which production sources prefer to call "a reimagining of Daphne du Maurier's short story"...bullshit) is at least a couple of years old. The basics were bandied about a year ago by myself, Hollywood Wiretap's Nancy Vialette and TMZ's Claude Brodesser-Akner.

(l. to r.) Martin Campbell, Michael Bay, bird victim, Naomi Watts

But Martin Campbell is now signed to direct and Watts is still the star, so Variety is running an official announcement story.

As I said a few weeks ago, people have forgotten (or don't want to acknowledge) what a stiff, stilted and unnatural film Hitchcock's Birds really is. The first 30 to 40 minutes are pretty close to horrible. The child actors are detestable. It only takes off with the bird attack on the house, Jessica Tandy's discovery of the guy with the pecked-out eyes, the attack on the school, the legendary cafe scene ("It's the end of the world!") and then the attic attack on Hedren. It really could stand a remake, or (okay, whatever) a "reimagining."

Here's what Hedren told MTV.com a few days ago about the Bay-Campbell project.

David Chase on that ending<< previous | next >>The trouble with "American Gangster"

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 18, 2007 at 11:17 PM

comment #1

jeffmcm says ...

Wow, Wells is going to prefer a Michael Bay peck-fest to a Hitchcock masterpiece. Gotta keep people guessing.

Posted by jeffmcm at October 18, 2007 11:59 PM

comment #2

Ogami Itto says ...

I don't like "The Birds" either and couldn't care less about the remake, but if it stars Naomi Watts I'll go see the damned thing because she's so lovely that I can't resist.

Posted by Ogami Itto at October 19, 2007 12:37 AM

comment #3

Walter Sobchak says ...

The kids in "The Birds" are a carry-over from the 1950's. (I know The Birds is '63)

Anyone else notice how awful kids in general were in 1950's movies? They always seem to be loud, obnoxious and dorky. "Picnic", "Giant", "An Affair to Remember".... even the annoying kid (Brandon De Wilde) in "Shane".... It's like Hollywood was looking for living embodiments of Howdy Doody... buck teeth, freckles, noisy...

I always wanted to see the East End Kids wander off the Warner's lot in 1938, time travel to the 50's and kick the shit out of those little bastards

Posted by Walter Sobchak at October 19, 2007 12:46 AM

comment #4

D.Z. says ...

I'd imagine they'd try to be topical by dealing with avian flu and SARS.

Posted by D.Z. at October 19, 2007 12:50 AM

comment #5

Josh Massey says ...

As the world's only fan of Martin Campbell's Vertical Limit, I don't think this remake is that horrible.

Posted by Josh Massey at October 19, 2007 4:03 AM

comment #6

EDouglas says ...

Oo... I wonder who they'll get to play the bird victim... hm... someone with no eyeballs...

Posted by EDouglas at October 19, 2007 4:46 AM

comment #7

Howlingman says ...

Good Lord, another one ...

Posted by Howlingman at October 19, 2007 7:27 AM

comment #8

BurmaShave says ...

Josh, you're not alone. That movie is worth watching for Scott Glenn alone.

Posted by BurmaShave at October 19, 2007 7:56 AM

comment #9

nemo says ...

I kind of liked Vertical Limit, in its ludicrous way.

Posted by nemo at October 19, 2007 7:57 AM

comment #10

BurmaShave says ...

Kind of awkward how I said alone twice like that. Must be the sensation of being alone on top of a mountain, where at 20,000 feet I'm not dying, I'm already dead.

Posted by BurmaShave at October 19, 2007 7:59 AM

comment #11

cinefan says ...

Of course, Hitchcock was a terrible director when it came to directing child actors (the antithesis of Spielberg or Shymalan). For the most part, I think Shadow of a Doubt is terrific but every time I see it I always cringe at the line readings delivered by the two child actors in the film.

Posted by cinefan at October 19, 2007 7:59 AM

comment #12

MickTravis says ...

Burma, I see what you mean, all right. But don't worry, it's all right.

Wow, no defenders of "The Birds" at all?

Yes, it moves slowly, but the whole time it's building toward something that, at the time, must have been (and in many ways still is) extraordinarily intense.

These days, they would have started with a herky-jerky bird attack in the prologue and would then occasionally cut away from the main character's arrival at the village to scenes of the neighbors being pecked down. Yawn.

Even if you can't appreciate "The Birds" as a story, it's an early marvel of sound design. It's a movie that you really have to listen to to get the full effect.

And it's got shit like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVDT4bWPypk

Posted by MickTravis at October 19, 2007 9:03 AM

comment #13

poodleskirt says ...

I guess I'll be the first to go on a limb here, but "The Birds" is top drawer Hitchcock and an absolute masterpiece. You can dissect nearly everything about it, but the flaws do not detract from Hitchcock and Evan Hunter's apocalyptic vision.

Of course, it's no "Reign Over Me" or "Things We Lost in the Fire".

Posted by poodleskirt at October 19, 2007 9:19 AM

comment #14

Craig Kennedy says ...

Mick, I already put my two cents in the last time Wells tried to put it over as fact that The Birds sucks. It didn't have any effect, so I'm not going to get all worked up over it again.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at October 19, 2007 9:26 AM

comment #15

Howlingman says ...

But who doesn't love the StudioSpeak:

"a reimagining of Daphne du Maurier's short story"...

"Reimagining" is industry code for "taking what was inherently innovative and original about the source material and completely and utterly mishandling it."

I'm sure we'll have a better "understanding" of why the Birds are going amok, because everybody knows in horror stories, it's much scarier to have everything explained in pint-by-numbers fashion.

Posted by Howlingman at October 19, 2007 9:36 AM

comment #16

ZayTonday says ...

DAMN YOU MICHAEL BAY

Posted by ZayTonday at October 19, 2007 9:49 AM

comment #17

BurmaShave says ...

From my friend at the studio:

"News soon to come: Danny Huston will be playing the King of the Birds, and they'll speak their own language. We're definetly going to be delving into their motives and reasons this time. Who we root for is going to be much more up in the air. Which might be the tagline!"

Posted by BurmaShave at October 19, 2007 9:50 AM

comment #18

transmogrifier says ...

The Birds = grand.

Posted by transmogrifier at October 19, 2007 10:09 AM

comment #19

christian says ...

Hopefully, there'll be a backstory showing how The Birds became who they are.

As George Axelrod might say: "Backstory!"

Posted by christian at October 19, 2007 10:33 AM

comment #20

Rich S. says ...

I'll bet this time around, with all the CGI, that there isn't a single real bird in the whole damn thing.

Posted by Rich S. at October 19, 2007 12:42 PM

comment #21

Theocles says ...

The original story, The Birds, was "re-imagined" by Hitchcock himself, and not to its betterment. Perhaps Bay et. al. should read the Daphne DuMaurier original, which is made unforgettable by her relatively simple device of starting with just a few small birds and building ever larger attacks by ever larger birds. Think of the possibilities. Those under attack had to take more and more protective measures as they realized that the biggest birds, en masse, could be a doomsday in and of themselves. Think of condors, for example.

Posted by Theocles at October 19, 2007 12:52 PM

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

Walter: I remember watching "Old Yeller" in a H.S. English class, once, and all of us(excluding the teacher, of course) couldn't help but laugh at the line where the kid says he'll shoot the dog himself.

cinefan: "Of course, Hitchcock was a terrible director when it came to directing child actors (the antithesis of Spielberg or Shymalan). For the most part, I think Shadow of a Doubt is terrific but every time I see it I always cringe at the line readings delivered by the two child actors in the film."

Huh? Spielberg=make them scream out loud a lot, and Shyamalan=make them sound too mature for their age. I haven't seen Shadow of a Doubt, though.

As for "The Birds", it would probably work if the leading man didn't make me think he was a gay body-builder who probably had better things to do than waste time fending off inter-imposed images of birds attacking. Not that I have any problems with gay bodybuilders, mind you, but it makes his relationship with Tippy's character less believable.

Of course, it could just be the way they dressed back then, because it's almost easy to imagine Heston was gay, too, after seeing his outfit in Soylent Green. Nowadays, though, he'd just be considered metrosexual.

Posted by D.Z. at October 19, 2007 4:01 PM

comment #23

AndrewMallet says ...

I hope the birds in the remake are more like terradactyl's - the birds need to be scarier and mean. Bay is the man. Stop hating.

Posted by AndrewMallet at October 19, 2007 5:52 PM

comment #24

cinefan says ...

D.Z., you haven't seen Shadow of a Doubt but have you ever actually seen E.T.? I would say Henry Thomas' performance in the film amounts to heck of a lot more than "make them scream out loud a lot". Go see Shadow of a Doubt and then E.T. or Jaws right after that and tell me who's the better director when it comes to getting natural, relaxed performances out of a child actor.

Posted by cinefan at October 19, 2007 7:00 PM

comment #25