Suspense vs Slash & Burn

The iconic "The Birds," Alfred Hitchcock's 1963 film (based on the 1952 novella, "The Birds," by Daphne Du Maurier), was my first cinematic experience with unmitigated terror. Hitchcock so masterfully accomplished his psychological terror film, that after 40 years, I automatically cringe and look over both shoulders when I see more than four crows on a telephone line. His work was that terrifying and suspenseful.

How was it Hitchcock could take ordinary, normally peaceful black birds and turn them into a pack of relentless attack animals. Such a suspenseful, psychological storyline. . .oh, that's it. He used ordinary, therefore, unsuspecting everyday creatures and cast them in an unexpected role of blood-seeking protagonists. He formed the birds into one very large band who far outnumbered the befuddled (what did we do to deserve this?) humans and had the birds repeat their attacks. Not doors, not windows could hold the birds back or keep them out. The birds successfully repeatedly attacked the humans of the sleepy town until the movie's end, when the din faded and the quiet returned. Because no one could sure why the birds attacked in the first place, or why they quit, no one could be sure they were completely through attacking. The bird's behavior was unexpectedly terrible!

For me, terror=suspense and suspense in this case=the misuse of psychological assumptions.

When assumptions are thrown off through the use of the unexpected, the unexplained, as Hitchcock so brilliantly did with the birds inexplicably attacking, he engaged us without our permission. We became actively, not passively, involved not watching, his movie --we are his. How brilliant. . . Hitchcock, took the ordinary and twisted it enough to get the audience off auto-pilot and instantaneously involved in the movie. The viewer's minds went flying: "Did I just see that? Why did they use those animals? What are the people going to do to protect themselves?"

At this end of this particular film, the birds fall back to their normal demeanor of quiet and passive. This was their usual demeanor before they morphed into flying vampires . . .so the viewer's mind can't help but think. . ."It must be a matter of time before they do it again. . or will they. . . and what will ignite them? What will the people of the hamlet do differently to protect themselves this time?"

When I first viewed Freddy Cruger in the first (1984 film written and directed by Wes Craven) of the series, "The Nightmare on Elm Street," I felt the movie was going to be gory and predictable. I was not disappointed. There were clues abounding beginning with the title, the dark setting, the wide-pan camera angles and the plot which calls for old-fashioned from the grave revenge.

In "The Nightmare..." there were no psychological "WHAT THE" moments; instead. . .it was who, where, when and how. The storyline contained all the pieces, which were quickly, easily and predictably assimilated by the audience. Once the storyline was in place, the bloody slashing continued throughout the movie, needing only different venues and different victims to fulfill its mission. There was very little to nil suspense in this terror film -- just the use of predictable characters, motives and endings.

For the movie watcher who wants to be outfoxed and forced to think and rethink old assumptions, see a suspense-filled show.

For the movie watcher who wants to scream and have enough energy leftover to enjoy a bit of popcorn, return some text messages while they enjoy their screaming catharsis, the terror movie will always be the best choice.
-30-