It's another Wednesday night here at BCB After Dark: the hippest hangout for night owls, early risers, new parents and Cubs fans abroad. We're so glad you decided to stop by. Come on in out of the cold. There's no cover charge this evening. We still have one or two tables available. Bring your own beverage.
BCB After Dark is the place for you to talk baseball, music, movies, or anything else you need to get off your chest, as long as it is within the rules of the site. The late-nighters are encouraged to get the party started, but everyone else is invited to join in as you wake up the next morning and into the afternoon.
Yesterday's question folds into today's question. Last time I asked you how you would feel about the Cubs trading Seiya Suzuki? Forty-two percent of you think the Cubs should hang on to Suzuki. Another 30 percent said you'd give him up if it was part of a deal to bring Kyle Tucker to Wrigley. The rest said do whatever it takes to make the Cubs better,
Here's the part where I play music and talk about movies. We have two more films in our BCB Winter Hitchcock Classic to discuss. But those of you who want to skip that can do so now. You won't hurt my feelings.
Tonight we are honored to have pianist Isaiah J. Thompson and his performance of the Vince Guaraldi classic "Christmas is Coming" from "A Charlie Brown Christmas." This is from last year.
The Birds (1963). Starring Tippi Hedren, Rod Taylor, Jessica Tandy and Suzanne Pleshette.
I believe that everyone who is following along with our little tournament has seen The Birds. If you haven't, it can be summed up as birds decided to violently attack a small town on the California coast. Why? The birds don't need no reason. They just want you dead.
The Birds has been called Hitchcock's monster movie. In that sense, its influence is immense. If you substitute zombies for birds, you have Night of the Living Dead. If you substitute a shark for the birds, you have Jaws. What Hitchcock's genius does here is to turn something that normally isn't considered terrifying -- common birds -- and turn them into a nightmare.
The Birds is unique among Hitchcock's oeuvres in its ambiguity and in a sense, its nihilism. The film is nature taking its revenge. As I mentioned, there's no reason that the birds decide to go on the attack. There's a suggestion that the main character Melanie Daniels (Hedren) is the cause of all this, but if so, there's no reason given as to why she would be. Unlike Psycho or Frenzy, here there is no psychological explanation for the bird's violence. In fact, there's one character whose sole purpose is to explain that birds just don't behave like this. And spoiler if you haven't seen it, but there's no ending. The film just stops. Hitchcock wouldn't even put a "The End" at the end of the film, as was the custom at the time. Universal did insist upon putting a card that said "A Universal Picture" at the end so audience would know it was time to leave and not that the film broke or something.
Technically, this was by far Hitchcock's most-difficult film to shoot. Thirty-some odd years before CGI would make a film like this far easier, Hitchcock had to use a combination of trained birds, mechanical birds, cardboard cutouts and blue screen superimposed footage of wild birds. The final shot of the film was about seven or eight different shots edited together and you'd never know it. Yes, the special effects don't always look real to modern audiences, but it was cutting edge stuff at the time. Hitchcock brought the legendary Ub Iwerks over from Disney as a consultant with a brand new process he had developed to make the blue screen work look as realistic as possible.
Hitchcock hated shooting on location -- he always said the light was never right and you had to dub in the voices later because of external noise. But you'd be shocked at how little of The Birds was actually shot in and around Bodega Bay because it looks like it was shot there. There were a lot of establishing shots of Bodega Bay and then the actors were mostly matted into the shot later. (Cathy's birthday party is the biggest scene that was actually shot on location in Bodega Bay.) Not only that, but a lot of the backgrounds you see in the film are actually high-quality scene paintings. While you can often tell the actors are being matted onto a background, it is very easy to miss that often those backgrounds are actually scene paintings. Hitchcock wanted a beautiful, peaceful small town to get torn apart by the angry birds and he got it.
I still insist that Vertigo is Hitchcock's most visually-stunning film, but The Birds comes in second.
Hitchcock brought in an untrained model that he'd seen on a television commercial in Hedren to play the lead. He told François Truffaut that he liked her because although he had to teach her everything, she also had no bad habits to unlearn. And of course, there are other less savory things that went on between Hitchcock and Hedren that you can look up yourself. Certainly Hedren was too unknowledgeable to stick up for herself on set. Hedren was so traumatized and exhausted after shooting the bird attack scene in the attic that she was hospitalized for a week. (Some shots near the end of the film are actually of Hedren's body double.) Sometimes Hedren is fantastic in The Birds. Sometimes she seems like a 32-year-old woman who has never acted before. As much as I hate Marnie, she's much better in that film. But she's not bad here, just uneven.
Rod Taylor as Mitch Brenner is the weak spot of the film. His performance is not bad, although Hitchcock claimed Taylor had a tendency to overact that caused repeated takes until Hitch got one he liked. But the main problem is Taylor's character is woefully underwritten.
On the other hand, Jessica Tandy as Mitch's mother and Suzanne Pleshette as Annie, the town school teacher and former girlfriend of Mitch's, are much better. Throw in Victoria Cartwright as Mitch's 11-year-old sister Cathy and this really is a picture where the women shine the brightest.
Hitchcock eschewed a traditional musical score in The Birds in favor of some electronic sounds from an early version of a keyboard synthesizer. But the real score is the way he uses the sounds of the birds.
The Birds is another one of Hitchcock's films that wasn't universally loved (or understood) when it came out but has grown in stature over the decades. And its influence on future monster films is immense.
The actual theatrical trailer for The Birds is five minutes of Hitchcock talking to the camera about birds. So this is an excerpt from the documentary that accompanies the restored blu-ray edition of the film.
The Trouble with Harry (1955). Starring Edmund Gwenn, John Forsythe, Shirley MacLaine and Mildred Natwick.
I really want to add "And Jerry Mathers as the Beaver" to the cast list, but Mathers actually plays Jennifer's (MacLaine) son Arnie.
Most of Hitchcock's films have some element of humor in them. And most of that is dark humor. But The Trouble with Harry is one of the few films he made that are out-and-out comedies. And it's the only comedy in our tournament.
As the trailer makes clear, The Trouble with Harry is that he's dead. He's dead at the beginning of the film. To be clear, Harry seems like he was kind of a jerk. No one seems to miss him, especially his estranged wife Jennifer.
The problem is that three of our main characters, Jennifer, Captain Wiles (Gwenn) and Ivy (Natwick) all believe that they killed Harry. Because Harry isn't from around here, no one seems to notice he's gone and since they don't want to go to prison, they decide to bury Harry in the woods. And then they decide to dig him up. And bury him again. And dig him up. And bury him again. They have reasons for digging him up each time -- mostly in order to prove the guilt or innocence of each of the three suspects -- but this goes on throughout the whole film. They're also trying to hide the body from the deputy (Royal Dano) who keeps sniffing around.
So yes, most of the humor has to do with the four of them trying to figure out what to do with a corpse. But there's also a double-rom-com here and Forsythe plays Sam, a struggling painter who sells his works by the side of the road of this picturesque Vermont town. He's happy doing that and has no real ambitions about joining the greater art world. He falls hard for the practical but kooky Jennifer.
The captain and Ivy also have a parallel romance as an older couple. Basically, the four of them are on a double-date by the end of the film with a corpse as a fifth wheel.
Much of the charm of the film comes the cast, who are outstanding. This was the 20-year-old Shirley MacLaine's screen debut and it comes with a great story. Someone recommended Carol Haney, who was starring on Broadway in The Pajama Game, for the part of Jennifer. One of the assistant directors took in the show and agreed -- Haney was perfect. He called up the Pajama Game producers the next day to arrange to have Haney meet with Hitchcock. It was only then he was told that Haney was out with a broken foot. He'd actually seen Haney's understudy the night before, MacLaine.
Anyway, early in MacLaine's career she played cute, spunky young women who were somewhat off-kilter and that's what she does here. And she's pretty much perfect in the role. Forsythe is very good as a kind of straight man (or at least the voice of reason). Natwick and Gwenn were fantastic character actors and it's terrific seeing them in a co-starring role in this film.
The Trouble with Harry is set in rural Vermont and there are some absolutely gorgeous shots of the fall foliage in VistaVision that serve as establishing shots. Hitchcock intended to shoot a lot on location but -- and here's another reason he hated location shooting -- a strong autumn storm knocked all the leaves off the trees just before they were about to start principal photography. So most of the film is shot on sets in local gyms and other spaces that were hastily transformed into a beautiful Vermont autumn day. Yes, it looks like it was shot on a set, but it still looks great.
The other reason that The Trouble with Harry plays an important role in Hitchcock history is that this is the first Bernard Herrmann score of a Hitchcock film. Obviously Hitchcock was pleased with Herrmann's score because the two of them continued to work together until they had a falling out during Torn Curtain (1966). But if you love the music of Vertigo, North by Northwest and Psycho, you'll love what Herrmann does here in The Trouble with Harry. Obviously since this is a comedy, the score is a lot more lighthearted than those films, but it's still great.
The other important influence of The Trouble with Harry is that the humor and light touch of the movie led directly to the creation of the TV series Alfred Hitchcock Presents. The Hitchcock character at the beginning and end of each episode of that series is directly related to the kinds of humor on display in this film.
A lot of comedies from the fifties haven't aged that well as humor is so much more context-dependent than drama is. But The Trouble with Harry is still a very funny film thanks to some terrific performances, very likable actors and Hitchcock's very dry and very dark sense of humor that still plays.
The Birds is available for streaming on Netflix through the end of the month. The Trouble with Harry is on the Criterion Channel. And of course, they can be rented.
You have until Monday to vote. Up next, if you want to get a head start, is our only silent film in the competition The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog (1927). It takes on the 1941 classic Suspicion. The Lodger is in the public domain and can be seen pretty much anywhere -- and it's very much worth seeing. Like Frenzy, it's about a serial killer. Suspicion is currently on Criterion and available for rent.
If you're anything like me -- and man, I hope you're nothing like me for your sake -- you spent much of the day refreshing social media to see if the Cubs had completed a trade for Astros outfielder Kyle Tucker.
A lot of you wanted the Cubs to spend three-quarters of a billion dollars on Juan Soto this winter and I can't say that I blame you. While Tucker is not in the same class as Soto or Aaron Judge or Shohei Ohtani, he's in the next best group of hitters. Last year he hit 23 home runs, had a .408 on-base percentage, stole 11 bases and walked more than he struck out. All of this despite only playing in 78 games because of a broken shin. But he wasn't that much worse than that in his three full seasons playing for the Astros from 2021 to 2023. He averaged 32 home runs per 162 games and posted a .353 on-base percentage over those three seasons. He finished fifth in MVP voting in 2023.
Kyle Tucker is an elite talent. He's the kind of "difference maker" the Cubs say they need.
So why would the Astros trade Tucker? Because he has only one year left until free agency and they don't think they're going to be able to sign him to a new deal. They're also (probably) losing Alex Bregman in free agency and they need a third baseman. They also want a mix of major- and minor-league talent because they don't want to go into a full rebuild mode.
What was only whispered yesterday became a full-blow shout of a rumor today. Ken Rosenthal and Chandler Rome wrote an article for The Athletic (sub. req.) that outlined the Cubs pursuit of Tucker. Brett Taylor over at Bleacher Nation has been following all the rumors and he's also got more on what Jesse Rogers said on the radio this evening. I'd suggest you go over and read those pieces if you want more information. This article is getting long enough as it is for me to repeat most of that.
From what I've seen on the MLB Network and from what Brett outlined, it seems like there are two teams "in" on Tucker -- the Cubs and the Yankees. And as Rogers said on the radio and what the talking heads on the MLB Network said this evening, it sounds like the Cubs are the favorites. For one reason, the Astros don't want to trade Tucker to a league rival like the Yankees. Two, the Cubs have some major league players the Astros are interested in.
Here's what Jon Heyman said about whom the Astros are interested in.
That seems like . . .a lot for one year of Kyle Tucker. I can see the Astros asking for that because -- why not ask? But it seems like as much or more than what the Padres got for Juan Soto last winter and we've already established that while Tucker is very, very good, he's not as good as Juan Soto.
The Astros are apparently very interested in Paredes, whom they think would be great at Minute Maid Park because of the Crawford Boxes in left. OK, the Cubs can give them Paredes if they think Matt Shaw can play third base next season. Suzuki is a tougher ask. While the Cubs are doing their due diligence and checking with Suzuki to see if he'd waive his no-trade clause, they've also made it clear that they really don't want to trade Suzuki.
The natural inclination would be to swap out Bellinger for Suzuki, but there's a problem there. Bellinger, you see, was on the 2017 Dodgers and was one of the more outspoken critics of the Astros and their sign-stealing scandal. According to Rogers, the Astros don't want Bellinger because of that. I suppose the Cubs could trade Bellinger somewhere else (the Yankees, probably) for someone the Astros do want. But that makes things more difficult.
Finally, Matt Shaw is right out. The Cubs are not trading Shaw for one year of Tucker. Smith even seems like a bit too much after his outstanding pro debut last year, but if the Cubs think Shaw is their third baseman of the future, then I can see them trading Smith. But Paredes, Suzuki and Smith seems like too much to me. Do you feel the same?
So there are a few ways for the Cubs to come to an agreement with the Astros. One would be for the Cubs to just agree to the deal. Giving up Paredes is reasonable and if the Cubs have Tucker, they can keep Bellinger and won't have as much need for Suzuki. Smith is just the cost of doing business.
The other option is what I mentioned about, include Bellinger in a three-way deal. So the deal, from the Cubs point of view, would be Bellinger, Paredes and Smith for Tucker, even if the Astros wouldn't get Bellinger.
A third option is that the Astros are also looking to trade starter Framber Valdez and/or reliever Ryan Pressly. Both pitchers would be great additions to the Cubs although once again, both pitchers are free agents next winter. But if you want the Cubs to win now, they're players that can help them win now. Maybe you give up Paredes, Suzuki and Smith if the Astros toss in Valdez.
The Cubs can just hold the line and hope the Astros accept something less, but that runs the risk of the Astros dealing him to the Yankees or elsewhere. They don't want to trade Tucker to the Yankees, but that's not to say they'll make a bad deal to avoid that. Such a deal might be Paredes, Owen Caissie and Cam Smith or James Triantos.
Or finally, the Cubs can just walk away and not make a serious effort to get Tucker. If you don't think the Cubs should push their chips on the table for a guy who may leave after one year, you can vote for the "walk away" option.
So what would you do if you ran the Cubs?
Thank you to everyone who joined us this week. An big thanks to everyone who voted and commented. Please get home safely. Stay warm out there. Recycle any cans and bottles. Tip your waitstaff. And join Sara Sanchez tomorrow night for more BCB After Dark.