THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE

Italy, 1970, 101 minutes, Colour.
Tony Musante, Suzy Kendall, Enrico Maria Salerno, Eva Renzi, Mario Adorf.
Directed by Dario Argento.

The Bird with the Crystal Plumage was the first film directed by writer-director Dario Argento. For forty years and more he has written many films for the screen and directed very many as well. They tend to be thrillers, the slashing and suspense style. He made a specialisation of this and in the early 1970s went on to direct such films as Cat o’ Nine Tails and Four Flies on Gray Velvet. He often used American stars along with Italian casts. During the 1970s he made such films as Deep Red, Suspiria and Inferno as well as the 80s with Tenebrae and a version of The Phantom of the Opera. He continued to work in both cinema and television.

1. Was this a good thriller? why? What entertained you most about it? What conventions of the thriller did it use? how well?

2. What clues were given by the title of the film? The reality of the birds? Their references? a good clue? An attractive title?

3. How is the film a good illustration of the red herring? And the twinkling of the audience’s eye? The value of the witness? (The fact that we see the murder over and over again?)

4. How well did the film identify with the hero and involve the audience with the hero? What kind of person was he in himself? An interesting character? His research? His book? Idling? His need to be involved in something? Would you have responded to the scene in the same way as he did? Identification with his helplessness as regards the wounded girl? His searching? Was he right to run the risk of the danger? How interesting was the fact that he continually tried to risk? His collaboration with the police?

5. His own independent research? What effect did all this investigation have on him as a person?

6. Was the heroine introduced into the film to be terrorised? Was it obvious was going to happen to her? Did this matter in this film? Was she an interesting character at all? How well did she relate to the hero? Really loving?

7. Was the atmosphere of the film healthy? The credit sequences as regards photographing the victims? The morbid overtones of the murders? The stabbings? The revelation of the madness of the murderess? Her relationship to her husband? Is it a healthy thing for an audience to be immersed in this kind of world? Why?

8. How interesting was the technique of the threats and the different voices over the phone? The scientific background of tracing the voices and the sounds? What did this add to the impact of the film?

9. Were the police presented as sympathetic and effective? How well did they run their enquiries? Did they do their best? Did the audience identify with the police and their enquiries?

10. Were you surprised at the revelation of the murderers? The madness and the atmosphere of morbid madness? Were you surprised at being tricked?
11. How important was the sequence with the painter? explanations of the influence of the painting on the person concerned? Taken in itself, what was the impact of this sequence, with the painter? Was it well integrated into the whole film?

12. Are films like this realistic and plausible? Does this matter? Why are audiences always attracted to murder mysteries? How frightening was this one? how suspenseful? How engaging?