My blog One Fan's List of the Best Hitchcock Films has generated a lot of comments both here and when originally posted in the CFU. I'd like to think it's because people like me (shades of Sally Field), but, alas, the blog's popularity is strictly due to Mr. Hitchcock's many fans. Reader comments often focus on the fact that I relegated Notorious to honorable mention, while ranking Marnie and The Birds among the top four spots. I've devoted a blog to Marnie...and now The Birds gets its time in the spotlight.I first saw The Birds on NBC’s Saturday Night at the Movies with my sister in the late 1960s. I remember liking it well enough, though the film just seemed to end with no satisfactory resolution. Over the next two decades, I may have watched The Birds three or four times. But I never developed an affection for it until the early 1990s when, on a whim, I decided to view it again while my wife was out-of-town.
For the first time, I realized that the film functions on two levels for me. It is, of course, a well-done thriller about unexplained bird attacks in a small California seaside community. But it’s also a well-acted 1960s drama about three women and their relationships with the bland, but likable, Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor). Mitch’s mother (wonderfully played by Jessica Tandy) fears losing her son to another woman—not because of jealousy, but because she can’t stand the thought of being abandoned. Young socialite Melanie Daniels (Hedren) views Mitch as a stable love interest, something she needs as she strives to live a more meaningful life. And Annie Hayworth (Pleshette) is the spinster schoolteacher, willing to waste her life to be near Mitch after failing to pry him from his mother.
In the midst of this soap-like plot, Hitchcock injects a series of escalating bird attacks, ranging from a gull that nips Melanie to a explosive strike at a gas station. His direction of these sequences is flawless, as evidenced by two textbook examples of creating suspense. Early in the film, there’s a cute scene in which Melanie (in a boat) races Mitch (in a car) to the other side of the bay. Hitchcock waits patiently until the viewer is involved in the race, then a gull suddenly swoops down to bite Melanie. This abrupt assault results in a sense of uneasiness that permeates the rest of the film.
Knowing that the viewer will now be prepared for more surprise attacks, Hitchcock shifts his strategy with a classic scene outside the schoolhouse. As Melanie waits for Annie and listens to the children singing, the viewer sees a flock of birds filling up the playground bars behind her. Melanie is oblivious to the impending danger until she catches sight of a single bird in flight and watches as it joins the others. It’s a brilliant example of the visual power of cinema.
Now, let's talk about the birds. Are they truly villains? I think not. Miss Bundy, the ornithologist, states in the restaurant after the attack on the children: "Birds are not aggressive creatures...it is mankind that insists in making it difficult for life to exist on this planet." I'm not suggesting that The Birds is an eco-horror film like John Frankenheimer's Prophecy (which I think is pretty entertaining, by the way). Rather, the scene with Miss Bundy is intended to soften our perception of the birds as terrifying creatures.
And why is that? Because Hitchcock doesn't want us to focus too much on the birds. The movie is about the Mitch-Melanie-Mitch's mother triangle. The birds are just catalysts. I still know people who hate the ending. If it frustrates you, think of the film as a drama in which all the conflicts between characters have been resolved. In that sense, The Birds ends when it should.
I realize that Notorious fans can argue the complexities of that Hitchcock classic just as well. But the purpose of this blog is not to explain why Notorious didn't make my top 10 (and, yes, I need to see it again). Rather, my goal is to point out that The Birds is more than just a suspense film and its ability to function effectively on two different levels (thriller and relationship drama) is why I love it.
I think, as a thriller, THE BIRDS has a wonderful ending. As Rick said, the birds are not actually villians. It's almost as if they're attacking humans to remind them of Mother Nature, that there are other elements on Earth that can take the planet back from the humans, if necessary. The concluding scene is almost a confirmation of this. There's no need for further assaults. I simply cannot imagine a stronger ending than that.
ReplyDeleteThe BIRDS is one of my favorite Hitchcock films.I particularly like the scene where Tippi Hedren waits outside the schoolhouse, and the birds slowly gather behind her.
ReplyDeleteThe Birds ends just as Shirley Jackson's' original story did, and I think it is in perfect alignment with the progression of the story. The birds attack without warning or explanation, the characters are cut off from communication with the outside world and have to leave without knowing what they are facing. Powerful. I also like the old joke about "Who did the music for the movie The Birds?" The answer is of course that there was no music in the film, only the bird sounds, which were done by the great Bernard Hermann who composed so many of the Hitchcock movie scores. Good blog!
ReplyDeleteAbout whether the birds are villains ...it can easily be argued that the real villain is mankind...but from a mass audience point of view, the birds are the bad guys (and that's why I included the birds on my villains list). Hitchcock did a clever promo promoting THE BIRDS in which he plays the oblivious twit who, in discussing birds makes it clear just how put upon the species has been by man. TCM shows it from time to time.
ReplyDeleteBut, Eve, you still haven't addressed why you think THE BIRDS is just good (and not worthy of its much-lauded fourth ranking on my Hitch film list).
ReplyDeleteEve, I didn't mean to criticize your list of Hitchcock's Greatest Villains. I was just trying to stress Rick's point that the story isn't taking a typical approach, e.g., here are the bad guys, here are the good guys, now let's figure out a way to escape from and/or kill the bad guys. The birds were certainly the antagonists, if we're to consider Tippi Hedren and Co. the heroes. Personally, I think the birds in Mel Brooks' HIGH ANXIETY were much more villainous.
ReplyDeleteRick, while you give a well-thought out, philosophical even, argument. I just can't move past the fact that this movie leaves you wanting. Overall, this film is at best watchable, definitely has drawing power (but that could just be my Hitchcock addiction talking), and of course has tidbits of suspense i.e. the schoolhouse scene. Still, I think Hitch fell flat by not providing a reason for the birds' attacks and frankly this one had a few touches of the ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteAs for the birds being the villains, I have to agree with Eve, undoubtedly the are. I guess I'm in the "mass audience" group.
Now, Rick, I have to inform you that I hate your guts because now I have to go back and watch this movie all over again, and make that it's really Jessica Tandy playing Mitch's mother . . . ;-D
I'm proud...yes, proud...for making you watch THE BIRDS again! But when you do see it again, think of the birds as mere catalysts and focus on the offbeat mother-son-girlfriend triangle. I still maintain that's what THE BIRDS is really about. And keep in mind that Hitch's previous movie was PSYCHO and it was also about a mother who got possessive when her son was attracted to another woman (well, sorta...you know what I mean).
ReplyDeleteJazzGirl, I have to disagree with you that Hitchcock not giving a reason for the birds' attack was the Master of Suspense "falling flat." You say that THE BIRDS has a "few touches of the ridiculous," but I submit to you that any attempted explanation for the winged assaults would've proven ridiculous and ultimately pointless. What could that tiny group of people have done to reverse whatever had caused the birds to attack? They were greatly outnumbered, and it's abundantly clear that they cannot survive a full-on assault. Did the birds attack because of some sort of poison in the air? Is their food supply short? Are they all simultaneously having bad hair days? It simply doesn't matter. What's important is that the human protagonists find shelter. It's essentially a Hitchcockian MacGuffin. Explaining it would've been a waste of time. Let's face it: the doctor explaining Norman's condition in PSYCHO doesn't add anything to the movie. Norman's crazy, and I'll cross the street if I see him coming up the sidewalk. Likewise with Hitch's birds. If they're circling in the air, then I'm staying inside.
ReplyDeleteROFL!! Rick: That's not a fair comparison.
ReplyDeleteSarkoffugus: Norman Bates was just plain crazy. That one was a given. And of course if you're being attacked you'll protect yourself no matter the reason. Ok, maybe "fell flat" were strong words, making the film in it's entirety seem weak. That's not what I meant. It felt incomplete. Like, ok this little family gets away but who cares if the rest of the town is left devastated and there's no way that this problem, for lack of a better word, is going to be resolved . . .
That would leave the only viable explanation to be Rick's--and I refuse to buy that one. (Sorry, Rick, you still love me, right?) I know that this is purely movie magic and not real life but ultimately, this film just needed some finality for me.
I think Hitchcock's movies are great! (Cagneyfan2008)
ReplyDeleteYou still rock, JazzGirl. But I think THE BIRDS-PSYCHO comparison is solid. In addition to the focus being a mother-son relationship, PSYCHO takes place in Phoenix (a mythological bird), Marion's last name Crane, and Norman stuffs animals...you can see some of the birds in his office. So I say these two films are birds of a feather in terms of theme!
ReplyDeletePfft!! That could just as easily have been passing fascination with birds. (Wait a minute . . . doing research.) Hmmm . . . ok, turns out that Hitch actually did have a morbid fascination with birds. So, I'll give you that.
ReplyDeleteYes, I'm still smiling. =P
Considering The Birds, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Sark - I didn't think you were criticizing me, you just reminded me that when I made my list, I didn't think "the birds" weren't villains in the same way as Bates, Bruno and the others - and thought I should explain...and Rick, to summarize my problems with THE BIRDS...I don't think Tippi Hedren had the screen presence or acting ability needed and this is the crucial weakness. I also think the film's color isn't up to par, Hitchcock's Technicolor/VistaVision greats were all done in the 50's and VistaVision was out of use by this time. It's a slightly lurid look vs. the opulent beaty of the VistaVision greats. I do like THE BIRDS, tho, I just don't think it's on the same level of several of Hitchcock's other films...
ReplyDeleteI'll go so far as say Tippi was good--not great--in THE BIRDS, but her aloofness worked well in the film. I think perhaps that's why Hitch cast her (besides the fact that she was blonde and his usual favorite actresses weren't available). But she doesn't detract from the complexity of the film, its dual structure as surface thriller and more meaningful relationship drama. And I really do like my mother-son-girlfriend analogy to PSYCHO. If I was back in film class, I would've written a paper on that.
ReplyDelete