My Favourite Movies: The Birds

I did find it odd that The Birds didn’t feature in my recent Hitchcock movie box-set. I suppose that he directed so many classic films that some decisions about what to include or exclude had to be made. It’s certainly understandable that this movie in particular make not have made the cut because, frankly, it’s a very odd film when you consider his other films. For one thing it’s neither a murder mystery nor, really, a thriller in the generally understood sense. In many ways it actually reminds me of the ecological disaster movies made 5 years or so either side of 1970. As this film was first released in 1963 you can say that it was a little ahead of its time – as I am a little ahead of myself in actually telling you what the movie was about.

In a classic Hitchcock opening scene the two protagonists meet and argue in a bird shop. Moments later Mitch Brenner (played by Rod Taylor) leaves on his way to his sister’s birthday party in Bodega Bay only to be followed the next day by Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren) who wants to deliver a pair of Love Birds as a joke. Returning across the bay Melanie is dive bombed by a seagull and needs some quick first aid. Luckily Mitch is around to help – and invite her to dinner. However, over the next 24 hours the local bird population starts to behave increasingly oddly and increasingly aggressively – attacking boats out to sea and sweeping inland in their hundreds. Although speculation is rife no one knows why the birds have suddenly started to attack (and kill) people and no one knows what, if anything, can be done about it.

I don’t know how this all seemed to the early 1960’s audience but, from over 40 years later this film is still pretty creepy. The effects – such as they are – are questionable but the menace is still quite palpable. I can imagine audiences leaving the theatre – especially after an early showing – looking at the local birds in quite a different light. I suspect that this was seen at the time as quite a departure for the director more known for his intricately plotted murders. I found it very odd on multiple levels. As I’ve already stated no explanation is given for the attacks which, at first at least, appear to be localised around Bodega Bay. Then there is the ending…. Without giving too much away to those who haven’t seen this yet it’s completely open ended – not in the way we often see today designed purely to leave room for a inevitable sequel – but a ‘what the hell do we do now’ kind of way. It is perplexing. Did Hitchcock leaving it like that to keep his audience off balance and wondering when they left the theatres “What would I do in those circumstances?” Was it a gimmick to get them to bring their friends to see if they could figure things out? Or was it because Hitchcock couldn’t figure out how to end it? I’m really not sure! Of course this doesn’t mean that it’s a bad ending – just look at how much I enjoyed (practically cheering) the end of Inception. OK, it’s difficult to compare the two movies but the point about ambiguity stands. The open ended finish is arguable the most disturbing thing about the whole film – and is frankly not like Hollywood at all which tends to like definite if not actual happy endings as a rule. To leave an audience somewhat confused (potentially at least) and wondering as they leave is risky but, certainly in this case, workable. Or maybe I’m just over thinking things? It has been known!

If you haven’t seen this film before – and you don’t have a bird phobia – it’s definitely worth the effort hunting it down. It hasn’t aged very well but if you put that to one side you’ll enjoy the suspense and you may never look at a crow in quite the same way afterwards.