Why was there no ending?
-
franzkabuki — 12 years ago(April 11, 2013 07:55 PM)
Makes me wonder what would the people who complain about "a lack of ending", have rather seen. Would a climactic scene of an all-out showdown or some such, been more imaginative and less lazy?
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
shandy8 — 13 years ago(March 06, 2013 01:56 PM)
I read that Alfred Hitchcock wanted to end the movie with a shot of the Golden Gate Bridge covered with birds, but it was cost-prohibitive. That would have been a shocker of an ending.
"What do you want me to do, draw a picture? Spell it out!" -
webfix — 13 years ago(March 12, 2013 06:48 PM)
I totally agree. It was one of the best endings ever!
The Webmaster
www.trueghoststories.co.uk -
partnerfrance — 12 years ago(April 03, 2013 09:35 AM)
Bear in mind that the short story it was based on had no "real" ending, either. In the short story, the bird attacks were worldwide, not localized in one community. At the end of the short story, nothing particular happens the family that the story focuses on is just waiting for doom. At least in the Hitchcock film, you are left with the impression that maybe just maybe the birds have decided that if the humans move out and leave them alone, they will stop attacking.
Bear in mind also that this is not a science fiction film this is not War of the Worlds, where there is some "resolution" of the situation, albeit from an unlikely source. -
lordofwar96 — 12 years ago(April 04, 2013 12:00 PM)
"There was an ending. As you can see, the birds stopped attacking. Why? Well, that's for you to ponder on. That was Hitchcock's intention."
Yup. We don't find out why they suddenly attacked, and we don't know why they suddenly stopped, that's for us to ponder. Great ending to a great movie. -
joe_538 — 12 years ago(December 03, 2013 09:36 AM)
Bear in mind also that this is not a science fiction film
It's on the borderline, if they gave a reason for the attacks it could very well be sci-fi, as it is it's more of a fantasy movie. Though, I don't see why the genre should make a difference, story structure should still matter.
Jaws gave the audience an ending, would the movie be as good if the shark just swam away at one point? What if there was no closure to Psycho? If we never understood the motivations or learned about Norman and his mother, would the movie be as good? The Birds is a good but flawed movie. -
henrikvinther — 11 years ago(January 21, 2015 07:20 AM)
What if there was no closure to Psycho? If we never understood the motivations or learned about Norman and his mother, would the movie be as good? The Birds is a good but flawed movie.
Personally I think The Birds is a much better movie than Psycho, and it certainly has a much better ending than Psycho. And yes, Psycho would probably have benefited from not having that closure. What Psycho does is basicly ruining the whole movie by spoon feeding it's own interpretation of it's main character to the audience, leaving nothing to be analysed.
What The Birds does is, refusing to explain anything and letting the viewer himself guess what the course of the attack was and what would happen afterwards and also what the attacks could represent, which I believe has a lot to do with the relationships between the characters.
that'll be the day -
PenTheater — 10 years ago(December 13, 2015 03:39 PM)
Good point about Psycho, but I think Psycho was a little more complex for most audiences to analyze at the end by themselves, So Hitch felt he had to add the closure, that was arguably not handled well.
The Birds, like the short story is about WHAT was happening and how to deal with it, and the terror of not knowing WHY, so not knowing WHAT to do. THAT is the story, so it doesn't need an ending.
The book reminded me of the fear of fear itself of the people of Britain not knowing IF a bomb was going to drop on them next during WWII.
The story is How would YOU deal with an uncontrollable and unknowable force?
Ephemeron. -
tylerwilson815 — 12 years ago(April 12, 2013 12:19 PM)
it had the worst ending in the history of all ending. they show of made the ending way different. i did not even get why the birds came in the first place. they should of showed why the birds came and then they should of attacked the birds. but really any change to the ending would improve it because the ending sucked
-
joe_538 — 12 years ago(December 03, 2013 09:19 AM)
The short story suggests it was the weather that drove the birds mad, this doesn't seem to be the case in the movie.
The only thing I liked about The Birds II was that someone actually bothered to try and fight the birds. I don't agree with what Mrs. Bundy said about humans not standing a chance in a war with birds due to their numbers. It used to take a flock of passenger pigeons three days to fly over a city, but where are they now?
What bothers me is that everyone in Bodega Bay is depicted solely as victims, with nobody trying to turn the situation. (Mitch does attempt to throw stones at some crows on the roof, but Melanie stops him) Incurable pacifists sit around and wait to die.
I don't mind open endings if they're headed in some kind of direction, but this was wide open. After the buildup, suspense, and coming to care about the characters, it was a letdown.