Why was there no ending?
-
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. -
jtyroler — 12 years ago(April 25, 2013 06:41 PM)
For some reason, I remember Melanie's car being on the highway at the end of the movie. Although it's common for movies to wrap everything neatly at the end, life isn't like that. You don't know if the birds are waiting for their next attack or they're tired of all the attacking and go back to acting like birds.
I would have liked for the ornithologist to try explaining why she was hunkered down in the restaurant after the attacks that she claimed couldn't happen. -
nage-3 — 12 years ago(October 07, 2013 02:10 PM)
I think the whole movie was basically made only to make you think how something so usual as birds may be threatening, in a way to give a totally new meaning in birds flocking together, and to make a revolution in cinema by picturing that for the first time. I sure it had to be very impressive back in those days, and obviously people where not bothered to pay attention to the meaningless plot. On the contrary - the short story on which the movie is based makes much more sense as it has several references to the Cold War or even the eventual Atomic War after WWII.
-
ricky_may1 — 12 years ago(May 17, 2013 11:46 AM)
there was no ending because Hitchcock wanted to give the impression of unending danger, and wanted to let the viewer decide what happens: do they get away? do they run into more bird attacks? will they get Melanie to a hospital? Most of all, will the birds ever cease to attack?
the way it ends is quite perfect to me. -
kenny-164 — 12 years ago(June 03, 2013 09:38 AM)
This imo was a perfect example of an open ending that works and is suitable to the film that precedes it. The film is all about uncertainty upsetting everyday life. The uncertain ending leaves the viewer with an ending that confirms and does not counter that uncertainty.
it is not a story about "some birds attacked people in some town, and here's why, and here's how the story ended (presumably with the birds no longer attacking for whatever reason)."
I think people who complain about the ending also did not get what the film was about in general. -
marhefka — 12 years ago(October 14, 2013 07:45 AM)
A disadvantage of watching a film downloaded to your computer is that one knows how much time is left. I kept trying to figure out how the film would end and came up with several scenarios. But, based on the time left, I knew there was not enough time for more bird attacks, for Jessica Tandy to die, or other endings. Finally, I predicted the ending scene would be set in a San Francisco hospital room with Rod Taylor holding Tippi's hand and Jessica Tandy giving her tacit approval. When there was only 90 seconds left, I knew this was impossible.
The actual ending was not far off my hospital prediction. Obviously, Rod and Tippi were going to get together. As a bonus, they would have his mother's complete approval. -
zuzupetal_99 — 12 years ago(June 30, 2013 01:44 AM)
The ending was so anti-climactic - I didn't care for it much. The whole movie is building up suspense and fright and everything, and then at the end, basically nothing happens, it's just over. I guess I didn't get the sense that the birds were just done attacking, because it was weird that they were still just perched everywhere, as if waiting to attack again, even though Mitch & company managed to get away. I would've loved the alternate scene where Hitch wanted to cover the golden gate bridge with birds - that to me would've been the perfect ending.
I also expected someone else to die in Mitch's house - for some reason, I kept thinking something was going to happen to his creepy mother
"Are you going to your grave with unlived lives in your veins?" ~ The Good Girl -
mrjessjess — 12 years ago(October 31, 2013 02:58 PM)
The "resolution" if you want to call it that was a tad disappointing and anticlimactic, there's not really any other way to describe it.
However, you could argue that it ended just like a bad dream; abrupt, which is itself a little disturbing, and unsettling.
Not that I'm trying to go out of my way to defend a lack of effort but, sometimes directors or writers do this in order to prevent a worse ending or 1 that they believe the audience won't accept. When you write yourself into a corner, you kinda have to take this route, which is why you should avoid ever writing yourself into a corner but I digress. The story is more about the ride rather than the destination.
Other reasons for open ending would lean toward the potential of a sequel but we know that probably wasn't the intention of this film.
Another thing of worth about the open ending is that it promotes discussion and controversy which leads to more ticket sales.
Yes I would have liked some closure but thats just my personal preference, I don't let the ending bother me anymore. -
lubin-freddy — 12 years ago(December 18, 2013 03:41 AM)
That's pretty much Hitchcock's point of the film, that any ending would be arbitrary, unlike life, where things tend to go on and on, with no real "Mission Accomplished". This was the beginning of an era of doubt, a Cold War time of moral ambivalence, and Hitchcock wanted to subvert the notions of good and evil, and of the clear happy or tragic ending.
It's a sign of Hitchcock's subversive nature that a half century later, people are still upset by his unorthodox artistic sensitivity.
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
to rock my soul -
fugazzi49 — 12 years ago(January 23, 2014 09:42 PM)
I saw The Birds in it's first run when I was thirteen and found the ending baffling and somewhat of a letdown, though I still loved the film as a whole. But in those days it was standard fare that in the end the birds would be defeated in some way and mankind triumphant as any number of ants, gila monsters and aliens had been in the Fifties. Now I'm really glad he didn't do that and find the ending a masterstroke of eeriness.
-
topkapi56 — 12 years ago(February 26, 2014 04:31 PM)
The ending was absolutely perfect. Why on earth do you need everything tied up in a neat bow for you? You would probably have liked to see Rhett and Scarlet in a final clinch at the end of Gone with the Wind instead of the perfect ending it had.
-
Moscoso1967 — 11 years ago(August 25, 2014 05:08 PM)
I don't understand those people either who need everything tied up in a neat bow (as you perfectly put it). If they don't like this ending because there was no explanation, "proper" end to the story, or dramatic climax at the end of the film, I'm sure watching "Blowup" would drive them nuts!