Why was there no ending?
-
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!
-
fugazzi49 — 11 years ago(November 01, 2014 07:11 PM)
The ending is wonderfully eerie and unsettling because it is so ambiguous and open ended. I think Hitchcock wanted it this way. He liked to overturn conventions like having Janet Leigh get killed in the middle of Psycho when in every other movie at the time she would have been saved. It's the same here. In some ways The Birds plays like the old 50's Sci-Fi monster films where the ants, shrews, blobs or whatever get killed in the end and all is explained. Ending it as he did lifts it far above that type of genre film. It's a famous ending because it works, and the fact that some people are still confounded by it shows it still works.
Also, I notice a number of people seeing resolution in the end in several threads here including this one, saying the birds have completely stopped attacking for good because they represent psychological and dramatic conflicts among the principal characters that have now been resolved (among other reasons). But there is no indication that the attacks have stopped completely. The announcer on the car radio even mentions that the bird attacks occur after long quiet intervals. They escape during one of these and the birds could attack again at any time. -
christomacin — 10 years ago(March 02, 2016 11:08 PM)
Also, I notice a number of people seeing resolution in the end in several threads here including this one, saying the birds have completely stopped attacking for good because they represent psychological and dramatic conflicts among the principal characters that have now been resolved (among other reasons). But there is no indication that the attacks have stopped completely. The announcer on the car radio even mentions that the bird attacks occur after long quiet intervals. They escape during one of these and the birds could attack again at any time.
I think people are missing much of the symbolic and allegoric nature of the story. Why are the only two birds not attacking
love birds
, of all birds? To me this film is about peace and reconciliation, both on the personal and societal level. Keep in mind this film was made right after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Indeed, Hitchcock even went on to make a film dealing with that event in
Topaz
, so it's not far-fetched at all to make this connection. Remember also Hitchcock's strong Catholic beliefs, which he sometimes referenced in his films in subtle ways. Looking at the film from a religious/philosophical level the final shot makes a lot of sense. In the distance we see a ray of light breaking through the clouds. Mitch's mother and Melanie have a moment of tenderness together. It's as if the characters in the story have reconciled with each other and are being given a second chance, just as the world had been given a second chance after the missile crisis. The love birds represent the Christian idea of reconciliation and peace in the face of a frightening world we cannot explain or control. Even if nuclear war wasn't the intended subtext of the film, in a general sense the attacking birds are a symbol of chaos while the love birds are a symbol of reconciliation and hope. The story arcs for the individual characters follow this strife to understanding to reconciliation theme also. -
ThiefOfStars — 10 years ago(September 07, 2015 11:37 AM)
In my head, Hitchcock's original vision for the ending with the birds gathered on the Golden Gate bridge is the true ending.
https://www.youtube.com/user/ThiefOfStars -
zooymtoo — 10 years ago(September 17, 2015 02:31 AM)
Even when I saw this as a kid I never was disappointed about the ending..
What explanation really matters?
The principle characters lives were irreversibly changed by this event..
Melanie had been a rich girl use to controlling her life but feeling out of control and needing more than money could buy. Mitch had been a successful lawyer using his clingy b*tch of a mother to keep others at bay..and the mother had been a first class manipulator because she was scared of being alone. None of them were the same people.
This is a psychological film more than a horror film. They survive.
Why does everything need endless sequels to explain away everything? No one can use their imagination and imagine for themselves anymore.