why were the birds attacking people
-
greenbudgie — 10 years ago(July 20, 2015 04:32 AM)
I don't think there is any reason for mass attacks. But lone seagulls can be unpredictable. I wonder if birds do protect a certain area at times. A seagull has swooped down close to me on two occasions just lately. At the very same spot. I was just walking towards a plot where a path narrows. As I approached that spot, a sudden wailing sound made me jump. It seemed so close to me. I looked around to see what it was. Both times, as soon as I got past that narrow area, I saw a lone seagull perch on top of a nearby telegraph post. It seems, for all the world, as though the bird didn't want me at that particular point for some reason.
-
greenbudgie — 9 years ago(June 09, 2016 02:29 AM)
King's Lynn in England. The gull swoops are seasonal here. July is the worst time. I noticed that a gull is perched on that telegraph pole ready in early June. I don't know if it's my mate from last year. I wonder if this might be another clue. There's a wet fish shop about 200 yards away from it's favourite spot.
-
Byrdz — 9 years ago(June 09, 2016 03:35 AM)
I bet that there are plenty of birdwatchers there in your part of the world who would know the whys and wherefors of the "bird swoops" and they would be more than happy to tell you all they know. I have met several "watchers" from Great Britain and they are great info sharers!
Would also bet that those telegraph poles are actually holding electric lines these days.
Good luck with the gulls and wear a hat ! -
greenbudgie — 9 years ago(June 09, 2016 06:19 AM)
I will try to get some information from birdwatchers about gull swoops. The RSPB usually advise that it is protection of nests, or gulls associating people with food. In the meantime, I'll take your advice and get a hat ready for the July swooping season.
-
chet19 — 10 years ago(July 27, 2015 12:22 PM)
No explanation.
After spending an hour and a half boring us to death by making us watch the main characters talk and talk and talk, the least Hitchcock could have done was given us a decent ending/explanation. But no.
p.s. If a guy comes into a store and stalks you, run away and stay away. Don't flirt with him and chase him down and drive a crappy old boat in your mink jacket. It won't work. -
-
InherentlyYours — 10 years ago(August 15, 2015 05:28 PM)
'After spending an hour and a half boring us to death by making us watch the main characters talk and talk and talk'
If you had an appreciation for acting/subject matter, you would not be bored with it. But, actually, events did occur in the first 1 1/2 hours, not just talk.
-
vinidici — 10 years ago(September 06, 2015 06:15 PM)
He didn't stalk her he FLIRTED with what to him was a very attractive woman, albeit a stranger. And no men have EVER been known to do such a thing. (Sarcasm icon needed here.)
But you're right about one thing, there IS some "stalking" going on except Taylor's not the one who's doing it. It's HER! Hendrin stalks HIM! -
sslssg — 10 years ago(August 17, 2015 08:32 PM)
In the du Maurier story there isn't an explanation either, but the birds do attack with the tide. It's been years since I've read the story or seen the movie so I don't recall if the tide was in the movie and that's why they were able to drive away at the end?
-
stewart_shipley — 10 years ago(September 26, 2015 10:50 PM)
A lot people will say that the birds were a manifestation or a symbol of emotional fear or concern in the women. I'd say that the birds were a manifestation of a nasty personality trait shared between Mitch Brenner and his father, that is, a fear or anger towards feminine maturity and/or feminine independence. Yes, I know that the elder Mr. Brenner is dead when the movie starts, but you can see traces of this trait of his, in Lydia's behaviour.
After all, the first attack happens right after Mitch spots Melanie in the boat, and she's motoring back across the bay with her head held high, looking independent and queenly.
There's a hint of this in the conversation in the first scene, where Mitch Brenner is talking about buying lovebirds for his 11-year-old sister:
Mitch Brenner: Well, uh, these are for my sister, for her birthday, see, and uh, as she's only gonna be eleven, I, I wouldn't want a pair of birds that were too demonstrative.
Sure, it's a cute throw-away line. But it might also hint at an ambiguous attitude that Mitch has about his younger sister's approaching adolescence.
Finally there's the conversation between Mitch and his mom:
Mitch: Mother, you just leave Melanie Daniels to me
Lydia: Well, OK, Mitch. If you think you know what you want.
Mitch: I know exactly what I want with Melanie Daniels.
Which, considering how things turn out for Melanie, might be the scariest line in the movie.
There's a quote from Hitchcock, I saw once, which implied that, yes, there is a subtext to this movie, just as it's easy to see possible subtexts in "Vertigo" (impotence / necrophilia how far a man will go to be sexual, how far a woman will go to be "loved") and "North by Northwest" (Roger Thornhill grows up, as a basic take). -
gary-64659 — 10 years ago(March 20, 2016 12:49 PM)
Wow, Stewart, you certainly have a lot of psychological insight. Just as well that psychopathy does have its benefits, apparently, as Mitch single-handedly saves all three females who all show they are far from "mature" or even "independent".
-
angelexposed — 10 years ago(February 29, 2016 05:10 PM)
If you're looking for a scientific reasoning, there is none given in the film, but we could assume that some kind of disease overtook the birds and caused them to become hostile. We could always look at the dead birds lying around, flying into things and essentially killing themselves as signs of their illness (birds apparently do this if they are ill and disorientated).
As for why they would flock and attack simultaneously is a mystery, which is what Hitchcock intended it to be. It's the mystery that makes the film so much more intriguing, the fact that it's never explained. Really, the film is a dialogue driven and story driven piece and the birds, as others mentioned, is only a plot device, it's a survival story, I suppose, in some ways.We've become a race of peeping toms. -
timroth — 9 years ago(May 31, 2016 08:39 AM)
My personal opinion is that the detailed explanation of Norman Bates' motivations at the end of Psycho did not make it a better movie. Perhaps Hitch thought the same upon reflection and did not offer another pat explanation for the Birds.
-
Dragonsouls — 9 years ago(August 15, 2016 03:00 PM)
Here's my reason why. The main character, is represented as a "Free spirit," like a bird. She and Mitch are the birds in the story. Throughout the film, Melanie showed signs of being extremely free spirited, and very dismissive, like refusing to call birds by their real names and instead calling them by their nicknames for example. She also wore fur coats, and her materialistic way of life was essentially a front. She was the type that liked jumping into water fountains naked, not caring what people think, etc. Like Mitch said, you are "in a cage."
The bird attacks were probably symbolic of society's constraints. The oppression that comes from its standards. The dead birds seen constantly throughout, and all the ones in cages, unable to fly. The crows that attacked the children for example, represented the indoctrination of the modern school system, which discourages creative expression, and can be very limiting. And of course, the bird attacks were also a sort of revenge against man's ignorance. The gas station scene is a great example of this, how we pollute nature in favor of oil productionwhich has set the world on fire.