why were the birds attacking people
-
lizardness — 9 years ago(October 23, 2016 08:10 AM)
The birds were a manifestation of Mitch's mum's fear of losing her son to another woman. She didn't want to let him go.
Annie warns Melanie that Lydia won't like it - or something to that effect, I haven't seen the film in a while. The bird attacks get worse the longer Melanie is in the town, and the closer she appears to get to Mitch. Lydia tries to accept it out of deference to her son, but she cannot control her inner anxieties. I like the way she has the appearance of a bird herself, the way she wears her cardigan over her shoulders so that the arms look like a pair of wings. (The lovebirds appear unaffected because they are a pair of caged birds.)
It all reaches a crescendo in the attic scene - and it seems that is the pinnacle of Lydia's black bile of anxiety. Once Mitch has saved Melanie from that situation, Lydia would appear to have calmed down and accepted the relationship between Mitch and Melanie - hence the calmness of the birds in the final scene.
Watch it again with this interpretation and it becomes not just a great film but a bloody great film
Excellent analysis. My late mom, who passed away more than 21 years ago, had the same interpretation. As a kid I didn't like that idea and hadn't heard anyone putting forth that scenario, but now that I'm grown it makes sense. Plausible in that reality. -
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.