The usual symbolic interpretation of the deadly massed birds in Hitchcock’s 1963 film is that they’re a sign of the terrifying feminine, and/or grasping maternal. Melanie drives out to Bodega Bay to get her grasping playgirl claws into Mitch; Mitch’s mom freaks out much like the birds. The clash of terrifying female desire around this one good looking guy results in a nature freak out and violent squawking.
It seems like there might be a more direct way to read the birds though. In particular, Tippi Hedron has said that Hitchcock during the filming essentially stalked her; he made sexual advances, insisted on separating her from the rest of the actors, and was generally a crazed controlling jerk. He also famously in the attic scene actually tied birds to her to get the right shot; some of the blood on her you see was apparently real. She suffered multiple cuts and broke down in tears at one point. This is in the interest of the film, rather than in the interest of his being a creepy stalker, supposedly, but it seems like at some point the two stop being especially distinguishable. Hitchcock as stalker blurs into Hitchcock as perfectionist director; he gets to hurt and control Hedron wearing either (bird) hat.
The birds then are Hitchcock’s catspaw; he ties them to Hedron in an excess of jealous vindictiveness, to show her who’s boss. And if the birds function that way in that scene, why not throughout? Apparently Hitchcock warned Rod Taylor (who played Mitch) to stop cuddling Hedron as soon as Hitchcock yelled “cut”; there seems to have been some jealousy there. And similarly, the birds seem set up to punish Melanie for her sexual desire. The first attack occurs as she’s coming across the bay and about to meet up with Mitch for a potentially romantic chat. The escalating violence seems designed to prevent the further development of their relationship. Rather than excess maternal force, you could see the birds as an enactment of the paternal law; proscribing sexual activity in the jealous name of the father/director. As in all those slashers, the girl who has sex must die.
The Birds work well as a meta-patriarchal avatar precisely because their in-film motivation is so poorly defined. Why do the birds attack? The characters say repeatedly they don’t know, and no reason is offered. But of course there is a reason why the birds attack. It’s because Hitchcock tells them to. The fakeness of the birds (many of them were puppets, and you can tell) only adds in this reading to their symbolic resonance. Hitchcock has created these birds out of wholecloth for his sadistic purpose. That purpose is control, violence, order—the striking birds’-eye view shot of Bodega Bay with a street afire nicely melds the rage for order and destruction, or for destructive order, each person dying in agony in his or her place.
The birds then aren’t a symbol of inhuman mystery so much as they are a sign of a particularly human glee in fucking with other humans. Melanie and Mitch tease and play practical jokes on each other, but the biggest, meanest, most remorseless practical joke is the film itself, which flagrantly reaches into the romantic comedy that seems to be underway and fills it with bloody beaks and death just because it can. The birds are Hitchcock’s remorseless, bitter, bitterly excessive way of making sure yet another of his icy blondes gets what she deserves. Those long, sharp beaks aren’t maternal; they’re misogynist.
Didn’t Hitchcock actually say something about doing terrible things to perfect, beautiful blondes as a constant theme of his work?
Maybe it would be correct to say that Hitchcock is both Robert Donat and the police, both Cary Grant and the plane, etc, but that when the object of surveillance is a woman, then he ceases to identify with the surveilled and merely identifies with the surveillor?
Though if he never identifies with women, he does occasionally seem to like them – Edna Best in The Man Who Knew Too Much, Brigitte Auber in To Catch a Thief – though maybe significantly they’re both tomboys to some extent, as opposed to all-femme Janet Leigh and Tippi Hedren.
That seems reasonable. I don’t think all Hitchcock movies need to mean the same thing as the birds, certainly. His relationship with Hedren was supposed to be especially awful; Kim Novak says he didn’t stalk her for example.
I think this isn’t the same Hitchcock quote as I vaguely recall/was looking for – but speaks to the topic, anyway:
“Blondes make the best victims. They’re like virgin snow that shows up the bloody footprints.”
The whole article I found that in is relevant, too.
http://entertainment.time.com/2012/11/25/was-hitchcock-psycho/
Huh, funnily enough, I was just yesterday reading an article by Joe Queenan that argues this point, more or less, for Hitchcock’s entire ouevre. (It’s called The Man Who Did Not Love Women)
“Those long, sharp beaks aren’t maternal; they’re misogynist.”
Or they just are fucking birds out of control.
Nobody’s mentioned yet, but The Birds also just wasn’t very good…
It’s usually thought of as a classic…Hitchcock isn’t my favorite in general, but the Birds is a pretty ambitious and weird film.
A 100% true statement, that.
Just throwing out what is inherently an unmeasureable statement of subjective taste; I hated it. Horror is not my idea of a good time, birds still aren’t scary, the performances of the screaming were overwrought throughout, the special effects were pathetic, I didn’t believe what I was watching for a single second, and I was bored, bored, bored.
You know, I agree with everything BU just said, and yet I’ll still easily give the rest of the movie a pass for the jungle gym scene screen-capped above.
Huh. I like horror; I thought the birds were creepy; I enjoyed the dumpiness of the special effects; I kind of liked the melodramatic clunkiness of the screaming; I don’t generally go into horror films looking for realism; compared to any number of films I watch (Ant Man, Mission Impossible, and the list goes on) I was pretty engaged.
The dialogue is pretty thoroughly blah, and the characters, and especially the relationships between the characters, are really uninvolving. Hitchcock is too distant to care about anyone on screen in a realistic mode, but he’s too stuck on respectability to go full on camp or trash the way someone like Wes Craven does. So it ends up being pretty flat; the random, clinical deaths of people you don’t really care about that much.
Which is I presume where the boredom comes in. But…as Graham says, the set pieces are really imaginative, and the high concept (especially the refusal to explain it) is great. So, a lot of good with the mediocre. It’s no The Thing or Dawn of the Dead or Last House on the Left, or any number of other horror films I love, but I can see why it’s beloved by many.
Oh, I’ll grant Graham the jungle gym shot for half a letter grade, note that I have seen horror I thought was quite good and enjoyed, and I’ll even mention that I think Hitchcock was genuinely a master of the suspense thrillers he specialized in; I just didn’t like this. The distancing was probably, indeed, a good deal of it.
The thing with Hitchcock is, i guess he’s the only director i *always* liked. His stuff was fun when I was 6, when i was 12, when i was 24, and i’m pretty sure i’d still enjoy it if i was 48. But yeah, i also never cared much for The Birds (or Psycho) … this kind of ‘horror’ may have been groundbreaking at the time but hasnt really aged that well. And from what i remember i think i always found Tippi Hedren even more annoying than Doris Day which didnt really help either.
As for Hitchcock hating women … pretty much the most common critique of his work isnt it? almost as obvious as Tarantinos problem with violence, and I would probably defend Hitchcock the way you did defend Tarantino: Hitchcock was in on the joke and reflecting the issue already (as his comments suggest).
The problem with saying Hitchcock was in on the joke is that he seems to have, in real life, stalked Tippi Hedron. It’s hard for me to see that as some sort of meta joke.
don’t know, are we discussing Hitchcock’s work or Hitchcock the person? I dont think if Hitchcock had a serious problem with women that necessarily means his films are misogynist. This also works the other way around of course, so his films could be misogynist while Hitchcock, as a person, may not have been. My point is, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to discuss his personality (relying on gossip?) and I’d rather try to judge his work, based on his work.
The point in the piece is that it seems to matter rather directly for The Birds. He was obsessed with Hedrin and tried to isolate her from the other people on set. He also put her in a position where she was pecked bloody on screen. You have this guy who is abusive and controlling, and he uses his position as Hedrin’s boss to actually physically abuse her, and reduce her to tears. Supposedly, this is for purposes of the film…but the purpose of the film sure seems like it’s to abuse her.
The account of Hitchhock’s stalking is not “gossip”. It’s Hedrin’s account of what happened to her. Other people on set confirmed he treated her like crap. He was a controlling, sadistic asshole. And part of the way he was a controlling, sadistic asshole was by arranging the workplace so that Hedrin got pecked bloody.
Asking to judge his art separately given those particular circumstances really seems inadequate, to me. Biographical details often influence criticism. In this case, I think there’s a good case to be made that they should.
Tippi Hedren is spelled that way.
Thanks; I have the worst time spelling her name. Oh well; wouldn’t want anyone to think this was a professional endeavor…