the imaginative conservative logo

“I am neither poor nor innocent”—Melanie Daniels, protagonist of Hitchcock’s The Birds

Tippi-Hedren the birdsCinema as Art

From the time I was thirteen or so, I had fallen deeply in love with movies. I did not actually grow up watching a lot of TV shows, but I certainly loved renting movies and enjoying them in the comfort of my house, especially when my parents were out playing Bridge or doing something similar with their friends.

For me—then and now—the more intense the movie, the better, though I also loved stupid, slapstick comedies. Several of my high school friends appreciated and understood the actual art of cinema far more than I did, and I learned a great deal from them about directors, cuts, camera angles, actors, lighting. Even to this day, I can’t watch anything other than comedy without analyzing every aspect of the film.

College didn’t give me much time for movies, but two events in graduate school not only re-awoke my passion but increased it exponentially. The first, and less important of the two, was the attending of a film studies class on the 1956 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Everything my friends in high school had taught me was sharpened to a finely and intellectually honed blade of finest steel as the professor explained how to study a film, scene by scene—the method similar to the examination of a novel, but with a different kind of depth. I was, to put it colloquially, rather blown away.

Hitchcock, His Women, and Me

Additionally, while in graduate school, two friends really shaped my view on films. The first was Craig, an apartment-mate as well as office buddy. As it turned out, Craig knew British film really well. I’d never appreciated it or PBS before, but he gave me that love of both. Second, I found out that another close friend was also an Alfred Hitchcock (1899-1980) fanatic. Tamzen (my great friend to this day) and I spent many hours watching and analyzing Hitchcock. These moments with Craig and Tamzen are ones I still treasure.

Like Tamzen, I considered myself a Hitchcock fanatic as well, preferring a Hitchcock film even to a science fiction one. I especially loved, in order, Rope, Vertigo, Psycho, Strangers on a Train, and North by Northwest. I also watched other Hitchcock films, such as Topaz, Marnie, Frenzy, The Man Who Knew Too Much, but I generally considered these films relatively normal as opposed to Rope and the aforementioned.

In each of these, whether of the highest caliber or merely of the good caliber, Hitchcock masterfully demonstrated his genius. In each, he picked exactly the right actors, the right stories, and the right actors for the stories, and the right stories for the actors. He took his time and lingered—over a shot or a conversation—where needed, and he added drama where needed. Almost all his films revolved around some sin, some guilt, and some penance. His films are truly Catholic theology on the silver screen. His Jesuit education comes across in every frame of film.

The Puzzle of The Birds

One movie that has intrigued more than any other, however, is The Birds. By “intrigued,” I mean that I find watching it a true intellectual challenge, a puzzle to be solved, rather than a work of art to enjoy. As far as I can tell, it does not possess the intellectual depth of Rope or the psychological dread of Vertigo or the confessional aspect of Psycho. Yet it intrigues me.

A lot.

Annex - Hedren, Tippi (Birds, The)_02

Tippe Hedren

For the longest time, I was convinced that the film best represents the very Roman Catholic Alfred Hitchcock’s views on feminism. The women of the film, after all, are fascinating. They are powerful and cunning (Tippi Hedren), insecure and frightened (Jessica Tandy), or cool and resigned (Suzanne Pleshette). The leading man (Rod Taylor) is a smart aleck and, more or less, heroic, but he is rather uninspiring. Whether this is because he wasn’t a great actor or Hitchcock wanted him to be this way, I have no idea. Frankly, he’s just not that interesting.

But the women? Absolutely interesting. They make the movie in every possible way.

Is The Birds about feminism? I don’t know, and I’m less convinced of this now than I was a decade ago. Hitchcock’s film is, however, about femininity. It is also, at some level, a commentary on nature: nature as nature; nature as revenge; nature as law superior to human contrivance; nature, red in tooth and claw.

The film begins in a pristine-looking San Francisco, wealthy people moving about their business. Filmed only a half-decade before the drug culture would thrive in the city, this San Francisco seems a million miles away from our time. This is most assuredly not the San Francisco of Dirty Harry or of the 1978 version of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. No grit here. Only wealth and confidence.

Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren), graced with perfect looks and class, walks into a pet shop, specializing in birds. She has ordered an exotic bird that has yet to arrive in the shop. As she waits, a dashing man, Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) presumes she works there and asks a question about love birds. She attempts to bluff her way through the conversation but fails. After a bit of repartee, she concedes defeat.

Jessica Tandy

Jessica Tandy

The following day, after getting his personal information from his license plate, she decides to drive to Bodega Bay with the love birds, hoping to surprise him. She succeeds in this, and the two begin a flirtatious game, clearly attracted to one another while pretending not to be. Daniels encounters two women almost immediately: Lydia Brenner (Jessica Tandy), Taylor’s overly protective and suspicious mom; and his cool but resigned ex-girlfriend, Annie Hayworth (Suzanne Pleshette). Headstrong, selfish, and spoiled, Daniels works her way into the lives of each.

As Daniels and Hayworth talk over brandy, they realize that Mitch has drawn them each there, but his mother has repelled them both as well. Still, Hayworth admits to like Mitch so much, she’s willing to stay in Bodega Bay, simply to be Mitch’s friend.

As Daniels continues navigating her way into Brenner’s family, birds of a variety of different species begin to attack individuals and then groups in Bodega Bay, normally an idyllic spot on the Pacific Coast. Daniels is the first to be attacked, but soon school children and then the general population come under attack.

Despite making and releasing the movie in 1963, Hitchcock creates some truly terrifying and brutal scenes. When the birds attack, blood often flies freely, eyes get gouged out, and corpses litter the ground. None of it is gratuitous, but it is graphic. Hayworth’s body is particularly gruesome.

For some reason that the protagonists cannot fathom, the birds—though of different species—offer concentrated and coordinated attacks.

The finale of the movie revolves around the boarding up of a nice home (the home of Brenner, his younger sister, and his mom) and the attempt to hold off the concerted avian onslaught.

In one memorable and deeply troubling scene, birds break into the attic just as Daniels is there, trying to secure the house. They ravage her. The filming was so intense that Hedren had to spend a week in a local hospital recovering from the trauma and exhaustion.

birds3Just as quickly at the birds became violent, they become quiescent, as their night of violence draws to a close. Neither Hitchcock nor his film ever explains the behavior of the birds. Instead, we see only the reaction of the humans. That Hitchcock leaves the motives totally unexplained makes the movie only creepier. The movie concludes with Brenner, Daniels, and Brenner’s mom and sister walking through hordes of birds, all quiet now, and leaving Bodega Bay by car. Daniels has been so traumatized by the events of the day that she is catatonic. Brenner’s mother, having been suspicious of Daniels from the beginning, now accepts her, cradling her as though her daughter.

The movie ends, with no music, as the four drive into the sunrise, the birds cawing but staying put. The viewer is left with really nothing. With no music queues and a flat shot of the car departing the fields of birds, the audience has no way of knowing if Brenner and company drive into death or into safety.

The movie just ends.

Whether the movie is about existentialism, about the bombings of London in World War II, about feminism, or about the sovereignty of nature, I have no idea. Well, lots of ideas, but no certainties. Yet, with all Hitchcock movies, it continues to fascinate and to titillate.

Books on the topic of this essay may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
"All comments are subject to moderation. We welcome the comments of those who disagree, but not those who are disagreeable."
2 replies to this post
  1. Hitchcock was an interesting director on the theme of home.

    In many of his movies, the two most powerful emotions are that between man and woman AND that between parent and child.

    Parent-and-child bond is about keeping home intact, but it can also be destructive. The parent can either be overly possessive or the child can be overly dependent. It might even develop into a weird sexual complex.

    The man-and-woman bond undermines the idea of home. A man or woman must grow away from original home and make a new home with someone else. Person must lose one home to found another home. If all goes well, no problem. But things can get complicated.
    Sometimes, man-and-woman bond can come between parent-and-child bond.

    Norman Bates is a super mama’s boy; so much so that he became his mother after he killed her. He killed her cuz her affections went to another man. A part of Norman is normal. He lusts after Janet Leigh–as a normal guy should–, but he also sees her as a threat between his bond between him and his ma.

    In MARNIE, the woman is a cosmopolitan thief who changes her identity and pulls all sorts of tricks, but it turns out she has a strong attachment to mama and home. Winning her mother’s approval and affection is the most important thing to her. And she sees Sean Connery as a threatening force that comes between her and her ma.

    In BIRDS, Tippi Hedrin falls for a guy who still lives at home. She wants to tear the guy from his mother and sister. The mother sees the Tippi as a threat to her family order. The birds are essentially Tippi’s psychic-sexual energy to wipe out all competition for the possession of the man. It’s sexual energy out of the pandora’s box, or out of the bird cage.

    In 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY the Moonwatcher Ape feels a certain ‘covenant’ with the Monolith and starts to have funny/creative ideas about what he can do with a bone. It’s like something ‘spiritual’ touched and altered something physical within Moonwatcher’s body. It’s like the scene in Alfred Hitchcock THE BIRDS where a seagull suddenly descends upon the Tippi Hedren character and nips her forehead, making it bleed(though I’m guessing Abraham’s foreskin bled more from circumcision). It’s as if a new dimension has been opened up via a perverse psychic contact between the bio-physical and the cosmic-metaphysical.

    The Birds are the outer manifestation of the woman’s sex drive. Notice that the birds don’t attack her.

    Birds attack things that she subconsciously fears, dreads, hates, or resents.

    She wants the man. She sees the man’s daughter and sister as competition, esp as the mother and sister look like wife and daughter.

    The birds attack and kill the school teacher who has a crush on the man.

    When the woman goes to the school, the birds descend, representing her psychic wish to kill the girl. Consciously and morally, she wants to save the girl. But subconsciously, she wants to kill the girl. The birds attack the girl and kids but not her.

    The birds attack a birthday party earlier on. The woman identifies it with domesticity and imprisonment. Marriage and family are like being inside a cage. She pursues the man romantically and freely but fears being caged. Same as Holly Golightly in Breakfast at Tiffanys and Ben Braddock in the Graduate. The thrill is in the hunt/adventure. But settling down is like confinement. Like being in an aquarium, a motif in the Graduate.

    In the Birds, the lovebirds in the cage represent marriage and commitment. She wants the man. She’s in love with him. But she likes the play. After all, once she snares him and settles down, he’ll be just like a stuffed trophy than a game to hunt.

    When she’s in the phone booth, the birds attack the booth to set her free. It’s like breaking the cage.

    At the end of the movie, she sees the birds in the attic. The birds want to fly past her and kill the mother and girl. She wants the man for herself. Birds represent her sexual energy. But her moral superego blocks the birds from flying past her. A part of her wants the birds to kill. Another part of her wants to repress her aggressive/possessive sexual instincts. She becomes crucified by her own repressed sexual passion that wants to kill the mother and sister and claim the man for herself. (It’s like in Samson and Delilah the Movie when the woman’s jealous and possessive love gives to the higher love of righteousness.)

    The superego finally wins.

    The birds are to the woman what the killer is to the good guy in Strangers on a Train. The ‘evil twin’. In the beginning of Strangers, the shoes of the good guy and the villain touch and make a psychic connection. In the Birds, a psychic connection happens when a seagull scratches the woman’s head. The hero of STRANGERS ON THE TRAIN is a good guy but his subconscious wants to murder his no-good wife, and this dark side of him is represented or channeled through the doppelganger of the nihilistic killer.

    In a nutshell…It’s actually quite clear. Birds are essentially the metaphor for Hedrin’s sexual drive. When a seagull attacks her forehead, it’s as if birds picked up on her subconscious signal.

    Though Hedrin consciously tries to be a respectable person, she has this powerful sexual desire to have her man. Birds thus become the manifestation of her sexual subconsciousness. Notice in the schoolyard scene, the birds attack the girl but not Hedrin. The conscious moral side of Hedrin wants to protect the girl, but the subconscious sexual side–as represented by the birds–wants to kill the girl. Why? Though the girl is the sister of the man Hedrin wants, the age difference makes her look almost like his daughter. So, in Hedrin’s subconscious mind, the man’s mother is like his wife and his sister is like his daughter. Hedrin wants to get rid of them to get him for herself. Notice the birds also kill another woman on the island who has feelings for the man.
    The birds almost never attack Hedrin because they are her manifestation. They seem to attack her when she’s inside the phone booth, but it’s more like they’re trying to set her loose from a ‘cage’. And in the end, it’s not so much that the birds are attacking Hedrin as trying to get past her to kill the others. Her attempt to hold the birds back is her moral side trying to repress her sexual subconscious side that wants to take over and kill to have what she wants. Just like Norman Bates had two sides of him–the normal side and the sick side–, there is two sides to the woman.

    Then, the meaning of the caged love birds come into view. We tend to associate love with peace, but love is a powerful instinct that is possessive, jealous, and competitive. Unless it is tamed in a cage by morality, it can rage and destroy civilization.

  2. I don’t believe it has been mentioned that The Birds was written by Daphne Du Maurier. The novelette was included in a book of short stories, The Apple Tree, published in the UK in 1952. “The shock lies in the idea of birds as destroyers. People usually associate birds with things like freedom and beauty and music. However, in this story, du Maurier drew on her own experience with vicious seagulls. She imagines once-innocent creatures suddenly mutated into merciless killers bent on destroying humanity.” Alfred Hitchcock adapted three of du Maurier’s stories to the screen: Rebecca, Jamaica Inn, and The Birds.

Please leave a thoughtful, civil, and constructive comment: