Hitchcock's "The Birds" WHY Did They Attack?

From a prespective of fleshing out characters and character motivations The Birds may not be Hitch's best effort, but unlike his other movies, the birds are really the stars in this movie. Around the halfway point the birds become more important than the people, imho. What the birds are going to do and their motives seem to be the issue. And while this movie may not be Hitchcock's best it's definitely one of the most memorable.

Why did the birds attack? Obviously it was left open-ended on purpose but I'm not sure I buy the whole 'sex' motive, as sultry as it sounds. There wasn't any sex in this movie - it's not even implied (as it was in Psycho). You basically have 2 handsome people who are attracted to each other and are playing a 'cat and mouse' game of pursuing each other. Hardly cause for God's hand to unleash evil through flocks of birds.

No, if there's a reason at all it's simply nature taking a poke back at people for all the wrongs we've done over the years. Or an act of randomness thru mother nature, not much differrent than a tornado or a hurricane.

 

They attacked because the children kept singing that annoying song.


In all seriousness, I think you'll get a good explanation from Hitchcock himself in the original trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3xDL2be24E

Humans have taken advantage of birds... using them for food, fashion, and tools (such as the feather pen) and the birds are merely getting even.

 

I didn't bother to read the thread. I will just say that they attcked for unknown reasons because it was a terrible movie.

 

It's correct if you're talking about the movie (The Birds) which is singular, but incorrect if you are talking about a bunch of birds (plural). I think it is the typography that makes it confusing since "birds" is not capitalized. But then it may have been made confusing on purpose--Hitchcock would probably have found that sort of thing amusing.

John K.

 

The Birds is best viewed as nothing more than another of Hitchcock's exercises in cinematic technique, much as Rope had been several years earlier. Therefore narrative (or the lack thereof) was, at best, a secondary concern, and any attempts to find or purse any deep meanings or profound statements from within the film would be nothing more than a fool's errand.

 

It may have had something to do with the Lovebirds...what, I'm not sure. But it really, REALLY ticked (or set)them off.

I saw this at the theatre when it came out with a group of older kids from my block. I was about 7 or 8. One of my greatest movie-going experiences.

 

I like it a lot more than Psycho.

 

Steve H referenced it in his first post. That was the poster with the exact wording he saw on posters at the time.

 

Although perhaps funny...



-Bill

 

Yeah, that must be it - great analysis...

 

I think they attacked because of your spelling error.

 

no err
thts the way kds spel nowdays

 

....Thanks for the insight......

 

For the same reason most creatures in films from that era attacked: they were radioactive.

 

Showed my girlfriend "The Birds" last night. I don't care for the leads (LOVE Pleshette and Tandy), and I really don't like Tippi's boneheaded move closing the door at the climax, but aside from that, this still is a beautiful piece of work IMO. Especially love the ending, one of my favorites in film history.

I actually think the character development is great; the whole story arc of the mother-in-law is resolved neatly in the last thirty seconds. Some of the dialogue could have been better (particularly compared to Psycho), but I don't think Evan Hunter was ever really known for his dialogue...

Not sure if this has already been mentioned (I'll check in a minute), but I remember hearing that Michael Bay was remaking this. Ugh. I can just imagine the scene in which some scientific advisory panel advises the military of what radioactive defect in the air or water caused the calamity, and authorizing Will Smith to run around shooting at them with a special new kind of raygun while he shouts witty phrases like "This flight is GROUNDED."

 

Beautiful!

 

Audi Tribute Commercial

 

They were non union

 

Well, yes and no. In the story, which is set in the UK, the bird attacks coincide with the arrival of a sudden and severe cold front from the Arctic, and the narrator speculates that the phenomena might be somehow related.

However, as with the radioactive Venus probe in Night of the Living Dead, I've always interpreted that as a character inside the story grasping at straws to make sense of something unexplainable rather than something the creator actually intends for the audience to buy into.

 

I always thought it was fairly obvious that the birds were a psychic extension of sorts of the mother. The birds are feeding off her negative energy and doing her unconscious bidding, so to speak. The bird attacks center around Melanie, who mom perceives to be an interloper and whom she thinks is going to be disruptive to her creepy little family thing she has going. It's only when mom accepts Melanie that the birds stop their attacks.

 

Because science.

 

As the old sailor says in the diner, "It's the end of the weareld!"

And this:
6"Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them."

 

No, it does have meaning--it's Hitch's take on the random chaos that surrounds us all and how we think we are in control (like Melanie) but we aren't at all.

Hitch examined a similar theme combining it with his wrong man elements in "Frenzy".

 

My take on this has been that it is obvious that the arrival of Melanie "brings" the birds, for better or for worse, and an offhanded line of dialogue from a fisherman in the cafe doesn't change my opinion on this. Hitchcock was about nothing if not about subtext, and this picture -- and his subsequent one with Hedren, Marnie -- are fully loaded with it. I wrote a paper on this back in college. The whole point of the movie is Melanie's rambunctious pursuit of Mitch, and the birds appear to be the consequence.

They're in many ways his last good pictures, because they are so obsessive and intense, while he hadn't yet lost his edge (I have always considered Frenzy, his 1972 flick which many folks love, a clunky and unsatisfying film).