The Birds (Collector's Edition)

Media:	DVD
Directed by:	Alfred Hitchcock
Starring:	Rod Taylor, Tippi Hedren
Release date:	02 September, 2003
List price:	~~$19.98~~
Our price:	$15.98 that is 20% off!

The Birds (Collector's Edition)

Average rating: Stars

Strange. There must be more to it.

When I saw this movie back in 1963 I was baffled and mystified. What was this all about? After I'd watched it on dvd just now, I was still puzzled and nonplussed. I still didn't get it. I think I thought the special effects, even in 1963, were pretty unconvincing. I still do. The movie is not well lit. Some of the backdrops are just too obviously fake. I know these were the days when movie women simply never got their hair mussed, even if they'd been pulled backwards through a hedge. But really --- Tippi's hair-helmet never ever loses that just-sprayed look. The dialogue is peculiar and forced. The relationships seem highly unnatural. What a weird household! The mother, a harpy-type from hell, apparently; with a little kid and a son who could be her brother. What is the exact point of the deaths of Rita Hayworth and the the chicken farmer guy? The mad Irish evangelist, and ornithological old girl in the Norfolk jacket? All the group scenes seem highly awkward and poorly directed. The idea of this ditzy dame Melanie --- who doesn't really seem that ditzy (in fact she seems exceptionally well-groomed, self-possessed, trim and organized) --- buying a couple of caged birds and driving 60 miles to surprise a fellow she doesn't know, and then not surprising him that much (all in an incredibly slow build-up): well, it makes so little sense it's incredible. In fact what in hell is going on here?

Perhaps Sun Tzu is on to something. Perhaps there is some deep, deep psychological key to this annoying non-plot and series of seemingly totally pointless and unexplained happenings. Perhaps there is a thickly veiled Freudian explanation: these people are all incestuously tied up to each other, and acting ultra-normal to cover up some hideous, sinful, hidden guilt. Maybe the little girl is actually Rod Taylor's daughter by his mother, who may be his sister, and Tippi could be Rod's other sister, and Ms Hayworth could be another sister. This is a small community: perhaps they are all inbred. It doen't look much like California to me, but I'm only a limey, and I suppose it must be. I really will have to read the book (which has to be set in rural England somewhere?), and study the dialogue much more carefully. Anyway, it's certainly an odd, disjointed, disturbing, surreal, and yes, memorable film. Perhaps it's in the same kind of genre as The Incredible Shrinking Man, which has no plot at all and consists of nothing but a man who goes on shrinking. Could it be retitled The Incredible Attacking Birds?

After reading Ken Mogg on Hitchcock, my head is reeling. It's all to do with Schopenhauer. Mogg has all the lowdown on The Birds (see his website).

The Birds (Collector's Edition) - Rod Taylor, Tippi Hedren

Classic Hitchcock

The Birds is one of my favorite "summertime" movies......the setting, the characters, the suspense, it's all terrific.
The special effects, especially for the 1960's, are superb!

Rod Taylor, Tippi Hedren - The Birds (Collector's Edition)

Melanie is Mitch's sister - This explains the anger of the birds at their relationship

Hints are dropped in virtually every significant scene in this film that Melanie Daniels is in fact Mitch's sister; one could easily pick it up on the first viewing. So you can imagine the surprise when I searched for this movie online and saw virtually no discussion of this mystery. Let's overview the scenes:

CATHY'S PARTY SCENE

Melanie tells Mitch that her mother "ditched us when I was eleven and ran away with some hotel man in the East," and that she does not know where her mother is. This opens up the possibility.

Then she says "Well, maybe I ought to go join the other children" drawing a parallel between herself and Cathy. Also note that Cathy is turning eleven, the same age as Melanie when she was abandoned. After this scene we cut to a shot of Lydia with a cold, worried glare at Mitch and Melanie. Immediately afterwards is the most violent bird attack by far up to this point begins. This should hint us that what has just transpired is an important scene.

ANNIE & MELANIE DISCUSSION SCENE

What is behind Lydia's worried glare? Listen carefully to Annie's mysterious speech to Melanie in their night together. Annie explains Lydia was hostile towards her because Lydia was "afraid of any woman who can give Mitch the one thing Lydia can give him--love." Melanie suggests that Lydia is jealous/possesstive, but Annie emphatically denies this two or three times. So why is Lydia so keen on giving love to her son? Could it be that she feels the need to compensate for a child she didn't give enough love to? Also, why is Lydia hostile to Melanie when her hostility to Annie was heavily influenced by the recent death of her husband? Annie says that "it's probably different now" since years have passed since that death, until Melanie corrects her. What other factor could be driving Lydia's hostility now?

MITCH & LYDIA KITCHEN SCENE

It's clear here that Lydia already knows more about Melanie than Mitch does, though she's afraid to show it. Mitch tells her they met in a bird shop, and Lydia asks incredulously "She was selling birds?" even though she already knows that wasn't the case. This is revealed later when she asks "She's very rich, isn't she?" (Lydia already knows Melanie is), Mitch says "I suppose so" and Lydia then reveals that she has read a detailed article on Melanie's antics in Rome. Mitch knows about this too, but his worldly professional life in San Francisco enables him to recognize a wealthy heiress. None of the other people in the town or film who she is at all. Why is Lydia the only Bodega Bay resident to know so much? Why does she try to hide it? Could it be she knows something about Melanie that the others don't, and is trying to keep it a secret? What secret could that be?

LYDIA & MELANIE MEET SCENE

When Lydia is first introduced to Melanie, she is so shocked she cannot even respond to a "How do you do?" In fact throughout the whole scene while Mitch and Melanie are talking, the camera REPEATEDLY cuts to Lydia's face, which remains just as shocked throughout the whole conversation; her mouth is slightly parted the entire time. This clearly goes beyond merely the suspicions of a possessive mother, especially for a first meeting, since Lydia doesn't think there's any romantic between Mitch and Melanie's until she mentions the lovebirds, later in the conversation. Melanie clearly notices Lydia's intense stare, for she turns to Lydia and says "A gull hit me Mrs Brenner, that's all". Why is Lydia staring so intently at Melanie? Why is Lydia so shocked at first she can't even speak? Could it be that Melanie was once an important person in her life?

LYDIA & MELANIE CONVERSATION SCENE

This is the scene which clinches it. Lydia almost breaks down mentally in a near convulsion of extreme guilt over her children, without obvious cause. She berates herself "I'm not like this you know, not usually. I don't fuss and fret about my children." Why is Lydia acting this way and confessing these intensely personal things to Melanie--a person she has barely known for one day? Which child did Lydia not "fret and fuss" about enough?

Later when Melanie asks to go, Lydia begs "No, don't go. I... I feel as if I don't understand you at all and I want so much to understand." Melanie is clueless here, she asks "Why, Mrs Brenner?" After a moment Lydia replies cryptically, "Because my son seems to be very fond of you, and I don't know quite how I feel about it." But the highly emotional Lydia of this scene is not acting like a woman who is sizing up a potential daughter-in-law. Her line "I want so much to understand" is heartfelt and passionate, not calculating. Why does she want so much to understand Melanie? What does this have to do with her paroxysm of guilt over her children in this scene? Could Melanie be the child that Lydia is guilty about and who Lydia wants to understand?

One could say Lydia's action are simply because she is just possessive and doesn't want Mitch to become attached to any woman. But Lydia says "I want to like whatever girl he chooses". What about Annie? It's made clear in this scene (and supported by others) that Lydia cannot stop Mitch from getting a woman if he really wants it; Annie had overstated Lydia's importance in the failure of her own relationship with Mitch because she loves him and cannot stand his rejection. Go back to Annie's confession scene and see that her answer to Melanie's question about why her relationship with Mitch failed is very weak. So we have reason to believe Lydia here when she says "I want to like whatever girl he chooses"... so why is she so upset about Melanie? On her way out she calls Ms Daniels by her first name. Why has Lydia suddenly gotten so personal without solicitation if she's suspicious of Melanie? It's not the experience with the Birds... Melanie continues to act extremely politely; their bonding does not really come until the very last scene.

Lydia is a complicated, mysterious figure who goes around most of the film with a look of worry or even horror on her face. Many have remarked on her resemblance to Melanie. It is made clear that she is a widow of a wealthy man, and small hints in many scenes build up to the conclusion that Lydia has some special reaction to Melanie associated with guilt over her children, and an inexplicable wariness over Mitch and Melanie's relationship. Many mysterious and diguises abound in this film; certainly it is not really a film about birds but about people. But more deeply, certain mysteries are never explicitly solved at the end of the film. Yet they are thrown out there quite obviously. Watching the scenes and listening to the dialogue carefully informs one that Lydia's behavior is indeed explained by her knowledge that Melanie is her daughter.

I give this movie two stars for its ingenuity. I can't give it more because, for reasons having little to do with the argument above, this is one of Hitchcock's more sexist and misogynistic works.