Why, indeed?

Rating: Null/10 (10 September 2003)

Why indeed? That's what everyone wants to know. Why did the birds suddenly decide to attack these people? Is there some connection to the middling soap opera we see played out over the first hour of the film and their attacks, (maybe they don't like middling soap operas?). Is it because they are fed up with all the pollution and people shooting at them all the time? Or is it just because they can?
Maybe Hitchcock just wanted to make a scary movie. He might ask you to imagine yourself in the restaurant and suddenly a bloodied man staggers in and says `The birds are attacking and we don't know why!' Now picture yourself in the same restaurant and suddenly a bloodied man staggers in and says,'The birds are attacking and we know exactly why!' Which is scarier?
Perhaps a better question is why Hitch spent so much time, (more than usual in his films and more than you'll see in any other horror film), exploring the characters and their relationships, delving into motivations, attractions and resentments. Why does it matter that Jessica Tandy misses her husband because he is so strong and is now so dependent on her son that she doesn't want to share him? Why do we have to know that Suzanne Pleshette's schoolteacher is in love with Mitch and sees Melanie, (Tippi Hedren) as a rival? Why is Melanie's escapade in Rome or her raising funds for orphans so important? Why should we care about this? Do the birds care about these things?
I think it's hopeless to try to make some connection between the `plot' and the events in the story. Hitchcock loved to experiment with the cinema and there is little sentiment and only superficial romance in most of this films. This story never gets to the point of being sentimental or romantic anyway. The film is surely not about ecology. Nobody says anything about the birds being angry about the environment or anything else.
I think Hitch just liked the idea of a movie starting out to be about one thing and then turning out to be about something else entirely. That's what he did with PSYCHO, which starts out to be a crime melodrama about Janet Leigh trying to get away with some illicit funds and very suddenly becomes the ultimate `slasher' flick about Anthony Perkins and his crazy mother. Here we see a romantic comedy turn gradually into a soap opera and then gradually into a monster movie, with the birds being the monsters. The major difference is the gradual nature of the transition. The attic scene is this film's equivalent of the shower scene in PSYCHO but it doesn't have the same impact because the attacks have already begun, (and Tippi survives). The gradual pace of change is obviously intended to produce a sense of dread, rather than surprise.
Looking at Tippi Hedren's performance it's hard to see why she didn't become a major star. She's gorgeous, (much better looking than her daughter, ironically named Melanie, thanks to a softer jaw line), has a strong voice, an expressive face and shows real acting ability. She should have won some kind of award for her perseverance in the attic scene, which took four days with live birds to shoot. That she came out of this an animal lover is amazing.
What does it all mean? It means you got your money's worth when you bought your ticket.