MovieChat Forums > The Birds (1963) Discussion > The Ending - Spoilers

The Ending - Spoilers

posted 7 years ago by Daisy (3022)
14 replies | jump to latest

When Melanie was driving towards the island, it had a close up of the two love birds in the car. They seemed to be leaning towards the turns. I think that they were the whole reason for the birds on the island going crazy.
In the end, the little girl asked if she could bring along the love birds because "they haven't hurt anyone" and then they drive off in the car bringing the love birds along. Could this mean it would trigger this to happen wherever they go next due to the birds? I could be way off, but that is what I got from the movie. Other wise why bother mentioning them at all? Just because she loved them? Remember also that none of these occurrences happened until Melanie got to the island.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

That's the biggest theory regarding the cause of the bird attacks, but Alfred Hitchcock is known for his red herrings so there really is no way to know why it is happening at all.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

agreed

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 6 years ago

I don't think hitchcock gave red herrings, he didn't send his audience on wild goosechases unlike charlatans like Nolan and Fincher.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Throughout Psycho, you're pretty much sold on the idea that Norman Bates' mother is responsible for the murders, unless you're extremely observant. Is that not classifiable as a red herring?

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 6 years ago

I don't think so, a red herring is something planted by the author or the storyteller to mislead and audience. That's the definition, and to me, the ones who use red herrings are the ones who don't know how to do a proper story, so they need to toy with the audience and go on wild goose chases like Fincher and Nolan, and the thing about red herrings is that they are almost always, never satisfying. You feel duped and fooled, that is never good.

I don't think Psycho is a red herring because at the end of the film the killer IS Norman's mother, she simply lives in his head. The audience hasn't been fooled or mislead.

In the case of The Birds, the lovebirds are a visual motif that represents Melanie and the other guy, forgot the name. What the OP said could be an interpretation, if you absolutely must find a reason to the attacks, or since Hitchcock used a lot of psychology maybe Melanie is a representation of the chaos that woman brings to a man, so when she leaves with the man, the chaos stops? Many interpretations but it is not a red herring.

[–] marecek (122) 6 years ago

Hitchcock's film are chock full of red herrings, they are called McGuffins. [The definition of MacGuffin can be boiled down to one thing -- nothing. Hitchcock over the years described the MacGuffin as a plot device, or gimmick, on which to hang the tension in a film, ‘the key element of any suspense story” (Gottlieb). Because Hitchcock lured the audience to such a high degree of sympathy for the characters through cinematic means, the reason behind their plight became irrelevant for the viewer. Something bad is happening to them and it doesn’t matter what. The only reason for the MacGuffin is to serve as a pivotal reason for the suspense to occur.]

[–] Culburn (3638) 6 years ago

What's the (McGuffin) here in "The Birds," marecek?

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 6 years ago

I don't agree with that at all, he may have popularized the term but it's a bogus term and doesn't really apply to any of his films, which are of course, masterworks. What are they looking for in The Birds? what's the briefcase? where's the uronium? There's no such thing in this film. McGuffin's and red herrings are used by mediocre directors who want to get a reaction from the audience no matter what, like M. Night Shyamalan's pathetic twist endings. What is the driving force of The Birds? Melanie wants to get Rick the lovebirds and get to know him, that is what starts the plot and that is seen through to the end. That is not a McGuffin. The birds attacking is the CONFLICT in the film. They are the antagonists, they are NOT McGuffins or red herrings.

[–] marecek (122) 6 years ago

Perhaps you should listen to the master himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNkPLuBjZRM

The 39 Steps is chock full. What the hell are the 39 Steps - we spend the whole film wondering until it is finally revealed at the end. The plot of the film was to have Robert Donat run away from a false accusation of murder, try to find the true culprits, and meet his love on the way (interestingly enuf that pretty much describes North by Northwest too). What are the bad guys doing - they are stealing engine plans for an airplane to the government of "BANG!" - we never find out. The stolen info was also a McGuffin. As was the metallic sand hidden in wine bottles in the wine cellar in "Notorious". The director lets it seem like the main point of the plot, but then you are lead astray into something else. In a certain sense, we could call the the stolen money in Psycho the McGuffin - we expect the film to be about Janet Leigh's morality tale running away from the law, then "SLASH, SLASH, SLASH", the film turns into something else entirely.

Culburn asks what is the McGuffin in "The Birds". You got me there - maybe the love birds and the burgeoning romance between Melanie and Mitch. But perhaps this film does not have one. I do think the bird attacks are the main plot in this film - it is about messing with our sense of reality and security about how the world works if something so ordinary and assumed as birds being harmless suddenly changes. The world and human society would go haywire. Maybe The Birds is different in this respect from other Hitchcock films because usually the McGuffin is suggests some larger plot, such as spy rings and nazi infiltration, but that is just to divert us from the real plot of the film, which I think is usually to demonstrate the psychological reaction of people under extreme circumstances (and he usually throws some romance in).

[–] MIchiganJFrogg (-35) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 6 years ago

I don't agree, he did not waste the audience's time.

[–] marecek (122) 5 years ago

Another stubborn person who won't listen to evidence and reason. Well, good for you.

[–] marecek (122) 6 years ago

I've heard this theory, but it makes absolutely no sense (of course, neither does an avian Armageddon). But bird attacks are the premise of the film, we see it happening, even if we get no explanation for them. On the other hand we do not see the love birds somehow setting the other birds in motion. I find the theory a giant stretch, to say the least.

By the way Bodega Bay is, as the name suggests, a BAY. It is not an island. It is a bay along the California coast about 60 miles north of SF.

[–] bohemianroxie (2471) 5 years ago

I've seen this film multiple times over the years and never once thought the love birds leaning into the curves was meant to be anything other than a little bit of whimsy that Hitchcock sometimes liked to insert into his work. It was cute and funny.
The love birds were never meant to be any red herring or the trigger for a malignant force.
The little girl was right that the love birds hadn't done anything wrong and as a child they would remain important to her. Not so crazy.

Why didn't the love birds act out? It's not certain but it may have been becasue they were not out in the wild and subject to whatever the mysterious catalyst really was.

I think the point is pure and simple.
What happens to people when they're suddenly faced with the unexplainable or when something totally unexpected happens.
No one fears being threatened to death by birds...
In other words, there ultimately is no safe zone to depend upon when the possibilities of danger are mysterious and endless.

No one expected to go to a movie theater or a concert and have a gunman open up..or no one expected to take a routine flight one morning that would end up killing thousands.

Hitchcock knew even then that the most unexpected is the most terrifying because you have no control over it.

I think after the ending of The Birds that the several areas affected by the birds would go back to normal and no one would ever fully understand the reason for the attacks.