MovieChat Forums > The Birds (1963) Discussion > The final scene is packed with so much t...

The final scene is packed with so much tension.

posted 6 years ago by [deleted]
19 replies | jump to latest

When Mitch walks out of the house and the birds are all hanging around, you are anticipating them just flying up and attacking him, but it just doesn't happen. You are aware that they're going to attack again at some point but you just don't know when and with every passing minute that he's outside, you know you are moving closer to the next attack.

Had Alfred Hitchcock made the birds attack again before the end of the movie, that would have released the tension, but the fact that the movie just stops before that has a chance to happen, it leaves you with everlasting dread of the inevitable.

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Its pretty damn great work from "The Master of Suspense," yes. And he had his electronic sound machine guys put the sound on "light hum" to suggest that the birds might suddenly attack at any second.

Indeed, the birds never attack, but I do like how one crow suddenly snaps at Mitch's hand(great acting by that bird!) as if to suggest that the psychopathy is there, waiting to be stirred. It makes the audience jump.

And at the very end, as Melanie and the Brenners drive away, Hitchcock gives us one of his greatest shots BEFORE another greatest shot.

Its the low angle shot on that same crow that bit Mitch, low-angle, lined up with other crows, watching the car drive away, as if to say: "We win. You lose. Goodbye!"

And then we get that incredible final shot: birds of all species as far as the eye can see as the car drives away and disappears around a bend.

No "The End" credit, either.

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 6 years ago

It's a masterpiece.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I think it's better that Hitchcock left it this way. Not only would more bird attacks simply be redundant and tedious, but this way the viewer is forced to use his or her own imagination as to how widespread and severe the bird attacks are.

---
I have read that scripted material and seen storyboards for it. And I agree with you.

The convertible under attack -- with the birds ripping apart at the cover-tarp and the sky appearing -- was yet another great Hitchcock-montage sequence in a movie that had more of them than any other Hitchcock film. And the final shot of the Golden Gate rather resembled the final shot of the original Planet of the Apes where Heston sees the Statue of Liberty.

But indeed, it would be "too much" and take the story past its real climax: all those thousands of birds as far as the eye can see, and a certain mystery as to how much of the world they HAD taken over.

This was the second time in three movies that Hitchcock had decided to end a story earlier than first scripted.

An early draft of North by Northwest had Mount Rushmore as the "second act climax" with the story continuing on to the Western-most part of America -- the newly named (1958) state of Alaska -- for a finale involving a tidal wave and a seaplane chase. Thus would have "North by Northwest" been a chase from one side of America to the other.

But for reasons of story AND budget, Hitchcock decided that Mount Rushmore was far enough to go for a satisfying climax.

He was right.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Interesting information about North by Northwest. I never heard that before. It's a great, highly entertaining film as-is. But the title? Eh. New York City to Chicago to Rapid City, SD? I always felt it needed another stop further northwest to make that title fit.

---

Indeed so. I think the movie -- which was pretty much an original screenplay based on whatever Lehman and Hitchcock could imagine for the story -- was originally intended to go "coast to coast"(NYC to Alaska) AND to celebrate the newest state in the union at the time(Alaska.)

I like to note in passing that whether or not the actual trip in all three films are "north by northwest" -- North by Northwest, Psycho, and The Birds all have the lead characters taking a trip "west and then north": Roger from NYX to South Dakota via Chicago; Marion Crane from Phoenix west to above Los Angeles(cop stop, Bakersfield car buy) and then north to Fairvale(near Redding, a real city); Melanie north from San Francisco to Bodega Bay -- maybe only a few miles west, too.

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

But again, it might have been too much.

---

Indeed. Budget may have prevented it, but a movie with "too many climaxes" can get tedious -- with have plenty of those today, during the summer blockbuster period. Hitchcock had an extinct with his best and biggest films as to where and when they should climax "on the natural." And he was willing to give up some "big ideas" (a tidal wave in NXNW; the Golden Gate covered with birds) to end his stories correctly. (Interesting that Hitchcock was contemplating a tidal wave climax to a movie as early as 1959, given how many "big wave" blockbusters we've had in recent decades: Deep Impact, The Perfect Storm, The Day After Tomorrow, etc.)

----

And problematic too. If Eve and the figurine with the microfilm had gotten on that plane, who/what would have been the subject of the chase on Mount Rushmore? And if Roger and Eve had escaped on Mount Rushmore, why would they have continued the chase to Alaska? The microfilm was just a mcguffin after all. And at that point their work is done. Furthermore, Roger overhearing the plan for Eve to be jettisoned from the plane - sans parachute - was necessary to build tension, making her immediate escape a matter of life and death.

---

One guess I have is that perhaps the stuff with the plane flying over water and Eve getting tossed out would have figured in the Alaska climax -- after all, Russia is much closer to Alaska than to South Dakota. And then the tidal wave would figure into that.

And thus: whatever happened at Mount Rushmore would have had a different "plot line." Maybe the Mount Rushmore house is still part of the plot, Thornhill is chased there, but the revelation to Vandamn about Eve being a "good guy" is saved for Mount Rushmore.

Which wouldn't be great storytelling, eh?

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

He WAS right. Anything past the Mount Rushmore scene and the brief shot showing Roger and Eve survived is just unnecessary anticlimax.

---

Agreed. Put another way: once you're on Mount Rushmore, there's no more exciting place to go -- not even Alaska for a tidal wave. The movie was right to end -- spectacularly and with great romantic human emotion -- there(and briefly on a coital train back to marriage and New York.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Since you seem to be a font of knowledge regarding Hitchcock films, what I'd really like to know is what was going through his mind with that hotel sequence in Vertigo. That's a very uncharacteristic red herring. Why didn't he throw that out?

---

I'll admit I'm a pretty good font -- mainly from reading all sorts of books and articles on Hitchcock films and, back in the day, attending seminars with his collaborators(Ernest Lehman gave one where the told the Alaska story above.)

But, alas, there are many things in Hitchcock that did NOT get explained in an interview, an article, or a book (at least that I could see) and the business with the McKittrick Hotel is one such thing.

There have been guesses on that scene. One is that Elster's plot required Scottie to believe much of Madeleine's mumbo-jumbo about being haunted by the ghost of Carlotta...so why not stage something supernatural(with a planned exit through a hidden doorway unknown to us.)

Another is that Hitchcock just enjoyed leaving things mysterious. Its like Vandamm/Townsend's dinner guests at the beginning of North by Northwest. Never seen, never mentioned again. Hitchcock was asked about them and said of the woman who announces them "I don't know. I've never met the woman in question."

In any event, I have no direct information about why Hitchcock had that scene written and used in the film. Maybe it is in the source novel?

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

This film is not a personal favorite of mine, and from the first viewing decades ago to the most recent - I've never loved the ending. It doesn't come to a climax so much as stop.

The reason it's not a favorite is because there's a deep and subtle sadism at the core of the film; the camera isn't there to record the heroine's growth or redemption, but to enjoy her suffering! When she's finally broken, the film just stops, because the sadistic end is achieved - there's no heroism, victory, or redemption to record, the heroine is just left in the hands of people who'll take care of her so the viewer doesn't feel too worried about her.

One could make all sorts of nasty speculation about the relationship between Hitchcock and Hedren, but I will refrain. Hitchcock always had that little tinge of sadism, kept in check and used to good effect in earlier films, it's just part of who he is and what he achieved so there's no need to get persona. After years of control he started giving it freer reign in "Psycho" and totally let it loose in "Marnie" and "Frenzy", and IMHO the only place it helped more than it hindered was in "Psycho". "Marnie" and "Frenzy" are very nasty films, and justifiably unpopular today. But "The Birds" was the start of the decline.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

This isn't about PC-ness or modern attitudes, it's about character arcs or the lack of them. Movies where people become heroes or even grow or learn without a happy ending are entertaining! People like them, always have! I like them, Shakespear's audiences liked them, that's why most movies have a protagonist doing something heroic and some sort of happy endings! But even movies without happy endings can make you admire or fall in love with someone; a Romeo who grows from immature horndog to someone willing to die for love, cynical Rick Blaine giving up Ilsa because the feelings of two little people aren't the most important thing in the world, the cast of "Rogue One" realizing there's something more important than their own lives... to name a few popular examples.

Melanie actually has a negative character arc - she goes from someone who's bold and very loving towards a man, to a shattered wreck who doesn't even look at him as he rescues her. She goes from escorting schoolchildren out of danger to endangering a child at the end by panicking at the sight of a bird, she never finds her courage or does anything particularly clever, and she seems to lose her capacity to love and care about others as the film progresses. Her relationship with Mitch goes from flirtatious to deepening to being a helpless and dependent on him - the only relationship she actually advances is the one with his mother! At least mother Lydia goes from hostile to loving and protective, but not because Melanie's done anything admirable.

So really, "The Birds" is about the physical and mental destruction of a woman, and not in a way that makes a truly great film. because her destruction isn't complex or fascinating - it's just brutal. Hitchcock always had that little sadistic streak, but in his earlier films he used it to better effect. In "Marnie" it got totally out of hand, and the result is just a bad movie.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

I would call "Psycho" Hitchcock's last great film, and of course I agree to disagree on that one. All response to film is subjective.

But yeah, "The Birds" is about destruction - the destruction of a very nice little town (I visit frequently), the destruction of everyone's romantic hopes, and of course the destruction of a beautiful woman. Let me just say that in the vast majority of good films the protagonist is an object of admiration by the finale, whether the ending is good or bad. In the remaining minority of good films (like "Psycho"), the antihero protagonist is an object of horrified fascination by the finale. At the finale of "The Birds" the protagonist is an object of pity, rather than admiration or fascination, and what's the point of that if you don't have a sadistic streak yourself?

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Why would I want to cut out her conversation with Mitch? There's nothing disempowering about sharing your feelings, try it some time and you'll find it takes some courage but it's freeing. And everyone knows that appearing selectively vulnerable is a way to kick-start a new romance.

More later, if I accept your challenge.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I agree!