Your thoughts on "The Birds"?

Answer 1

classic alfred hitchcock is a genius even if he was a b***h to fat ppl but his movies and cinematography were a revolution to film and the birds by far had all his techniques put into one yes i know its very fake but come on it was what the 40s 50s idk but definitely awesome

Answer 2

While I don't particularly like "horror" films, I have enjoyed many of HItchcock's movies because they make me think.

Questions that came to my mind as I have watched "The Birds" several times over the years are:

What set off the birds to begin with? (After recent news
stories, avian flu doesn't seem so strange.)

Were some birds not impacted (ie: the caged love birds)?

Could whatever set them off be eradicated & the birds
brought back under human control?

If some birds were not impacted, could an antibody be
made from the blood of those not "infected"?

What happened to other humans besides those seen
at the end of the film?

I could go on, but I'm sure you have your own questions, too.

Overall, I thought it was a great movie. I think I should have been a bit older the first time I saw it, because I was scared silly for weeks.

Answer 3

First of all, Alfred Hitchcock did not write The Birds. It's adapted from a story by Daphne du Maurier.

Second: I'm not sure about the proposed ending. I've read Francois Truffaut's book about Hitchcock, which is drawn from many interviews. I do not recall a different ending being proposed; Hitch wanted the audience left in doubt about what lay ahead of the people. The audience is left to wonder if other places have been attacked. The woman in the restaurant already spoke of the vast number of birds in the world and the impossibility of exterminating them.

Third: The birds didn't leave. When they are walking to the car, they are surrounded by birds. One pecks a hand, and we wonder if they will be attacked before they get to safety. During the attack on the house, the birds (from what we can hear) withdraw, only to attack again.

I think this is a brilliant movie and that the effects hold up surprisingly well. Maybe they should seem even more chilling, knowing that birds were tied to or thrown at the cast. I recently saw a documentary about Tippi Hedren, who spoke about the ordeal that it was for everyone. She had to take time to recover after the attic scene and said she had nightmares about it. For a delicate-looking lady, she has to be tough. Hey! She even survived an attack by a lioness during filming of their family project, a movie titled "Roar!" that was shot on their ranch/wildlife preserve. It took many years to complete then did poorly at the relatively few theaters it played at.

But, that's not about "The Birds". For a film that starts out seeming like a casual flirtation turning into a romance, it had to startle audiences in 1963! We didn't see this in the theater, so Mom and Dad probably feared it would be too horrific, which it likely would have been. From a story about two people attracted to each other, it rather quickly becomes a nightmare. The attacks supposedly aren't intentional, with Hitchcock denying that it's a "Nature's revenge" story. Yet, the birds are hacking, pecking and breaking their way into houses, cars, telephone booths, etc., that's purposeful! So, I'm not sure why the director would deny this; I've always been curious about that. They targeted the children and would have killed one if the teacher hadn't pushed her to safety; then, they killed her. They also killed the neighbor, the one Mitch's mother checked on and found mutilated. We're left to wonder how many more are dead.

Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, a warning about environmental damages and diasters, was published in 1962. The short story "The Birds" was published in 1963. Read about the short story, which is based on a real-life incident, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birds_(story)
It's been awhile since I've read the story, so I definitely would like to again after reading the synopsis.

I'm just saying that, while Hitchcock denies the ecological threat aspect, the evidence seems to weigh heavily against that denial.

It's a brilliant piece of filmmaking. Like Psycho, it's a seminal film that had lingering influences. The electronic track of birdcalls is especially eerie and unsettling.

Answer 4

Love every minute of it - I have it in fact. One of my favorite Hitchcock movies. There's that really creepy part where the birds are waiting for the kids to come out of school. Really spine chilling - hundreds of birds just waiting - no sound not even the flap of a feather.

Answer 5

The studio forced Hitchcock whimp out, on the ending. It was to be that when they got to the Golden Gate Bridge, they would find the Bridge, sarming with birds. The implication being, the birds had won. The studio wanted a more optimistic ending.

Answer 6

It was a very good movie but it needed a better ending. Why did the birds leave?

Answer 7

Incredible movie. I expected the lovebirds to be released from their cage and then the birds would go away. The ending left me flat because those lovebirds were still in the car.

Answer 8

A keeper to watch over and over.Loved it!!!!When she goes in the room ;gets trapped inside and is using her flashlight to try and fight the birds off. My heart still pounds. Every time I see a bunch of birds gathering-I think-WHAT IF!!!

Answer 9

Chilling, edge of the seat movie, I saw it the first time when it
was released in theatres, TV screen does not do it full
justice. It was a smash hit at the time, Hitchcock was a master of his craft, But rumored to be a mean machine of a
man.

Answer 10

Not one of Hitchcock's better writings. I much preferred one that was in black and white which was black humor. "The Trouble With Harry" It came out even before I did back in 1955.