The Birds: A Follow Up

Somebody's given me kudos, so I suppose I need to follow up.

I was told that I did not look at the film in a historical context and that if I had done so, I would have enjoyed the film.

I understand that Hitchcock's inability to scare me was most likely due to primitive cinematic technique; the visual effects of his time cannot in any way compare to those of ours, and that is certainly not his fault. This, however, is not my problem with the film's horror aspects. In that regard, the film lacks variation. Each one of Hitchcock's portrayals of bird attacks is incredibly similar to the one before it. No new elements are brought into the film, and Hitchcock tries to build suspense by making each attack more and more intense and generate more and more of a reaction in the film's characters, but it does not really affect me. So, I suppose I'm sorry?

Having given this a bit more thought, I think that Hitchcock should have paid more attention to the psychological side of this story. After all, we have here a real villain. Zombies, vampires, and aliens are just overrated because they simply cannot resonate with the audience as something to which they relate, something they see in their everyday lives that will bring their minds back to the film every time they catch a glimpse of it. That being said, there needs to be a reason for our villain to attack. Zombies need to be disturbed, Dracula needs to be in love, and aliens want to take over the world. I believe I put this in my original post, but I will say it again - my main problem with the film is that it is missing this why-factor. Why the birds? Why Bodega Bay? Why now? Hitchcock shies away from explaining of his madness and instead tries to heighten it.

There is nothing wrong with ending a film full of questions - many of my favorites do. Having said that, these questions should usually pertain to either the action after the film's end, or looking at the film in a new context - peeling back the plots original layers to reveal subplots, themes, etc. The question that Hitchcock leaves open in this film, however, deals with the original plot, which, if you haven't picked up already, I believe to be virtually nonexistent. This is his fault.

Now I don't want anyone to believe that I think every film should have some enlightening philosophical truth that inspires to you to go out and change the world at the end. I do not (though Kris will have you think otherwise). I do, however, think that in logically flowing stories, things need to happen for a reason. Here, there is no reason. There is no motivation. There is no disturbance. All that happens is Melanie Daniels arrives at Bodega Bay and birds start attacking. Plain and simple. End of story. Take out the cat.

By the way, I'm going to watch Vertigo right now, so if someone's simply offended that I didn't like Hitchcock, back off. I'm making an effort.