MovieChat Forums > The Birds (1963) Discussion > Going into the bedroom

Going into the bedroom

posted 12 years ago by craiggors
31 replies | jump to latest

I just can't get past this. There was no reason for Melanie to go into the bedroom at the end. None at all. So she heard some flapping. Obviously a bird had gotten in, so, hey, probably not a good idea to go in there right now. Apparently Tippi Hedren even pointed this out to Hitchcock and asked why her character would ever do that and he just said "Because I told you to." Weak storytelling.

Does this bother anyone else? For me, it's why I hate the ending. Not because of the ambiguity and the continuation of suspense and sense of dread when they drive off, but because this decision to have Melanie go upstairs so was illogical and pulled me from the world of the film.

[–] timhoward1111 9 years ago

Its the same as opening Pandora's Box. She knew she was going to be in trouble, but she opened it anyway. I loved the scene! Someone had to get attacked and it might as well be her.

[–] Abused_Peanut 9 years ago

I just watched the movie for the first time and I kept shouting IDIOT when she went in there.

[–] ecarle (14979) 8 years ago

Before filming the final attack scene when Melanie goes upstairs, Tippi Hedren asked Alfred Hitchcock , "Hitch, why would I do this?" Hitchcock's response was, "Because I tell you to."

--
There is a similar story that Martin Balsam asked why he goes upstairs in Psycho, and Hitchcock told him: "Because I PAY you to."

That story may be a fake, because over the years we have learned that Hitchcock was sick with the flu the day they shot Balsam in the foyer about to climb the stairs, and that assistant Hilton Green filmed the scene.

However, I have ALSO read that Hitchcock was dissatisfied with all of Green's work(not just Balsam climbing the stairs in menacing closeups on his hands and feet) and refilmed the whole scene.

---
It is certainly more logical why Balsam goes up the stairs in Psycho(he wants to meet and talk to Mother) that it seems to be as to why Hedren goes up the stairs in The Birds, but there is SOME logic to Hedren's climb, as well:

Everyone is exhausted and asleep. Mitch, in particular, has hand his hand bloodily wounded by a seagull and must recuperate if he is to continue as " protector." Hedren hears the noise and decides to investigate WITHOUT waking up Mitch and the others first. She probably figures that something to needs to be secured, and that if, by chance, there is something dangerous up there, she can call for help.

What she DOESN'T figure on is a room full of birds because Mitch's board defenses have been breached. And -- contrary to some critics' complaints -- she does NOT close the door behind her. She is knocked against the door, closing it involuntary, and attacked so suddenly and massively that she CAN'T scream.

I think the scene is logical enough. But more "forced" than Balsam's ascent in Psycho, and hence The Birds is a somewhat less good than Psycho.

PS.

Years later, Hitchcock would film one more character climbing the stairs. Jon Finch as Richard Blaney in Frenzy. Finch got the close-ups of hands and feet climbing the stairs because he WAS going up to kill someone. Ironically: he was going upstairs to kill a psycho killer.

[–] Sulaimone 9 years ago

The nature of humans, always doing what's against our best interests.

[–] NJtoTX 9 years ago

Yeah, seemed like typical "Don't go in there, girl" horror. And when she sees the hole, to go in and pull the door, instead of trying to leave.

Also bugs me that the entire time Mitch is dragging her out, not one bird gets into the house in the giant opening above her. Can't tell me that the old lady waving her hands was enough to keep all the birds in. Unless they just didn't want to go out of the room.

Science doesn't care what you believe.

[–] stell1837 8 years ago

This movie was made in 1963 and I guess at that time the dumb Blonde stereotype was at full force and Alfred Hitchcock decided to exploit that at an all time high.

The way Melanie Daniels decided to check the attic was extremely dumb. If she really wanted to check out that room knowing that the house was previously attacked by the birds, then the proper course of action would be to:

1. Slowly and carefully open the door.
2. Open the door with a two inch gap, which is big enough to look in while small enough for the birds to escape.
3. All the while keeping a hand on the door knob and remaining in the hallway. Under no circumstances do you enter the room without checking it extensively first. This way, in the case there's any danger there's a quick escape plan by quickly closing the door should the birds attack again.

But what she did was really stupid. She decided to open the door wide open, step inside the room with the door partially closed behind her. This essentially eliminates the window of escape when the birds attacked again.

[–] PeterGivenbless 8 years ago

I recently re-watched the film on Blu-ray (local video store - remember them? - had just gotten it for their collection, so I hired it out) and a thought occurred to me during that scene; something in the way she moaned "Oh, Mitch" which sounded less like exhaustion, and more like a sexual moan (!): what if all the bird attacks are a screen memory for Melanie's rape by Mitch?

I know at first blush it might sound preposterous (the sort of fanboy pretentiousness you find popping up like weeds on these internet forums), but I found myself wondering if the whole film is actually a reconstructed narrative in which the various bird attacks are screen memories inserted to hide the truth of Mitch's abusive proclivities (which his Mother and former girlfriend, the schoolteacher, and possibly the whole community - through small town gossip - are aware of yet keep secret). Imagine an alternative narrative in which there are no bird attacks and Melanie Daniels ends up spending a night at Mitch's house, during which he rapes her in the upstairs bedroom (while his mother and sister are asleep downstairs), tearing her clothes and leaving her catatonic, then blaming her state on some random bird that flew in through the window and attacked her. His mother, who probably suspects the truth but doesn't want to believe it, goes along with this and the traumatised Melanie is led to believe them.

So now imagine the film, as it is, as her recollection of the days leading up to, and including, her rape in which all the clues to Mitch's true nature are screened out with bird attacks; conjured up to account for her unexplained fears and ominous associations. Because of the trauma she cannot remember the rape, but her recollections are littered with moments of dread, signifying "warnings" about Mitch, which are accounted for by imagining that "the bird(s)" are attacking her (and others, who might also know the truth about Mitch but stay silent).

It's a stretch, I know, but considering the role such traumatic screen memory plays in 'Marnie', I wonder if Hitchcock didn't perhaps have this in mind as a narrative conceit for 'The Birds' as well. Has anyone else come across this theory before, or thought the same?

[–] twcassidy 8 years ago

I agree. With all that has happened, when she heard the noise upstairs didn't she think "it's probably birds in there"

[–] Bubbathegut (18094) 8 years ago

[deleted]