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.
It didn't ruin the movie for me, but I agree with you about the whole scene in the bedroom. It's kind of like in spooky movies when there is a monstrous killer on the loose breaking into houses and someone is alone at home and hears a noise in the basement and goes to see what it is.
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 lot of illogical behavior in this, but going into the bedroom is the most ridiculous. I suppose if the characters had all gone into a bathroom, windowless cellar, etc, it would have been a boring movie.
I couldn't see a teacher sending all the kids out to be attacked. Again, the drama/horror would be lost if she had corralled them all into a safe room, or escorted them one by one to Melanie's car for a ride home, or called their parents and asked what they would prefer. Sending them out with the only instruction of "run down the hill!" ?!
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."
Well, at least he didn't say "It's just a movie!" ;)
reply share
Maybe she went to check if the birds are running aloose at the first floor and maybe she could alarm Mitch if she saw a broken parts that needs to be fixed? She didn't know if that is so, so that's why she didn't wake up Mitch.
This is the only explanation that is rational to me, why she went inside.
'Even though she clearly heard wings flapping, and thus the reason she went up there in the first place??' ------------------- You are assuming she 'clearly' heard wings flapping. To her, from the distance she was, it sounded like noise, not necessarily wings flapping. When she entered the room she didn't know there would be 200 birds there, or she would be not have entered. It was not terrible directing/ writing.
This from an idiot who wastes his time wondering if Neil Patrick Harris is a top or bottom. Time to get off the govt. dime and educate yourself. __________________________________________________________________________________________
In the frozen land of Nador they were forced to eat Robins minstrels. And there was much rejoicing.
It bothered me but what bothered me more was that she never once screamed! Hello?!?! You're getting attacked by a roomful of birds and the only peep you make is a little moaning? I would think anyone in that situation would scream involuntarily; I know I wouldn't be able to NOT scream! I guess it didn't fit the plot (i.e. if Mitch had heard her and rescued her sooner they wouldn't have needed to leave in order to get her to a hospital).
Her behavior is completely in character. In the first twenty minutes she is shown to be a risk taker and assertive; she went along with Mitch thinking she was a shop girl, she gets her father's employee to track down Mitch's identity, she buys the love birds and decides to drive to Bodega Bay to deliver them, she gets the postman and the schoolteacher to reveal details about the Brenner's, she can handle an out board motor with élan, she doesn't hesitate entering the Brenner's home, and she drives a remarkable Aston Martin. Just the type to investigate a strange sound.
^My thoughts as well. Guilt is a common motivator in Hitchcock's films, after all. Melanie pursues Mitch into Bodega Bay because she feels marked by her history as a spoiled prankster and wants to prove to herself that she isn't that girl. I also thought that the mother's rantings in the restaurant must have had an effect on Melanie, like a darker version of Mitch tormenting Melanie when they first meet in the birdshop. Melanie goes into the bedroom aware that something could be there, but feeling that if she can take care of it on her own she has paid for her sins, both as a prankster and the cause of the harm she feels she's brought on the Brenners.
Half-Blood 15 After all, tomorrow is another day ~ Gone with the Wind
Even though she clearly heard wings flapping, and thus the reason she went up there in the first place??
Terrible script writing/directing. Yet another reason to dislike the movie, and quite honestly, the overrated director.
---
Hitchcock was very famous -- perhaps more as an overall "movie and TV star" -- than as a director -- and I suppose that's why he takes some hits today, much as he did when he was the most famous director in Hollywood.
I think he achieved far too much over far too many decades(five, in England and America, with a side trip to Germany) to be overrated. Disliked sometimes...yes. Everybody has different tastes.
The truth of the matter is that The Birds got some bad reviews on release and it seems to have a script that simply wasn't as good as at least the four Hitchcock films ahead of it.
BUT...the effects, for 1963 and before Silicon Valley and CGI - -were incredible. Nobody could quite figure out how Hitchcock DID it -- it was animation AND puppets AND trained birds.
Hitchcock would have hated Moviechat, where the name of the game seems to be discussing plot holes. He said "I practice absurdity quite religiously" and stated that he only sought a certain amount of logic to his films. (Why does a villain have a house on Mount Rushmore in North by Northwest? Why does a killer come up with the plot that fuels "Vertigo"?) Actually, Psycho ends up being perhaps the most logical of all: a female thief is killed by a maniac at motel ..and BECAUSE she was a thief...she brings a private detective on her trail...and he alerts loved ones, etc.
WHY Melanie goes up those stairs has been discussed elsewhere(since 1963) and the best rationale seems to be: Mitch is bloodied and exhausted after fighting the birds, she wants him to get his sleep. The daughter is too young, the mother is too old -- Melanie herself has to explore those noises. They aren't nearly as loud as the "attack" noises, so she thinks she is safe. She enters the room -- she does NOT close the door behind her -- and the birds knock her against the door and it closes and she is under attack.
WHY she goes into that room is "explained enough." But what is much more important is the ATTACK itself. An incredible mix of real birds and effects, cut roughly like the shower murder in Psycho but actually much more of a technical challenge and with a "creative decision" on Hitchcock's part with sound: no screeching and cawing this time, only the flutter of feathers. These diabolical birds want to kill Melanie WITHOUT waking up the others.
The Birds is a 50/50 split -- Hitchcock's greatest technical achievement, but with a sub-par script(which drove sub-par acting.)
The Birds -- along with Psycho-- is Hitchcock's most famous film today. But it rarely if ever made his Top Ten lists.