Why was there no ending?
No summary or anything. Just ended. It may as well of ended after the first bird attack.
shareNo summary or anything. Just ended. It may as well of ended after the first bird attack.
shareNo summary or anything. Just ended. It may as well of ended after the first bird attack.
It ended this way to let the viewer use his/her imagination as to what they think happened to the people and to the birds.
"Do All Things For God's Glory"-1 Corinthians 10:31
I try doing this with my posts
Seems we were intended to read into the ending a connection to them taking the lovebirds with them - but of course that could well have been a Mc Guffin. Or was there a LESSON of don't cage birds, ie the other birds were objecting.
Night freely admits to using The Birds in Signs but he too learnt his trade from Hitchcock and Kubrick and clearly he used The Birds more in The Happening where there IS a cause predicted up front with Einstein and the bees which everyone in class ignores and America CONTINUES to ignore for whole movie, so the ending in Paris comes as similarly abrupt.
Note Night has a plant expert [who probably survived] to match the bird expert in this movie.
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/
Of course it had an ending. Otherwise it must be the longest film in history.
artists except in North Korea have the freedom to end a movie as they and their producers choose. Did characters discover the source of the bird frenzy? NO. Did they destroy the enemy? NO. Do Mel and Mitch start a torrid love affair? Beats me. Apparently Hitchcock made the right choice 'cause apparently some viewers were left uneasy, uncomfortable, and wondering what's going to happen next? Exactly.
Did you watch how the film ended? We didn't even get the shot of the car being sped away (hence making us believe they escaped). It kept slowly dragging itself suspensefully in what felt like a million years. And there we see the credits.
Check the year it was made. What a genius!
Don't know what you were expecting. It felt like an ending to me.
'Remember when' is the lowest form of conversation. - Tony Soprano
as i've watched some hitchcock films lately i notice i keep getting surprised how abruptly they end, i'm not saying it's bad, just that personally i would have liked to see some further explanation. today you're kind of set on tippi hedrin being the lead, so it was quite surprising as the opening credits roll that rod taylor and even the mother is credited before, i didn't realise until now this was jessica tandy decades earlier from "driving miss daisy". this may sound off at first, but mitch actually looks alot like peter griffin in family guy. is it just me or isn't it really obvious how similar tippi hedrin and the mother looks, all the same features, another odd thing was the brother and sister situation, the person i watched it with as well as myself were like "is that her 40 year older brother or what?". the scene where they found a victim of the birds alone in a house was such a visual shocker and kind of stands out from the rest. somehow it feels like this was made before "psycho", not that i mean that in a negative sense, i used to screen classic movies for a buddy (teen at the time) and was afraid he'd find them dull, but was rather amazed after being used to 21st century flicks, that's been a common experience, a re occurring argument you hear is that remakes are needed cause these won't appeal to today's audience, but it's not like these are generally available all over the place and given the opportunity to even be discovered, i love what bill murray said in an interview about movie history "how can you watch this and make some of the movies that are being made today."
🐦 🕊
under super blue blood moon,
caught by witches spell,
with shell still youre a dead give away,
faces you make your voice as it change,
searching for mercy as dead sure i cant escape,
as night animals sounds i cant explain,
had me trapped for hours worked me thorough,
at occurrence of super blue blood moon.