The Modern Horror of 'The Birds'

Oct 08, 2020

"Animals are the bridge between us and the beauty of all that is natural. They show us what’s missing in our lives, and how to love ourselves more completely and unconditionally. They connect us back to who we are, and to the purpose of why we’re here."
-Trisha McCagh

Premise

The plot of Alfred Hitchcock's 1963 hit is pretty straightforward: Birds begin inexplicably attacking humans. Similar to Psycho, nearly the entire first half of this film could be a completely different story, as it follows a budding romance between protagonists Melanie and Mitch. However, dread begins to descend upon the little town of Bodega Bay as the local birds begin acting more strangely, ultimately killing several people and sending citizens fleeing from the town. Instead of doing a recap of the plot (because, really, it's not all that interesting), I'd instead prefer to pose questions and theories I had while watching as to why the birds have become violent, why certain things happened in the story, and why the film was made at all.

Kamikaze

We really only saw seagulls and crows in the movie, with a special appearance from some angry sparrows, but early on in the story, Mitch's mother, Lydia, mentioned that her chickens weren't eating and neither were another local's. We never saw any chickens, but why would they have acted in this way? Every other bird viciously attacked humans, but the chickens were on a hunger strike? Was this because the chickens knew they were being fattened up to be eaten or to lay eggs, and this was a form of protest to prevent themselves from being exploited? Regardless, their behavior didn't align with the behavior of other birds. (Of course, all birds are individuals with unique personalities, and their behaviors vary wildly, but for plot purposes, the birds seemed to have a hive mind, gathering together to fight a common enemy, except for the chickens.)

Another interesting aspect of the birds' demeanor was their kill-at-all-costs approach, diving into shuttered houses like kamikaze pilots, killing themselves to serve the cause. Even lone birds occasionally flew into doors or windows without others to back them up, committing suicide with no benefit other than briefly disturbing the protagonists. Were the birds that dedicated to the destruction of humanity that they were willing to kill themselves in the process?

Career Speciesist

Halfway through the film, when the characters finally acknowledge that something sinister was occurring with the native birds, they met an ornithologist, Mrs. Bundy, at a local diner. She reminded me very much of nonvegan veterinarians with her speciesist comments about the animals she'd devoted her life to studying. She claimed that birds are not intelligent enough to "launch a mass attack" because their "brainpans [skulls] are not big enough," but in the same breath she said that birds bring beauty into the world and it's mankind that are the true aggressors. Who was she to say what birds are capable of thinking, behaving, or doing? Though it's incredibly unlikely that they could collectively band together to eradicate humanity, as it would be with any species, birds' intelligence is unique to themselves, and it's something that humans lack the ability to comprehend.

Find Who's to Blame

At this same diner, a woman was sitting with her children, eating what looked like chicken dinners. Her young boy asked her if the birds were going to eat them, his voice full of fear, an ironic question given the corpse on his plate. Later on, after a mass attack at a gas station across the street resulted in a large explosion, Melanie and Mitch made their way back into the diner to escape the onslaught of talons and beaks. The woman with her children, along with several other women, were still there cowering from the attack. Hysterical with terror, the woman screamed at Melanie that it was all her fault the birds began attacking them because this all started after Melanie arrived in town.

Of course, the audience saw before Melanie left San Francisco that the birds were already behaving unusually, and it would be ludicrous to think that just one person could be the cause of all birds attacking all humans. For another ironic plot point, this woman earlier asked a local how to get out of Bodega Bay to head back to San Francisco, indicating that she also was from out of town. Like a carnist terrified of her own hypocrisy, she lashed out at the first available suspect though she lacked any legitimate evidence to support her wild theory.

Revenge

There was a scene of Lydia confessing to Melanie how much she missed her late husband, and it became apparent that her earlier animosity was due to her grief. I wondered why her lamentations were so important; none of the other characters got much development, not even Melanie or Mitch. So why have this long scene about Lydia overcoming her grief and her eventual acceptance of Melanie as a way of letting go of her son, whom she had held onto so tightly because of her husband's bond with him?

Out of all wild animals, birds are in a unique position because they can fly. They have the ability, like drones, to fly over farms and slaughterhouses and see what is happening to other birds and animals. My interpretation of the cause of the attacks is that the birds were taking revenge because they were so consumed by grief at seeing their brethren being massacred by humans for no apparent reason. To the humans under attack, they were then the ones confused and upset as to why the birds would be attacking them for "no reason." This disconnect between how we treat animals and how we expect them to treat us is ultimately the cause of our demise.

Hitchcock's Perspective

Alfred Hitchcock was not a great person. Though he may have been a creative genius, he used his power and influence to control others. And it was initially surprising to me that he could create such a poignant film with obvious animal rights themes. However, after watching the movie and listening to him speak about it, he seems like the kind of person that could confront animal exploitation without emotion, seeing animal use as purely utilitarian, a means to an end. (In fact, in this interview, he claimed he felt "quite indifferent" to birds and that "they serve their purpose on occasions.") By doing so, he is agreeing that animals are abused and exploited in a way that is hypocritical of a society of animal lovers, but he approaches the issue more as a spectator, like a doctor observing his patients and documenting what he sees.

He claimed himself in that same 1963 interview that "man must be responsible to nature," that nature isn't just something beautiful for us to observe and use as we wish; there is a responsibility there for man to protect nature but also to respect the danger that nature poses. He said that the general theme of the film is that man is complacent, believing ourselves to be the masters of everything, but we cower when another force -- nature, in this case -- attacks us with their own devastating power.1

Comedy of Horrors

In another interview, Hitchcock mentions the humor in the film, and I think this is where we see his true beliefs shine through. He calls out the scene in the film when the ornithologist is discussing how it is mankind, not birds or other animals, that are the true aggressors when the waitress interrupts her with an order of "three southern-fried chicken" as a moment of humor.2 Like how someone says they could eat a horse when they're hungry without actually thinking about the horrifying act of killing the animal for that purpose, this is more of a comedic interjection instead of a hard-hitting message. He was, after all, an artist, and he was merely placing these ideas into a piece of work for others to interpret as they wish, not as a projection of his own beliefs. He seems to have been a morally ambivalent person, the kind of person that would respond to veganism with, "I just don't care enough to change."

Okja

A film I was surprised to be reminded of while watching this was Okja, a 2017 movie by another famous director, Bong Joon-ho. Though I didn't particularly like Okja, I was brought to tears at the end watching the superpigs being slaughtered, and especially when the two parents push their baby superpig out of the kill queue to be rescued by Mija and Okja, knowing that they're going to die but wanting to save their child. However, Bong Joon-ho is not vegan (though he is apparently passionate about environmentalism) and neither is most of the cast, to the best of my knowledge. Okja was simply a project for others to consider the ethical and environmental impact of eating animals.

Takeaways

As vegans, we already know that the way humans treat nonhumans is abominable, and we've created this dichotomous society in which we perceive ourselves as innately good while our actions tell a much different story. Instead of pushing your carnist friends and family straight into Dominion, this could be a good starting point for introducing them to animal rights ideas. It would also be a great way to organically discuss animal rights in a film club or class, recreationally or educationally.

be conscious, be kind, be vegan

Sources

[1] "Rare 1963 THE BIRDS Interviews w/ Alfred Hitchcock & Tippi Hedren"

[2] "Alfred Hitchcock discusses 'The Birds'"