What is Hitchcock’s The Birds really about?

To many filmgoers, Hitchcock’s The Birds is a wholesome and simple adaptation of a du Maurier novellette. However, no art form is produced in a vacuum — outside influences always affect themes and content. This blog breaks down the various theories about the film.

The Birds adaptation contains a more allusive and allegorical political meaning. The birds are at the core of the conflict, holding a symbolic status of a disharmony. Furthermore, the direction of the critique is not so obvious, as the cause of the bird attacks is more difficult to identify. Hitchcock does this deliberately because the mystery of the attacks intensifies the horror of the film. The politics in Hitchcock’s adaptation is ambiguous, although three interpretations have significant conceivability: is The Birds about the untold power of the oppressed class, a Cold War tale, an environmental critique or an anti-feminist psychoanalysis of female hysteria and matriarchal control?

Daphne Du Maurier’s original novelette, The Birds, tells the story of a farming family, the Hockens, living in a remote part of Cornwall, where the community suffers relentless attacks by flocks of birds, so dedicated that they kill themselves in this pursuit. Critic, Bernard Dick, notes that “Hitchcock was only interested in two aspects of du Maurier’s plot: a coastal setting suggesting isolation and, of course, the birds’ seemingly unprovoked attacks”. Hitchcock hired screenwriter Evan Hunter to rewrite the tale with only these attributes in mind, moving the action to northern California and featuring attractive, metropolitan characters. San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels (played by Tippi Hedren) pursues her love interest, Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) to his mother’s home in coastal town Bodega Bay where the birds inexplicably begin their attacks.

Capitalism & The Cold War?

Du Maurier’s text also offers a macro-critique of political systems. The Birds is a political allegory about the psychological violence of capitalism and the fear-mongering of the Cold War. Fear of nuclear attack is apparent when the birds “cover the bay like a white cloud”, suggestive of a nuclear mushroom cloud. Members of the community question the involvement of the Soviet Union, asking “can you tell me where the cold is coming from? Is it Russia?” Communist paranoia is evidenced in the repeated references to the “east wind” (written ten times in the text) which seemingly caused the birds to travel towards and attack England. The “Arctic Circle” is mentioned three times, “I’ve never seen such a change. And it’s going on, the wireless says. Something to do with the Arctic Circle”.

The change in the Arctic Circle alludes to the fear of the domino theory, the idea that communist victories will trigger revolutions in other countries. The fact the characters quote what “the wireless says” as fact is indicative of the fear-mongering by media in the war and post-war periods. Winston Churchill’s 1940 speech ‘The War Situation: House Of Many Mansions’ (printed in newspapers and broadcast over the radio) is an example of such fear-mongering: “Many illusions about Soviet Russia have been dispensed in these few weeks of fighting in the Arctic Circle. Everyone can see how Communism rots the soil of a nation.” His patriotic language suggests metaphorically that the very material of a nation can be corrupted by a political idea. He goes on, “If the light of freedom which burns so brightly in the frozen North should be finally quenched [in Norway], it may well herald a return to the Dark Ages”. Du Maurier’s language echoes such political rhetoric. The setting of the bird attacks is described recurrently as a “black winter”, much like Churchill’s description of the “frozen North”.

The metaphor of the extinguishing of the light represents the fear that communist revolution would lead to the destruction of democratic capitalism.

The communist witch-hunt generated by Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, preyed on the fear of communism in the American public’s consciousness during the Cold War years. It may explain Hitchcock’s downplaying of communist allusions in his film adaptation of The Birds. The idea that communism could spread like a virus to people of all backgrounds and nationalities terrified the post-war audience. When Mrs Triggs suggests they are “foreign birds”, Nat corrects her, saying “no, they were birds you see about here every day” suggesting that anyone could be a communist as there is no external indication of political affiliations. Perhaps, then, the birds embody the revolutionary communists, rising up against oppressive forces as opposed to attacking Western countries.

The Revenge of the Oppressed?

It might be argued that the film depicts an exploited class rising up against their oppressors.

It is also clear in the book that when the majority turn against the minority oppressors, the minority cannot continue their oppression, “Jim’s body lay in the yard… what was left of it. When the birds had finished, the cows had trampled on him. His gun was beside him.” (p.23) The ellipsis embodies the omission of bloody detail, left to the imagination of the reader. Much is implied in the text, for instance, the close location of the gun “beside him”, suggests that even with human technological defence, Jim still could not ward off the attack. His defencelessness suggests that power in numbers will always win out eventually over force. The sense of foreboding lingers as the reader realises that, in time, the Hocken family will eventually suffer the same fate. Even so, it is not a specifically class critique as there is little evidence of specific Marxist allusions in Hitchcock’s adaptation. After all, the birds attack schoolchildren rather than wealthy capitalist oppressors.

Environmental — or even Vegan - Allegory?

A more likely interpretation is that The Birds is an environmental critique, defined by Maurice Yacowar as “natural attack… [which] pits a human community against a destructive form of nature” suggested by the scene where Melanie and an older woman discuss the school attacks in the diner. The older women disbelieves Melanie’s story and maintains that birds are “not aggressive creatures, it is mankind who insists on making life difficult on this planet.” As if to demonstrate the argument, Hitchcock has a waitress interrupt her mid-sentence announcement of an order for Southern fried chicken.

This argument is strengthened after viewing Hitchcock’s official teaser trailer. Standing in his office, Hitchcock directly address the camera discussing his latest film, listing humanity’s ‘services’ to the bird community, such as battery farming, hunting, captivity, caging, stuffing and plucking for clothing and hats and slaughter for meat Hitchcock satirizes feigned innocence, asking “why on earth would the birds try to harm humanity?” He notes the shootings of birds for sport, and the extinction of birds like the dodo was “nature’s course” that humans simply “helped along”. Bob Dick commented that Hitchcock’s adaptation depicts a Britain where the people have “lost integration with the natural world and one another”. At the beginning birds are caged in the pet shop; by its close, birds are caging humanity, exemplified by Melanie’s entrapment in the telephone booth. This foreshadowed Mitch’s instruction to her to “get back in your gilded cage, Melanie Daniels”.

Real-life inspiration?

Contextually, it is possible Hitchcock’s version was inspired by events in San Francisco in 1961 when thousands of seagulls flew into houses and inexplicably killed themselves. Scientists at the Louisiana State University discovered the birds were poisoned by the nerve-damaging toxins in domoic acid that contaminated their food. The pollution at the very least caused confusion and disorientation, and perhaps caused brain damage. When investigated, it was found that the incident was probably caused by humans, and had possibly come from leaking septic tanks in the area.

An anti feminist psychoanalysis?

Rather than a macroanalysis, it could be a tale about the abuse of power by women and matriarchs. Here, accusations turn from the Russians to the female characters, the “domestic birds”. The opening scene in the pet shop metaphorically foreshadows the unsuitability of the female characters who present themselves as potential “lovebirds” to Mitch, “I want a pair of birds that are not too demonstrative” (Melanie)… As at the same time, I wouldn’t want to aloof, either.” (Annie)

Hitchcock’s films have the recurring theme of neurotic and controlling matriarchs. Dick remarks that “Hitchcock’s mother is like the Wizard of Oz, remove the mask and you have a woman grappling with her own demons.”

Melanie’s community fires superstitious accusations at her, “I think you’re the cause of all of this”, showing fear of female hysteria and punishment for it. The subtext that women are blamed for the violence is subtly apparent after the first gull attack when Mitch tells a customer in the store that Melanie, ““Young girl cut herself”.

When Melanie tells her father on the telephone in the diner, she is not believed and she defends herself, “No I’m not hysterical”. This suggests that it is not Melanie’s, but someone else’s hysteria that has caused the disorder.

Critic Margaret Horwitz remarks that it is specifically one female character.. “The wild birds function as a kind of malevolent female superego, an indirect revelation of Lydia’s character. She is a possessive mother intent upon furthering a symbiotic, Oedipal relationship with her son.” …. Denies this. Jealous woman? Clinging possessive mother? …With all due respect to Oedipus I don’t think that that was the case.” However, she is sacrificed in the end, suggesting she should have heeded Oedipus after all and stayed away from Mitch.

Feminist critic Camille Pagila evidences this view. She proposes that the timing of the attacks correlate with female anger. The first attack occurs when Melanie enters Cathy and Lydia’s territory, the second when she chooses to sleep overnight at their home. The main attack is at the birthday party, which Melanie attends, suggesting she is not a welcome guest. It is only when Melanie, the source of the troubles, sacrifices herself to the birds that the attacks subside. The end result is that status quo is reinstated, Melanie is accepted and Lydia can reclaim her mother role. This theory is not perfect, however, as Melanie seems genuinely welcoming towards Cathy.

The birds do not attack Mitch when he is alone, only when he is protecting the two main female threats, Melanie and Annie. For example, they do not attack him when he wades through them to get to the car but they do peck him when he attempts to block the window and their access to the women.

Melanie sacrifices herself to the birds in the bedroom and as a result releases Mitch. It is only then that she is free from the patriarchal wrath and Lydia joins Mitch in rescuing her. (It is also worth noting that Lydia does not have control over the birds — suggesting it is a subconscious/unconscious force)

In the closing scene, the birds cease to attack an injured (and defeated) Melanie as though they know she is no longer a threat to the family unit. Lydia’s acceptance of Melanie is shown when Melanie leans into her and Lydia gives her a motherly and affectionate squeeze.

In conclusion, The Birds misses some critical elements from the book, for example, allusions to The Cold War. Instead, Hitchcock makes it an accessible horror film with non-specific critiques about society: it is not possible to establish one central social criticism. It is always fun to ponder different possibilities though.