The Birds by Daphne Du MaurierThe Short Story

The story is taken from a collection now called The Birds and other Stories, but the anthology was originally called The Apple Tree and was published by Gollancz in 1952.

Your comments on Nat Hocken should point out how his qualities enable him and his family to survive the trauma of the bird attacks.

DO NOT SIMPLY RETELL THE STORY!

STAND BACK AND ANALYSE THE HERO.

1. The first page (p. 51) of the tale mentions Nats disability. He did not work full time. How did this fact help him combat the birds? In the course of the story, does Nat complain of being disabled? Is he unable to tackle certain jobs because of his condition. One reader said Nat was a Superb ambassador for the disabled. What do you think he meant by this?

2. On page 51, Du Maurier says Nat liked working alone. Does this show in the tale later?

3. Even if he is a bit of a loner, Nat is not selfish. He is very altruistic. Explain this term. What does he do to show he is altruistic?

4. Look at the last line of the fourth paragraph on page 52 where Du Maurier uses a lot of alliteration. How? Why?

5. Does Nat appear hen-pecked? Look at page 53. How active is his wife? How would you react to such a spouse?

6. Nat could be described as very brave or courageous in the tale. Give examples.

7. Nat is an analytical thinker. He can sit back and analyze a problem. Look for evidence of this in his behavior.

8. Look at page 55 where Nat makes a cup of tea. What does this scene reveal about this protagonist?

9. Nats meeting with the cowman is very revealing (pg. 56) Why is Nat considered to be superior to others?

10. How does Mrs. Trigg react to Nats warning about bird attacks? (pp. 56-57)

11. Nat is very pragmatic in the course of the tale. Look at page 59 for evidence.

12. The news on the wireless (59-60) suggests what to Nat?

13. Nat is very safety-conscious. Could this be because of his military training? Look at page 61. He says Im not going to take any chances. How? Why?

14. When Nat looks at the food stocks on pages 61-62 again he is very pragmatic. How?

15. On page 62 Nat reveals his caring or protective nature. How?

16. Nat is altruistic when he phones the authorities and gets the children home quickly (pg. 63). Comment.

17. Trigg the farmer (pg. 64) seems to represent all that is wrong with humans in regard to animals. How?

18. Why hasnt Trigg taken precautions at home with his windows like Nat? (pg. 66)

19. Look at pages 67 & 68 for evidence for how Nat protects his children from knowing the real truth about their predicament. How? Why?

20. One reason Du Maurier suggests for the bird attacks is revenge for years and years of exploitation by man. Give examples of how humans exploit animals.

21. The bottom line on page 73 shows Nats resilience and optimism. How?

22. What mistake does Nat make on page 74 that nearly costs them dearly?

23. Why is the line second from the bottom of paragraph 9 on page 78 the most important line in the whole story?

24. Nat reveals his shrewdness and intelligence when he listens to the radio and visits the Trigg farm. Pp. 78-79. How?

25. How do you react to the last page of the story? Is this the last cigarette of a condemned man or will Nat and his family survive. What is it about Nat that suggests he will not simply give up?

26. The east wind is referred to several times in the short story and is seen by many readers as an allegorical or metaphorical reference to The Cold War. Which country could it refer to? Why?

You now have 26 comments on the short story. Lets get rid of the numbers and turn your comments into an essay.

To make your essay a good read, you could link up all the sections that reveal Nat to be pragmatic. Do the same for his altruistic actions. Do it again for his intelligence, etc. Cut and paste until it all flows.

The Birds

c Pearson Education Limited 2008 The Birds - Teachers notes of 3

Teachers notes LEVEL 2 PENGUIN READERS

Teacher Support Programme

About the author

Daphne du Maurier was a member of a notable Anglo-

French family. Her grandfather, George du Maurier, was

a novelist and artist. Her father, Sir Gerald du Maurier,

was a famous actor-manager. Born in London in 1907,

du Maurier was educated at home with her two sisters.

However, she hated the glamorous theatrical life of her

parents. When she was thirty-four, she wrote Gerald, a

biography of her father, in which she described her father

as an empty and superficial man although she clearly

loved him dearly.

From an early age, du Maurier was only truly happy when

she was reading by herself. She started writing in her teens,

but her career as a novelist didnt start until she visited

Cornwall, in the south-west of England, at the age of

twenty. Cornwall, with its wild seas and rocky coastline,

inspired du Maurier. She realised that she had found her

spiritual home and the natural outdoors life that she had

always wanted to live. From that point onwards, she felt

that she knew what kind of books she wanted to write.

Du Mauriers first novel was a romance called The Loving

Spirit. It was published when she was twenty-four. A

year later, in 1932, she married Sir Frederick Browning,

nicknamed Boy, a war hero and Olympic athlete. The

couples wedding was like a scene from one of du Mauriers

novels. They married in a small church on the Cornish

coast before loading a boat with stores and setting out on

the open seas on their honeymoon. They finally settled

down in Cornwall, where they had two daughters and a

son.

In 1936, at the age of twenty-nine, du Maurier used

Cornwalls wild weather and natural beauty for the setting

of her third novel, Jamaica Inn. The book was instantly

successful. By the time her next novel was published, a

romance called Rebecca (1938), du Maurier had won an

enormous readership for herself. The book told the story

of a young bride haunted by the memory of her husbands

first wife. In 1948, du Maurier had to face charges

of plagiarism in a New York court. She was accused

of stealing the story of Rebecca from another author.

However, the charge was unsuccessful it was agreed by

the court that the second wife plot was very common in

modern literature.

Over the next twenty years, du Maurier wrote historical

novels, short stories and stories of mystery and suspense.

Nearly all of her fourteen novels became bestsellers.

In 1952, she was made a fellow of the Royal Society

of Literature. After the death of her husband in 1965,

she hardly ever left Cornwall, almost living the life of a

recluse. In 1969, she was created a Dame of the British

Empire. She died in 1989.

Summary

The Birds is probably Daphne du Mauriers most famous

story. It became an instant classic, delivering a haunting

plot that built slowly and terrifyingly to an unforgettable

climax. The famous director Alfred Hitchcock turned du

Mauriers story into a classic film in 1963.

Pages 130

The story begins in December. Nat Hocken, a farm

worker, has noticed that crowds of birds are gathering

above the beach. Later the same night, the birds fly

through the open windows of his house and attack him

and his children. Nat fights them off, killing about fifty

of them. Listening to the radio the following morning, he

and his wife discover that thousands of birds are attacking

people all over the country. Nat boards up his windows

with wood. The birds attack again and succeed in breaking

into one of the bedrooms.

Pages 3139

In the morning, the tide goes out and the birds retreat.

The radio is silent. Nat hurries over to the farm where he

works. Everyone at the farm has been killed by the birds.

However, the birds dont attack Nat as he walks home

they are full. He and his wife sit down for lunch. They

have enough food and firewood to stay in the house for

three or four days. They start to believe that they are going

to be able to survive until the birds attack the house

again!

Daphne du Maurier

The Birds

c Pearson Education Limited 2008 The Birds - Teachers notes of 3

Teachers notes LEVEL 2 PENGUIN READERS

Teacher Support Programme

Background and themes

Storytelling: More than anything else, Daphne du

Maurier was a storyteller. She wrote page-turners stories

that were hard to put down. Many second-rate storytellers

are capable of writing page-turners, but du Mauriers

stories go deeper, dealing with peoples primitive fears and

longings. After her death in 1989, The Times newspaper

described her books as containing some of the abiding

fantasies of the human race.

History and suspense: Du Mauriers major novels fall

into two categories. The first category consists of historical

novels set in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century

Cornwall. Jamaica Inn (1936), Frenchmans Creek (1941),

Hungry Hill (1943) and The Kings General (1946) are

fine examples of du Mauriers historical novels. They are

full of smuggling, violence and (of course) romance. The

second category consists of modern stories of mystery and

suspense. Many of du Mauriers short stories fall into this

category. The Birds and Dont Look Now are outstanding

examples of du Mauriers talent for suspense. She builds

the tension slowly but surely until the reader realises that

there is no way out for the characters.

Cinematic storytelling: Du Mauriers novels and

short stories contain compelling storylines, powerful

characterisations and highly visual scenes. They were

seemingly made for the cinematic screen, and in fact, a

number of her stories were adapted into successful feature

films, including The Birds, Jamaica Inn, Dont Look Now,

Frenchmans Creek and Hungry Hill (for which she cowrote

the screenplay). Two of the films were directed

by Alfred Hitchcock, the famous British film director.

Produced in 1940, Rebecca starred the world-famous

British actor, Sir Lawrence Olivier. Like the novel on

which it was based, the film is riveting. It eventually

earned Hitchcock a highly coveted Academy Award for

Best Picture. The Birds, produced in 1963, was a free

adaptation of du Mauriers short story, but Hitchcock

was known as the true master of suspense, and so the

film contains some truly terrifying indeed, genuinely

horrifying moments. Both The Birds and Rebecca are

fitting tributes to du Mauriers vast storytelling powers.

Discussion activities

Pages 110

Before reading

1 Discuss: Ask students to look at the picture on the

cover of the book. Do you think that this is a good

cover for the book? Why or why not? What do you like

about the cover? Why do you like it? What dont you like

about the cover? Why dont you like it?

2 Write: Read out to the class the information about

Daphne du Maurier in the introduction to the book.

Then put students into small groups and tell them

that they have ten minutes to write down as many

facts about the author as possible. Make the exercise a

competition the group that writes down the most

facts is the winner.

3 Research: Ask students to bring information about

birds to class. Put a large piece of paper on the wall

and then get students to attach their information to

the piece of paper to make a wall display.

After reading

4 Pair work: Put students into pairs and have them

look up the word reason in a dictionary. Then get

them to think of reasons why Nat is afraid of the

birds. When they have finished, some of the pairs

should stand at the front of the classroom and share

the reasons with their classmates.

5 Discuss: Get students to look at the picture on

page 3. What is happening in the picture? Where do you

think Nat is in the picture? Why do you think this? How

do you think he is feeling? Why do you think this? What

do you think he is thinking about? Why do you think

this?

6 Artwork: Get students to draw a picture of one of the

birds from pages 1 to 10. When they have finished,

they should stand at the front of the classroom and

show their picture to the rest of the class. They should

explain why they have drawn the bird the way that

they have drawn it.

Pages 1120

Before reading

7 Guess: Ask students to predict what will happen to

Nat and his family on pages 11 to 20. Will they be

attacked by the birds again? Will they be injured? Will

they stay in their home? Will they run away?

8 Discuss: Get students to look at the picture on

page 11. What is Nat doing in the picture? Why do you

think he is doing it? Do you think he is right or wrong to

do it? Why do you think this?

After reading

9 Check: Review students predictions about what

would happen to Nat and his family on pages 11 to

20. Check if their predictions were right or wrong.

The Birds

c Pearson Education Limited 2008 The Birds - Teachers notes of 3

Teachers notes LEVEL 2 PENGUIN READERS

Teacher Support Programme

10 Role play: Put students into pairs. Student A is Nat

and Student B is Nats wife. Nats wife should ask Nat

questions about the bird attacks and Nat should

answer them. Nats wife should also ask Nat what he

thinks will happen next and what he suggests that

they do about the situation. Nat should answer his

wifes questions as honestly and as completely as

possible. When they have finished, some of the pairs

should role play their conversation in front of the

class.

11 Artwork: Get students to draw a picture of a scene

from pages 11 to 20. When they have finished, the

students should stand at the front of the class and

describe their picture to their classmates.

12 Role play: Write the word broadcast on the board and

teach students what it means. Then put them into

pairs and get them to role play a radio broadcast

about the bird attacks that are happening all over the

country. Point out to students that they can use their

imagination that they dont have to limit themselves

to the events described in the book. When they have

finished, the pairs should role play their radio

broadcast in front of the class. Finally, take a vote to

see which radio broadcast is the classs favourite.

Pages 2130

Before reading

13 Discuss: Get students to look at the picture on

page 25. What is Nats wife doing in the picture? Why

do you think she is doing it? How do you think she is

feeling? Why do you think this? What do you think she is

thinking about? Why do you think this?

14 Write: Write the following combinations of letters on

the board they are anagrams of words that can be

found on pages 21 to 30. Get students to spell the

words correctly. When they have finished, some of the

students should stand at the front of the class and

read the words to their classmates.

a raedb

b rafm

c dwin

d drak

e rief

f ngwsi

g ddae

h aes

After reading

15 Discuss: How are the birds in the story different from

birds in real life? Write this question on the board and

get students to discuss it in pairs. When they have

finished, some of the pairs should stand at the front

of the class and share their answers with their

classmates.

16 Pair work: Put students into pairs and get them to

look up the word brave in a dictionary. Students

should ask each other which character is the bravest in

The Birds. They should give reasonns for their choice.

When they have finished, some of the pairs should

stand at the front of the classroom and re-enact their

conversation for their classmates.

Pages 3139

Before reading

17 Write: Write the word imagine on the board and

teach students what it means. Then put them into

pairs and ask them to imagine that help comes for

Nat and his family. Get them to write a story to

describe how Nat and his family are saved. When

they have finished, the pairs should stand at the

front of the classroom and read their stories to their

classmates. Finally, take a vote to see which story is

the classs favorite.

After reading

18 Discuss: Get students to work in small groups and

discuss the following questions:

Did you think that Nat and his family would be saved

at the end of the story? Why or why not?

Were you surprised by the storys ending? Why or why

not?

Have you read any other stories that dont have a happy

ending? If so, which ones?

Do you like stories that dont have a happy ending?

Why or why not?

What do you think happens to Nat and his family in the

future? Do you think they will ever be saved? Why do you

think this?

Vocabulary activities

For the Word List and vocabulary activities, go to

www.penguinreaders.com.

Daphne du Maurier

The Birds (1952)

It has become almost impossible to talk about Daphne du Maurier's short story, The Birds, without talking about Alfred Hitchcock's movie, The Birds, so I will discuss both works. While the movie was based on Du Maurier's story, the plot line, location, characters, and general tone of the two tales are almost totally unrelated to each other.

In his book, The Private World of Daphne du Maurier, Martyn Shallcross says that the genesis of the story came about when Daphne was walking near a lake with her dog. Two hungry seagulls attacked the dog and then went after her. She was forced to run into the trees to seek cover.

I have no doubt that the incident actually occurred. In Brownsville, Texas, I would often buy extra french fries at the local 'Jack in the Box' to feed to the gulls. They would swoop down and take them right from my hand without a hint of fear and they often weren't very mindful of my fingers. I was impressed enough by the fearlessness of the birds to base an incident in my novel, Intercourse With the Dead, on it.

It is possible, however, that the creation process began even earlier. In 1938 Carl Stephenson published his only short story, Leiningen Versus the Ants. It deals with a man on a plantation battling droves of ravaging ants who will eat anything in their path and was made into the movie, The Naked Jungle which starred Charlton Heston. It is considered one of the best short stories ever written and the theme of it is the same as the theme of The Birds: Is human intelligence and resourcefulness the most indomitable force in the world? As we ponder the questions of global warming, nuclear waste, and ebola it might seem a more pertinent question today then when it was originally posed.

I don't know if Du Maurier ever read Stephenson's story. It was very popular and was done as a radio play several times. It may have played a part in her story. Another factor that might be considered concerns Daphne's uncle, Guy du Maurier. In 1909 he wrote a popular play called, An Englishman's Home which dealt with unnamed invaders attacking an Englishman's house and the Englishman defending his wife and family admirably. In The Birds we have one lone Englishman defending his home against invaders as well.

Daphne du Maurier's story is set in Cornwall, England, where she lived. Hitchcock would move the locale to Bodega Bay in California. While some sources say that she was not to happy about Hitchcock's Americanization of her story, others say that she liked the Hitchcock film very much.

Daphne's story opens with a sudden rush of coldness that comes on December 3rd. She says that winter had arrived early and harshly. I don't really know when winter would normally start in Cornwall, England, but in Omaha, Nebraska, where I currently live, it would not be unusual for it to be very cold at that time of year. Apparently it is unheard of for winter to come that early in Cornwall and this deprived the birds of their normal supply of food. This is the explanation for their extremely aggressive behavior.

The protagonist in Daphne's story is Nat Hocken, a married man with children who has a disability pension and works part time on a farm. Daphne du Maurier never thought of herself as rich but she had friends with names like 'Puckie', she called her servants, 'Cook' and 'Nanny', rather than their given names, and she sent her children to boarding school. Her family included prominent writers, artists, and actors. She grew up surrounded by people like J.M. Barrie, the author of Peter Pan and Edgar Wallace, the popular mystery writer who also co-wrote King Kong. By all accounts she was a spoiled little rich girl. In spite of this, her working class characters are written in a believable manner and Nat seems quite authentic.

Nat was a man quite familiar with his surroundings. He had a substantial knowledge of birds and nature in general.

"Perhaps, thought Nat, munching his pastry by the cliff's edge, a message comes to the birds in autumn, like a warning. Winter is coming. many of them perish. And like people, who, apprehensive of death before their time, drive themselves to work or folly, the birds do likewise."

The purpose and reasoning of Daphne's story can be found within this paragraph. It is noteworthy that Nat is at a cliff's edge. He is at a place where the solid ground ceases to exist and only the sky separates him from the turbulent sea. Nat's world at the start of the story is simple, predictable, and rock solid. But it is only few feet away from uncertainty and terror.

The mention of a warning is a nice piece of foreshadowing. Nat will soon receive a warning and he will not heed it. The phrase, 'many of them perish', is also sort of a cryptic foreshadowing of what is about to happen to the human beings in the area. Nature had inexplicably abandoned its usual routine and winter had arrived too early, robbing the birds of their usual food. The reaction of the birds to these bizarre events was to respond with bizarre and aggressive behavior. In the Hitchcock movie there was no explanation offered for the change in the behavior of the birds and the absence of rational explanations for what was occurring left the movie looking like it was not particularly well conceived. Daphne, on the other hand, gives us a logical explanation: the birds are starving because winter has destroyed their food supply.

In Daphne's book, The Rebecca Notebook and Other Memories, she said that there were five things that she considered important in her writing.

1. Atmosphere

2. Simplicity of Style

3. Keep to the Main Theme

4. Characters, Few and Well Defined

5. Build It Up Little by Little

This is a good list for all writers to use. Building it up, little by little, is particularly important in a story of horror or suspense and in this story Daphne dislodges us from our safe, secure world with the skill of a pickpocket removing a wallet.

The first sign that something really unusual was happening came when Nat talked to a farmer who told him that there were many more birds than usual this year and that they had grown much bolder than normal. Some had flown so close to the farmer's head while he was plowing that they'd almost knocked off his hat.

That night there came a tap at Nat's window and it is reminiscent of Edgar Allan Poe's poem, The Raven.

While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,As of someone gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.

And when does Poe's poem take place?

Ah, distinctly I remember, it was in the bleak December,And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.

When Nat opened the window a bird flew in, scratched his hand, and flew back out again. It is almost as if the bird was bringing Nat a warning of what was to come.

"The bird had drawn blood. Frightened, he supposed, and bewildered, the bird, seeking shelter, had stabbed him in the darkness. Once more he settled himself to sleep."

The message that Daphne's bird was imparting was unclear to Nat, just as the message of Poe's raven was not readily perceptible, and it was ignored. Nat returned to his slumber. The cold weather had created a crisis for the birds but human beings didn't care about it. It was not their problem. Nat saw what was happening to the birds and had more concern about it than most but there really wasn't much he could do about it so why bother with it. But, like any crisis that is ignored, sooner or later it will spill over into areas that were once considered safe and invulnerable.

There are many parallels in real life; the most notable being the US government's indifference to the feelings of the Islamic nations of the world. The attack on the USS Cole, like the bird that flew into Nat's window and attacked him, was a harbinger of the horrors that were yet to come. It was a wound and it hurt but it wasn't anything to lose sleep over. The average American went about his daily tasks and didn't really think much, if at all, about his government's relationship with the Islamic world. Moslem beliefs were not Christian beliefs and so they were laughed at. But 9/11 changed everything. Subjects that were rarely discussed suddenly dominated the national agenda.

How much trouble could a few birds be? Did we really need to worry about a handful of Islamic fundamentalists? Each was the visible tip of an unseen iceberg moving silently towards us with most of its immense mass hidden from our view. Neither incident was considered the vanguard of a movement that would overwhelm us. There are doubtlessly many other examples of ignored warnings but at the present time this is the one that seems to come most readily to mind.

Nat's slumber did not last long. The tapping returned and this time it was so loud that it woke Nat's wife. The birds at Nat's windows could not be ignored anymore than the Raven at Poe's door.

Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter,In there stepped a stately raven, of the saintly days of yore.Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;But with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door.Perched upon a bust of Pallas, just above my chamber door,Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

Pallas is another name for Athena, the goddess of wisdom.

There were a dozen birds at Nat's window now and when he opened it they did more than perch and sit. They flew at his head and tried to attack his eyes. Nat fought them off and they flew back out the window. The second warning had been given.

Cries were heard coming from the children's bedroom. When Nat rushed in he found masses of small birds attacking his children (small birds for small people?). He pushed the kids out of the room, grabbed a blanket to protect himself with, and battled the birds until dawn finally drove them away.

The birds are in some ways nightmare creatures. They leave with dawn and they attack the eyes. It is not the normal habit of the birds described in the story to fly by night, yet they seem to relish the darkness and abhor the day almost as if they were vampires.

Perhaps what Daphne is trying to tell us is that our eyes are a sort of barrier. The world that exists in front of our eyes is relatively logical and follows certain rules, but behind our eyes there exists another world where our worst fears take wing and flutter about madly slamming into the walls of our mind. Madness lives behind the eyes. Nightmares too. The world outside of us, the world that other people can see has a certain order to it but the world inside our heads that only we can see is sometimes incredibly chaotic. In this story Daphne snatches away that predictable world and replaces it with a world where the fears we've hidden away roam freely and know no restraint.

Like a ship unsure of its compass readings Nat sought out the landmarks of the world that he felt secure in. Being a good Englishman he went to kitchen to make tea.

"The sight of the kitchen reassured him. The cups and saucers, neatly stacked upon the dresser, the tables and chairs, his wife's roll of knitting on her basket chair, the children's toys in a coroner cupboard."

In the morning Nat made breakfast for his family, walked his daughter to her school bus, and then went to the farm where he worked even though it was his day off. The people at the farm hadn't had any problems with birds and they didn't take Nat's story very seriously.

He went back home and began to dispose of the dead bodies of the birds that had attacked the children. He put the carcasses in a sack and went to the beach. He meant to bury them there but Du Maurier adds another macabre touch to the story. The fierce wind gets hold of the bag and the bodies of the birds take flight almost as if they'd come back to life. The event, being the combination of high wind and aerodynamic corpses, is completely rational, but there is a sense of the supernatural about it and it gives the impression that even death cannot destroy the forces that have been summoned against mankind. It was as if God wanted to destroy mankind and the birds were the instruments he was using to accomplish his task.

On the beach Nat saw tens of thousands of gulls upon the sea, "like a mighty fleet at anchor." This reference gives the definite impression that the birds are preparing for war. The fact that you can see it coming and you know its going to get worse increases the suspense in the story tremendously.

Nat's wife heard a broadcast on the wireless (the radio) stating that the bird attacks had been happening all over England. Nat began to board up the windows. His wife began to ask what the government was going to do. The problem had been 'built up little by little' according to Du Maurier's master plan. It began with a single pesky bird, then a group of birds, then tens of thousands massing on the sea, and now it had become a national crisis.

The opponents in this story are clearly; man and nature.

"There had been no sun all day..."

"He could hear the vicious sea churning on the rocks."

In the early 1950's, when The Birds was written, one of the most ominous and frightening images in the movies and the media was that of a huge expanding mushroom cloud rising from a nuclear explosion. The mushroom cloud was often compared to an evil genie being released from its bottle. Many felt that it was the symbol of the end of all life on earth. Daphne incorporates this symbol into her story. The gulls on the sea began to rise and circle, thousands of them. The swirling tower of birds is the natural world's equivalent of the mushroom cloud and it is quite clearly as much of a symbol of the end of the world as we know it as the mushroom cloud is.

Nat decided that it would be best to meet his daughter's school bus so that he could protect her in case of an attack. We continually see the father in this story as the protector of the family and this is in accordance with the prevailing beliefs of the time. The father was head of the household. The wife and children did not question his decisions or his authority. With the privilege of authority came the responsibility for sacrificing his life, if need be, to save the lives of his wife and children. There are those today who would question the strict adherence to these social roles but for many generations they served to advance the human race and insure its survival. Whether or not these roles should be abandoned will always be open for debate and it is doubtful that a definitive answer will be reached until some great crisis decides the matter for us.

On his way to meet the bus Nat sees another cloud, black this time. This cloud was made up of crows and other dark colored birds. Again we have the doomsday image of the rising cloud. The cloud divided into four parts and each sub-group soared off to a different point of the compass like a squadron of German bombers off to blitz England. It was not just Nat's little corner of the world that been targeted for destruction; It was the entire human-filled world.

The many references to World War II and England being blitzed by German bombers were particularly stirring to the audience of 1952. Most of them had lived through the war and comparisons to the war hit home.

When Nat's daughter got off the bus she wanted to stay awhile and play with her friends in the lane but Nat told her they must all hurry home. There were gulls circling overheard. When Nat saw the farmer that he worked for driving down the road Nat asked him to give his daughter a ride home. The farmer took the problem with the birds very lightly. He talked about getting guns and having great fun shooting the birds out the sky. He asked Nat if he wanted a gun for himself. Nat saw the futility of this plan and he refused the offer.

The birds posed a serious threat to mankind's existence, but, except for Nat, no one seemed to take the problem very seriously. Mankind is arrogant and thinks of itself as invincible but is that view based on facts or vanity? When we face the dangers of global warning, acid rain, and of using nuclear weapons or even nuclear energy there are those who minimize these problems to the level of trivialities and those who consider the problems dire emergencies. Only time will tell who is right but we do have a tendency not to admit that there's a serious problem to be dealt with until we hoover on the brink of disaster.

This was illustrated in the story when Nat told the farmer that he had better board up his windows. The farmer laughed, said that the media was making too much of it all, and that he'd be having seagull for breakfast. The farmer had heard rumors that the Russians were poisoning the birds and that was the reason they'd all gone mad. At the time the story was written the Cold War was very much of a reality and many problems were automatically blamed on the Reds or commie-pinko sympathizers. This was the era of Senator Joe McCathy's Committee on Un-American Activities and the hollywood witchhunt. This was the time period when John Wayne refused to star in the movie High Noon because real Americans would support their sheriff and only a commie would write a script where people in a western town would all chicken-out.

As Nat rushed home he was attacked by more birds, more fiercely this time. Du Maurier creates a real feeling of claustrophobia with the family seeking shelter in their little home with the boarded windows and tens of thousands of birds combing every possible entrance to the refuge so that they might peck the flesh from the bodies of the humans.

We've been given the visual descriptions of the birds massing on the sea, circling in the air, and attacking like a squadron of kamikaze pilots but now, with the family trapped in their most private place, we no longer can see the birds. We can only hear them. We hear their bodies brushing against the boarded windows, their claws ripping at the wood, and their beaks pecking at everything that separates Nat and his family from death.

Earlier we saw the birds going for Nat's eyes and we saw how keen Nat was to protect his eyes. But, now that we can no longer see the birds, it is as if our eyes have been disabled. To hear the sound of the birds and to have to merely guess at what they're doing and how much progress they've made at getting in is harrowing. Du Maurier has ratcheted the suspense up another notch. The noises that came from every entryway made Nat's existence seem like that of a cornered mouse. Everything was closing in on him and when he heard the sound of cracking glass he began to feel it was only a matter of time before he lost his battle.

Nat huddled his family into the kitchen. He thought that would be the safest place. They brought down mattresses from upstairs and listened to the radio. The news on the radio merely said that the government was attempting to solve the problem with the birds and that there would be no further broadcasts until seven o'clock the next morning.

After supper they heard the hum of airplanes but it was followed by the sound of an airplane crashing. It became necessary to keep a fire going at all times. When Nat smelled burning feathers he knew that they were coming down the chimney and into the stove. He built the fire hotter and incinerated them. When Du Maurier described the tea cups and dishes in Nat's kitchen earlier and talked about how they made Nat feel secure, I thought that there would surely be a scene where the birds got into the kitchen and broke those things to illustrate the disruption that was going on in Nat's world, but that does not happen. Nat's home is his fortress and no enemy shall trespass upon it.

There was no broadcast at seven o'clock the next morning. Nothing is more frightening than not knowing what is going on and the lack of news is chilling. Nat's family had placed their hopes in the government, but perhaps the government didn't even exist anymore. The birds seemed to attack with the turning of the tide which was rather appropriate because the tide had certainly turned for the human race. Nat decided to use the lull inbetween attacks to gather supplies.

When they went to the farm Nat told his wife to wait with the kids while he went in. His wife protested that she wanted to talk to the farmer's wife but Nat remained firm. A modern American woman would have probably gone in no matter what her husband said but in England in the 1950's a wife obeyed her husband. Nat was only trying to protect his wife and kids from the horrible scene that he knew he would find there.

The farmer had been pecked and clawed to death by the birds and then trampled by the cows in their frenzy. The farmer's gun laid beside him. Du Maurier does not belabor us with a long discourse on how Nat had been right about guns being useless. Like the masterful writer she was, she lets the corpse and the weapon speak for themselves.

A friend of mine who served as a marine in the Korean Conflict talked sometimes of North Koreans attacking U.S. troops in mass. Many of them had only machetes as weapons. His unit began to gun them down and it didn't stop them. They still kept coming. He said there was no way to stop people who weren't afraid to die. He said he was very lucky to come back alive. A lot guys didn't. So Du Maurier's theory about attacks made by large masses who do not fear death is probably correct. Guns don't help much if the numbers are large enough.

A question that comes up at this point is; 'If the birds are killing humans for food, why are the cows, who are an easy target, left alive?' I don't know of a logical answer for that.

We see another example of Du Maurier's craftsmanship when Nat goes to the second story of the farmhouse. He climbs the steps until he sees the legs of the farmer's wife, who is lying dead on the floor. There's no need to see more. We already know what happened to her husband and, rather than supply the details of the bloody scene for us, Du Maurier is going to let us do that ourselves. This is really more effect because it forces us to paint our own picture of the horror.

Nat filled the car with everything he thought would be useful. He lied to his wife and kids by telling them that the farmer and his wife weren't home. Again we have the good father protecting his family in the traditional accepted English manner.

When Nat saw that there was no smoke coming from the houses where his daughters playmates lived he felt guilty about not taking those children home with him. Nat's feelings of guilt are tremendous. His conscience troubles him continually. He saw the danger when others laughed at it and, even though their deaths were caused by their own arrogance and short-sightedness, he still carries the responsibility for their deaths around with him like some great weight that he's been shackled with. Although the world is filled with fools the burden for their stupidity still falls upon the wise because we're all in this thing together. For example: There were those in Germany who opposed Hitler's rise to power but they did not escape blame for his actions.

Nat thought he saw the Navy coming to save them. But it wasn't the Navy. It was the gulls rising on the bay. There was nothing at all on the radio anymore. The story closes without resolution. Nat was the only one awake. It was night and the birds were pecking and clawing away, trying to get in. Nat, the good Englishman, the good father, the good husband, was doing what he had to do to protect his family. The moral code that he believed in was what protected his family from the horrors on the other side of the door. Like the male blue jay who will sacrifice himself to the predator to protect his nest, his mate, and her eggs, Nat was playing the role that nature had designated for him and hopefully his species would survive.

Could a 'bird war' actually happen? According to Michael D. Winkle it did once. On his web page entitled, 'Behind "The Birds"', he tells of a "bird war" that took place in Corke, Ireland. There is a phamplet that tells all about it called, 'The Wonderful Battel of Starelings, Fought at the Citie of Corke, in Ireland, the 12 and 14 of October, 1621'. To read more about it click here.

What is perhaps even more bizarre is that birds may sought to take revenge on Daphne's family for writing the story. In May of 2001 Daphne du Maurier's son, Christian "Kits" Browning, and his wife, Olive, were viciously attacked by seagulls near Daphne's former home in Cornwall, England. To find out more click here.

Ten years after Daphne wrote The Birds Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring was serialized in The New Yorker magazine. Silent Spring was a work of fiction that told the story of pesticides such as DDT working there way up the food chain. The insecticides killed the insects but then the birds that ate the insects were affected and the predators that ate the birds were affected and so on, and so on, until finally mankind felt the pain of its own fool-hardy practices.

There were serious problems with the overuse of insecticides at the time. In 1957, after a mosquito-control program was started in Duxbury, Massachusetts, there was a huge demise in the local wildlife populations. In the South spraying to control the spread of fire ants killed massive amounts of other creatures. When cranberry plants were sprayed it caused so many problems that the Department of Agriculture banned the sale of cranberries in 1959. At about that time I was a youngster riding in the car with my aunt and my grandmother through a place in South Omaha called Spring Lake Park. A huge tank truck was plodding along very slowly in front of us and two men where holding the nozzles of two hoses that extended from either side of the truck and spraying gigantic clouds of chemicals to kill mosquitos. We had to keep our distance because the fog was so thick in the area behind the truck that we wouldn't have been able to see the road. We coughed and choked when we got too near it. When my aunt finally passed the truck, she asked one of the men what they were spraying.

"Oh, nothing to worry about, ma'am. Its only DDT."

That was how things were in those days.

There are certain parallels between Silent Spring and The Birds and the two women who wrote these stories. Both lived in coastal communities where one of the main attributes of the area was a natural, relatively unscathed, environment: Daphne lived in Cornwall, England and Rachel lived near West Southport on the coast of Maine in the United States. Both women had an affinity for birds and preferred natural environments to the artificial environments of cities.

Daphne's story begins with a winter that was radically different from other winters. Carson's book begins with a spring that is radically different from other springs. In Daphne's story the birds become fierce, powerful, and dominant. In Rachel's story they become weak, moribund, and eventually die. Daphne describes the deafening squall of thousands of birds on the attack and uses it to highlight the terror of the events unfolding. Rachel uses the silence created by the almost total absence of birds as center point of her book and uses that silence to highlight the terror.

Both stories deal with man's relationship to nature and both show that, while man might think of himself as the world's master, he is actually just nature's vassal. They are different in that in Silent Spring man brings about his own destruction and in The Birds nature just overpowers man. But the message of both stories is that mankind should not feel too secure revelling in its arrogance. Nature can destroy mankind at the drop of a feather. The world existed for thousands of years before mankind came into being and it got along quite nicely without the human race. There is no doubt that it could do so again. We are merely guests here and, if we trash our room, the management will eject us.

And now on to Alfred Hitchcock's movie, The Birds, which, while based on Du Maurier's story, bares almost no resemblance to it other than for the fact that birds are attacking people. I saw this movie when I was still in high school and I was impressed by the special effects but when it was over I asked the usher (they still had ushers in those days) how long intermission would be. He informed me that there was no intermission - the show was over.

"You're kidding!" I said.

"Sucks, doesn't it?" was his response. He went on to tell me that I was not the first one to ask about intermission and that the general audience response was not favorable. Hitchcock's movie made a lot of money but it did not really please the public.

At the risk of incurring the anger of many movie fans, I have to state that I feel Hitchcock was the most over-rated director that ever lived. I know many polls rank him at the very top but let's take a moment to analyze to his methods.

There was a Hitchcock formula.

In most of his pictures he had the very top stars of the day. Who wouldn't go to see a movie that starred Paul Newman and Julie Andrews, Barbara Stanwick and Burt Lancaster, Cary Grant and Grace Kelly, or James Stewart and Doris Day? If you want to know when a star was at the peak of their success, you ask, 'When did Hitchcock use them in one of his pictures?' Such pairings produced guaranteed box office.

For The Birds Hitchcock had wanted Cary Grant and Grace Kelly. They had been very good together in To Catch a Thief. Well, that was not to be. So he set about to find actors who came as close to Grant and Kelly as he could. We got Rod Taylor and Tippi Hedren.

Step two of the Hitchcock formula was to dress the leading lady 'to the nines'. With a Hitchcock movie the ladies almost always got a free fashion show.

Step three involves shooting two or three scenes that are so awe- inspiring that everyone will be talking about them around the water cooler on Monday morning. It might be Cary Grant being chased by a crop duster, or the shower scene in Psycho, or the man falling off the Statue of Liberty in Saboteur, or, in this case, lots of matte shots of birds.

I remember watching Hitchcock's movie, Foreign Correspondent, with Joel McCrea and Laraine Day (who happened to be two of the top stars of the day). There were some atmospheric scenes in a windmill and a man falling from a tall building (which he did better in Saboteur). As the film ended I felt that for once Hitchcock hadn't delivered on his memorable scenes policy. But just as the plot has concluded and the protagonists are in an airplane and heading home, a missile is accidently fired at their plane. We see it rip through the cabin as the bewildered occupants are as surprised as the audience. They tumble through air and land in the ocean and there are exciting scenes where they clutch the wing of the shattered aircraft in an effort to survive. So Hitchcock did deliver. Of course the best scenes in the movie had absolutely nothing to do with the story.

LOOK magazine prided itself on having vivid pictures that told a story without need of dialogue. Hitchcock should have worked for them. Movies need plot and good dialogue. He was a great cinematographer but a lousy story teller.

Hitchcock often said that the story was merely the loom on which he weaved his web and he often referred to his actors as cattle to be herded by him. Such complete and utter disrespect for writers and actors lead to a situation where the real star and the only star of almost every Hitchcock film was Hitchcock. He rarely gave his actors closeups and it made it very hard for a star to shine in a Hitchcock film. As to the writers, he had wanton disregard for plot lines. Hitchcock was an ego-maniac, more interested in advancing his own legend than in filming a coherent and interesting story.

Hitchcock directed 53 feature-length films. He was nominated for the Academy Award for best director five times (Rebecca, Lifeboat, Spellbound, Rear Window, and Psycho), but he never won. Hitchcock did not like to share glory. He was the only star of the production and the only actor or actress to ever win an Academy Award for Best Performance in one of his films was Joan Fontaine in Suspicion. Writers did not fare much better. A few were nominated for writing awards;Charles Bennett and Joan Harrison for Foreign Correspondent, Robert E. Sherwood and Joan Harrison for Rebecca, Gordon McDonell for Shadow of a Doubt, John Steinbeck for Lifeboat, Ben Hecht for Notorious, John Michael Hayes for Rear Window, and Ernest Lehman for North by Northwest. None of them won.

Hitchcock's attitude towards writers was that they were necessary to meld his collections of trick photography shots into a movie but that what they did was not particularly important and he often deleted their scenes, re-wrote their dialogue, and changed their plot lines. His first choice to write The Birds was Richard Matheson. It would have been an excellent choice. In my opinion Matheson is the best screenwriter that ever lived. He is responsible for such movies as The Incredible Shrinking Man, Roger Corman's Edgar Allan Poe movies, The House of Usher, The Pit and the Pendulum, Tales of Terror, and The Raven, The Comedy of Terrors, The Morning After, the highly successful TV movies, Duel, The Night Stalker (Which spawned the TV Series), and Trilogy of Terror, as well as writing many of the best episodes of The Twilight Zone. If ever there was a man with the credentials to write a great horror movie, it was Matheson.

But in his article,'He Is Legend: Richard Matheson', Paul Riordan quotes Matheson as saying that Hitchcock approached him about doing the screen play for The Birds but, when Matheson suggested that the birds should not actually be shown very much in the film, any chance of him getting to write the screen play came to a sudden end. Hitchcock was far more concerned about getting credit for shooting fantastic footage of marauding birds than he was about telling a suspenseful story.

He had also considered James Kennaway, who written Tunes of Glory, but according to Patrick McGilligan's book, Alfred Hitchcock; A Life in Darkness and Light, Kennaway told him that to make the movie as frightening as possible,

"You should never see a bird."

Needless to say, that ended any chance that Kennaway might have had to write the script. Wendell Mayes and Ray Bradbury were also considered but both had other commitments.

The movie that Hitchcock had done right before The Birds was Psycho. Psycho was a milestone in Hitchcock's career. For years he had been using big name stars, the very best color photography, and exotic locales to make suspense films and in the 1950's an upstart named, William Castle, began to make horror movies with lesser known stars, in black and white, shot cheaply on simple sets and Castle's movies like, Mr. Sardonicus, Macabre, The Tingler and particularly, House on Haunted Hill often did far better at the box office than Hitchcock's expensive productions. Castle was the master of gimmicks. For Macabre he offered a $1000 life insurance policy to anyone to died of fright while watching the film. In Mr. Sardonicus he allowed the audience to vote on how the story should end. For The Tingler he had chairs in the theater wired to give the patrons electrical shocks. In House on Haunted Hill a plastic skeleton was lowered from the roof of the theater into the audience. Castle's autobiography was entitled, Step Right Up, I'm Going to Scare the Pants Off America and that's a pretty good description of what he did.

Obviously the so-called 'Master of Suspense' could not let himself be upstaged by Castle. He shot Psycho in black and white and employed a gimmick of his own - No one would be seated after the first 15 minutes of the movie. This was pretty lame compared to what Castle had done. In those days it was not uncommon to enter a movie theater in the middle of the story and stay until the part where you came in at rolled by again.

The shower scene in Psycho has become one of the most talked about scenes in motion picture history. There are 90 some pieces of film spliced together to show Janet Leigh's demise. Hitchcock often proudly proclaimed that at no point was the knife ever shown entering the body. Hitchcock always played to the prudes. He gave them horror without blood and love without sex. This pleased the goody-two-shoes element in American society but produced lifeless, colorless, characters in situations without much real impact or reality. Where Hitchcock took the high road, Castle took the low road and produced far more enjoyable films. Castle preferred pleasing audiences to pleasing critics. As soon as Psycho came out Castle quickly produced Homicidal, a bargain basement version of Hitchcock's so-called 'masterpiece'. Where Hitchcock took himself very seriously, Castle was more than willing to laugh at himself.

Someone once said that the best Hitchcock movie ever made was Charade but the pity of it is that Hitchcock didn't make it. Stanley Donen directed it and it really did seem to be the movie that Hitchcock was always striving to make and never quite attaining. Donen was best known for directing musicals like Singing In the Rain and On the Town, both of which he co-directed with Gene Kelly, as well as Funny Face, Pajama Game, and others. In Charade Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn actually did look like they were in love with each other. A pleasant contrast from the cold formal love relationships in Hitchcock movies. The suspense scenes were truly suspenseful because these were real people and we cared about what happened to them, unlike the cardboard cut-out characters that seemed to populate Hitchcock's movies who always seemed more like marionettes being moved around by some puppet master.

While there are those who compliment Hitchcock for his love scenes, I am not one of them. When the movie, Love Story was shot the producers on viewing the first cutting decided that they had a story, but they didn't have 'love'. So the principles were called back to shoot scenes where they made 'snow angels' and did other frivolous and playful things that people in love do. In Hitchcock's movie's we generally have a very formal type of love with no playfulness or sexiness. According to Patrick McGilligan's book, Alfred Hitchcock; A Life in Darkness and Light, Hitchcock declared himself to be celibate and sometimes stated that the only time he had ever made love was at the conception of his daughter. While it seemed that he wanted to make love to some of his female stars, his weight and appearance were an obstacle and his approach was crude. Hitchcock didn't know how to flirt.

For some years after Psycho Hitchcock did not make another movie. This was because he felt the audience would expect him to top Psycho and he wasn't really sure that he could. He kept pondering Du Maurier's short story during this time. He had owned the film rights for years and he had achieved great success with two other Du Maurier works, Jamaica Inn and Rebecca, which was the only Hitchcock movie ever to win an Academy Award for 'Best Picture'.

Du Maurier's story had been reprinted in 1959 in an anthology collection that Hitchcock produced entitled, My Favorites in Suspense. He had originally purchased the film rights with the idea of using it on his Alfred Hitchcock Presents TV show. Another event that played a part in Hitchcock deciding to make The Birds took place on August 18, 1961, when the Santa Cruz Sentinel printed a headline reading,

Seabird Invasion Hits Coastal Homes;Thousands of Birds Floundering in Streets

Reporter Wally Trabing stated that at 3 A.M, a large flock of sooty shearwaters had become confused by the fog and, being attracted by the lights along the California coast, begin to fly into houses, killing themselves.

"Startled by the invasion, residents rushed out on their lawns with flashlights, then rushed back inside, as the birds flew toward their lights."

To read the entire article click here. When Hitchcock read this story it put the idea of making a movie out of Du Maurier's story back on the front burner.

Hitchcock eventually chose Evan Hunter to write the screenplay. Hunter had written a short story called, Vicious Circle, that was done on the Alfred Hitchcock Presents TV show. He later went on to write Blackboard Jungle and, under the name Ed McBain, he wrote the very popular 87th Precinct crime stories. In Hunter's book, Hitch and Me he says that Hitchcock did not like the idea of making a farmer the main protagonist of the story. Hunter says he told him,

"So forget the story entirely. The only elements we'll be using from it are the title and the notion of birds attacking human beings."

So any attempt to correlate Du Maurier's story with Hitchcock's movie is pretty much futile.

The setting was changed from Cornwall, England to Bodega Bay, near San Francisco, California. The male lead would be a lawyer working in San Francisco but living in Bodega Bay. The female lead would be a spoiled society girl. Hitchcock seemed to have a disdain for ordinary working stiffs.

During their early working sessions Hunter fielded some very good ideas. He thought perhaps a murder mystery could be intertwined. Hitchcock didn't like it. He thought perhaps a new school teacher could come to town when the birds began to attack and that the townspeople might blame the attacks on her arrival. Hitchcock didn't want a teacher for his lead character. Then Hunter came up with a terrible idea. He suggested starting the movie as a screwball comedy and then bringing in the horror aspect. Hitchcock liked the idea. Hitchcock's only attempts at comedy were Mr. and Mrs. Smith and The Trouble With Harry, neither of which was particularly hilarious. The snappy patter at the beginning of The Birds that takes place when Rod Taylor meets Tippi Hedren at a pet shop and she poses as a clerk is supposed to pass for comedy. I have yet to meet anyone who talks about the humor in The Birds.

Hunter is not entirely to blame for the script that became the movie. Hitchcock made many changes, added dialogue, deleted scenes, and even added ideas that some of his friends such as Jessica Tandy's husband, Hume Cronyn, and author, V.F. Prichett, gave him. The end result was a mish-mosh of a story, containing unrealistic characters, having no central theme, and not travelling in any particular direction. The search for hidden meanings in the story becomes chaotic because everyone who added or subtracted something from Hunter's script seemed to have a different idea concerning what those hidden meanings were to be. The tragedy is that this could have, and should have, been a masterpiece of a film but too many hands pulled it in too many different directions.

One notes immediately that in the opening credits Hitchcock's name is larger than the movie's title and three times larger than the names of the actors. Evan Hunter is the only name listed as screen writer although, as I've stated, many cooks spoiled this broth.

The female protagonist is Melanie Daniels. The name Melanie came from the fact that Tippi Hedren, who played part, had a daughter named Melanie. The daughter grew up to become the actress Melanie Griffith. Tippi, by the way, is a Swedish nickname meaning 'little girl'.

Originally Hitchcock had wanted Grace Kelly and Cary Grant for this film and it looked for awhile as though Her Serene Highness, Princess Grace of Monaco, might actually do it and that she might star in Hitchcock's movie, Marnie, as well. Unfortunately, Hitchcock announced it to the public and this created problems. Marnie had a rape scene in it and it would not do for the princess of an arabic country to star in a movie where she was raped. Also Grace was still technically under contract to MGM and they were not about to let her come out of retirement to star in a movie made by another studio. The people of Monaco were outraged by the whole thing and Grace Kelly regrettably announced that she would not be available for either film.

Hitchcock was forced to find a replacement and he wanted a Grace Kelly-look-alike. He considered Pamela Tiffin, Yvette Mimieux, Carol Lynley, and Sandra Dee but found none of them to be satisfactory. One day, while watching the Today show he saw a commercial for the diet drink SEGO that featured Tippi Hedren, where a young boy whistled at her. He liked the way she walked and carried herself and decided that she would be the star of The Birds.

Cary Grant was busy doing a movie with Doris Day. Hitchcock first considered Sean Connery as a replacement but Sean was busy doing the early James Bond movies. He settled on Rod Taylor to play Mitch, the male lead.

The movie opens with some establishing shots of trolley cars and other items that show the city to be San Francisco and we see Melanie Daniels walking past a boy scout who whistles at her, almost an exact copy of Tippi's SEGO commercial. So its official from the get-go that she's a dish. She pauses briefly to look at a large number of gulls in the air.

Hitchcock makes a cameo appearance coming out of a pet store with two poodles on a leash. He liked to do his cameos early in the picture because otherwise the audience was distracted by searching the crowd shots trying to find him.

Melanie goes into Davidson's Pet Shop and remarks to the clerk that she's never seen so many gulls. The clerk says that there must be a storm at sea because that drives them inland. This is our first bit of foreshadowing and it isn't too bad. While the clerk is checking on a myna bird that Melanie has ordered, Mitch (Rod Taylor) comes in. He acts as if he thinks Melanie is a clerk, although he has seen her pictures in the paper and knows quite well she isn't. She pretends to be a clerk and tries to help him find some lovebirds for his sister's birthday.

We've only just began and already there's a problem. Mitch, who is at least in his mid-thirties says that his sister is going to be eleven. This seems more bizarre than birds attacking people.

Melanie plays with a pencil (a subconscious phallic symbol?) while she talks to Mitch. Hitchcock added this touch.

When Mitch asks Melanie if she feels guilty about keeping the birds in cages, she replies,

"Well, we can't just let them fly around the shop, you know."

In Hitchcock's eyes this is screwball comedy but it isn't very humorous and we don't even feel that there's all that much sexual attraction going on.

When Mitch asks to see a canary Melanie attempts take one out of its cage but it bites her finger and it begins to fly around the shop - just exactly what she said they could not be allowed to do. So it looks as though a thematic ground work is being laid down. Mitch catches the bird with his hat and as he returns it to its cage, he says,

"Back in your gilded cage, Melanie Daniels."

Hitchcock takes credit for writing this line himself. The fact that carnies are yellow and that Melanie is a blonde foreshadows that Mitch is going to clip this little socialite playgirl's wings. Melanie is surprised that he knows who she is. Mitch reveals that he is a lawyer and that he once sued her over a practical joke that she pulled.

"I just thought you might like to know what its like to be on the other end of a gag."

All of this sounds like its setting the symbolic framework for the story but so many people had a hand in the writing of the script that it somehow gets lost and really leads nowhere. There are those who suggest that Hitchcock had a sort love/hate emotional relationship with icy aloof blondes and that there may be something in that. Grace Kelly, Kim Novak, Eva Marie Saint, Tippi Hedren, Janet Leigh, and Doris Day were all blonde and, while some of them were actually warm and emotional in their other pictures, in Hitchcock's movies they all had invisible barbed wire warped around them. In the very first few minutes of the movie we've already established that Melanie looks so good that she can get anything she wants with just a smile. But now that Hitchcock has put her up on a pedestal he fells compelled to knock her off. It is quite likely that he always lusted after that type of woman and was rejected. Hitchcock was a man very concerned with status and that is what that type of woman represents, sort of a living statue of Aphrodite, something other men would envy but not really a fully functioning woman with actual emotions. That's just the guess of an armchair psychiatrist and I could easily be wrong but his personal relationships with some of his stars, particularly Tippi Hedren, suggest that it was probably the case.

Melanie decides to have the last laugh. She buys some lovebirds and takes them to Mitch's apartment but he's gone to Bodega Bay for the weekend. Melanie goes to Bodega Bay (68 miles away). This seems like its taking a gag a little farther than to be expected, particularly since buying lovebirds isn't exactly on a pare with whoopi cushions and dribble glasses. She wears an expensive fur coat on this journey although the weather does not seem to be very cold. To me its just Hitchcock's way of hammering home the idea that this is a spoiled little rich girl but others have suggested it shows man's dominance over nature. If it does, I think it was unintentional.

Melanie stops in Bodega Bay to find out where Mitch lives. A storekeeper gives her directions to where "Lydia and the two kids" live. Lydia is Mitch's mother. Jessica Tandy plays the part. The reference to Mitch as a 'kid' seems rather bizarre because it once again draws attention to the fact that he seems to be at least 20 years older than his sister.

Melanie visits Annie Hayworth, the school teacher (Hunter was successful in getting a school teacher included in the story, but only in a supporting role), to find out the name of Mitch's sister. Suzanne Pleshette plays Annie and she's far and away the best performer in the movie. The exchange between Melanie and Annie is pleasant on the surface but Suzanne gives it a nice undertone in which, without really saying it, she lets it be known that she once loved Mitch and is not exactly thrilled to see someone else pursuing him. When Melanie tells her that the birds in her car are lovebirds, Annie responds with,

"I see. Good luck, Miss Daniels."

The name of Mitch's sister is Cathy.

Melanie rents a boat to cross the bay to Mitch's place. She sneaks into the house and leaves the lovebirds and a card. When Mitch sees the lovebirds he knows that only Melanie could have left them and he runs outside to see her leaving in her boat. Mitch hops in his car and takes the long way around the bay to meet her at the dock in Bodega Bay. But before Melanie can reach the dock a seagull swoops down and claws her forehead. Just before the bird hits her we see Melanie staring back at Mitch with a most definite smirk on her face. So at about 19 minutes into the movie we have our first bird attack and the smirk has been wiped off of her face. The invulnerable Miss Daniels has received a nick. The attack is somewhat similar to the first attack on Nat in Du Maurier's story, in that it is minor but it draws blood, sort of like a glove-slap to the face of an opponent.

Mitch escorts her to 'The Tides' restaurant. To find out more about the actual restaurant click here. Mitch applies peroxide to her wound. There are those who say that this 'Hitchcock blonde' seemed to draw strength from the peroxide, but I think that's over-doing it a bit. Melanie tells Mitch that she was coming up to Bodega Bay anyway to see an old friend, Annie Hayworth. Mitch doesn't really buy it. Lydia, Mitch's mother, comes in. Mitch explains that Melanie has brought lovebirds for Cathy's birthday. Lydia responds with,

"Oh, I see."

This the same response Annie gave. Everyone seems to see Melanie making a play for Mitch except Melanie and Mitch. Mitch invites her to dinner.

Conveniently, Annie Hayworth has a sign in her window reading, 'Room for Rent'. A little too pat. When Melanie visits her and asks to stay the weekend Annie asks,

"Something unexpected come up?"

A little tease for the audience. She then casts her eyes to the sky where there are huge flocks of gulls.

"Don't they ever stop migrating?"

Perhaps we have a veiled reference here to fact that Melanie has left the city to seek what she wants in Bodega Bay, that rather than seeking a man in her own social circle she has come here to poach upon Lydia's devoted son and Annie's ex-lover.

When Melanie arrives for dinner Lydia is concerned that her chickens aren't eating. Lydia phones the feed store and learns that a neighbor, Dan Fawcett, has the same problem but with a different brand of feed. Lydia's disapprovable of Melanie is very apparent in the scenes that follow. It is probably just coincidence that the talk about the chickens not eating come at the same time Melanie drops in for dinner.

When Melanie returns to Annie's place to spend the night the two girls have a heart-to-heart chat about Lydia's possessiveness of her son. Annie once had eyes for Mitch and she moved from San Francisco just to be near him; a little extreme, but not entirely unheard of. There is what appears to be a knock at the door. Annie opens it to find a gull has flown into her door and killed itself. Annie remarks,

"Poor thing, probably lost his way in the dark."

At about 40 minutes into the movie we have our second bird attack. The long first act here is effective in some ways. It builds up the audience's anticipation for the real bird warfare that is yet to come. Annie's remark about the bird losing its way in the dark may be symbolic of the way that Melanie Daniels lost her way in the earlier part of her life.

The next day Melanie attends Cathy's birthday party. There is a scene where Mitch and Melanie are standing on some sand dunes somewhat away from where the party activities are taking place. Mitch has brought a pitcher of martinis with him and they are drinking and Melanie goes into an almost incoherent dialogue about her mother abandoning her as a child that has absolutely nothing to do with anything that has taken place up to that point. Later, in the closing shot, Lydia will hold Melanie close to her and there will be the inference that Melanie has found the mother that she was seeking. According to Hunter's book, Hitch and Me. Rod Taylor approached him before the scene was shot and asked him if he'd written this ridiculous scene. Hunter did not write it. He went to Hitchcock and told him how awful the scene was but Hitchcock insisted that it stay in. Hitchcock had written it himself.

The children at the party are attacked by birds as they play 'blindman's bluff' and Annie notes that this is the third time birds have acted very strangely. The fact that Cathy is blind- folded when the birds attacked could have been used to make a very frightening scene but the sight of young children being attacked by birds actually comes off looking silly. This is one of the worst scenes in the movie. It would have been more suited to the old Batman TV show than a Hitchcock thriller.

The scene that follows is far more effect. Melanie agrees to stay for dinner at Mitch's. As they sit comfortably in the living room Melanie notices that a sparrow has flown down the chimney. Almost immediately a huge flock of sparrows bursts down the chimney and begins to attack the humans.

While so much is written about Hitchcock, Tippi Hedren, and Evan Hunter, very little is said about Ray Berwick, who might be more responsible for the appeal that this film has than any of the others. Berwick was the bird handler on the movie, The Birdman of Alcatraz and Hitchcock hired him to deal with the birds in this movie. While the work of the others has been both praised and criticized, there can be nothing but the utmost admiration for the work of Ray Berwick. The set on this shot was enclosed in plastic to keep the birds from escaping and, after hundreds of sparrows were released down the chimney, handlers with air hoses blasted the birds every time they tried to perch. This kept them continually in motion while Hedren and Taylor fended them off. Anchovies were rubbed on the actors to get the birds to attack them. Later, even more birds were matted into the shot.

Ub Iwerks, Walt Disney's first employee and a pioneer in the field of special effects helped to produce the great painted matte shots. He had developed a sodium matting technique that was capable of combining live action footage with background sets and paintings in such a way that it all melded seamlessly. My first introduction to this type of thing came when I visited a science museum at Balboa Park in San Diego. There was table there that had what appeared to be a mirror in the middle. When people sat on opposite sides of the table they saw their reflection in the mirror in the middle but by turning a knob the concentration of sodium in the plates of the mirror was changed and the face of the person on one side of the table magically begin to change into the face of the person on the other side. I was so impressed by this I incorporated it into my story, Intercourse With the Dead.

A bond has been growing between Melanie and Cathy and Melanie protects Cathy while Lydia is left alone to fend for herself by the fireplace. Mitch attempts to chase the birds out the french doors without much success. There is a stark contrast between this scene and the earlier scene where Mitch easily caught the canary with his hat and put it back in it's cage. All of this fits fairly well with the developing story of Melanie's relationship with Mitch. While Mitch could easily put Melanie 'back into her gilded cage' at the outset, now she cannot be easily ignored, and she seems to have taken Lydia's place as the woman in Mitch's life and even as Cathy's mother, while Lydia is alone and abandoned.

Eventually Melanie herds Cathy and Lydia into another room and closes the door. A group of people sitting and talking quietly who are suddenly and without reason overwhelmed by attacking birds works quite well. This is what we've been waiting for.

After the bird attack is over the sheriff arrives on the scene and attempts to come up with logical reasons for the bizarre behavior of the birds. Lydia picks up broken pieces of her tea service and Melanie decides to stay for the night.

The next day Lydia goes to see her neighbor, Dan Fawcett, to compare the problems they've both been facing in regard to the chickens not eating. There is an establishing shot of Lydia driving her truck down the country road that leads to the farm. There is no noticeable movement of dust on the road at this time. Lydia stops to talk to the farmer's hired hand, George, who says he hasn't seen Dan this morning. The only homage paid to poor old Nat Hocken in Hitchcock's movie is this one scene where George stands in for him. When Lydia enters the house she sees broken tea cups in the kitchen and the similarity to the broken china service she was picking up the night before is all too clear. As she enters the bedroom she sees the bodies of dead birds. Then we have a shot of Dan Fawcett's clawed and bloody legs that is very similar to the scene in Du Maurier's story where Nat sees the legs of the farmer's wife. But next we go to a mid-shot of Dan's upper torso with only bloody holes where the eyes should have been. It seems odd that Hitchcock bragged so often the fact that you never see the knife enter Janet Leigh's body in Psycho and yet uses such a graphic scene here. Lydia rushes out of the house, pauses as she passes George, unable to even speak, and then jumps in her truck which now leaves huge clouds of dust on the road which was almost dust-free when she arrived five minutes ago. I suspect that Hitchcock probably had something dragged behind the truck or put in her gas tank in order to get the road to emote.

Lydia is so distraught that she has to be confined to bed for awhile. Mitch receives a call from the police to come over to the farmer's house and as he leaves he kisses Melanie. This is the first scene where the two of them don't bicker. Melanie takes tea to Lydia. Apparently the Brenner's had an extra set of china in case of bird attack. Now its Melanie and Lydia's turn to have a heart-to-heart chat. Lydia seesaws between talking about her fear of being abandoned and her concern that Cathy will have to walk home from school alone with rampaging sparrows on the loose. Melanie agrees to go get Cathy.

The built-up to the next scene is probably the best that Hitchcock ever did. Melanie waits outside the school while the children sing a song. The Potter School which was used for this scene still stands in Bodega Bay, although it is now a private residence. To find out more about it click here. One of the questions that continually pops up about this movie is, 'What song were they singing?'. It is called, Risseldy, Rosseldy and it is either an Irish-American or Irish folksong that was sung while churning butter with a wooden handle called a dasher. Various sources list various lyrics and various spellings of the nonsense-words that appear in the song, but as near as I can determine it goes like this -

Risseldy, Rosseldy

I married my wifeIn the month of June,Risseldy, rosseldy,Mow, mow, mow,I carried her offIn a silver spoon,Risseldy, Rosseldy,Hey bambassity,Nickety, nackety,Retrical quality,Willowby, wallowby,Mow, mow, mow.

She combed her hairBut once a year,Risseldy, rosseldy,Mow, mow, mow,With every strokeShe shed a tear,Risseldy, Rosseldy,Hey bambassity,Nickety, nackety,Retrical quality,Willowby, wallowby,Mow, mow, mow.

She swept the floorBut once a year,Risseldy, rosseldy,Mow, mow, mow,She swore her broomWas much to dear,Risseldy, Rosseldy,Hey bambassity,Nickety, nackety,Retrical quality,Willowby, wallowby,Mow, mow, mow.

She churned her butterIn Dad's old boot,Risseldy, rosseldy,Mow, mow, mow,And for a dasherUsed her foot,Risseldy, Rosseldy,Hey bambassity,Nickety, nackety,Retrical quality,Willowby, wallowby,Mow, mow, mow.

The butter came outA grizzly gray,Risseldy, rosseldy,Mow, mow, mow,The cheese took legsAnd ran away,Risseldy, Rosseldy,Hey bambassity,Nickety, nackety,Retrical quality,Willowby, wallowby,Mow, mow, mow.

Hunter had the children sing another chorus so that it would last long enough to cover the entire scene. It should be noted that this is the only music in the movie. There is no background music what- so-ever.

As Melanie sits smoking in front of the playground a crow lands on the jungle gym. She continues to smoke. Now there are five crows on the jungle gym. The camera switches from Melanie to the jungle gym repeatedly and each time there are more crows. When Melanie finally looks behind her the entire playground is covered with hundreds of crows. She enters the school just as Annie is telling the children that they can now out to the playground. Melanie stops her and shows her the legions of birds sitting out there waiting for the children.

Annie tells the children that they are going to have a fire drill and that they must walk very quietly until she tells them to run. The explicit instructions she gives seem to be fore-shadowing for a really frightening scene that will start slowly and then burst into terror but instead we cut to a scene with the children running wildly down a hill and matted in birds all over the place. Once again a scene that has children being attacked by birds just doesn't work very well. The lead-in is better than the actual event.

Melanie herds Cathy and one of her friends into a parked car and they sit out the bird attack. Melanie parks the kids at Annie's and then goes to the local diner to call her father, who happens to be a newspaper editor.

The diner scene probably has more stilted dialogue than any other in movie history. We have one of the most convenient casts of characters ever assembled.

There just happens to be noted ornithologist there who starts spouting every know fact concerning birds that there is. Just as the expert is telling Melanie that it is mankind that treats birds badly we hear the waitress yelling at the cook that she has an order for three fried chickens.

There is a drunk who quotes the bible and claims that the world is coming to an end. Some speculate the Hitchcock is paying homage to the playwright, Sean O'Casey, here. O'Casey was an old acquaintance and the two had ups and downs over the years.

There is a sea captain who talks of one his skippers being attacked by gulls.

Then a businessman comes in and says, for no apparent reason, that birds should be wiped from the face of the earth.

We also have a woman with two children who are frightened by the talk. The performances of all children in this movie are absolutely awful and these two are no exception.

Mitch arrives with the sheriff, who is still not convinced that the birds are really attacking people.

Hitchcock defined his idea of suspense many times. He said that he wanted to make the audience sweat. He described a scene where there was a bomb placed under a table about to go off. But, while the audience knows its there, the people at the table sit around talking about baseball completely oblivious to the horrible fate that awaits them. The most striking example of his theory in practice is the scene that follows next in The Birds.

An attendant outside of the restaurant is filling a car with gas when birds attack him. He drops the hose causing gas to flood the parking lot. Not far away is a man about to light a cigar. The people in the restaurant watch through a glass window and they can see that a major explosion is about to occur but, even though they open the window and yell to warn the man, there is nothing that can prevent what is about to happen. The man drops the match and everything goes up in flames and begins to explode. There are several freeze-frame shots of Melanie looking aghast in different directions as explosions take place that are incredibly effective. The 'bird wars' are about have a 'Battle of the Bulge'.

We switch to a panorama shot from above and see seagulls swarming down like a squadron of dive bombers. For some reason the people in the restaurant, including Melanie, feel compelled to leave the safety of the building and run outside to where the birds are attacking.

Melanie seeks refuge in a phone booth and birds begin to crash into it smashing the glass. This is a complete role-reversal of the pet shop scene where the bird was caged and Melanie said that they couldn't be allowed to just fly about. Now Melanie is caged in the phone booth and the birds are just flying about and doing what they want to. A badly clawed man tries to enter the phone booth to reach safety but Melanie knows that letting him in would mean that the birds would get her and she holds the door shut. While Melanie is outwardly polite and friendly, there's still a wall between her and the rest of the world and she loves herself far too much to take risks for other people. The wall is staying where it is for now, no matter how horrible, self-centered and inhumane it might appear to be. She distances herself from the world out of fear and self- preservation.

The fire department arrives and starts to spray water on a gasoline fire. Obviously their training was somewhat inadequate. A wagon pulled by horses runs by frantically. Perhaps there is an Amish community nearby. Hitchcock pulls out all the stops to create an exciting scene. Finally, Mitch rescues her and hurries her into the diner.

Inside the diner the people are all huddled in fear in a back hallway. The lady with the children blames Melanie for the bird attacks because it all started when Melanie came to Bodega Bay. This harkens back to an idea Evan Hunter had originally when he wanted a new school teacher to come to town and for the townspeople to blame the attacks on her. And Melanie did bring the lovebirds to Bodega Bay. Maybe the other birds resented that. Melanie slaps the woman who derides her and after the attack is over she walks with Mitch to Annie's house. It makes one wonder where Mitch's car is because it would have offered some protection. Annie is lying dead on the steps of her house. Mitch and Melanie leave with Cathy in Melanie's car.

Rather than leave town or go to the sheriff's office, Mitch and Melanie go home and start boarding up the windows. Two of Hunter's best touches were eliminated by Hitchcock. As the family listened to the radio for news of the attacks Hunter planned to show President Kennedy giving a speech that contained a line about America's role as

"the great defender of freedom in its hour of maximum danger."

This would have been highly effective. While most people equate freedom with having a say in the laws that one lives under and the absence of dictators, as Norman Rockwell so nicely illustrated with his paintings, there are four freedoms; Freedom of Religion, Freedom from Want, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom from Fear. Without freedom from fear there is no hope for a normal productive life.

Hunter also wrote a scene where Melanie jokingly says,

"this all must have started with a malcontent sparrow preaching revolution"

But then there's an icy silence. And she says that when the sparrows came down the chimney she felt it was as if "they wanted everyone in the house dead". Hitchcock removed both scenes.

Once the family is securely boarded-in the birds attack the house. Richard Matheson was right about not showing the birds too much. This scene is the most frightening in the picture. Its very claustrophobic. When a shutter comes loose Mitch is bitten by birds as he secures it. When they start to peck through the door he nails a dresser over it. He meets each challenge that he's faced with. Melanie, Lydia, and Cathy go through extreme panic attacks and it seems as though they might lose their battle and all be killed at any moment. Eventually the attack subsides.

Later, when everyone else is asleep, Melanie hears a noise and grabs a flashlight to check it out. Hitchcock had great concern about this scene and asked Hunter repeatedly why she would risk going upstairs and entering a room by herself with the birds surrounding the house. It really does not seem logical but it provides a very scary scene. Once Melanie enters the room of the second floor she finds that the birds have pecked through the ceiling and she is savagely attacked.

Ray Berwick's crew threw birds in Tippi Hedren's face for a week to get one minute of footage. The bird handlers wore thick rubber gloves up to their elbows to protect themselves from sharp claws and breaks but Tippi had no such protection. Shooting had to be stopped when one scratched her eye badly. In Kathleen Kas