In this blog post, we analyze Hitchcock’s film The Birds, exploring the suspense within the film and the underlying social and philosophical messages hidden beneath.
Alfred Hitchcock is hailed as a master of commercial visual art in the thriller and mystery genres. Several methods stand out in his thrillers for creating suspense. First, an attractive blonde woman, often living a life contrary to the prejudices against women at the time, actively drives the story forward and captivates the male protagonist. These female characters leave a strong impression on the audience and serve as a crucial element in forming the unique tension of Hitchcock’s films. Second, the film reveals information or dangers unknown to the protagonist while simultaneously progressing the story as if nothing is amiss. This causes the audience to feel both concern for the protagonist’s safety and thrill. Third, the story is structured simply yet powerfully. Clear event progression, rather than complex narrative structures, aids audience immersion. Fourth, the technique of the ‘MacGuffin’ appears: it kickstarts the story’s development and triggers suspense, yet ultimately remains unexplained within the narrative. Such techniques are well demonstrated in the film ‘The Birds’. For instance, the gradual shift from the protagonists’ initial sense of everyday tranquility to mounting tension in the opening scenes of ‘The Birds’ demonstrates Hitchcock’s meticulous approach to building suspense.
When examining the narrative of ‘The Birds’ at a macro level, the central question is “Why are the birds attacking humanity?” This question can be considered the film’s MacGuffin, as while there seems to be a plausible reason for the birds’ attack, the true reason is never revealed; only the damage caused by the birds’ assault is shown. Three main interpretations are possible here. Initially, one might think the birds’ attack relates to the original novel. In the original story, the sudden, widespread devastation caused by birds descending from the sky symbolized the Nazi bombing of Britain during World War II. Although director Hitchcock didn’t heavily reflect the original novel, the symbolic element of the birds might partially echo its themes. Another interpretation suggests it could be a satire on the sudden expansion of American capitalism in the 1960s. The protagonist, Mrs. Daniels, is a bourgeois woman, the daughter of a wealthy family whose father runs a prominent newspaper. As she moves from San Francisco to the rural town of Bodega Bay, the bird attacks begin, which could be interpreted as signifying the onset of capitalism’s offensive. Finally, the birds’ attack in this film could be seen as simply random and causeless violence, through which director Hitchcock may have sought to emphasize how unpredictable the forces of nature are and how they transcend human understanding.
Next, let’s look at more micro-level elements concerning the objects and characters in the film. First, the lovebirds seen early in the film stand out. Mrs. Daniels, pretending to be a shop employee, plays a trick on Mitch, who came to buy a lovebird. I believe the lovebird symbolizes these two. Lovebirds inherently symbolize love and affection, but more significantly, Mrs. Daniels feels a romantic attraction to Mitch, prompting her to take the lovebird and go find him. Moreover, Mrs. Daniels consistently appears wearing green clothing, matching the color of the lovebirds. Furthermore, Mitch’s first conversation with Mrs. Daniels concerns a playful revenge for her breaking a window, suggesting Mrs. Daniels herself represents the birds. The window she broke in the past can be seen as a metaphor for the windows the birds are breaking in the present. And Mitch’s mother, who points to this childish Mrs. Daniels as the cause of the birds’ attack on Bodega Bay, reminds the audience that Mrs. Daniels symbolizes the ills of capitalism or the inappropriate abuse of nature. This conflict between Mitch’s mother and Mrs. Daniels symbolizes the clash between capitalism and traditional values, potentially reflecting the shifting values and tensions within American society at the time. The most striking suspense here lies in the shift in what the birds symbolize: while they represented love and affection in Mrs. Daniels’ conversation with Mitch, they ultimately came to embody brutal violence. Furthermore, from the perspective of the second interpretation, one might focus on the relationships between the characters, most of which are problematic. Examples include Mrs. Daniels’ mother leaving home with another man, Mitch’s mother’s strangely obsessive attachment to her son, and the breakdown of Annie’s relationship with Mitch, who was brought from San Francisco to the village by his mother. This suggests the distortions in relationships produced by capitalism. As capitalism proliferated within American society at the time, more people pursued money, leading to alienation in human relationships and even obsession. Examples include Mitch’s mother, alienated by his pursuit of wealth; Annie, drawn to him but ultimately alienated; and Mrs. Daniels, who is similarly drawn in. These distorted relationships transcend mere personal conflict, serving as crucial devices revealing broader issues plaguing modern society: individualism, alienation, and the changing nature of humanity. Thus, despite possessing a simpler story and theme than most films, Hitchcock’s ‘The Birds’ offers multidimensional inferences regarding its overall message, characters, objects, and character relationships. This is likely why the suspense in his films feels so intensely potent.
After watching this film, the most profound emotion I felt was bewilderment. This was because I found no answer to the most pressing question in the film: why the birds attacked. Moreover, the birds attacked indiscriminately—children, women, men, and the elderly alike. True to the defining characteristic of Hitchcock’s suspense, questions lingered long after the film ended. Consequently, I concluded that the film encompasses both interpretations mentioned earlier, rather than favoring one over the other. Two grounds support this conclusion. First, viewing the film solely through the lens of capitalism feels insufficient. The birds, once caged, now attack, trapping humans indoors—even penetrating the very houses that serve as human cages. This felt like nature’s revenge against humanity. Second, judging it solely through the lens of the relationship between nature and humans overlooks the stark contrast between Mrs. Daniels’ social status and the small town of Bodega Bay. The film remains highly relevant in modern society because capitalism continues to distort human society, and humans still unhesitatingly use nature to serve their own needs. Moreover, this complex interpretation is possible because director Hitchcock doesn’t merely present events designed to induce fear; he poses underlying social and philosophical questions. The film repeatedly features the line, ‘Birds are inherently peaceful and docile creatures; they wouldn’t act this way if humans hadn’t attacked them first.’ That even the most docile creatures can become hostile due to situational factors underscores the need for humanity’s continued attention, reflection, and action. Ultimately, ‘The Birds’ is not merely a horror film but a work that explores the anxieties of its time and the complex relationship between humans and nature, delivering a message that remains profoundly relevant today.
