User:MidnightMiles/sandbox

Themes and Style
Humanities scholar Camille Paglia wrote a monograph about the film for the BFI Film Classics series. She interprets it as an ode to the many facets of female sexuality and, by extension, nature itself. She notes that women play pivotal roles in it. Mitch is defined by his relationships with his mother, sister, and ex-lover – a careful balance which is disrupted by his attraction to the beautiful Melanie. "“The theme [of the film], after all, is complacency, as the director has stated on innumerable occasions. When we first meet each of the major characters, their infinite capacity of self-absorption is emphasized. Tippi Hedren’s bored socialite is addicted to elaborately time-consuming practical jokes. Rod Taylor’s self-righteous lawyer flaunts his arrogant sensuality, Suzanne Pleshette, his ex-fiancée, wallows in self-pity, and Jessica Tandy, his possessive mother, cringes from her fear of loneliness.""With such complex, unsympathetic characters to contend with, the audience begins to identify with the point of view of the birds, actually the inhuman point of view...” - Film Historian Andrew Sarris (1998)"The central themes that are explored in The Birds consist of love and violence. The representation of the birds in the film constantly changes to reflect the development of these themes and the storyline. At first, the lovebirds in the pet store signify the blossoming love between Melanie and Mitch. However, their symbolism changes once they begin to attack Bodega Bay. The chaotic nature of the birds is never explained, emphasizing the senselessness of their violence.

Another theme within the film is the entrapment of civilians (Raubicheck, Srebnick, 1991, p140), which is a recurring trope in many Hitchcock films. The role of gender is also observed within the film, as “Melanie rebelling against the traditional role of women is punished.” (Thompson,2017) This is through the attack of the birds that strike her into submission.

Throughout the film, Melanie lies about her true intentions in Bodega Bay, and only reveals the truth after the birds attack. This indicates that the presence of Melanie and her unorthodox ways are linked to the bird attacks, which represent society’s condemnation of her.

Editing
Montage editing and slow pacing is used within The Birds to build suspense and elicit a greater emotional response from the audience during the attack scenes: “The pattern of The Birds was deliberately to go slow”. This is exemplified in the scene where the birds gradually gather outside of the school, while an ignorant Melanie sits and waits on the bench. The camera then cuts between her and the increasing number of birds that swoop down onto the jungle gym behind her until they finally attack.

Eyeline Matches and point-of-view (POV) shots within the film encourage audience identification with particular characters and their subjective experiences. This is achieved by cutting between the character and the object of their gaze. For example, when Melanie crosses the bay near the beginning of the film, the camera cuts between close-ups of her face and shots of the Brenner house from her perspective, as she watches Mitch fall for her prank.

The focus on editing and visuals rather than dialogue is also an element of pure cinema that Hitchcock largely uses in his work.

Reception
The Birds received mixed reviews upon its initial release. Bosley Crowther of The New York Times was positive, calling it "a horror film that should raise the hackles on the most courageous and put goose-pimples on the toughest hide." Crowther was unsure whether the birds were meant to be an allegory because "it isn't in Mr. Hitchcock's style to inject allegorical meanings or social significance in his films," but he suggested that they could represent the Furies of Greek mythology who pursued the wicked upon the earth."

Richard L. Coe of The Washington Post called it "gorgeous good fun" in the vein of Hitchcock's earlier black comedy The Trouble with Harry, adding, "I haven't had this kind of merriment since King Kong toppled from the Empire State Building." The Monthly Film Bulletin wrote, "For all the brilliance of scenes like the attack down the chimney, one rarely has a chance to suspend disbelief," but the review still thought that "there is still a great deal more to enjoy than carp at."

Philip K. Scheuer of the Los Angeles Times was among the critics who panned the film, writing that Hitchcock "was once widely quoted as saying he hated actors. After his 1960 'Psycho' and now 'The Birds,' it must be fairly obvious that he has extended his abhorrence to the whole human race. For reasons hardly justified either dramatically or aesthetically, the old master has become a master of the perverse. He has gone all out for shock for shock's sake, and it is too bad." Variety published a mixed assessment, writing that while the film was "slickly executed and fortified with his characteristic tongue-in-cheek touches," Hitchcock "deals more provocatively and effectively in human menace. A fantasy framework dilutes the toxic content of his patented terror-tension formula, and gives the picture a kind of sci-fi exploitation feel, albeit with a touch of production gloss." Brendan Gill of The New Yorker called the film "a sorry failure. Hard as it may be to believe of Hitchcock, it doesn't arouse suspense, which is, of course, what justifies and transforms the sadism that lies at the heart of every thriller. Here the sadism is all too nakedly, repellently present."

With the passage of time the film's standing among critics has improved. On Rotten Tomatoes it has an approval rating of 96% based on reviews from 52 critics, with an average rating of 8.2/10, and the website's consensus states: "Proving once again that build-up is the key to suspense, Hitchcock successfully turned birds into some of the most terrifying villains in horror history." On Metacritic it has a score of 87 out of 100, based on reviews from 12 critics, indicating "universal acclaim". Film critic David Thomson refers to it as Hitchcock's "last unflawed film".

The film was honored by the American Film Institute as the seventh greatest thriller in American Cinema.

Further reading/extra citations moved
Bellour, Raymond; Constance, Penley, ed. (2000). The Analysis of Film. Indiana: Indiana University Press ISBN 9780253337009

Garrett, Greg (1999).‘Hitchcock's women on Hitchcock: A panel discussion with Janet Leigh, Tippi Hedren; Karen Black; Suzanne Pleshette; and Eva Marie Saint’. Salisbury: Literature/Film Quarterly. Vol. 27, Iss. 2. p. 78-89.

https://search.proquest.com/docview/226995033/fulltextPDF/625296F592E4484BPQ/1?accountid=13375

Schaefer, Joy C (2015). Must We Burn Hitchcock?. Vol 32. Quarterly Review of Film and Video. p. 329 [Taylor and Francis Online]https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10509208.2015.999220