Going into the bedroom
-
NJtoTX — 9 years ago(May 30, 2016 03:22 PM)
Yeah, seemed like typical "Don't go in there, girl" horror. And when she sees the hole, to go in and pull the door, instead of trying to leave.
Also bugs me that the entire time Mitch is dragging her out, not one bird gets into the house in the giant opening above her. Can't tell me that the old lady waving her hands was enough to keep all the birds in. Unless they just didn't want to go out of the room.
Science doesn't care what you believe. -
stell1837 — 9 years ago(July 02, 2016 09:49 AM)
This movie was made in 1963 and I guess at that time the dumb Blonde stereotype was at full force and Alfred Hitchcock decided to exploit that at an all time high.
The way Melanie Daniels decided to check the attic was extremely dumb. If she really wanted to check out that room knowing that the house was previously attacked by the birds, then the proper course of action would be to:- Slowly and carefully open the door.
- Open the door with a two inch gap, which is big enough to look in while small enough for the birds to escape.
- All the while keeping a hand on the door knob and remaining in the hallway. Under no circumstances do you enter the room without checking it extensively first. This way, in the case there's any danger there's a quick escape plan by quickly closing the door should the birds attack again.
But what she did was really stupid. She decided to open the door wide open, step inside the room with the door partially closed behind her. This essentially eliminates the window of escape when the birds attacked again.
-
PeterGivenbless — 9 years ago(August 07, 2016 11:41 AM)
I recently re-watched the film on Blu-ray (local video store - remember them? - had just gotten it for their collection, so I hired it out) and a thought occurred to me during that scene; something in the way she moaned "Oh, Mitch" which sounded less like exhaustion, and more like a sexual moan (!): what if all the bird attacks are a screen memory for Melanie's rape by Mitch?
I know at first blush it might sound preposterous (the sort of fanboy pretentiousness you find popping up like weeds on these internet forums), but I found myself wondering if the whole film is actually a reconstructed narrative in which the various bird attacks are screen memories inserted to hide the truth of Mitch's abusive proclivities (which his Mother and former girlfriend, the schoolteacher, and possibly the whole community - through small town gossip - are aware of yet keep secret). Imagine an alternative narrative in which there are no bird attacks and Melanie Daniels ends up spending a night at Mitch's house, during which he rapes her in the upstairs bedroom (while his mother and sister are asleep downstairs), tearing her clothes and leaving her catatonic, then blaming her state on some random bird that flew in through the window and attacked her. His mother, who probably suspects the truth but doesn't want to believe it, goes along with this and the traumatised Melanie is led to believe them.
So now imagine the film, as it is, as her recollection of the days leading up to, and including, her rape in which all the clues to Mitch's true nature are screened out with bird attacks; conjured up to account for her unexplained fears and ominous associations. Because of the trauma she cannot remember the rape, but her recollections are littered with moments of dread, signifying "warnings" about Mitch, which are accounted for by imagining that "the bird(s)" are attacking her (and others, who might also know the truth about Mitch but stay silent).
It's a stretch, I know, but considering the role such traumatic screen memory plays in 'Marnie', I wonder if Hitchcock didn't perhaps have this in mind as a narrative conceit for 'The Birds' as well. Has anyone else come across this theory before, or thought the same?