Get the flock out of here
I see on Letterboxd I previously gave The Birds a nice, generous *** out of five from the memory of having seen it many years ago. Lesser Hitchcock, but still some kind of a thrill.
Rewatching it today . . . nah.


Country: United States.
Running time: 119 minutes.
Director: Alfred Hitchcock.
Writer: Evan Hunter.
Based on: the story The Birds by Daphne du Maurier.
Cast includes: Tippi Hedren, Rod Taylor, Jessica Tandy, Suzanne Pleshette, Veronica Cartwright.
Links: Wikipedia, IMDB
#17, US box office
#2, Cahiers du Cinéma (1963)
#185, Sight & Sound (2022)
Keywords: animal attack.
Set in era: contemporary.
Is it well known? very.
How did I see it? home.
Had I seen this before? long ago on video.
Overrated? somewhat.
The movie starts with Hitchcock making his trademark cameo, walking his dogs out of a pet store improbably located at San Francisco’s Union Square that has no dogs. Only birds. Well, that’s charming as always, but . . . a bit of a miss?
As is everything that follows. Tippi Hedren is in the shop as a customer, and Rod Taylor, mistaking her for a store employee, henpecks her with bird questions to which she knows only wrong answers. The two establish just a shocking lack of chemistry, after which you would think they never see each other again.
Oh, but wait! In an amazing turn of events, Tippi insanely stalks Rod Taylor — perhaps because of his movie-star chin, because there’s simply nothing else good about him — to Bodega Bay a long drive north of the city. She ditches her car and attempts to sneak up on his bayside house by boat, because a woman in a fur coat traveling by motorboat in broad daylight is the least conspicuous possible way to sneak up there. Somehow, she is noticed.

What’s weird is, this boat ruse is neither clever nor interesting nor necessary to the plot, and that is true of virtually every development in the movie.
Tippi decides to stay a little longer, so she rents a room from the always-lovely Suzanne Pleshette, who has never left town because she, too, once had a thing with Rod Taylor (again, why?), and even though it’s over, she can’t bear to leave his general vicinity. (Again, why?) “You see, I still like him a hell of a lot and I don’t want to lose that friendship. Ever,” she explains. I’m sorry, no.
Anyway, Tippi also gets sucked into the family dynamic between Rod, his overbearing and elderly(-ish) mother (played by Jessica Tandy), and his inexplicably young 11-year-old sister. This could have been some twisted kind of Psycho house, but no, that isn’t this movie.
So then with this mediocre soap opera surrounding it, the movie is built on something completely dumb happening — as you know already, birds start just attacking people for no reason. Thus, “The Birds”!

Even when the birds attack people, it reminds me of a movie I saw long ago where worms attack people, i.e., the actors get worms on their faces and scream in agony. (Possibly Squirm, 1976?) The Birds has some genuinely wrangled birds in it, which is a pretty good achievement, but it has some bogus D-grade horror too.
Pick a famous Hitchcock movie — North By Northwest, Vertigo, Psycho, Spellbound, Notorious, The Lady Vanishes, Strangers on a Train, the list goes on — and there will be mystery, there will be intrigue, there will be reasons, in the end there will be answers. Not so, The Birds. Hey, I have an idea: What if birds just . . . went crazy? Wow!
In fact, as the town is wrecked by birds with no explanation, a lady sheltering with her kids in the local diner screams at Tippi, “I think you’re the cause of all this. I think you’re evil. EVIL!” And the movie gives us no other rationale, so yeah! Probably! You go, mad mom in diner!
Looking at the Hitchcock filmography, this film was preceded by the superlative trio of:
- Vertigo (1958)
North By Northwest (1959)
Psycho (1960)
Which — who has ever had a three-year run like that? But then it was followed by:
- Marnie (1964)
Torn Curtain (1966)
Topaz (1969)
Frenzy (1972)
Family Plot (1976)
And it makes me think, maybe this is where the man finally became unhitched. Of those last five, I have only seen Torn Curtain, which is weak. I remember Frenzy and Family Plot coming out when I was a kid — and only just aware for the first time that there was this iconic guy named Hitchcock — and people saying that they weren’t his good stuff anymore. I have seen a little bit of praise for a couple of these movies, but have you ever heard anyone say, “My favorite Hitchcock movies are Marnie, Topaz and Frenzy”? People are more likely to have never heard of them.
Hitch himself already made the joke that he called it The Birds because that’s what it’s for. The movie is his last iconic one — I have to give it that: people have a horror-movie picture in their mind of birds gone wild. But nothing about it is good.
Notes
1. Screenwriter Evan Hunter also wrote the novel King’s Ransom under the name Ed McBain, which was turned into Akira Kurosawa’s High and Low, a much better film also released in 1963.
2. In addition to the original Daphne du Maurier story, which I understand the movie does not closely follow, Wikipedia says:
The Birds is also partly inspired by the true events of a mass bird attack on the seaside town of Capitola in California on August 18, 1961, when “Capitola residents awoke to a scene that seemed straight out of a horror movie. Hordes of seabirds were dive-bombing their homes, crashing into cars and spewing half-digested anchovies onto lawns”. Alfred Hitchcock heard of this event and used it as research material for this film which was then in progress. The real cause of the birds’ behavior was toxic algae, but that was not known back in the 1960s. In the film, the characters make reference to a similar bird attack “last year” in Santa Cruz, which is an implied reference to the Capitola attack.
3. Rod Taylor was pretty out of control and almost doomed the production with excessive drinking, according to the following story:
Rod Taylor’s love of alcohol and carousing was evident during the filming of “The Birds.” He would start drinking at the motel bar every night and was often joined by [hairdresser] Virginia Darcy. They were kindred spirits; they both liked their liquor and a good time. One night, according to Darcy, they ended up in bed together. Darcy also recalled one incident when “Rod was driving drunk, up and down the streets of Santa Rosa, yelling and screaming.” This put Darcy in an awkward position, as she was dating a local police officer at the time. . . .
Taylor drove the crew back to the motel that evening, and he was pulled over for drunk driving. . . . Taylor was ordered out of the car and slammed against the door with his hands behind his back. Everyone was stunned, and as Taylor was arrested, he said, “Don’t you girls get involved. I don’t want you to get hurt or anything.” He was taken to the local police station. Johnston went back to the motel and tried to find production manager Norman Deming, but, she said, “We didn’t know what room to go to find him, so we scooted back to ours and went to bed.”
The next day Taylor was late for work, and those who knew why tried to keep it quiet. Virginia Darcy happened to be dating the booking officer, Homer Lee, so she persuaded him to let Taylor off with a caution and a citation. “He didn’t end up in jail because Homer saw to it. If he had been charged, that could have closed down production,” said Darcy, because the hearing judge visited only once a month. The next day, [Hitchcock’s assistant] Peggy Robertson expressed her gratitude and said, “Thank God for you, Virginia. . . . You saved our company.”
Tony Lee Moral, The Drunk Driving Arrest That Almost Shut Down Hitchcock’s ‘The Birds’, Indiewire, 2026, an excerpt from Moral’s book A Century of Hitchcock: The Man, the Myths, the Legacy.
4. Many interesting details of the production are collected in this article in Behind the Lens. Here are a couple of them:
The final shot of the film is composed of three panels, matte paintings and multiple film layers, i.e., 32 separate exposures, leading Hitchcock himself to call this “the most difficult single shot I’ve ever done.” Complex is an understatement as the scene combined live birds, animated birds, mechanical birds and the car driving toward the matte painting backdrop.
One may think that Tippi Hedren is “acting” in the key attic scene. This was no acting. This was true terror. Assured by Hitchcock personally that mechanical birds were being used in the attic, on the first take she walked into an attic filled with live birds which were flying loose and also be flung at her by prop men. Over the course of this five day shoot for this one scene, live gulls, ravens and crows were thrown at Hedren until she was ultimately gouged on her cheek near her eye at which point she was hospitalized for a week.
Alfred Hitchcock’s THE BIRDS: Fun facts flying your way for Halloween!, Behind the Lens
5. Fun advice for anybody who has a location that someone wants to use for a movie:
The man who owned the Tides Restaurant in downtown Bodega Bay where a few scenes were filmed was named Mitch Zanich. He allowed Hitchcock to film there on one condition—the male lead had to be named “Mitch.” Zanich is seen in the segment after a seagull attacks Melanie—he asks Rod Taylor, whose character was Mitch Brenner, “What happened, Mitch?”
Chrissy Stockholm, 38 Facts About Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘The Birds’ That You Probably Didn’t Know, Creepy Catalog
The conversation
• I’m actually surprised that the New Yorker was this dismissive (accurately so) in real time, given the run of successes Hitchcock had just had and critics’ tendency to indulge directors’ mediocre efforts on the merits of their reputations.
Alfred Hitchcock’s “The Birds” is a sorry failure. Hard as it may be to believe of a Hitchcock, it doesn’t arouse suspense, which is, of course, what justifies and transforms the sadism that lies at the heart of every thriller. . . .
Miss Hedren is so new a newcomer that Universal has boasted in print of her having no previous acting experience whatever. Not everything about this picture is hard to believe.
Brendan Gill, Bunglers, The New Yorker, 1963
• Here, the NY Times reviewer does exactly what I was saying, while ALMOST admitting the movie doesn’t hold up.
Notice how clear and naturalistic the narrative elements are: a plausible confrontation, beautiful scenery, a literal enactment of a playful intrigue -- all very nicely arranged.
Then, sneakily, Mr. Hitchcock tweaks us with a tentative touch of the bizarre. The plausible is interrupted by a peculiar avian caprice. A seagull attacks a young woman. . . .
There may be no explanation for it (except that symbolic one, perhaps), but the fierceness and frightfulness of it are sufficient to cause shocks and chills. And that is, no doubt, what Mr. Hitchcock primarily intends.
Bosley Crowther, 'The Birds': Hitchcock’s Feathered Fiends are Chilling, The New York Times, 1963
• This modern-day review has thoughts about many aspects of the film:
Many internet critics have recently been comparing The Birds to our new summer shark-blockbuster The Shallows on gender-based grounds, making the case the The Shallows as a more progressive version of the woman vs. nature narrative found here because the female lead stands in contrast to the punished Hedren, a poor, innocent victim of the bird attack. As Hedren says early in the film, “I’m neither poor nor innocent.” As much of a supporter as I am of feminist film criticism, I think it is more interesting to examine Hedren along the lines of class rather than gender, as much of the film seems concerned with pushing her sheltered, entitled sophisticate further and further outside of her comfort zone--starting with her arrival in the rural Bodega Bay and ending with her clothes being tattered and torn by the vengeful forces of nature. People who are upset that she becomes sidelined for Taylor to become the hero in Act III are missing the fact that she’s kind of the villain. This is a supernatural story about privilege being checked by the forces of nature--the first being made last, so to speak.
Alison Swafford, Cinematary (where film criticism goes to die), 2016
• And here’s a writer who revisited the film and found it better than he remembered. I agree with what’s below, and I also admit that the impact of this scene and others has to be diminished by the small screen. So seeing the movie in a theater in 1963 must have been more dramatic than seeing it now at home.
The opening credits sequence a mini-masterpiece onto itself. The silhouettes of birds flap frantically across a soft gray backdrop, accompanied by the sound of flapping wings, chirps and caws. I’m not sure how this was created. It appears to be images of real birds, but their movements are almost entirely on a two-dimensional plane, as if flying back and forth behind glass in a narrow space. . . . This a haunting and strange way to start the movie, made all the more unsettling by the cyan text and titles that fall together in pieces then fall apart just as quickly. In some ways, that process is just as apt a way to open this movie as the birds themselves.
Keith Phipps, 10 Thoughts on Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘The Birds', The Reveal newsletter, 2024


Country: United States.
Running time: 119 minutes.
Director: Alfred Hitchcock.
Writer: Evan Hunter.
Based on: the story The Birds by Daphne du Maurier.
Cast includes: Tippi Hedren, Rod Taylor, Jessica Tandy, Suzanne Pleshette, Veronica Cartwright.
Links: Wikipedia, IMDB
#17, US box office
#2, Cahiers du Cinéma (1963)
#185, Sight & Sound (2022)
Keywords: animal attack.
Set in era: contemporary.
Is it well known? very.
How did I see it? home.
Had I seen this before? long ago on video.
Overrated? somewhat.
