During the scene after the attack of the birds from the fireplace, we see a portrait of the father of the house. He is obviously dead. This means that Mitch perhaps didn’t get a chance to fully accept his father as a role model. The mother may subconsciously believe that through keeping hold of Mitch, she is, in some way, keeping hold of the father. Although this does not follow the exact oedipal complex, it is an abstract version of it.
This portrait which we see on the wall is a very abrupt, empowered one. It seems to watch over the room and all who dwell within it. This justifies the part in oedipal where the child fears the father. This portrait quite obviously shows the father of this household was an all powerful one, perhaps to be feared by Mitch. However, this could be contradicted by what the mother says when she is being nursed in bed by Melanie. She begins to tell Melanie how good the father was with the children. We begin to detect a subtle tone of jealousy in her voice. She also tells Melanie how she always used to make breakfast for her husband. Now he’s gone she still makes it for Mitch. This justifies my thoughts regarding her feeling she is keeping hold of her husband through Mitch. She quite obviously cannot accept the death of her husband.
The oedipal complex may also be related to the life of Hitchcock, as many parallels can be drawn, and this could show some reasoning for him including a character with an oedipal complex. Hitchcock’s father took him to be incarcerated in a police cell for five minutes. This is quite a traumatizing thing to do to a child. Hitchcock may very well have feared this man.
Freud also had another theory which seems to relate quite well to the film, and also Mitch and Melanie’s relationship. It is about three needy women – and a fourth from a younger generation- each flocking around and vying for varying degrees of affection and attention from the sole emotionally-cold male lead, and the fragile tensions, anxieties and unpredictable relationships between them. These women can be interpreted as the mother, Melanie, Annie, and the younger generation woman as Cathy.
The Greek myth, which Freud based his oedipal complex theory, was about a character named oedipal, who slept with his mother and killed his father. In this myth Oedipus takes a pin from his mother’s dress and plucks his eyes out. He makes himself blind. There are many references to blindness in ‘The Birds.’
During the attack on the children when they are running from the school, a child falls and her glass get broken. The children also play blind mans bluff at Cathy’s party, this in itself is an omen and they are playing this when the birds strike on a group for the first time. The birds do actually seem to target the eyes of their victims
When we see the dead mans’ body, Dan’s, his eyes are pecked out. This proves the birds have headed directly for the eyes.
When the birds attack during the scene where they come out of the fireplace, Mitch yells “Cover you eyes!”.
Mirrors are used to repel the birds. This is quite a passive reference to the blindness, as the birds reflections are being used to deter them. They will also be protecting the eyes of the victim.
Many of the shots used are through a subjective of the victims, as the birds are flying towards them. This gives the audience a large sense of empathy as it would appear the bird was heading directly towards the eye of the viewer.
There is a largely obvious transformation in the characters in The Birds, predominantly between the mother, and Melanie Daniels. The use of camera angles plays a key role in helping to distinguish higher and lower status, and degeneration of roles.
At the beginning of the film, where we first encounter the mother in the café, she appears to be of an obviously higher status. Low angles are used on her, to make her seem ruling and powerful. She is stood over Melanie, and high angle subjectives are used to show how the mother looks down on her. This is quite a recognizable contrast to the large role reversals that take place later in the film.
Mitch’s younger sister Cathy addresses Melanie as Melanie, where as, towards the beginning, the mother is still addressing her as Miss Daniels. The rest of the family is accepting Melanie; they are treating her as a friend, asking her to stay. The mother remains still rather hostile towards her, however this hostility is not affecting Melanie, and there are no noticeable camera angles which suggest who is of a higher status than whom. Melanie does, later in the scene, notice the hostility felt towards her, but purposely overlooks it for her own good. Melanie says that she should stay, before the mother has a chance to interject. She uses an authoritative tone with a rhetorical statement, and glances at the mother as she says it. She is her own person and does not need reassurance from anyone else, for her own decisions. In contrast to this, when the mother speaks she does seek reassurance. She looks towards Mitch for justification.
When the first bird attacks that night, it is Melanie who sees it first. We see the bird through a subjective shot through Melanie. This shows she is the one who is alert and will take control. She is beginning to broaden in her motherly character already. The mother’s status begins to deteriorate from here onwards. There is use of high angles to make the mother’s role appear lower than Melanie’s. Melanie seems to remain calm throughout the attack. We see the exit, the escape route, through a subjective through Melanie, this shows she is always thinking, not panicking like the mother, and she has the family best interests in mind. These are very motherly actions, perhaps unlike what may have been expected of her in relation to what we find at the beginning concerning fountains in Italy. It is from here we can see that she may start to take over the role as the mother figure in the film.
After the attack, there is a very revealing scene, as to role reversal and degeneration of characters. The mother is scrabbling round on her hands and knees attempting to put back together pieces that were broken during the attack. Melanie is watching her intently. She, perhaps, pities the mother. She is quite literally higher up than her, as the mother is on the floor and Melanie is on the sofa. The mother’s status has now, quite obviously fallen, to the audience and to Melanie. Uses of high and low angles in this scene also help to show this. There are subjectives though the eyes of Melanie, and we see, Melanie is calm and composed, and the mother is scrabbling round like a beggar.
She is scrabbling around trying to collect the fragments from her life. She looks up at the portrait of the father; she is evidently collecting something that was important to her. The fact that this is broken is perhaps hinting that it is time for a new life. A new life where she is not as domineering as she has tried to be. She has perhaps tried to fill the father’s boots, and it is now time to take a step down, and allow herself to be cared for, rather than constantly trying to be the prime carer.
Melanie is definitely scene as the prime carer at the end of this scene, as she is the one who leads the mother into the bedroom to rest. It is as if the birds have, in one attack, taken away the mothers capability and power.
The death of Dan is a key factor when weakening the mother’s character. This scene’s relevance is great to the story; it is the development of character, against the collapse of sanity. Dan is the character whose eyes are pecked out by the birds, and the mother is the first to discover him. The finding of this body begins the deterioration within herself. There is an accelerated degeneration of character in this scene. It is also the starting point for Melanie to completely replace the mother in her role.
On discovering Dan’s death the mother becomes frantic. She runs, looking like a typical Hitchcockian woman, crazy and deranged.
When she arrives back to the house she just wants the comfort of her son, but, of course, Melanie is there too. She cannot handle this anymore, and is allowing herself to break down. She lets out a sob and runs straight into the house in despair.
The mother is in bed rest after this scare, and when Melanie comes in with tea for her, the mother wants it to be Mitch. Melanie stands over her, being of a quite obvious higher status, both literally and through use of camera angles, and this becomes quite evident to the audience. Her decline becomes a predominantly obvious issue, even to the unknowing eye.
Throughout the scene, the mother is constantly opening up more and more, letting her guard down, and showing her true deteriorating state. She uses many statements which contradict her feelings towards Melanie, and it becomes evident that the mother has realized she may have to accept Melanie. She asks her not to go, but also tells her she doesn’t know if she likes her. She breaks down, confessing how she doesn’t want to be left alone. She is constantly seeking reassurance, and always is looking for the answer she wants. She blames situations on the birds. This indefinitely draws parallels with a man vs. nature antinomy.
When the mother says “I wish I were a stronger person”, we are just hanging on the line, waiting for her to say “like you”, as we know she means it. She begins to accept Melanie as a daughter, rather than a threat. This is a huge step, towards a route out of an oedipal concern.
When Melanie notices the photograph of the family on the dressing table she is obviously intrigued, and the mother notices so. She begins to explain how her husband had such a good relationship with the children, how he understood them. This does contradict the oedipal suggestions, however, it could make to justifications seem stronger. If the mother was very jealous of the father’s relationship, she may now smother her children with love, to try and prove that she is just as capable of understanding. This would ultimately result in the unbreakable needing of her son, therefore, Oedipal. If this case is so, it would appear the mother is also envious of Melanie. She would seem to be, in a quite abstract form, replacing the father figure. She has broken into the understanding of Mitch and Cathy, and this would make the mother quite insecure.
At the end of this scene, the mother thanks Melanie for the tea. She has quite obviously let her guard completely down, and it would now be hard for her to feel she was dignified again.
The cinematography of the film plays a key role in showing character developments and declinations. I am going to look at the chimney scene and the final scene, as these show strong, and interesting status changes.
We first see Melanie Daniels’ character change in the chimney scene, her motherly side comes instinctively out; it is her instinct to protect her ‘loved ones’.
However, in the final scene, there is an equalizer, the mother and Melanie’s roles balance out. Melanie’s hysteric state, gives the mother back an ounce of dignity, as she is re instated as a caring figure. Mitch does appear to be the prime carer, but the mother is now ranked fairly highly in those stakes. Melanie just looks blank, in a trance like state, mad and helpless. She is having to be supported by both Mitch and the mother, showing her need for support.
She loses her composure in the presence of people for the first time; when she sees a bird, she starts to say ‘no, no…’. This shows another role reversal. The camera angles used are ones which show a change in status, but a different one this time. Melanie is looking up at the mother, the mother is looking down; as it was in the beginning.
Melanie’s relationship with the locals is far from a desired one. The locals seem to link her to the attacks of the birds more and more as the film progresses. When they first encounter her in the café, although none appear to have spoken to her, they are still extremely skeptical towards her. As the film progresses the skeptical nature of the locals does not lessen or go away, if anything it deepens.
In the scene where the birds attack the petrol station, the idea of the cynic among the locals is confirmed. The remaining people in the café bar, including Melanie, are distraught, panicked and terrified. Another typical Hitchcockian woman confronts Melanie, telling her how all the trouble with the birds is Melanie’s fault, and that everything was fine until she came along. She tells her to go back to where she came from. At this point Melanie slaps the woman, consequently provoking all opinions held of her by the locals, to reach the lowest point possible.
Having analyzed the transformation of characters in depth, I believe that the transformation of the characters’ of Melanie and the Mother are the greatest. Without these changes, the film would not have such a level of suspense and audience empathy. I feel the way that Hitchcock allows the audience to travel through Melanie’s transformation with her, increases the amount of empathy felt towards her. We know what she has been through, and hope where she is going will make her happy. We also feel that the end scene, which acts as an equalizer, is a hint of what is to happen in the future.
Therefore, character transformation is a vital feature concerning the film succeeding on a range of levels.
