Joke Collection Website - Cold jokes - Re-interpretation of the controversy over Hitchcock's classic "Birds"

Re-interpretation of the controversy over Hitchcock's classic "Birds"

Birds is a controversial work by Hitchcock, a suspense master. Although its classicality is still beyond doubt, its evaluation is far less impeccable than Hitchcock's Butterfly Dream, Ecstasy and other works.

Because of these controversies, Birds is even more intriguing, but it has some subtle and fascinating feelings. Having stood the test of doubt and time, Birds is becoming more and more classic.

Many critical comments on "Birds" will quote the famous American Variety's comment on this film as "sheer nonsense ... nothing but scaring people". The appearance of this kind of evaluation stems from the fact that there is no explanation in the film whether the birds attack humans crazily in the cause or whether the Mitch family can escape from danger or how to deal with it at the end. The seemingly incomplete plot is accused of being a hole or fault in the narrative, which also raises the question that the whole film is just "scary for the sake of scaring people"

It is not difficult for us to find the binary narrative structure of people and birds in the film, so we can't simply look at the film from the old-fashioned people-centered standpoint. After careful understanding, people and birds are not even equivalent in actual narrative effect.

The hero in the film is uncertain about life and death, and there is no explanation, and human beings are always helpless in the face of birds; The birds in the film, from the initial hovering in the air in San Francisco, to the ruthless attack on the residents of the town, and finally to the occupation of the land in Bodega Bay. The spatial position of birds from the sky to the ground is decreasing, and they have the upper hand in the relationship with people. Instead, they constitute a complete narrative of time and space. Then, considering the film from the perspective of birds overlooking, it doesn't matter what the relationship between Lydia and Melanie is, and whether Mitch and Melanie can love each other or not. The story of Birds is not incomplete, but it can be called a truly complete film about birds.

Hitchcock's classic films often reveal a strong psychoanalytic meaning. This film does depict the relationship between Mitch and his mother Lydia and his girlfriend Melanie, which makes many traditional interpretations of Birds focus on the psychological interpretation of Freud or Lacan. Some scholars even take "Lydia is the only one who has never been attacked by birds in the film" as an excuse, and think that the bird attack on Melanie and Anne is an externalization of the resentment between Lydia and her son Mitch towards the "third party" because of the Casta complex. It just makes people feel too far-fetched.

If the film is a narrative angle centered on birds, then the setting of the relationship between the characters in the film is more like a fool who is used to interpreting his film with psychoanalytic theory than the psychoanalytic symbol in Birds. The master's joke is also expressed in Anne's conversation with Melanie: "What's the answer? Jealous woman, right? A possessive mother? Wrong! Speaking of Oedipus complex, I don't think that's the case. " (with all due respect to Oedipus, I don't think that was the case.) Therefore, the psychoanalytic perspective of Oedipus complex may not have much significance at all.

The interpretation of the theme of Birds has always been controversial. Apart from psychoanalysis, there are also many critics who lead the film to the perspective of thinking about environmental issues and the relationship between man and nature. But in fact, as long as we know Hitchcock's work style a little, we will also feel that this analysis is more far-fetched than psychoanalysis.

If Birds is divided into genre films, there is no need to say more about the horror and suspense, and Birds can also be called a real disaster film. The definition of disaster films has always been criticized by critics from the perspective of psychoanalysis, but once again, we focus on the main character of the film, and we can find that the flock itself has many remarkable characteristics:

(1) External aggression

The reason why the flock in the film can cause human panic is that the flock has obvious external aggression. The empty eyes left by birds pecking at their eyes are an aggressive manifestation of this direct violation of human rights. One of the reasons for the recurring images of eyes and emptiness in the film is that if people are deprived of the right to see, they will completely lose the ability to confront birds, and the aggressive attack on the integrity of human body and sovereignty is also a prerequisite for the thriller of the film.

(2) A huge number

Except for the first time Melanie was attacked by a seagull, birds attacked humans in groups. During the discussion in the coffee shop, the lady majoring in ornithology said that the number of birds is huge, and even has a completely overwhelming advantage compared with the number of human beings, which implies that the attack of birds is completely extended to all human beings. This also completely breaks everyone's sense of self-superiority that they think they are safe, which indicates the seriousness of the incident.

(3) Irrationality

In human cognition, birds have no language behavior, that is, they cannot communicate. We can't understand the meaning of their behavior, and we can't understand their purpose. We think they are irrational beings. At the end of the film, there is no explanation for the reasons for attacking the birds, so people are always at a loss and can't predict how things will develop.

(4) Existed before human beings

There is also a very important point in my exposition, that is, birds came to this earth before human beings, that is, the occupation of birds is reasonable. This kind of cognition is not a physical or power violation, but a psychological defeat.

The bird attack in the film is not selective, regardless of the good guys and bad guys, and it is not different from any appearance characteristics. It has obvious destructive power and absolute advantages, which makes people helpless ... What other violence is so indiscriminate? It is nothing more than the Black Death, fire, flood, earthquake and war! If this is not a disaster, then what is a disaster?

In the conversation in the coffee shop, what the most professional and credible old woman majoring in ornithology said was ridiculous and unreasonable at this time, while what the least credible drunkard said became a symbol of truth-"The end of the world has come ..."

From every feature of the above birds to the choice of the description subject of birds, the shadow of the master's handwriting was revealed.

From the beginning of the film, the couple love birds came to this town with Melanie, and each of us can never forget that love birds is also a bird. When all kinds of birds in the town are madly attacking human beings, we will remember that there is a pair of love birds in the kitchen, and until the end of the film, the pair of love birds is still carried by the Mitch family because "nothing has been done wrong". As a potential risk factor, no one knows whether they will also bring disaster. Even if we confirm that the birds in the town have completely become human attackers, the incident has not become known, and the hanging heart still cannot be put down.

Hitchcock will also let the birds suddenly enter the frame from behind the camera in the filming, which can also be regarded as the bird's perspective. Zizek believes that the significance of this shot lies in "Hitchcock arouses the fear when the distance separating the audience-he/she is a safe position for pure gaze-and the narrative reflects reality disappears;" The stain blurs the external/internal dividing line that brings us a sense of security. " The disappearance of the dividing line means that we are no longer just a safe spectator.

There is also a metaphorical image in the film. Birds keep crashing into the window. As Hitchcock explained in another classic, Rear Window, each of us is peeking and being peeked. Here, every viewer is no longer a peeping through the window, but one who may be hurt by birds breaking through the window at any time, and it is no longer birds but human beings who are snooped.

At the beginning of the film, with Melanie's sight, we see birds hovering in the sky and birds in pet shop cages. At the end of the film, however, the moviegoer is standing in the same perspective as the birds and watching the Mitch family fade away. Here, the subject of watching has completely become a flock of birds.

It's not just a change of perspective, but also the plot from the beginning when people choose birds in cages in pet shops, and later when birds attack you, you are forced to stay at home, in cafes, cars and telephone booths ... At the beginning, Mitch and Melanie come to this town, and finally, Melanie and Mitch's family leave the town under the watchful eye of birds. From complete autonomy to being an expelled group, human beings have a sense of fear.

Obviously, there is no answer to everything, but the highly symmetrical perspective and plot setting make people feel completely subverted and the story is so complete. Exquisite conception and precise control, how can we say that this is not a classic written by a master?

Birds is a controversial work, but these controversies can make us think about this film better. It is also a classic, which deserves more scholars' comments.