The Birds
“… The vast quantity of birds flocking above towns, villages, and outlying districts, causing obstruction and damage and even attacking individuals”(du Maurier 68). The above statement is the plot which is presented in both the story and the film. The main plot is the same in both the story and the film. In the story and the film the birds attack with the tides. They rest on low tide and attack on high tide. Abnormal flocking patterns are also a common detail. This means that birds of prey are flocking with the birds that they are hunted by. In both the idea that women cannot handle stressful situations is presented. In the story Mrs.Hockens said to her husband “You’re no to go, you’re not to go and leave me with the children. I cant stand it” (du Maurier 85). “Her voice rose hysterically. He hushed her, calmed her“ (du Maurier85). In both the main characters go into their house to protect themselves but before they do that they board their houses for extra protection. Unfortunately in both the story and the film they did not do a good enough job boarding up their houses because the birds get into an upstairs room. The main character takes precautions like boarding up his house while many other characters don’t take the attacks seriously. “She’s another… Se doesn’t care” (du Maurier 75).
While the story and the film have similarities there are more differences that present them self. One of the main differences would be that there is a completely different cast. In the story the cast is a family while in the film there is a family with an outside women. The difference in casts present romance. While there is no romance in the story there is romance in the film. Another difference would be the setting. In the film the setting is in England while the film’s setting is in San Francisco, Bodego bay. In the story the attacks are worldwide, “About the birds… it’s not only here, it’s everywhere” (du Maurier 68). In the film the attacks are only happening in the bay. Since the attacks are worldwide in the story when the Hockens try to listen to the radio the get a signal or something that would give them hope nut they got nothing. “There won’t be any programs on tonight” (du Maurier 82). But in the film they could receive a signal from the car radio to realize that the attacks were only taking place in Bodego Bay. In both the story and the film the bids get into the chimney but in the story they do no get into the house. “A bit of smoke will clear away the smell of scorched feathers” (du Maurier 89). Unlike in the movie in which the birds not only succeed in getting down the chimney they also succeed in getting into the house. The also presents the fact that Nat Hockens is in tune with his environment and takes aggressive proactive actions while Mitch Brenner is not as aware of his environment and takes reactive action. The story contributes ideas of why the birds are attacking. “I suppose the weather brought them” (du Maurier 65).
“… That intense hunger may drive these birds to attack human beings” (du Maurier 69). “The Russians have poisoned the birds” (du Maurier 77). But in the film the only reason for attack was that Melanie Daniels was a witch. Another alteration between the story and the film are the types of birds. In the story there are lists of birds while in the movie only a few types of birds are mentioned. “The species include blackbird, thrush the common house sparrow… a vast quantity of pigeons and starlings…” (du Maurier 70). And that is only a list of the birds attacking the cities, while in the movie the only mention three or four birds. One other main difference would be the cliff hanger endings. Even though they are cliff hangers you can assume what the fate of the characters in the story and film would be. In the story most likely the family will not be able to survive while in the film the characters are most likely able to get to a safe place and survive.
The story was better than the film. The story had more details. It made better sense of why the birds were attacking. The film was very melodramatic. The characters overacted and wrecked the drama of the film. In the film the plot did not make sense. The story had better overall suspense, and the better cliff hanger ending. While most signs point to Nat and his family are doomed, there are some signs that they might be able to make it. So the ending in the story makes you think about their fate, unlike the film where you know that they are going to be able to survive. The story and film had the same plot yet were totally different. This shows you not to judge a book by its movie.