Eli Solt

John McCombe’s Essay “’Oh, I See…’: The Birds and the Culmination of Hitchcock’s Hyper-Romantic Vision” is primarily concerned with connecting Hitchcock’s 1963 film The Birds with a specific kind of British Romanticism from the end of the eighteenth-century. More specifically McCombe compares the work with Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s “Rime of the Ancient Mariner” and how, while the Mariner’s is more optimistic and faith-driven, both story worlds parallel each other. McCombe goes further and compares the ideology of the film to works by both Coleridge and William Wordsworth, early Romantic poets. He suggests that the two authors and Hitchcock were concerned with the fundamental (and fragile) balance between man and nature and expressed disdain and pessimism toward traditional institutional education.

The essay begins with a quote from Robin Wood that suggests Hitchcock’s films are more analogous to a poem than to a novel. One of Hitchcock’s primary goals is to intentionally guide the viewer’s attention and perception as the narrative plays out. McCombe first addresses how The Birds acts as a kind of thematic continuation of Psycho and to some extent Vertigo. As the second half of Vertigo and much of Psycho plays out like a hellish nightmare, so does the world in which the narrative of The Birds takes place (as well as “Rime of the Ancient Mariner”). McCombe references Coleridge’s “Poems of High Imagination” which focus on supernatural occurrences like what happens in The Birds and argues that in a continuation of the themes of Psycho, the irrational world of The Birds is simply a projected version of Norman Bates’ mind; a mind in an agitated state. McCombe claims that one of the most important elements of this film and “Mariner” is the audience’s willingness to suspend their disbelief as fantasy blends into the real world and typical cause and effect structures in the narrative “disintegrate” into something far more disturbing and chaotic.

McCombe spends a significant amount of time studying what he claims to be one of the most important sequences in the film: the discussion at the Tides Restaurant. While none of the bird theories are confirmed as being correct, the important thing is that none of them remain outside the realm of possibility by the end of the film. That’s just how twisted Hitchcock’s world is. As McCombe notes the drunkard at the end of the bar claiming, “it’s the end of the world,” he compares this directly to the religious message within “Rime of the Ancient Mariner” as the Mariner learns not to interfere with nature’s balance with man and has a redemptive story arc where he travels the world, warning others not to do the same as him. While McCombe makes the comparison between the dreamlike and irrational qualities of both worlds, he acknowledges that Hitchcock creates a far darker, more secular envisioning of the allegory and that Melanie is offered no redemption at the end. The world of The Birds is a world so violent that faith nor education can save you.

At the final point, McCombe addresses the Romantic’s idea of true vision, something where “looking” and “seeing” are differentiated. He mentions that both Wordsworth and Coleridge believed that one had to go beyond formal education and “book learning” in order to truly see the beauty in the world and in nature. They believed that classrooms limited imagination which is why it’s so significant that the birds mainly target children and the schoolhouse where the school represents the adult’s forced order and the birds are the chaos and mayhem of nature, upset with humanity’s belief that they can control it. Just like in Vertigo and Psycho, there is an important motif of the eye and a common phrase repeated in this film which is “I see”. This suggests an inherent connection between true vision and the actual blindness of humanity which the bird reveal by pecking the eyes out of several victims.

McCombe’s essay left me with some lingering questions about the film:

1. McCombe acknowledges the persistence of certain “dark” or “sinister” aspects of characters in Hitchcock’s films that define the “Romantic Hero.” He writes that these characters often have “an interest in the mystical, violence, and the grotesque, as well as a ‘morbid preoccupation with death, and the irrational’” (McCombe 266). What characters (if any) reflect these traits in The Birds?

 2. On page 267, McCombe quotes David Sterritt who suggests that The Birds is a follow-up to Psycho saying: “[The Birds] projects Norman’s disequilibrium into the world at large, showing us not an individual but an entire world possessed by madness, confusion, and a rage […] that is as mysterious as it is murderous…” (McCombe 267). How does the narrative world of the birds act as a larger projection of Norman Bates’ mind? What does Sterritt mean by suggesting it is “as mysterious as it is murderous?”

3. McCombe disagrees with those who have suggested that the absurdity within the film is simply a joke on the audience. He writes: “…to view the film as an elaborate gag is to neglect the film’s didacticism…” (McCombe 270). What might be the important didacticism that the film is providing? Why might viewing the film as a “joke” be problematic? What could all of this suggest about the ways in which we interpret films?

4. On Page 271, the comparison between the protagonist of “Rime of the Ancient Mariner” and the protagonist of The Birds splits. While the Mariner redeems himself through his understanding, McCombe suggests something different for Hitchcock’s heroine stating, “…Melanie’s potential reform – her movement beyond the ‘thoughtlessness’ of her earlier pranks involving smashed windows and naked plunges into Roman fountains – collides with a nightmare that will not relent” (McCombe 271). Both how and why is Melanie not offered a redemptive arc in this film? Why is the lack of her “reform” crucial to Hitchcock’s ideology throughout the film?

5. With many Hitchcock films, a Freudian, psychoanalytic reading offers a deeper understanding of the character motivations and inner workings of the narrative itself. Similarly, the mother character and the mother-son relationship in these films are often closely examined and compared with the Oedipus complex. McCombe rejects the importance of that in this film saying that (as Annie suggests), “Lydia is less concerned with ‘losing Mitch’ than psychoanalytic critics would permit” (McCombe 274). How does Lydia compare to other “Hitchcock Mothers”? How about her relationship with Mitch? Why might any similarities (and differences) be significant?

You can read John McCombe’s full essay here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3661141

SOCIAL