The relentless predators that attack people can be not only bears or wolves coming out of the forest. Sometimes, seagulls also are merciless, like in “The Birds” by Daphne du Maurier – a short story written in 1952. In the center of this work is the story of a farmer and his family, whose settlement is attacked by whole flocks of sea birds. In 1963, Alfred Hitchcock made a film of the same name, which differs significantly from the idea of du Maurier. Although the short story “The Birds” and the movie The Birds are often perceived as a single entity, it is possible to consider all differences between these two versions thoroughly due to historical criticism.
Even though the film and story have the same name and base, which involves a narrative about people suffering from the birds’ attacks, many episodes make them different. Firstly, while the written version focuses only on the farmer Nat Hocken, the movie has a lot of heroes. For instance, the viewers can see Melanie Daniels and Mitch Brenner. Secondly, in The Birds , there are more storylines: the birds’ attacks, the line of relationship between Melanie and Mitch, Cathy’s party, and episodes with her teacher. Finally, there are also less visible differences: the events of the printed story occur in London, and events of the movie – in California. The film starts from the meeting in the pet shop, while the written version begins from the moment where Nat sees a lot of birds, “jackdaw and gull, mingled in strange partnership” (du Maurier 4). In addition, du Maurier describes the situation where the seagulls’ punishment is directed at all city residents, while Hitchcock’s birds are more aimed at the main heroine. Therefore, although both these versions are interesting, they are pretty different.
I believe that the written version is superior since it better conveys the idea of nature’s rebellion against humanity. Moreover, this story was created when the dangerous eastern wind could symbolize the potential threat of the East to the USA. Although the film has more characters and storylines, the written version seems more dynamic. It would be wrong to forget that Daphne du Maurier disliked the final script of the movie due to the numerous changes (Carr). I think the printed version is more substantial and more profound.
The differences between the written story and the film were made due to technical and stylistic reasons. Even if Hitchcock wanted to create the movie wholly based on du Maurier’s work, he could not do it because the full-length film required more actions and heroes (Carr). However, it accounts only for the emergence of new heroes but does not explain the missing of Nat. As for stylistic, The Birds is not a full-screen adaptation, but only the movie with the use of some aspects of the written story: the name, the general idea, and the atmosphere.
Although certain elements unite the story by du Maurier and film by Hitchcock, they should not be perceived as two parts of one artwork. Due to the historical criticism, it becomes clear that du Maurier puts more meaning into the narrative, symbolizing both the attack of nature and the threat of the East. However, both film and story are bright, engaging, and make people think; therefore, they are worthy of reading and watching.