Differences Between the Birds the Movie and the Birds Short Story

Normally, when a movie is made about a story in a book the two stories are not exactly the same. The movie is adjusted by adding small details or leaving out some parts in order to make the story more

With any comparison between a play and its movie counterpart there are bound to be major differences and key similarities between

     The short story and the film have differences too but none of these differences really affected the main plot. The short story’s setting is placed just south of London, England right after World War II. The films setting is in Bodega Bay just a little ways away from San Francisco and takes place in the 1960’s. In the film a mad woman accused Melanie of bringing “evil” and causing the attacking of the birds. In the story birds attacked when the tide came in and in the film the birds attack at different times, over and over.

There are many similarities and some minor differences between the movie, directed by Claude Chabrol, and the short story it is based off of, written by Guy de Maupassant. The plot, setting, and characters are all highly similar in both the story and the film. In both, the plot follows the same scheme, it is set in Paris in the 1880’s, and all of the main characters are the same. The major difference that stood out to me is how these aspects are displayed at the beginning of the narrative.

The setting in the movie differs from the setting in the short story in a few ways. The setting in the movie dives into larger detail in many of the scenes such as in the beginning flood scene. The flood scene setting in the movie reveals an eerie, strong, storm with a flood that resembles a river and

differences exist between the original play and the film. Apart from the specific techniques of lighting and

The main difference between the novel and the movie is that in the novel you are introduced to more characters and there involvement in the story is explained. The movie doesn't really introduce u as well as the novel does and this makes it harder to follow what is going on in the movie version. It is harder in a movie to introduce a character but it seemed that it was poorly don in "The Pelican Brief" movie version. I can understand why its easer for a novel to describe how and what they what you to know about a particular character. Now in a movie it's your own perception that you make of a character.

The book and the film were both simular, and yet different in many ways. An example would be, in the film, Ponyboy was walking to the drive-in and meeting Cherri and Marcia. Although in the book, Ponyboy began his journey by telling the readers about his experience about being jumped by the Socs and being threatened. The director probably had some options to pick from to leave out from the movie, and the director chosed this to leave out. Leaving out the part where Ponyboy was jumped was an effective move because without the experience Ponyboy was lost and helpless because he did not know what to do when he and Johnny got cornered in the park by Bob and other Socs.

    Since the movie had more detail it added way more characters than the short story. In the short story there were only two characters which included

One of the differences is the father. In the short story the father is not involved in Connie’s life as much as he should be. “Their father was away at work most of the time and when he came home he wanted supper and he read the newspaper at supper and after supper he went to bed. He did not t bother talking much to them” (Oates 1). They changed in role in the movie. He is more involved in her life in the movie. He talks to Connie about her and her mother's relationship, he is concerned about Connie being on the side of the road, and he tried to steer Connie in the right direction.

One way the story is different from the movie is that the story is very descriptive of characters and

Psychologists have suggested the idea that correlation does not imply causation. In The Birds, viewers find themselves unable to identify the purpose or the cause for the birds’ attacks. Hitchcock does not want us to know the answers either, since Hitchcock marvels at his ability to make viewers question his films and struggle at truly enjoying without fully understanding them. Although this essay cannot find a cause for the attacks in the town or to the characters that seem to be innocent like the children and the old man in the farm, it should shed some light on the correlation between the timing of the attacks near the Brenner family and Melanie and their internal struggle. The symbolism of the caged birds versus the free birds, the Jocasta complex Lydia struggles with, and the imagery of the light versus darkness when the birds attack represent the journey Mitch and Melanie face in trying to be together.

As well as the movie having some character differences, some of the scenes were either cut out or added. One of the major differences in the movie is that Candy never comes into the room when Lennie and Crooks are talking to each other. This is an important part in the novel because when Candy comes in, Crooks finds about their future plan wants to get in on the deal. Except this scene is cut short in the movie and Candy never shows up at Crooks’ house. Another important part that is changed in the movie is the ending. The movie never shows Lennie have the illusions of his Aunt Carla and the rabbits lecturing him while he is waiting by the pond. Also, is seems as though in the movie George doesn’t hesitate to shoot Lennie, and it is all over very quickly. Furthermore, the important scene when Slim tells George, “You hadda, George” (107), never happens in the movie, but instead it ends with an image coming from within George’s imagination, a memory of the many happy times that he and Lennie had shared. There are also some scenes that are added into the movie, but only because the novel is so short, they needed to add things to make the

Another differences between the short story and the film was that in “Killings” the story started off at Frank funeral and later flashback of what had occurred. In the film In the Bedroom the story started from the beginning with Frank and his lover Natalie running in a field, which kind of made the story plot go in chronological order.

Both movies gave me chills because of the suspense that you had to endure when you waited for the next attack. I enjoy the aspect of fortifying a house especially when there is something out to kill you, it's a race against time thankfully the movie and short story did this. I found the Short story more terrifying because your mind can imagine things better than 1960’s CGI effects. Whenever there was a flock of birds in the room you could tell it was fake it wasn't even a prop. When the birds would attack Nat and his family you could feel the suspense, for example, when Nat was waiting for his child to show up at the bus stop so he could get her home and when he got her the birds were about to attack so Nat had to run back. Daphne Du Maurier