I’m working my way through some of Daphne du Maurier’s short stories at the moment and the volume that I have starts with one of her best known stories, The Birds. I was quite excited about this, as I enjoyed Hitchcock’s film version (the one with the crows, not giving too much away); but I have to say that the film bears next to no relation to the story. This is by no means a bad thing – just don’t expect the two to be identical, because they’re not.
The first difference is the location; rural Cornwall has its own mystique and the idea of sea and land birds suddenly turning homicidal is rendered even more sinister by the bleakness of the landscape. Rugged coves and acres of farmland offer a desolation that one simply wouldn’t find in an urban setting, and du Maurier really uses that isolation to good effect, building a siege mentality as the Hocken family try to survive each avian onslaught.
The second – and for me, the main – difference is the birds themselves. My memory of Hitchcock’s classic (I haven’t seen it for a while) is that all the birds are crows or ravens; large black corvids, in any event. In du Maurier’s story, it is every species of bird which is involved. The attacks start small, with robins, wrens and tits attacking the Hocken children before the attacks – and birds – increase in size. Near the end, the birds of prey, raptors and gannets, attack the house, ripping at the wooden window frames and door panelling.
If you’ve come across the news reports of gulls attacking humans – either just territorial dive-bombing or to steal food from children – you will probably appreciate the horror of masses of gulls swarming in the sky in preparation for an attack. It’s very disconcerting without being graphically horrific and plays on every human’s wish to avoid being pecked in the eyes. I can understand why Hitchcock changed the story to suit his film, but – good as it is – it’s nowhere near as creepy as the original.