Upon its release in March 1963, Alfred Hitchcock’s *The Birds* received a **mixed and polarizing reception**. While it was a commercial success, many contemporary critics were baffled by its experimental structure, its lack of a traditional musical score, and its refusal to provide a narrative explanation for the bird attacks.
### 1. Critical Consensus: "The Master vs. The Baffled"
Initial reviews ranged from high praise for Hitchcock’s technical mastery to harsh dismissals of the plot as "senile" or "pointless."
* **Positive (Bosley Crowther, *The New York Times*):** Crowther was one of the film's most prominent defenders. He called it a "horror film that should raise the hackles on the most courageous and put goose-pimples on the toughest hide." He praised the "sheer technical virtuosity" of the bird attacks and compared the birds to the Furies of Greek mythology.
* **Negative (Stanley Kauffmann, *The New Republic*):** Kauffmann was famously dismissive, calling it "the worst thriller of his [Hitchcock's] that I can remember." He argued that the film felt hollow and that the "human story" in the first half was disconnected from the "horror story" in the second.
* **Variety:** The trade publication provided a more middle-of-the-road assessment. While they praised the technical achievements, they felt the film "sagged" during its long exposition and were less than enthusiastic about the leading performances of Rod Taylor and Tippi Hedren.
* **Pauline Kael:** At the time, Kael (writing for *I Lost it at the Movies*) and other intellectuals often viewed Hitchcock's 1960s work as a decline from his earlier masterpieces like *Notorious* or *Shadow of a Doubt*. They criticized what they perceived as a "fetishistic" focus on his blonde lead (Hedren) at the expense of tight plotting.
### 2. The "Non-Ending" and Lack of Explanation
The most common grievance among 1963 audiences and critics was the **lack of closure**.
* **The "Why?":** Critics were frustrated that the film never explained why the birds attacked. In an era where "nature-run-amok" films usually blamed radiation or mad scientists, Hitchcock's refusal to provide a cause was seen by some as a failure of screenwriting.
* **The Final Scene:** The film famously does not end with a "The End" title card, but rather with a shot of the characters driving slowly away into a landscape of silent birds. Many moviegoers in 1963 reportedly stayed in their seats, thinking there was more to the film or that the projector had broken.
### 3. Technical and Sound Innovation
Despite narrative criticisms, the film’s technical aspects were almost universally lauded:
* **The "Electronic" Score:** One of the most radical choices was the **absence of a musical score**. Instead, Hitchcock used a soundscape of bird cries and wing-flaps created on a German electronic instrument called the *Mixtur-Trautonium*. While Bernard Herrmann was credited as a "sound consultant," the lack of a traditional orchestra was jarring to audiences used to suspenseful strings.
* **Special Effects:** Ub Iwerks (a Disney veteran) received an **Academy Award nomination for Best Special Effects**. Critics were stunned by the "blue screen" composites and mechanical birds, which were groundbreaking for the time.
### 4. Commercial Performance and Marketing
Despite the divided critics, the film was a major hit at the box office.
* **Marketing:** Universal launched a massive campaign with the cryptic slogan: **"The Birds Is Coming!"** Hitchcock himself appeared in a famous 5-minute trailer, lecturing the audience on the history of birds in a dry, comedic tone.
* **Box Office:** The film grossed approximately **$11.4 million** in its initial run (on a $3.3 million budget), making it the 16th or 17th highest-grossing film of 1963.
* **Tippi Hedren:** Despite some cool reviews for her acting, Hedren won the **Golden Globe for New Star of the Year**, signifying the industry's attempt to position her as the "new Grace Kelly."
### 5. Author's Disapproval
**Daphne du Maurier**, the author of the original short story, reportedly **disliked the film**. She was unhappy that Hitchcock moved the setting from her native Cornwall, England, to Bodega Bay, California, and that he changed the gritty, class-focused survival story into a more polished Hollywood production.