MovieChat Forums > White Bird in a Blizzard (2014) Discussion > The 'Bird' of the Story's Title

The 'Bird' of the Story's Title

posted 10 years ago by redroses_blueworld
8 replies | jump to latest

I haven't seen any other posts which bring this up... but forgive me if this has been touched upon and I've simply missed it. This spring I read the novel, and I had been anticipating the film for a long time. After finally getting a chance to watch the film the other day, I was curious as to why the bird (of the title White Bird In a Blizzard) was left out of the film? I understand that the title of the movie refers to Eve in a symbolic sense, but in the book- it also literally referred to a bird that she bought from a local pet store. My memory is fuzzy on it, but I seem to recall that the bird was a pain/ chirped all of the time and drove Eve's husband and her daughter crazy. Eve purchased it when she started dressing sexy/ began to go bonkers from being a repressed housewife. I want to say that the bird finally ended up in the basement/ in a cage and eventually died.

While I enjoyed the film, I just thought it was so strange that this element was left out. At first it may seem like such an insignificant thing/ minor detail, but it would've easily added another layer of symbolism to the movie/ and would've made more sense out of the title. Did anyone else notice this? I'm also curious as to if it was originally in the script and maybe it was an element that wound up on the cutting room floor for whatever reason. It just seems like something that would be a no brainer to include. It would've even been great in the final scene... when Eve comes in with all of the packages- she could've been carrying the bird/ had it in a cage, as if she had just purchased it... during the struggle with her husband, something could've happened to the bird, etc... ah well! There will always be differences when adapting from book to screen, but the choice to not include that just seemed bizarre/ an oversight during the script writing process?

On a side note, one change that Araki made that I thought worked better than the book: The body being moved. The ending of the book was completely implausible... someone would've found that body in the freezer at some point. Even if the husband wanted to keep his wife's body close to him for a while, he would've eventually moved it. So, I think that Araki was right to change that aspect up a bit. In regard to the bird though, arghhh! It seems like such an easy thing to include... and something that he would've wanted to include?

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MariaDeluca 10 years ago

The movie was only an hour and thirty one minutes. Wasn't long but I guess they just left it out.

[–] redroses_blueworld 10 years ago

Thanks for the replies, Maria and Maricela. Now that both of you have mentioned the running time of the feature, it seems like even more of a bizarre omission... especially since the film isn't overly long. Maricela, If you get a chance, I'd definitely still watch the film. It is still enjoyable, though not as heartfelt as his previous adaptation, Mysterious Skin. Overall, given the similarities between White Bird In a Blizzard and Twin Peaks, I wish that even more of that David Lynch strangeness had been infused into this. And speaking of Twin Peaks, it is nice to see Sheryl Lee in a small role here (played Laura Palmer in the Twin Peaks series and Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me).

[–] twilliams76 10 years ago

I have not read the book and wasn't certain that this symbolism was in the novel.

I just simply interpreted Eve as the bird who flew away as many of her scenes (in dream sequence) are in snow. The white bird in a blizzard couldn't be seen ... like Eve.

I just think they took out the literal bird to make people think more is all ... although I think it could have been a fine addition to the story in the film unless they couldn't think they could convey the family's proper annoyance with said bird in just a few scenes.

[–] amyrocks93 10 years ago

I was VERY confused about this too. It's sort of a detail that ties the whole thing together. And it would have made the title make sense. Honestly there were a lot of things wrong with the adaptation, this being the primary thing. He might have thought that the metaphor would have made the foreshadowing too clear, which is why Araki might have cut it, but the point of the book was not to keep everything to subtle for the audience. At least, I don't think so. He wanted there to be twists but there wasn't much room for that because he kept certain things and cut others but as a result, it didn't line up.

Also, I didn't really like the ending... that didn't make sense either? There was no indication of it at all throughout the film. It was TOO out of the blue for me, almost just "random" really. So it was wanting to be subtle but not? I don't get it.

Shailene also felt forced and too angst-y. I mean, the character in the book almost struck me as more aloof and oblivious to what was really going on in her own house, and her relationship, because she is too distracted by other things. She can't see what's right in front of her nose.

I guess that I did enjoy it in and of itself, but as an adaptation, they didn't quite hit the nail on the head for me.

[–] redroses_blueworld 10 years ago

@ amyrocks93, Yes, now that some time has gone by, I tend to agree with you more and more in regard to what you mentioned about the adaptation. I think Araki's adaptation of Mysterious Skin was much more heartfelt. Of course, when he adapted that book, he made changes and moved things around as well... a film isn't a book after all... but with Mysterious Skin, I feel that he didn't cut anything out that helped move the narrative along. Whereas with White Bird, it almost seemed like Araki was cutting and adding elements at random. He cut out some of the glue that held the story together unfortunately.

There is another film... an animated Ghibli film that I very much enjoy: Howl's Moving Castle. While that particular Ghibli film is enjoyable, as an adaptation of the book, the film misses the mark completely. I feel the same about White Bird.

On a side note, I was much more empathetic with Kat as she was portrayed in the book. Her mom seemed a lot nastier/ meaner within the context of the novel. It was hard to identify with Kat in the novel as well, but at least in the book, there was that little bit of, "Wow, that was a mean thing for her mom to do." While watching the film, I just remember thinking, well, Kat's being just as mean/ hateful to her mom (going along with what you said about Kat's angst being played up)... which made me not like Kat at all really, and because of that, there was no main character in the film that I cared much about. As far as the film goes, I liked the side characters better and identified with them more, which isn't a lot to hold onto, seeing as how the supporting characters weren't given much screen time or fleshed out well.

@thomasjwilliams, I see what you're saying as well. I can certainly see how a viewer with no connection to the novel would just accept Eve as the metaphorical bird of the title. Whereas for a viewer who encountered the book first, the omission tends to come across as more of a big "?"

[–] susanrusciano1960 10 years ago

Not having read the book, I can only assume that the white bird in a blizzard is the mother who is missing, but like a white (covered with frost?) bird in a blizzard, is not detected even though she is right there the whole time. The image of a blizzard seems to be a nod to the location of the body.

[–] Cinehound 10 years ago

I didn't read the book either but seeing Kat dressed in a white shirt, white sweater, white pants and white scarf walking in the snow in those dream sequences, I just assumed that she was the white bird caught up in a blizzard.