The Parrots Among Us: A Review of The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill
The image of beautiful green, red and blue birds soaring the city skies alongside the more familiar pigeons, seagulls and crows is a fantastic one. But the real hook in this film is Bittner, whose uncanny ability to respect the wildness of these birds while still caring very deeply for them reveals something about the way all of us interact with nature every day.
What is “natural”? What is “wild”? What do birds and humans really share in common and what similarities are just misguided attempts at anthropomorphism? Director Judy Irving does not try to answer these questions in the film, but they will linger in your mind after spending 83 minutes with Bittner and his flock.
Throughout the film, Bittner shares his insights about the parrots he’s been feeding, caring for, and studying for the past decade. He tells us about “Connor”, the one parrot with a blue head, whose different species sets him apart from his fellow feathered friends. He shares his theories about the romantic relationship between the disabled “Sophie” and her older mate “Picasso”. He laments the pressures of caring for about the overly needy, human-loving “Mingus”. And he recounts the traumatic loss of little “Tupelo”, with the pain normally reserved for the loss of a family member.
The unique subejct matter and cast of characters, if you will, make this a moving film, but several stylisitc shortcomings make it feel a bit hokey. Irving insists on using awkward television-style techniques like freeze-frames, for one thing. But more importantly, her decision to include herself in the story is half-hearted and unnecessary. The inclusion of a brief story about her childhood interest in birding, and later, a confession about her relationship with Bittner, feels out of place in a film so clearly not about the filmmaker.
Bittner’s relationships with the birds are wonderful to observe, but questions about how he is able to survive in America’s most expensive city lingered even after Irving attempts to have him answer them. The formerly homeless street musician somehow manages to have an apartment donated to him so he can take care of the parrots and actually live among them on Telegraph Hill. He also vaguely alludes to some sort of freelance work, but the details are sketchy at best and we are left wondering what – if anything, he does when not caring for the birds – an important question, considering the film is at least as much about him as it is about parrots.
Still, anyone interested in the changing natural environments of our world will find these birds and their ability to thrive in San Francisco fascinating. While the film does not fully explore the possible threat these birds may pose to indigenous species, and certainly there are a lot of other ornithological directions Irving could have pursued, the focus on the close relationships between man and bird, and between bird and bird is compelling.
In the film, Irving states that she wanted to make a nature film that was somehow “more personal.” She succeeds in doing that, and along the way, raises questions about the issues around non-indigenous species and the very nature of “wildness” in modern times.
