There is nothing quite like becoming birdpilled. I am not a halfway kind of person: When I got into movies, I turned thinking about movies into my job. When I got into running, it wasnât long until I was running a half-marathon every weekend. So I know what itâs like to become obsessedâand to start seeing your new obsession everywhere.
But during lockdown, I, like a lot of people, gradually became obsessed with birdsâand it turns out that, with birds, they really are everywhere. Theyâre fluttering outside your window when youâre supposed to be working. Theyâre singing nearby when youâre supposed to be sleeping. Theyâre soaring overhead when youâre supposed to be paying attention to oncoming traffic.
Bird-watching does sometimes involve just thatâwatching birdsâbut for the truly birdpilled, itâs about tuning in to a new layer of reality around you and decoding it. The word bird becomes not just a noun but a verb, and you are always birding. That bird singing when youâre trying to sleep in, that sounds like a dial-up modem? Thatâs a song sparrow. That bird fluttering outside your window when youâre supposed to be working? Damn, you think, is that a yellow-rumped warbler? That raptor soaring over your head when youâre supposed to be paying attention to oncoming traffic? Usually itâs a red-tailed hawk, but sometimes itâs a turkey vulture, or a black vulture, or something more interesting, something that maybe merits glancing up just a little while longer âŠ
This is your new reality, and after a few months or years of adjusting to the shock of it, you start to feel as if youâre in the Matrix. In every glimpse of an outer tail feather, every snippet of song, you can see those cascading green lines of code, and after a while, you can read them.
Most of the time, this is a peaceful, meditative activity, the kind that puts you in a flow state and has been scientifically proven to reduce stress. No matter how out of control everything else feels, when youâre out in nature, everything is in its right place.
Still, every once in a while, thereâs a glitch in the Matrix. In real life, these oddities are thrilling: If something is out of place, it could be a âvagrant,â a migrating bird that has wandered off course from another side of the country or even another hemisphere.
There are, unfortunately, other types of glitches. They come fast and furious, scrambling your brain. Youâre watching Indiana Jones trudge through the jungles of South America in the opening scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark, and one of the first sounds you hear is the famous âaweboâ call of the tundra-loving willow ptarmigan, on the wrong end of the American continent. Youâre watching Season 3 of The White Lotus, set in Thailand, and you find yourself distracted by the persistent âkon-ka-reeeeâ of red-winged blackbirds, on the wrong side of the Pacific Ocean. Youâre lost in Duneâs sweeping vistas, watching Paul Atreides sulk about his home planet of Caladan, until there it is, on the wrong side of the galaxy: a killdeer.
Like any generous viewerâI consider myself oneâyou learn to suspend your disbelief. The same way you learn to accept that every phone number in every movie starts with 555, if youâre a birder, you learn to accept that every bald eagle in every movie screeches like a red-tailed hawk.
I maintained this policy throughout my early birdpilling. But then I watched the original movie adaptation of Charlieâs Angels, and I found myself staring down one of the greatest mysteries of recent cinema.
You see, thereâs a scene in that movie that tormented me, that kept me up at night, and that lately has had me interrogating a wide variety of seemingly devoted, and certainly well-compensated, filmmaking professionals. Thatâs because the bird in Charlieâs Angels is, I believe, the wrongest bird in the history of cinemaâand one of the weirdest and most inexplicable flubs in any movie I can remember. It is elaborately, even ornately wrong. It has haunted not just me but, as Iâd later learn, the birding community at large for almost a quarter of a century.
So, naturally, being an all-in sort of person, I embarked upon a wild-goose chase to investigate how and why this monstrosity took flight. I talked to script doctors and scoured legal statutes. I interviewed leading ornithological experts and electronically analyzed birdcalls, all to figure out who laid this giant egg. It took nearly a year. But eventually, I discovered why hundreds of people with a budget of nearly $100Â million failed to accurately portray a single bird. The answer was most fowl.
This story was adapted from an episode of Slateâs podcast Decoder Ring. That episode was written by Forrest Wickman and edited by Willa Paskin and Evan Chung. It was produced by Max Freedman. Listen to the original version:
Charlieâs Angels started as a hit 1970s TV show about a trio of crime-fighting women. In 2000 it was adapted into a movie, helmed by the music-video director known as McG. It stars Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu, who play three private investigators trying to save the world from (what else?) an evil tech billionaire.
The scene that really drives me cuckoo, the one that aggressively flouts all avian logic, happens right before the big action finale. At this point, the Angels seem done for. Their headquarters has just been blown upâand their beloved helper Bosley (Bill Murray) has been kidnapped and trapped in a prison cell God knows where.
But Bosley has a radio transmitter implanted in a tooth, and so as the Angels wade through the flaming wreckage of their old offices, they hear a familiar voice. At first, they have no idea how to find him, but then a clue appears: A bird flies to the window of Bosleyâs cell. And at our heroesâ darkest moment, it sings its song.
âItâs a Sitta pygmaea!â observes Cameron Diazâs Natalie, who is allegedly a bird expert. âA pygmy nuthatch! They only live in one place: Carmel!â
And so, with that one bit of birdsong, and Natalieâs expertise, the Angels are able to locate Bosley in Carmel, California, free him from his prison cell, and save the day.
Like most of the movie, this scene is knowingly dumb and very fun, and yet, as any bird-lover canât help but notice, it is absolutely riddled with errors.
The problems with the scene are as follows:
First, the pygmy nuthatch does not âonly live in one place.â Iâve personally seen pygmy nuthatches in at least three states, and they can be found in at least three countries.
Second, the bird shown on-screen is not a pygmy nuthatch. The pygmy nuthatch is a tiny, drab, almost gray-scale bird, so small it can fit inside a roll of toilet paper. Instead, whatâs on-screen is a Venezuelan troupial, which is black and neon orange, almost six times the size of a pygmy nuthatch, and alsoâas the name suggestsânot found in Carmel.
Finally, and this might be the most baffling thing, the bird heard on the soundtrack is neither a pygmy nuthatch nor a Venezuelan troupial. Itâs an unknown third bird whose identity has, until now, befuddled birders for years.
To summarize: The bird in this scene does not live where itâs supposed to, look like itâs supposed to, or sound like itâs supposed to. To put this in terms of mammals, itâs as if a two-toed sloth climbed up to Bill Murrayâs window, howled like some unknown species of canine, and Cameron Diaz identified the howl as a sea otter, saying that sea otters live in only one place on Earth: Carmel, California.
For anyone who knows anything about birds, this scene is a train wreck of the sort thatâs simply impossible to ignore. The bird involved is not some background figure: It is not a red-tailed hawk screeching in the distance. It is front and center, strutting around so shamelessly that the first time I saw it, I honestly thought that the filmmakers might be trollingâthat they might be flipping me, and others like me, the bird.
I am a journalist, and as such, it was my first responsibility to get the facts. So I decided I needed to methodically make my way through each and every absurd error in this scene to understand how this crime against ornithology had happened.
I was going to start with the very first one: Who introduced a pygmy nuthatch into the script, then had the temerity to say it lived only in Carmel?
From the beginning, it was clear that cracking this mystery was going to be no easy task. âSo, when you emailed me,â Charlieâs Angels screenwriter John August told me, when I called him up, back in December 2023, âI had no recollection of a bird being in the movie at all.â
August was hired to write Charlieâs Angels back in 1998, and from the beginning, it was a challenging assignment. âItâs one of the most difficult things I ever had to write,â he said, âbecause every scene has to do 19 things.â Those things included servicing the storylines of all three Angels, plus Bosley, keeping the complicated plot moving forward, being funny, and keeping every moment action-packed. This was a lot for August to juggle, so it didnât take long before he copped to not caring about the bird. âI would say, given the many complexities of the Charlieâs Angels script, 100Â percent scientific accuracy, bird accuracy, was not a priority.â
Still, he didnât remember writing the words pygmy nuthatch into the script himselfâthough he admitted it was possible he had. So I asked August, who keeps meticulous records, if he was willing to show me his very first draft of the script so I could see where it all went wrong.
As he pulled up First Draft A, it began to seem as if his quasi-confession had been premature.
August read aloud from the script: âBosley whistles to a bright red songbird who has landed on the windowsill. The bird whistles back.â Natalie says, âThatâs an Ê»iÊ»iwi. They only live in one place,â and Lucy Liuâs character says, âHawaii.â
So the pygmy nuthatch was not the bird August had started with. And the bird he had started with? It actually really was 100Â percent scientifically accurate. The âiâiwi really is a âbright red songbirdâ with a whistled song. It really does live in only one place. And that place really is Hawaii.
But for logistical reasons, the location of the scene kept changing. Instead of filming in Hawaii, the team decided to shoot somewhere closer to Hollywood. So the âiâiwi flew out the window, and August had to pick a new bird.
On the draft dated Oct. 26, 1999, the bird was now a âblue-and-white songbird,â August told me. He read aloud again: âNatalie says, âThatâs a loggerhead shrike: Lanius ludovicianus anthonyi. They only live in one place ⊠Catalina.â â
So, already, this wasnât as on point as the draft with the âiâiwi: A loggerhead shrike isnât blue. But the Latin name that the script gives belongs to a subspecies, the island loggerhead shrike, which really was known to be only in Catalinaâand, OK, a couple of other islands nearby.
âHereâs a little bit of my defense,â August said. âItâs early internet. So I probably had to actually, like, look it up in a book or something about, like, What are birds? and What do birds look like?â
August may not have known a ton about birds, but he had tried to get it right. And yet, at some point, the bird had really jumped the shark. What had gone wrong? Turns out, August left the movie.
âWe had a reading, about a month before production started, and that really went disastrously bad,â he said. âPeople started freaking out about stuff. And at that point, I left the project, and maybe, like, 11 different writers came on and did a week or two of work during production.â
It was actually a whopping 17 writers who ended up working on the script. In the words of a Los Angeles Times article from the time, âNever has so much top-flight talent been put to work on such a trifle.â âThereâs whatâs called revision pages,â August said. âIf you are adding something new to a script, you put those pages out in a different-colored sheet of paper. So first itâs blue revisions, then pink revisions and yellow revisions. They went through that color rainbow so many times it was like double-cherry revisions by the time the movie stopped shooting.â
So whenever our pygmy nuthatch entered the script, it must have been on one of those colored revision pages, written by one of the other 16 screenwriters who worked on this movie. That meant that there were 16 other suspects to question, and any one of them could have written in the pygmy nuthatch.
I started with Zak Penn. Penn has worked on some of the biggest action franchises of the past three decades, including the X-Men and Avengers movies. But I had tracked him down because I had reason to believe that his rewrites had touched on the bird.
His name was on a later draft of the script I found online, in which the bird had been changed to something even worse: a âblue-spotted egret,â which isnât a real bird at all. I figured that anyone who had the nerve to straight-up invent a species could have also been the wrongdoer behind our pygmy nuthatch.
âYou know, when I was a kid, I actually had, like, a bird-watching book. I remember, like, black-capped chickadees, things like that,â Penn told me when I reached him. Had I underestimated him? But then: âUntil you told me a blue-spotted egret wasnât a real bird, I had no idea that it wasnât,â he confessed. âI couldnât give less of a shit about birds.â
Despite his rather cavalier attitude toward some of our worldâs most beautiful creatures, Penn denied responsibility for the bogus blue-spotted egret. He also didnât think he had come up with the pygmy nuthatch, and he didnât know who had.
But just as I began to mentally prepare to cross-examine the other 15 screenwriters, Penn pulled me back from the brink. He told me that even though he didnât know the identity of the guilty party, he was pretty sure he knew their motive. âCharlieâs Angels was pretty betwixt and between, and therefore that leads to a lot of people throwing a lot of shit at the screen, trying to find something that sticks,â he explained. âItâs so hard writing a comedy in the studio system, because everybody gets bored and thinks the script isnât funny anymore because this is the 18th draft theyâve read.â While Penn and I could hatch conspiracy theories, he told me, âmy guess is, itâs the chaos is what led to this.â All those writers were desperate for a bird that could make their bosses laughâand could keep them laughing on the 18th read.
And Penn thinks the pygmy nuthatchâs name makes it uniquely qualified in that regard. âIf somebody had said, âYou know what bird? Youâre talking a pygmy nuthatch,â I would be like, âThatâs fucking good. Letâs use pygmy nuthatch.â â
August agreed. âI suspect that one of the writers who was on board for a week, and just doing kind of surface-level changes, picked a funnier word.â After all, he pointed out, âit has the word nut in it.â
Perhaps chaos and comedy were the true culprits: So out had gone the accurate âiâiwi, the semi-accurate shrike, even the godforsaken âblue-spotted egretââand in came the pygmy nuthatch.
But for the life of me, I still could not understand: Why didnât they then use that bird in the movie? If you put it in the script that Bill Murrayâs scene partner is a pygmy nuthatch, why not cast a pygmy nuthatch? It was time for me to find out who was responsible, by finding a witness to the film shoot and getting them to sing like a canary.
So the screenwriters had in all likelihood introduced the name pygmy nuthatch to be funny, but then someone had to go get an actual bird.
âThereâs a lot of species of birds you just wouldnât ever want to use,â Guin Dill, whoâs been wrangling animals for 30 years, told me. âThey just canât handle it. If a bird gets stressed, they go poof. And they just, like ⊠lose all their feathers. And then what do you do?â
Dill was the animal trainer on Charlieâs Angels. As such, she was responsible for finding the pygmy nuthatch specified in the screenplay and putting it in front of a camera. But as you know, the bird on-screen is decidedly not a pygmy nuthatch. Was she to blame?
âThat wasnât our decision,â Dill said. The humble gray pygmy nuthatch did not have the look the producers and director were going for. âThey wanted something very tropical because it was supposed to give it away that heâs on this island. So, keeping that in mind, they were kind of looking for vibrant, a little bit spectacular.â But not too spectacular: âIt had to be a small enough bird to fly in through the window, do the song, and then fly out.â
So Dill had to find birds that would fit the bill and share them with the production team. âWe sent pictures, initially. Itâs kind of like sending headshots of actors. We do the same thing, so we send them an array of pictures, and then they kind of pick and choose, whether it be because of their ability or look.â
Now, if I were an animal casting director, I would have included at least a headshot of the pygmy nuthatch. It might not be the flashiest performer, but why not give authenticity a chance?
Or thatâs what I thought, until I learned something unexpected. âWe cannot use a lot of birds that are indigenous to the United States,â Dill said. âSo itâs really difficult. Itâs not that easy.â
It turns out no animal handler would ever have included a pygmy nuthatch, not just because they are small, colorless, and unlikely to grab a viewerâs eye. They are also illegal to cast in a movie.
The reason for this goes back more than 100 years.
âPeople in the late 19th century and early 20th century were just killing birds wholesale,â Nick Lund told me. Lund works for Maine Audubon, and for more than a decade, he has written countless articlesâfor the Washington Post, Slate, and Audubon magazineâabout the ways that Hollywood gets birds wrong. âThere were not the same rules that there are now about hunting regulations, hunting season, bag limits, that kind of thing. And birds were just getting decimated.â
Some of this was for food, but people were eating much more than turkeys and pheasants and ducks. They were eating sparrows, grebes, loons, thrushes, grackles, ibis, pelicans, bobolinks, woodpeckers, and more. If you can think of a bird, it was probably on the menu. In one of John James Audubonâs books, he reported that the snowy owl (aka Hedwig from Harry Potter) tastes like chicken.
And birds were being killed not only for sport and sustenance. They were being killed for womenâs hats. âThere was this giant millinery trade. And so people were killing birds for their feathers to make these dumb-looking hats that were super popular at the time.â Often, Americans were slaughtering whole rookeries full of egrets for their snow-white plumes. Other times, they were taking âPut a Bird on Itâ to new extremes, taking an entire dead bird and just plopping it onto a hat. It was like if you took Björkâs infamous swan dress and put it on her headâand made it out of an actual swan.
In February 1886, at the height of the fashion craze, ornithologist Frank Chapman went birding through Manhattan, simply counting the birds on womenâs hats. Over two afternoons, he tallied more than 500 hats adorned with more than 40 species of birds, including blue jays, bluebirds, red-headed woodpeckers, Baltimore orioles, common terns, a prairie hen, and a saw-whet owl.
At first, Americans werenât too concerned about what all this carnage meant for bird populations. In the 1800s, scientists were still debating whether it was even possible for a species to go extinct. Audubon himself insisted that North American birds were so numerous that, at least with our birds, it could never happen.
And then came the tragic case of the passenger pigeon. The passenger pigeon had once been so plentiful across North America that Audubon described them blotting out the sun for days. But they were massacred by the thousands, and in 1914, a passenger pigeon named Martha, the last known member of her species, died alone at the Cincinnati Zoo.
There was powerful outrage about all of this bloodshedâbut especially about the hats. The hats were worn mostly by women, and the fight against the hats was also led largely by women. Two of those women were Harriet Hemenway and Minna B. Hall, who, 10 years after Chapmanâs expedition through the fashion district, founded the first Audubon Society.
âIt actually makes me laugh because, you know, itâs such a dumb fashion trend, and it resulted in all these great laws,â Lund told me.
One of these laws is the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It was passed in 1918. âItâs this interesting, wide-ranging, broad law that protects migratory birds,â Lund said. âIt basically prevents people from harming, taking, killing, capturing native birds in the United States.â
The law has had humongous positive impacts. Itâs been credited with saving everything from the snowy egret to the wood duck and the sandhill crane.
But the law also says that you canât keep our native birds as pets. And though we may not be used to thinking of animals in movies as pets, thatâs what they are: working pets. âAnd so when a company wants to put a bird on TV in the United States,â Lund explained, âthey canât use a native species.â
And a pygmy nuthatch is a native species, a bird covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
So even if anyone involved in Charlieâs Angels had wanted to use a lowly pygmy nuthatch in the movie, they couldnât have. They were always going to have to use another bird. And once thatâs true, I mean, why not get a bird that has real star quality?
And so thatâs exactly what Guin Dill, the animal handler, did. In fact, she got two of them.
âJack and Jill,â she told me. âThey were brother and sister.â In a bit of a Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen scenario, both of them appear in the movie.
Jack and Jill might not have been great at taking directionâthey would peck at Dillâs cuticles; she thinks she still has scars from them todayâbut as Venezuelan troupials, they were resplendent birds the color of a tangerine, with shiny black hoods, a sky-blue teardrop around each eye, and a blazing lightning bolt across each wing. The camera loved them.
So now I knew why screenwriters would write in a pygmy nuthatch and why, to cast one, an animal handler had to bring in a foreign import. Still, even once the filmmakers were stuck with the name they picked for fun, and the South American stand-ins that they were legally allowed to put in the movie, they still could have ⊠made their bird sound like an actual pygmy nuthatch, right? Or even like a Venezuelan troupial? But in fact, they did neither: They cast a third bird to lend its voice, one that nobody has been able to identify.
And that means there were actually two mysteries left: Why on Earth did they do thatâand what bird was it?
I had been wondering what the hell voices the pygmy nuthatch since the moment I first saw Charlieâs Angels. And it wasnât just me. For decades, birders have been flocking to the internet to point out the problems with this scene: blogging about it, tweeting about it, posting it to forums and message boards and IMDb Goofs and moviemistakes.com, publishing it everywhere from local newspapers to books to W magazine.
But while these enraged ornithophiles have long identified the âHollywood impostorâ on-screen as the national bird of Venezuela, none of them has ever been able to identify the bird we hear. And with just my ear, I couldnât either.
Still, I was going to figure this out one way or another. I started by reaching out to the crew member who ought to know best: Michael Benavente, who was the supervising sound editor of Charlieâs Angels, as well as its sequel Charlieâs Angels: Full Throttle.
Benavente told me up front not only that he didnât remember much about the bird, but that it really wasnât a priority at the time. âTo be honest, that sound was a very minor part of the film,â he said. âI know it was a plot point and pays off and that kind of stuff, but there was so much other stuff going on with sword fights and, you know, big action sequences.â
But Iâd come this far, and I wasnât going to take indifference for an answer. So I asked him to rewatch the scene with me over Zoom, and some things started to click. The first was that, in the context of the scene, an accurate sound effect wouldnât have felt right: âQuite frankly, realistic doesnât always play dramatically or as interesting. You want to punch things up and make them sound fun,â he said.
The bird is helping the Angels set Bosley free. It doesnât need to sound accurateâit needs to sound like deliverance. And for what itâs worth, that is not the song of a Venezuelan troupial, which sounds more like a car alarm.
The song of a real pygmy nuthatch has problems tooânamely, it sounds as if itâs being chewed up like a squeaky toy.
âYeah, a lot of times the real thing just isnât cutting it,â Benavente said.
So Benaventeâs team needed to deliver a birdsong that was more uplifting and joyful. But there was another thing. Not only did they have to match the song to the bird on-screen; they had to match it to one of the humans: Cameron Diaz.
See, if you listen very closely to the sound effect, as I have, thereâs a rising, whistled trill at the end that repeats three times. But the third time you hear it, itâs actually Diazâs character whistling a pitch-perfect imitation of the bird, blowing through her hands as if theyâre a flute.
And thatâs the thing that Benavente was focused on. âBasically, I would be more concerned about making sure it looked like it was coming out of her mouth,â he said. In other words, he and his team had to find a birdsong whose rhythm could line up with the visuals that had already been filmed.
So now I knew why they hadnât used the song of a pygmy nuthatch or a Venezuelan troupial. But thatâs where I hit a dead end. Benavente had no idea what bird they had used instead.
Still, I was undeterred. Even if I couldnât identify the bird, I knew who probably could.
Nathan Pieplow is the author of the definitive Peterson Field Guide to Bird Sounds of Eastern and Western North America, which is sort of like Websterâs Dictionary for birdsongs and birdcalls. (He is also an âobsessive birder,â he told me, who is ânot allowed by my friends and family to comment on the bird sounds when we are watching movies or TV, because they have had enough of my commentary.â)
One of the reasons Pieplowâs guides are so authoritative is that he helped pioneer a method that relies not on our ears but on our eyes. âThe beautiful thing now that you can do is you can create what we call spectrograms, which are computer-generated pictures of the sound,â he said. A spectrogram is a visual representation of an audio recording, and in Pieplowâs field guides, they look like notes on a staff. Itâs sheet music for birders.
âWith practice,â he explained, âyou can learn how to read the spectrograms so that you can look at the picture and youâll know what it sounds like, or the other way around. If you hear a bird sound, you can picture what itâs going to look like.â
All this practice has made Pieplow an excellent ear birder. While warming him up, I played him birdsongs as far-flung as the pygmy nuthatch and the âiâiwi, and he nailed them all.
But when I played him our mystery bird, even he, the guy who literally wrote the book on North American bird sounds, couldnât identify it. This bird was really, really, ridiculously hard to pinpoint.
And as I listened to it over and over, I kept circling back to that part that repeats at the endâthat Cameron Diaz whistles back perfectly. Itâs weird, because it repeats exactlyâand I mean exactlyâin a way that almost sounds too uncanny, too mechanical, to be the work of any real bird. Was it possible it wasnât the call of a real bird? Could it be ⊠synthesized by a machine?
There was only one thing to do: ask another machine.
Merlin is an app, downloaded more than 10Â million times, thatâs basically Shazam for birds. Making âShazam for birdsâ had been the holy grail of many birders before, but Merlin, which was developed by the renowned Cornell Lab of Ornithology, really cracked it.
Iâd already tried using Merlin on Charlieâs Angels, and the app had been just as bewildered as the rest of us. But I called up Drew Weber, the project manager for Merlin, who explained that the app on my phone would never identify this sound for meâand thatâs by design. âBy default, Merlinâs only going to show you results for your location and your time of year,â he said.
But then he told me thereâs another, more powerful version of the software: âInternally we have what we call the dev app. And it allows us to toggle off the various filtering for location and time of year.â
So Weber set loose his behind-the-scenes version of Merlin on Charlieâs Angelsâand he got a hit.
âThe song that we were hearing is a fox sparrow,â he said.
I was dumbfounded. We have fox sparrows in New York City! Iâve had them in my literal backyard. If the bird in Charlieâs Angels was a fox sparrow, why hadnât I been able to identify the song on my own? For that matter, why hadnât my version of Merlin?
But Weber told me that the fox sparrow in Charlieâs Angels was no New Yorker: âIt sounds like the thick-billed subspecies, from California.â
I had to admit: The thick-billed fox sparrow sounded pretty close. But I still wasnât sure it was quite rightâeven Weber would admit that Merlinâs A.I. was often wrongâand I wanted a second, human opinion. So I emailed this ID to Pieplow, the birdcall expert.
Pieplow wrote back, asking me to give him a call. âI made a spectrogram of the bird thatâs singing in Charlieâs Angels,â he told me. âAnd so I started thinking, Maybe, maybe I could actually find the source recording that this was made from.â
As Pieplow proceeded to explain, when he was researching his field guide to bird sounds, he had fed a vast library of field recordings of birds into a computer program to turn them into spectrograms, spectrograms he still had.
âSo I went to the folder called Thick-Billed Fox Sparrow, and within about two minutes I had found the exact individual bird that was recorded and used in Charlieâs Angels,â he said.
I could hardly contain myself. He had found not only the species, not only the subspecies, but the precise individual that was recorded singing nearly 35 years ago: âIt is a thick-billed fox sparrow that was recorded by Thomas G. Sander on June 2, 1990, at the Black Pine Spring Campground in the Deschutes National Forest in Oregon.â
It was the smoking gun. I had goose bumps. We had gotten our bird.
And then it got even better. Pieplow explained to me what was going on with that weirdly mechanical series of trills at the end: The recording had been tampered with. The song we hear in the movie is actually stitched together from two different parts of that same 14-minute recording: The movie uses mostly the first couple of seconds of when the bird sings at 2:47, but then it also tacks on the trill that the bird sings only once, at 3:07âlooping it three times so that we can hear it twice before Diaz performs it back, in perfect sync.
It was the butterfly effect: An actress flaps her hands on a set in California and, months later, a thick-billed fox sparrow, in an editing room, sings.
By this point I was feeling pretty satisfied with all Iâd been able to uncover, and it was starting to make me see things a little differently.
I had begun this investigation thinking that everyone involved in this movie just didnât care about birds, but now I knew that wasnât the case. I mean, they didnât really care about birds, but rather than being lazy, or incompetent, or malevolent, they had each been trying to solve a problemâand had stretched themselves to do so creatively. And I could understand and even admire that.
But I couldnât let it obscure the big picture. The bird in Charlieâs Angels was still a mess. As resourceful as everyone had been, their individual choices did not add up!
And there is one person on a movie who is supposed to keep that from happeningâone person who is supposed to be taking in the birdâs-eye view. And so I needed to go to that person and demand an explanation. I needed to talk to the director.
Before Charlieâs Angels, McG was best known for music videos, like the one for âAll Starâ by Smash Mouth. Heâs since gone on to direct the fourth movie in the Terminator franchise and, around the time I interviewed him, the No. 1 movie on Netflix, Uglies. But Charlieâs Angels is what made McG McGâand I was curious if any of this bird drama had even registered with him.
After I got in touch with him, he came out strong. âWith the greatest respect, Iâm the only person to speak on this issue,â McG told me.
It turns out McG remembered everything. He had total recall of the scene, right down to the birdâs Latin nameâand he was well aware there was a problem with using that song: âThe call is very different of a Sitta pygmaea than the call reflected in the film.â
This was my guy! He got it! And not only had he given a hoot, but heâd tried to make it right.
Before deciding on the two Venezuelan troupials he got from Guin Dill, the animal wrangler, heâd actually wanted to use a bird that looked a lot more like a real pygmy nuthatch. But that bird wouldnât fly.
It âhad a very bright white underbelly,â he explained. âAnd on top of having difficulty hitting its mark, the white underbelly was casting a bounce onto Bill Murrayâs face that was unsavory to the director of photography.â
At this pointâit saddens me a little to sayâMcG, like everyone else, had given up. The movie was over budget, and he was under a lot of pressure. âI was nearly fired off that movie, you know, no less than six or eight times,â he said. âBecause it was just so colorful and weird and buoyant and effervescent, and, you know, the studio brass at the time was like, âWhat the fuck is this?â â
So he was going to do whatever it took to get the shot. âYou canât spend 90 minutes trying to get the bird to sit on the windowsill to interact with Bill Murray. If one bird can do it, that bird, you know, that birdâs going in.â
And the pygmy nuthatch did have something going for it: its name! It was wrong in all sorts of ways, but the tone, the spirit, the word nutâit had that special something. McG knew it the first time he heard it. âWhat a great name,â he remembers thinking. âWe got to do it. It felt so Charlieâs Angels.â
And McG, he definitely knew what felt like Charlieâs Angels.
Charlieâs Angels, with its goofball mix of action, comedy, and knowing stupidity, became a franchise-launching hit, earning good reviews and one of the highest-grossing opening weekends ever for a first-time director. Andâthough I hate to admit itâit did it all with a Frankensteinâs monster of a bird.
A bird I had learned was the fault not of any one personâbut of many. If this were a whodunit, it would be Murder on the Orient Express, with not just one culprit but dozens, each with their own motive, their own problem to solve. They might be bound by laws. They might be bound by vibes. They might be bound by the small size of the prison window on the set that they already built. And as Iâve learned, you canât make a movie without breaking some eggs.
âWe desperately wanted to get it right,â McG told me. âBut then, with great regularity, reality shows up and kicks you in the ass.â
I knew, with this scene, what ârightâ meant to meâbut I am not too stubborn to admit that the people actually working on the film got it right in so many other ways: They picked a bird name that would make you laugh, bird actors who would hit their marks and catch your eye, and a birdsong that would sound like hope.
For years, I thought I had caught the movie out, in this egregious mistake. But maybe I was the birdbrain. Maybe it was time for me to eat crow.
Maybe the wrongest bird in the history of the movies is just right.