How does the synopsis of Alfred Hitchcock's Birds conform and/ or subvert Propp's theory of characters?

Whilst the plot of Alfred Hitchcock's Birds does present a clear protagonist in the form of Melanie Daniels, there isn't a clear hero character reflected in Propp's theory of characters. On the one hand, Mitch's character could perhaps be the hero of Propp's theory in the movie as he daringly drives the protagonist Melanie, his sister and mother to safety away from Bodega Bay. In addition, you could also argue that he is the hero as it is implied that he is the possible love interest of protagonist Melanie in the story, similar in theory to the princess subject of Propp's theory, whom is the hero's reward for completing his mission. However, the story is not as simple as this as the end leaves an uncertainty in the plot over whether Mitch as the supposed hero has finished the mission of driving his family and Melanie to safety, as the synopsis describes Mitch 'drives slowly driving through seemingly infinite flocks of birds into the sunrise'. Therefore, Propp's theory of characters in the narrative is subverted therefore as it is unclear throughout the story which character is one of Propp's proposed character's explained in his theory of characters in a narrative. At best, you could describe Mitch's character as the helper for helping Melanie, his mother and sister and other characters in the story. First Mitch helps treat Melanie after hit by the seagull, then later helps shoo the birds away when attacking his sister and her friends at her birthday party, then barricades Melanie and his family inside by boarding the windows and doors. Another issue is that there is no clear villain in the plot either; the birds are the one's attacking others in the story. This is done perhaps by Hitchcock to subvert Propp's theory of typical characters, specifically the villain. Because the antagonist is shown as the birds, it become much more unclear who the clear villain is, or if there is a villain at all, rendering the atmosphere of the story far more sinister and unclear to the audience as there is not a typical Human villain, the plot plays on the unseemingly irrational fear of birds. The Father character is also not presented in the plot, although there is however a strong and prominent character role of the Mother, more specifically Mitch's mother. Like in Hitchcock's Psycho, the role of the mysterious, strangely uptight mother is portrayed in the film Birds. Perhaps, the role of the Mother is an alternative to the traditional role of the Father, who is to congratulate the hero and give him his best wishes. Nonetheless, there is no main Father role played by a specific character in the film Birds. Overall, i believe that the various characters of Propp's character theory in narrative are not conformed to in the film Birds as the is no traditional character role played by any character, as the main characters have roles and duties which are unclear throughout the movie. There is no clear Hero, Villain, Helper, Donor, False Hero or Father role performed in the film and this greatly subverts Propp's theory of characters in narrative when applied to the film Birds. This misuse of clarity in set characters however does add to the growing sinister and uncertain atmosphere of the film, from where the protagonist Melanie stares up into the sky to see a large flock of birds, straight to the end, where there is more uncertainty than ever with Mitch carefully driving away with a fatally wounded Melanie and his family in tow through an infinite flock of birds, hearing reports of bird attacks in nearby towns and communities.

How does the synopsis of Alfred Hitchcock's Birds conform or subvert to Todorov's narrative theory of equilibrium?

Alfred Hitchcock's Birds does have a straightforward plot that seems to conform to Todorov's narrative theory of equilibrium. Firstly, there is a clear equilibrium at the beginning of the story, presenting protagonist Melanie Daniels as the successful character who is taking out her time to surprise her new friend Mitch by buying his sister a gift of love-birds. The equilibrium is presented at this point in the story. Secondly, once Melanie's character has driven to Bodega Bay and sneak her gift of love-birds to Mitch's house,
she is suddenly set upon be a seagull coming back across the bay and is bleeding from the head. Here a problem is presented, and the audience recognise and identify the disequilibrium. The problem of birds gradually escalates with the rise in bird attacks, at the local school, at Mitch's mother's friend's house, the cafe and  the last dramatic attack of birds at Mitch's house. Finally, with the protagonist Melanie fatally wounded by birds in the end, Mitch and his sister and Mother and Melanie drive off into the distance. Whilst on the one hand, one can argue that this final act conforms to Todorov's preposition of the new equilibrium being presented at the end of a narrative, i do not think that Todorov's theory is applied here completed as the main characters leave the town is Mitch's cars , slowly making their way through  i quote 'infinite flocks of birds', leaving the story with a general sense of uncertainty and no clear resolution that would have otherwise conformed to Todorov's narrative theory of equilibrium. This apparent cliffhanger in the story made by Hitchcock subverts Todorov's theory, instead leaving the atmosphere of the story in awe and uncertainty instead of the balance of a new equilibrium. Personally as a member of the viewing audience, i don't think that Birds conforms to Todorov's theory as if you'll notice there is constant uncertainty shown in the story from the beginning. It is noteworthy that at the beginning, Melanie comes out the bird shop noticing the large flock of birds in the sky, the end show similarly large flocks of birds into the sunrise whilst listening to reports of bird attacks in nearby towns. This shown a constant, if not blatant sense of uncertainty in the plot, making the story seem much more imbalanced than a typical equilibrium-disequilibrium and new equilibrum storyline explained by Todorov's theory.