“Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)” Movie Review Or How To Become A Shakespearean Superhero

Year: 2014

Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu

Writers: Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Armando Bo

Stars: Michael Keaton, Emma Stone, Zach Galifianakis, Naomi Watts, Edward Norton, Andrea Riseborough, Amy Ryan

“Birdman” is essentially the story of a washed-up superhero movie star, who’s trying to find meaning in his life, torn between the allure of the Hollywood blockbusters he was once a part of and the pure artistic success he could find by making “real” art on Broadway. To what extend Michael Keaton plays himself is a matter of speculation, but casting the man who was the first famous live-action Batman back in 1989 (also an awesome Beetlejuice) was more than perfect. And not just because it’s “meta”: admittedly older than the average superhero, with no cape or mask and at some point only in his tighty whities, just like Bryan Cranston, Keaton relies only on his great acting skills and probably delivers the role of his career. But I suspect that we will get much more from him.

I must say that, despite Keaton (Riggan in the film) being the star, the movie actually feels like an ensemble piece with amazing performances from Emma Stone (his daughter Sam), Zach Galifianakis (his producer and friend Jake), Naomi Watts as the actress Lesley and Edward Norton as the genius on stage Mike. And probably because of that I often felt more interested in these supporting characters. Naomi Watts and Edward Norton particularly stood out for me, giving intense and emotional performances. Lesley’s desire to get on Broadway and Mike’s struggle to be himself in real life, rather than on stage, are even more touching than Riggan’s “virtue of ignorance” and vanity that allow him to often disregard his family and loved ones.

 And although not everyone wants to be an actor or a writer, everybody reaches that point when they ask themselves “what do I amount to?” So, it’s safe to say that film is rather relatable, but I personally wasn’t as stirred or touched as much as I was watching other movies in 2014. But I still don’t think the movie actually tries to get the Spielberg effect and make the audience sob in unison.

“Birdman” explores its themes with a lot of humour, unconventional camera work and even some fantastical imagery. The camera floats throughout the theater, interestingly, almost like a bird and bounces from one character to another. As a result in a very beautiful, almost dreamlike manner the camera movement, along with the seamless editing (digitally improved), colour pallet and the occasional winking at the audience (like cutting off the music, the changing location of the drummer) accentuate the amazing craft of movie-making and remind us of the very fact that we are in a film. That’s why I don’t think that the very cinematic “Birdman” simply sides with Broadway, while completely destroying summer blockbusters.

So, obviously, the most amazing thing about the movie is the cinematography and editing. It is really gorgeous and entertaining on purely visual level, if that makes sense. And no wonder – the film is handled by some of the best, also Oscar-winners: Emmanuel Lubezki (“Gravity”, “Children of men”, “The tree of life”, “Sleepy Hollow”) is the director of photography and the editing is managed by Douglas Crise and Stephen Mirrione ("Good Night, and Good Luck.", "Ocean's Eleven", "21 Grams").

The beautiful and fluid cinematography that makes the film look like it’s just one continuous shot takes you behind the Broadway scene and inside the world of the actors. And although it has its particular flavor in this movie, it must be noted that the one-take movie has been done some times before with projects like “Russian Ark” by Aleksandr Sokurov or “Silent House” by Gustavo Hernandez and there are also numerous movies with just a few takes like Gaspar Noe’s “Irreversible” (I give this example, because we also have the floating camera here). But most important is Hitchcock’s “Rope” from 1948 that also looks like one take (it was actually shot in 10 segments, but only because the film magazine for the camera is about 10 minutes long and must be replaced). And despite setting the film in just two rooms, Hitchcock basically achieved the same effect that “Birdman” has, but with no digital assistance.

Going back to the content - the humour in the film is really, really great. I actually didn’t know that the movie has a strong comedic side and was pleasantly surprised. The dialogue is intriguing and snappy; Michael Keaton and Edward Norton are explosive. Still, I have a few tiny, not really complaints… things I’ve noticed: There are a few monologues (the speech that Riggan gives to the critic and especially his daughter’s rant) that basically tell us in too many words things that we’ve already understood quite well from the movie. To me these sounded a little bit redundant and fake, despite the fact that the movie is quite fantastical. I just don’t like over-explaining in movies, but who knows – may be the idea of these scenes was to represent the classic stage monologue. Thus, the movie feels a little bit self-important at times, constantly trying to remind us how important and philosophical it is, especially with these “Tree of life”-type of images thrown in the editing. For example, I think that another movie from 2014 “Frank” deals with similar themes more subtly and laconically.

And while I’m comparing - there was one point in “Birdman” when I had the realization that it is very similar to “Back Swan”. If you saw it you know, which scene I’m talking about. However, “Birdman” had a delightful and surprising turn that proved me wrong. Still, there are many similarities with the theme of ambition and perfectionism, as well as the dream-like, hallucinogenic elements that the two films share.

What I really liked about “Birdman” is that it bashes quite a lot the superhero movies, while somewhat ironically turning its protagonist into a kind of superhero (because of his abilities, imagined or not, and… his looks towards the end). I can’t get into more details because - spoilers. This is also a bit of a spoiler: By the end of the film Riggan manages to achieve both the popularity as celebrity he once lost (via social media and viral videos) and the critical acclaim for his artistic work in the theater. And however you decide to interpret the very ending, I think it’s still going to be an appropriate conclusion to the story of a man on the edge of sanity, fighting for his work and for his right not to be forgotten.

The movie currently has 8,7 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2562232/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt

8,0 from users and 89 from critics on MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/birdman-or-the-unexpected-virtue-of-ignorance

94% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/birdman_2014/

Trailer:

Classics Movies: Woody Allen’s "Manhattan"

  

Year: 1979

Director: Woody Allen

Writers: Woody Allen, Marshall Brickman

Starring: Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, Michael Murphy, Mariel Hemingway, Meryl Streep, Anne Byrne Hoffman

Gershwin’s “Rhapsody In Blue” and a celebratory montage of New York sceneries that resolves into a purposely over the top fireworks. That’s our introduction to Woody Allen’s hometown in the classic romantic comedy “Manhattan”. The scene is also accompanied with the narration by the main hero Isaac, who can’t decide in what way to begin his novel, pondering on how his protagonist sees the city.  

Isaac’s second ex-wife is writing a book on their love life and separation, while he’s trying to maintain a causal relationship with 17-years-old student. At the same time he falls in love with his best friend’s lover, after initially disliking her. Yes, sounds so trite and soapy. But not when Woody Allen is behind the camera. This is the kind of movie that even people, who, like myself, don’t like romantic comedies, should see. It is a treat for every movie lover, if solely for the masterful cinematography by Gordon Willis (“The Godfather”) and editing by Susan E. Morse (“Hannah and Her Sisters”), because every now and then they turn the film into a living painting.

As most Woody Allen’s films “Manhattan” also deals with intellectuals quipping at each other, while discussing interesting cultural, but sometimes empty topics. As Isaac points out in one scene - in certain cases not “biting satire”, but “bricks and baseball bats get right to the point.” Many of the heroes in the movie are wealthy, well-read and a bit pretentious, but often simply lost and lonely people. Woody Allen’s character looks for the answers to his problems in the changing cultural landscape around him, later in the movie clarifying that his book is about “decaying values”. And we can see how he often projects this pessimistic view of the world on the new generation, represented by his young girlfriend Tracy - “You were brought up on drugs and television and the pill”. But after all, he is the guy that works for the television, the guy that constantly refuses to accept the changing world and takes advantage of Tracy’s affection. And by the end she is the one that wisely corrects him on the subject of decaying morals, because “not everybody gets corrupted”.

When you talk about “Manhattan” you can’t forget the masterful visual storytelling that is particularly strong in two major scenes – the cabinet with the monkey skeleton and the planetarium scene. The scene in the biology cabinet adds to the humor of the situation, while making us ponder over love’s role in evolution and our place in the universe as species. The monkey skeleton sits silently next to Issac, who, as a superior specie that models himself after God, is trying to make sense of love and human relationships. Still, the monkey comically reminds us of the unpredictable, unclassifiable and often primal nature of love. In terms of our feelings and internal drive, it is possible that we haven’t really developed much. And the rest of the movie points to the same thing – sometimes the obvious “good” choices are the worst and no matter how hard we try to be informed, logical and to rationalize the world we live in, our nature is still emotion-driven and intuitive. And just like with art, we can’t always explain what sums up the ultimate chef-d-oeuvre.

In this world where everybody has a psychoanalyst, Woody Allen’s character ironically states “Nothing worth knowing can be understood with the mind.” But both Isaac and Mary (Diane Keaton) are often described as “cerebral” or “rationalizing” and we see that in the long run this is not necessarily the best way for them to maintain a relationship. There’s something else that I've noticed - with beautiful, yet simple cinematography and understanding of space, “Manhattan” often separates the couples with shots that leave one or the other out of frame during a conversation. This is emphasized and wonderfully realized in the scene where Mary and Isaac kiss for the first time. Although it is very romantic and sweet, for the entire scene they are almost never both in the frame, moving in and out of the door frame, where the camera is fixed. I wonder, is there a possibility that Allen decided to shoot the scene in this way in order to hint to us that no matter how much they try, Isaac and Mary can’t really become one? It might be far-fetched, but I like the idea.

But the best and most memorable scene from the movie is definitely the conversation in the planetarium. In almost full darkness all we see is the giant planets and these people’s tiny, almost unrecognizable figures. They walk through the lonely and cold cosmos, discussing the small troubles we humans have, looking so lost and insignificant next to the vastness of space. It’s such a beautiful and surreal scene, provoking so many feelings and interpretations: Are they small grains of sand drifting in the infinite darkness or simply aliens to each other? Maybe they are alienated from their own world…

Speaking of beauty and cosmic harmony, the soundtrack is comprised of wonderful compositions by Gershwin, including instrumental versions for many of his popular jazz songs. It is a powerful and energetic, but elegant companion piece to the beautiful black and white cinematic version of New York that Allen gives us. The performances are top-notch, I especially loved Mariel Hemingway, who is so subtle, tender and poignant. As a whole “Manhattan” is philosophical, funny, touching and magnificently shot – a true Woody Allen classic, well above the average romantic comedy.

The movie has 8,0 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079522/?ref_=fn_al_tt_3

8,5 from users and 82 from critics on MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/manhattan

98% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/manhattan/?search=manhattan

A little taste of the movie – the bridge scene: