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:
No comments:
Post a Comment