|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
174.236.194.228
In Reply to: RE: 'Birdman' - worst movie I've seen in years posted by mbnx01 on March 29, 2015 at 09:33:40
Possible interpretations of the ending (from some web site somewhere in cyberspace discussing the ending of Birdman:
1. He dies on stage and it's all a Mulholland Drive-style fantasy sequence after that.
2. It's all real up to the point where he jumps out the window, where he falls and dies. The daughter's joy at seeing him "free" is a fantasy sequence.
3. Same as #2 except that the daughter knows he killed himself and is still happy about it.
4. He doesn't die but the last scene doesn't really happen; it's just a fantasy sequence for himself in the way that fantasizes his superpowers throughout the film.
5. He doesn't die; he actually flies away at the end. He really has superpowers.
You can make a case for any of them (except maybe #5 which is refuted several times in the movie), but the most logical choice seems to be #2 (with #3 coming in at a strong second). Riggans is indeed dead. Why is this the most logical conclusion? Well, let's go through it.
Number one, Riggan is crazy. This may seem obvious, but the movie encourages us, in a weird way, to think maybe Riggan isn't crazy — to think that he really does have superpowers. If you came away thinking Riggan wasn't crazy, you can't really be blamed for it. Maybe you're an optimist, or maybe you've seen a lot of the superhero movies that director Iñárritu criticizes repeatedly throughout the film.
Nevertheless, the fact that he doesn't have superpowers is enforced when we see Riggan flying through the streets of New York. He arrives at the theater and runs in after landing, only to be pursued by a cabbie trying to collect his fare. It's the only time the movie explicitly contradicts Riggan's delusions, but the message is clear. They are delusions. He didn't fly. He took a cab.
However, the most important part of these delusions is the fact that nobody else shares them. Throughout the film we clearly see that all of the supporting characters do not see what Riggan sees. Which brings us to the most important point of all.
After Riggan hops out of the window, Sam's face is in the final shot, looking up in wonder, presumably watching her father soar through the sky. However, it's clear that Riggan doesn't really have the ability to fly and it's also clear that Sam doesn't share her father's delusions. So, the fact that she indeed sees something leaves us with only two conclusions. As stated before; It's all real up to the point where he jumps out the window, where he falls and dies. Sam's joy at seeing him "free" is a fantasy sequence. Or, he indeed died, except that the daughter knows he killed himself and is still happy about it.
Follow Ups:
This movie finally came around to cable on HBO. So I watched.
I did enjoy the style and flair of the camera work. The drum solo setting up for active moods in uptempo sequences. I thought that worked really well and kind of dug those parts. Cinematography was very good. Excellent, even.
Actors at work and, presumably, how they might work. Numerous bits of madcap humor here and there.
But the director left us with an ambiguous ending. I chose #4 from your list because that is what I wanted to believe as I watched the final act. He did not shoot himself in the head with that live pistol. Just like the script suggests, he shot himself in the nose, there was plastic surgery to repair the facial damage. the final jumping out the window scene with Sam watching him soar away was just another one of Riggan's hallucinary episodes.
Besides, the review in the next day paper did not mention anything about a death of the lead actor.
It was #4.
-Steve
Well done Goeff. I just saw the film for the first time last weekend. I was bothered by him missing his head and blowing off his nose. I think #2 makes sense after reading your take on it. The film reminded me of some of the dreamy films for the 1960's-70's. Something Michelangelo Antonioni would have directed.
...I think it's #4.
He shoots himself and that's his last fantasy before he dies.
Makes sense to me. If he had only shot off his nose on stage he wouldn't have just been lying there inert for so long. He would have been hopping up and down in pain. Besides he'd have to be a really bad shot to miss his head.
It works. Who would want to live with that nose even though Galafanakis said they could get a different one?
This was Riggin's "Mission Accomplished"
On top of all that nonsense - what was the movie about?
What was the thesis? The theme? It was basically about nothing. Just a series of vignettes with actors chewing up the scenery. Which can be fun and all but there was no movie here. It was just masturbation for the drama club.
Some really good performances. Awful movie.
"Familiarity breeds contempt, and children."
-Mark Twain
In my opinion the movie was essentially about a failed actor and presumably failed human being who was attempting to redeem himself by starring in a Real Actor's Play. I don't think it was about nothing.
Edits: 03/30/15 03/30/15
That was one idea... but how was it developed?
It wasn't. It was all very superficial.
"Familiarity breeds contempt, and children."
-Mark Twain
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: