|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.145.163.72
There is no thesis here. It touches on several points but makes no statement about any of them.
What motivates a critic? Are artists suffering for their art? Is popular art still art? All this and more are brought up- but the film makes no statement on any of them.
The ending makes zero sense. So the lead was a schizophrenic suffering from delusions? Is his daughter the same?
Lots of talented actors and some good scenes. But not a good movie.
"Familiarity breeds contempt, and children."
-Mark Twain
Follow Ups:
This last Sunday at a little family gathering, Birdman came up...of my family members that saw it, it was split right down the middle of who loved it and who hated it...
What I thought was critical to this movie was the opening scene of him "floating" in semi-meditation...this set the table that all rules are off...this instantly became fantasy...by the end of that scene, it was a satirical comedy that was going to pull back the curtain on egocentric mind, laughable insecurities and narcissism of the thespians in all its forms...one of my favorite lines was "Go get some surgery"...as it was part of the check list of being an actor...
The casting of this movie was completely script driven. Movie goers knowing the careers of Keaton and Norton...Keaton's virtually vanishing after Batman...Norton being offered less and less roles based on his reputation of being difficult to work with...the first rehearsal scene between Keaton and Norton is pure acting Jazz...it has rhythm, pace and perceived freedom...really a thing of beauty IMHO...
So, I completely get the love it or hate it relationship people have with this movie...
Leaving the last scene as the cherry on top..."silly movie goers...did you really think we were going to resolve this for you???" "Don't you remember the first scene???" Ha ha ha...this is on you...
Thanks
Mark
Ps...Below was my first review of this film back in November of 2014....
"For the staging, editing, soundtrack, and acting, I say Oskies all around a second time. PS. Norton stole the movie just like the story"
Staging...how they blocked this thing is just a mystery...there is no room for the camera...
Editing...what editing??!!?? One long tracking shot, don't quite know how they pulled that off but they did...very cool...
Soundtrack...yes that small trap set, that does not stay panned straight up, moves around to make room for whatever is going on, which they give you a peak at...drums make the fantasy elements, less extraordinary and less distracting...they do not highlight them at all...
Acting...the casting of Keaton was curious...Was he chosen because of the parallels of his career???
Emma Stone...I just never really know what to think of her, still on the fence...
Watts...is getting better...St Vincent was a better performance...
Zach G, I have seen this before from him...but solid...
Andrea Riseborough...the only thing I can remember in was Oblivion, she was interesting watch...
Amy Ryan as the NYT Theatre Critic, small role, BUT she captures that NYC "we are sooo much smarter and cooler than the rest of the world"...
Norton...this was so in his wheel house...surprising what good writing can to for an actors performance...he had this character at his core, played with it, flaunted it, he was having so much fun I thought he might burst...really great to watch...(was he tweaking Marvel for not casting him as the Hulk in the Avengers???)
The star of this movie was...Emmanuel Lubezki...the way this was shot, made this movie...if he does not win the Oscar for this something is wrong...
The "birdman", using Keaton's Batman voice, was a big part of the fun...I was waiting through the whole movie for reality to creep in and the potential of gravity rearing up...are we trained to wait for bad things to happen???
It does drag ever so slightly at times, but not for long...
Taking a sledgehammer to the superhero genre, slapping you upside the head with type casting, showing the neurotic narcissism of the theatre on all levels...are just a few of things that make this movie...
This does deserve a second viewing...
thanks
Mark
I cant believe a majority of Oscar Academy members would vote for a movie like this Birdman. It must be some adjustment. One of the worst movies ever.
Bill
Well, to be totally fair, Birdman won a shitload of accolades from many organizations, you know, like Golden Globes. Do ya think they're all smoking the same pot?Partial list of accolades:
Academy Awards, USA 2015
Won
Oscar Best Motion Picture of the Year
Alejandro González Iñárritu
John Lesher
James W. Skotchdopole
Best Achievement in Directing
Alejandro González Iñárritu
Best Writing, Original Screenplay
Alejandro González Iñárritu
Nicolás Giacobone
Alexander Dinelaris
Armando Bo
Best Achievement in Cinematography
Emmanuel Lubezki
Nominated
Oscar Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Michael Keaton
Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Edward Norton
Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Emma Stone
Best Achievement in Sound Mixing
Jon Taylor
Frank A. Montaño
Thomas Varga
Best Achievement in Sound Editing
Aaron Glascock
Martín HernándezGolden Globes, USA 2015
Won
Golden Globe Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical
Michael Keaton
Best Screenplay - Motion Picture
Alejandro González Iñárritu
Nicolás Giacobone
Alexander Dinelaris
Armando Bo
Nominated
Golden Globe Best Director - Motion Picture
Alejandro González Iñárritu
Best Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical
Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture
Emma Stone
Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture
Edward Norton
Best Original Score - Motion Picture
Antonio SanchezBAFTA Awards 2015
Won
BAFTA Film Award Best Cinematography
Emmanuel Lubezki
Nominated
BAFTA Film Award Best Leading Actor
Michael Keaton
Best Supporting Actor
Edward Norton
Best Supporting Actress
Emma Stone
Best Editing
Douglas Crise
Stephen Mirrione
Best Original Music
Antonio Sanchez
Best Sound
Thomas Varga
Martín Hernández
Aaron Glascock
Jon Taylor
Frank A. Montaño
Best Film
Alejandro González Iñárritu
John Lesher
James W. Skotchdopole
Best Original Screenplay
Alejandro González Iñárritu
Nicolás Giacobone
Alexander Dinelaris
Armando Bo
Nominated
David Lean Award for Direction Alejandro González IñárrituScreen Actors Guild Awards 2015
Won
Actor Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture
Zach Galifianakis
Michael Keaton
Edward Norton
Andrea Riseborough
Amy Ryan
Emma Stone
Naomi Watts
Nominated
Actor Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role
Michael Keaton
Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role
Edward Norton
Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role
Emma StoneAFI Awards, USA 2015
Won
AFI Award Movie of the Year
Alejandro González Iñárritu
John Lesher
Arnon Milchan
James W. Skotchdopole
BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) sings of the wide divide between artist and ... More
Edits: 04/03/15
Narcissism rules.
I mean have you EVER WATCHED the 'Academy Awards'?
"Familiarity breeds contempt, and children."
-Mark Twain
Perhaps I dont like this magic realism and stuff. Well, most other movies were bad too, like American Sniper (keep replaying the same theme, now by the old cowboy), Gone Girl, the Bucharest Hotel and a lot more. Next year at least we will have Star Wars.
Cheers
Bill
Let us not forget the full title: OR The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance and how
that applies to the lead.
Should we expect a thesis from every film? I never have, not going to start now.
I think the soundtrack alone tells much of what one should expect from it.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
...I thought it was amazing and the best film of the year.
It was said older people didn't,t like it and predicted that since the average age of the Academy voter is over 65 it wouldn't win.
.
.
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.
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: