Alejandro Gonzalez to helm.....Birdman

[Enriquespy]

Yesssss.......

 

[Kane52630]

Michael Keaton on Jimmy Kimmel

 

[Greens]

I love the Jack Nicholson story. Especially because Jack has been out of the spotlight for a few years now.

 

[Pink Ranger]

I finally got to see this movie today.

Wow. Wowowowoow! This film is close to being perfect. The creative execution, the acting, the writing, amazing.

 

[CapedCrusader14]

It really frustrates me to no end that Australia has to wait till January 15 to see this.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Emma totally deserves an Oscar for this film. So does Keats, but his category is going to be pretty stacked this year, so that's more of an uncertainty.

 

[Black Narcissus]

I hear the names of the DP isn't on the ballots, Chivo could win his second Oscar back to back.

 

[Pink Ranger]

I can see this movie nailing the Cinematography category, and Best Original Screenplay as well. For other categories, this year there's a tough competition. While there hasn't been a standout film for me, overall it's been a great year.

 

[Keyser Soze]

BIRDMAN (OR, THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) is not originally a film I was expecting to love. If anything, I was maybe a little prejudiced against it. I wasn't a fan of director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's earlier films, 21 GRAMS and BABEL, and Inarritu himself annoyed me with some of his recent comments slamming superhero movies... which anyone who knows me will know I love fondly. I was apprehensive about a vicious satire mocking the lameness and hollowness of superheroes and how they're not worthy of being seen as "real" movies, yada yada. On the other hand, I've always been a big fan of Michael Keaton, the concept seemed intriguing, and the film has been getting a lot of buzz. So I still decided I wanted to see BIRDMAN and make up my own mind.

I'm glad I did. BIRDMAN is astounding, a cinematic experience not quite like anything else I've ever seen. The plot revolves around Michael Keaton's Riggan Thomson, a washed-up actor best known for playing a big screen superhero 20 years earlier, who is attempting to claw back some credibility by writing, directing and starring in an ambitious adaptation of a Raymond Carver novel, with apparent disaster looming and an epic nervous breakdown for Riggan seemingly fast approaching. There is of course some mockery of the current trend towards superhero blockbuster cinema, but not as much as I feared. If anything, I'd argue that the teeth and claws are out just as much - if not more so - for the pretentious, self-regarding Broadway theatre crowd and their belief that they hold the monopoly on "real" acting over their movie counterparts, with some suggestion that what they do is in fact no less artificial or shallow than the movie stars who put on costumes in front of CGI green-screens. Beyond that, the film tackles some pretty big ideas, from the fickle nature of fame, to the value of criticism and cultural commentary, to the very nature of our place in the world and what it all means.

But as intriguing as the ideas of the plot are, it's in the execution that BIRDMAN truly soars. Inarritu's feverish direction is a wonder to behold. I was utterly drawn in by the weird rhythm of the thing, unable to quite put my finger on what was so unusual about the pacing. It was maybe about 15-20 minutes in before I realised there hadn't been a single cut. And pretty much the whole movie (aside from the odd spot of CGI trickery, I presume) is one long, continuous shot. Which, given that most of the film is set in and around a theatre and that the story is about a play, really helps to enhance the theatrical tone of the thing, almost like we ourselves are watching a live performance. You might think that a single extended take and a confined location might result in a static film, but you couldn't be more wrong, as the camera is constantly in motion, sweeping and gliding and madly revolving around, following a character from one scene or another, or ditching the present characters entirely to go swirling around looking for someone else to focus on. It's dizzying, almost exhausting. And at times, quite oppressive. It seems that, more often than not, the camera is uncomfortably close to the actors, pressed right against their faces or over their shoulders, like we're cramped in a room with them. And given that Riggan is present for the majority of the film, more and more we come to identify these uncomfortable shots with his own mindset, as the pressure from all angles builds and builds. We're caught in the brewing storm of his mental state, and so the sense of an impending explosion just builds and builds throughout the movie, bolstered by the frantic jazz drum score that punctuates the whole film, the drummer even appearing on-screen at moments of particularly heightened emotion.

The other MVP here is Michael Keaton. For as long as I've been old enough to recognise actors in films, I've been a fan of Michael Keaton. Both BATMAN and BEETLEJUICE were big movies for young me, and so Keaton pretty much earned a pass for life from me on the back of those. And while the popular narrative seems to be equating washed-up Riggan with washed-up Keaton, and Keaton hasn't really been a headline star in many years, the comparison isn't quite astute because Keaton has been doing interesting bits of work sporadically throughout his time "in the wilderness," from JACKIE BROWN to TOY STORY 3. But still, it really is great to see him get a high-profile leading role again, and it's even better to see him get that ball and absolutely knock it out of the park with barnstorming, career-best work. This is a virtuoso performance, and even though the comparison isn't exact, at the same time I almost feel like there's no one else who could have played this part like Keaton did. And so there's this fascinating metatextual effect going on, where you have Riggan the character is performing as Mel from WHAT WE TALK ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT LOVE, and that performance has echoes of Riggan the character, who himself has echoes of Keaton the actor. There's layers and nuances here so compelling that we almost lose sight of where the performance ends and reality begins, on multiple levels.

The rest of the cast is strong, too. Emma Stone, Naomi Watts, Amy Ryan, Zach Galifanakis, and especially Edward Norton. There may be a bit of "art imitating life" with Norton, too, given that his character's tendencies for being a difficult prima donna, micro-managing productions and rewriting his own lines is reflective of reports circulated about Norton himself. But the result is a whirlwind of a performance that is the most enjoyable Norton has been on-screen in years.

Overall, BIRDMAN is an amazing, unique cinematic experience, an exhilarating injection of pure, euphoric cinema. This has immediately become my top pick to scoop up Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor come Oscar time. 2015 in film is off to a great start!

 

[hoy-small-fry]

Saw this tonight, excellent movie. The way it skewers the industry, critics and fans alike is great, and the pseudo-single shot? Masterful. Truly masterful

Trying to piece together the ending though, that was a bit odd

 

[lime]

Yes, the ending was confusing

Spoiler

did he kill himself by jumping out of the window?

 

[Pink Ranger]

Well, that's the thing:

Spoiler

throughout the film, we assume his "powers" are just a product of dementia, but the end leaves it totally up to interpretation. I can think of at least four interpretations, not that it really matters.

 

[Black Narcissus]

I actually wanted the film to end during that wtf moment on stage near the end.

So bleak and beautiful.

 

[Pink Ranger]

I actually wanted the film to end during that wtf moment on stage near the end.

So bleak and beautiful.

I love the fact that it didn't. Because that was what close to 100% of the audience was expecting (myself included). But no, not good enough, the movie has to involve us in another level of wonderful absurdity. For me, the ending seals the deal for this being the best film I have seen over the past 12 months.

 

[Enriquespy]

What are you talking about? The film ended with the credits.

 

[Black Narcissus]

I love the fact that it didn't. Because that was what close to 100% of the audience was expecting (myself included). But no, not good enough, the movie has to involve us in another level of wonderful absurdity. For me, the ending seals the deal for this being the best film I have seen over the past 12 months.

I respectfully disagree, sir. This is still my favorite film of the year. Inarritu won't win anything for this though, damn shame.

Keaton better win.

 

[Pink Ranger]

I respectfully disagree, sir.

Go see Farewell My Concubine. A wonderful movie, but I won't say anything else.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Go see Farewell My Concubine. A wonderful movie, but I won't say anything else.

HA! I still own the vhs.

 

[BlackFox]

Great film, totally unique and the entire cast nailed it. Was bonkers mad, but in a good way. Stone and Norton were great and of course Keaton.

 

[lime]

Yeah, after second viewing my opinion is sealed on the ending

Spoiler

he killed himself

 

[redhawk23]

I love the fact that it didn't. Because that was what close to 100% of the audience was expecting (myself included). But no, not good enough, the movie has to involve us in another level of wonderful absurdity. For me, the ending seals the deal for this being the best film I have seen over the past 12 months.

That serves little purpose except for the film to have its cake and eat it too.

 

[djsunyc]

Yes, the ending was confusing

Spoiler

did he kill himself by jumping out of the window?

i just saw this yesterday and here are my thoughts:

Spoiler

this movie reminded me alot of mulholland drive. even down to both having naomi watts and her doing a lesbian scene lol.

this is my theory...the opening sequence/shot had the fire ball and some other stuff before the movie started. then after he shot himself, we saw the full montage of scenes. i think the fireball was the gunshot through his head. imho, he DIED after the gunshot. his story about not being remembered when clooney died in the plane crash (and side mention of farrah fawcett) meant he wanted to die on his own terms - aka suicide.

the montage of scenes were him recollecting things after he died. the final scene in the hospital is totally his last "vision" or what he wanted to imagine before he went off to wherever one goes after one dies.

the mask in the hospital room was his mask as the birdman. him removing it was him finally accepting himself as he wanted to view himself. he said goodbye to the birdman after he took it off. the scene had his wife there by his side. whey did he get that crazy good review when the critic said she was going to kill the play? she even got up and left first. his agent/buddy showed him the vigil in central park. whey would there be a vigil for him? this is all fake. even his daughter, who at the beginning of the movie didn't care what flowers to get him, got him the flowers he wanted, then put her head down on his body. this was a completely fake vision of what he wanted before his soul actually left. the very final scene where his daughter looks down and then up is showing how she finally sees him the way he sees himself.

another theory is there is super quick flash to the jellyfish in the very beginning of the movie. like a single frame for less than a second. its' quite possible the entire movie is his dying vision after he actually drowned with the jellyfish.

 

[Pink Ranger]

i just saw this yesterday and here are my thoughts:

Spoiler

this movie reminded me alot of mulholland drive. even down to both having naomi watts and her doing a lesbian scene lol.

this is my theory...the opening sequence/shot had the fire ball and some other stuff before the movie started. then after he shot himself, we saw the full montage of scenes. i think the fireball was the gunshot through his head. imho, he DIED after the gunshot. his story about not being remembered when clooney died in the plane crash (and side mention of farrah fawcett) meant he wanted to die on his own terms - aka suicide.

the montage of scenes were him recollecting things after he died. the final scene in the hospital is totally his last "vision" or what he wanted to imagine before he went off to wherever one goes after one dies.

the mask in the hospital room was his mask as the birdman. him removing it was him finally accepting himself as he wanted to view himself. he said goodbye to the birdman after he took it off. the scene had his wife there by his side. whey did he get that crazy good review when the critic said she was going to kill the play? she even got up and left first. his agent/buddy showed him the vigil in central park. whey would there be a vigil for him? this is all fake. even his daughter, who at the beginning of the movie didn't care what flowers to get him, got him the flowers he wanted, then put her head down on his body. this was a completely fake vision of what he wanted before his soul actually left. the very final scene where his daughter looks down and then up is showing how she finally sees him the way he sees himself.

another theory is there is super quick flash to the jellyfish in the very beginning of the movie. like a single frame for less than a second. its' quite possible the entire movie is his dying vision after he actually drowned with the jellyfish.

Wow, that is one interpretation I did not consider, but it kind of works too. Nice.

 

[djsunyc]

Wow, that is one interpretation I did not consider, but it kind of works too. Nice.

since i was such a huge mulholland drive fan...i was kind of pre-programmed to think along those lines. if you have seen mulholland drive, please do. david lynch at his best.

 

[Pink Ranger]

since i was such a huge mulholland drive fan...i was kind of pre-programmed to think along those lines. if you have seen mulholland drive, please do. david lynch at his best.

There are at least 5 different interpretations of the ending that I can see (used to be 4, until I read your excellent post). This is mine:

Spoiler

Riggins did in fact survive the gunshot, and the hospital room stuff is real. And he did really climb out onto the ledge, because his delusional powers still convince him he can fly. And he really does jump and pancake onto the concrete outside.

Sam really does see Riggins's remains when she looks down. However, the shock of seeing it awakens her own dementia, which is similar to her father's and is either hereditary or caused by her chemical dependencies (or a combination of both). Therefore, her delusions kick in, passed down from father to daughter, and her mind convinces her that she is seeing her superhero father fly off into the distance.