I'm reviewing Birdman years after its release, because I think it's a widely misunderstood movie. A lot of people call it pretentious, which I get. A lot of people love it because of its supposed caricature of comic book movies (disclaimer: I love my MCU as much as I love my indie flicks).
The thing is, it's neither. I don't blame the "pretentious" tag completely, because that's what I thought as well on my first viewing. Yes, Lubezski is a God behind the lens, but something about the movie reeks of elitism, especially with its characters always bashing Disney/Marvel-like entities. It took me a few viewings to truly understand that the characters of Mike Shiner and Tabitha Dickinson simply exist as parodies of people who call themselves the "beacons" of high-brow art. High-brow art is a concept people made up to feel good about "truly" appreciating cinema. We end up figuring out Mike Shiner is a horrible person, beneath all that talk of talent and blood and sweat.
No. This movie is a mirror. Especially for Michael Keaton, without whom this movie wouldn't have been as good as it is. Keaton shot to fame as Batman. He had a fairly rocky career after, and didn't see the same level of success as when he played the Caped Crusader. In fact, as I write this, I also find out that Keaton was the first choice for the role. Birdman is incredibly self-aware of its identity as a work of art. It also knows that it'll be a tough job navigating that identity, moving between being perceived as pretentious, as a critique on supposed low-brow art, and above all, being what it always wanted to be - a story about an actor's self-discovery, and a potshot at that pretentious culture.
I'll also strengthen my case with Edward Norton's casting. Edward Norton is widely known as a very difficult actor to work with (he literally hijacked American History X), while also being very talented. In a number of ways, Norton is playing himself in Birdman. The movie doesn't endorse Mike Shiner - it only seems to, while eventually you discover something else (won't divulge more).
Which is why I think the movie is written so well. It knows when and how to reveal itself. Keaton is completely feeling himself as Riggan, because he's been there before. He gives a career-defining performance as a flawed man, trying to find himself in a world that doesn't need him anymore. A relic of a time everyone likes to talk about, but is okay with not having anymore. You know, a lot like Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher's Batman movies. It is simple deception by the writers that deservingly earned the movie an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. It's also why the addition of magical realism makes so much sense. It's for you to truly feel what Riggan is feeling, what he's thinking. It's also deliberately funny.
And I'm not even talking about the score or the cinematography yet, both pitch-perfect for the movie's atmosphere. Antonio Sanchez deserved a nomination for the score, it was a crime on the Academy's part to not give him a nod. Emma Stone went off, too (when is she not good). Norton was pretty good, but then again, he played himself. I honestly feel Michael Keaton deserved an Oscar for this. It'll be a while before we see a performance as honest as this. Chivo is, well, I've already said it - a God.
This movie's biggest flaw is, of course, the fact that knowing some of the context I've outlined might help you as a viewer if the satire doesn't get obvious for you soon enough. It didn't for me, till the second/third viewing. And if you don't get the hype about the movie after your first try, try it again. It worked for me. No, I didn't Google the context before my second or third viewing, I just love Batman.
Not my pick for Oscar for Best Picture that year, that honor belonged to Whiplash for me. But I can't complain either, because it's brilliant.
The thing is, it's neither. I don't blame the "pretentious" tag completely, because that's what I thought as well on my first viewing. Yes, Lubezski is a God behind the lens, but something about the movie reeks of elitism, especially with its characters always bashing Disney/Marvel-like entities. It took me a few viewings to truly understand that the characters of Mike Shiner and Tabitha Dickinson simply exist as parodies of people who call themselves the "beacons" of high-brow art. High-brow art is a concept people made up to feel good about "truly" appreciating cinema. We end up figuring out Mike Shiner is a horrible person, beneath all that talk of talent and blood and sweat.
No. This movie is a mirror. Especially for Michael Keaton, without whom this movie wouldn't have been as good as it is. Keaton shot to fame as Batman. He had a fairly rocky career after, and didn't see the same level of success as when he played the Caped Crusader. In fact, as I write this, I also find out that Keaton was the first choice for the role. Birdman is incredibly self-aware of its identity as a work of art. It also knows that it'll be a tough job navigating that identity, moving between being perceived as pretentious, as a critique on supposed low-brow art, and above all, being what it always wanted to be - a story about an actor's self-discovery, and a potshot at that pretentious culture.
I'll also strengthen my case with Edward Norton's casting. Edward Norton is widely known as a very difficult actor to work with (he literally hijacked American History X), while also being very talented. In a number of ways, Norton is playing himself in Birdman. The movie doesn't endorse Mike Shiner - it only seems to, while eventually you discover something else (won't divulge more).
Which is why I think the movie is written so well. It knows when and how to reveal itself. Keaton is completely feeling himself as Riggan, because he's been there before. He gives a career-defining performance as a flawed man, trying to find himself in a world that doesn't need him anymore. A relic of a time everyone likes to talk about, but is okay with not having anymore. You know, a lot like Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher's Batman movies. It is simple deception by the writers that deservingly earned the movie an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. It's also why the addition of magical realism makes so much sense. It's for you to truly feel what Riggan is feeling, what he's thinking. It's also deliberately funny.
And I'm not even talking about the score or the cinematography yet, both pitch-perfect for the movie's atmosphere. Antonio Sanchez deserved a nomination for the score, it was a crime on the Academy's part to not give him a nod. Emma Stone went off, too (when is she not good). Norton was pretty good, but then again, he played himself. I honestly feel Michael Keaton deserved an Oscar for this. It'll be a while before we see a performance as honest as this. Chivo is, well, I've already said it - a God.
This movie's biggest flaw is, of course, the fact that knowing some of the context I've outlined might help you as a viewer if the satire doesn't get obvious for you soon enough. It didn't for me, till the second/third viewing. And if you don't get the hype about the movie after your first try, try it again. It worked for me. No, I didn't Google the context before my second or third viewing, I just love Batman.
Not my pick for Oscar for Best Picture that year, that honor belonged to Whiplash for me. But I can't complain either, because it's brilliant.
Tell Your Friends