Saturday, February 14, 2015

The last, glorious flight - deciphering Birdman.

By Sati. Saturday, February 14, 2015 , , , , , , , , ,
Usually when I see a truly great movie that I fell in love with instantly I can review it on the same day, effortlessly. But not with Birdman. It has, quite literally, blown my mind. I was unable to collect my thoughts on it and shape them together into some coherent strain. They just kept bouncing off, running away ....I'm still not exactly clear on how to write this, so perhaps the best way to it is take a clue from the film and let it out in one steady flow.

To summarize what Birdman is about would probably be impossible. This is a fiercely rich movie dealing with many ideas, subjects, themes and realizations. On one surface it is a story of a washed up, once famous actor, trying to regain his fame but equally as much trying to really be regarded as talented actor. Riggan wants admiration and prestige and his alter ego, Birdman wants fame and popularity.
This dichotomy is not only quite universal for, I imagine, artists everywhere but also very timely in a day and age when we see all those talented actors getting involved with comic book franchises - something which is even talked about in an amusing scene with Riggan listing good actors stuck in superhero franchises - but we also see those actors who are unable to let go of the series that made them famous years ago. It's all Avengers and Die Hard 4 these days. It's monumental money, but truly, more often than not, it's a waste of talent.

Thanks to setting the movie close to and during opening night of Riggan's last chance for prestige - the play he is starring in and directing - we get to be inside the mind of an actor as he is battling with either being prestigious or popular while running the risk of being no one at all. His marriage ended, his daughter resents him, his girlfriend can't connect to him. This play becomes Riggan's last shot at fulfilling who he wants to be and actually having something of a value in his life.
But there is another layer to Birdman. I have never seen a movie that gives you enough to come up with your own theories, but also enough information and pieces so that many of those theories seem possible. Usually there is only one answer but here it's possible there are many. It's not just about the ending. Does he die? If so when? On the stage or as a result of a fall? Or when he is flying? Is the fireball merely a symbolism for Icarus? Perhaps the shots of jellyfish suggest he is already dead? Or maybe it simply symbolizes Riggan's brush against death? We'll never know. Or maybe we already do?
According to one view, the movie is a retelling of Shakespeare's "Macbeth". Michael Keaton is Macbeth and Birdman is Lady Macbeth, pushing him to do as he pleases (to be king, or in this case, to be popular and trending). Also Macbeth famously pursues a course of action aimed at blocking a prophecy proclaimed by witches, while here Keaton uses all his money and time to stop his show from failing as predicted by a female critic. There is also a scene when Keaton's character leaves a bar, and lines from "Macbeth" are being spoken by an actor on the street,. Finally, at one point in the play within the movie, dancing trees are seen on stage, just as in Macbeth.(x)
What do I think? We hear Birdman make a statement that a 'grand gesture' is necessary. We witness it at the end. Riggan, unable to decide what he wants and being at the high point - reconciling with his daughter and seeing defeatist Birdman on the toilet - decides to get out before he can fuck it up. Why does Sam smile? Because she sees that her father is finally free. I heard that some people actually heard Riggan's laughter along with Sam's in the final moment. That seems to support my interpretation of the film. Only by letting go he finally found peace.

We see different manifestations of what is going on is symbolic way - Riggan lifted up by Birdman's monologue literally starts flying, why can't we be seeing Sam not being horrified and immediately smiling as another manifestation of the inner emotions and not the literal presentation of what is happening? In Birdman anything is possible. That film is the celluloid equivalent of a wonderful, surreal, alive imagination.
Birdman also touches on critique of method acting that is so popular lately. What I liked about the movie is that even though method actor Mike, hilariously played by Edward Norton, is seen as someone ridiculous and absurd, his way of acting works. The method is being ridiculed but not the effects of it, which are most definitely there.

I liked that the film is never mean-spirited - it doesn't look down on quirky actors or audiences loving comic book movies. It's in no way mean, or ugly or depressing. It talks about death and hopelessness but it's so rich and full of life and energy. It makes you think without making you feel sad. It's a cinematic joy at its purest form. The only time the film ventures into truly negative territory is in the brilliant scene where Riggan berates a critic set on destroying him. The critic is presented as the villain of the film and another plot device that causes more angst and uncertainty for Riggan. I'm sure it's also the cast and crew way of rage against every single bad and in their minds unfair thing that was ever written about them in a review.
Another thing is that this is a completely surprising movie coming from Inarittu. The sheer amount of visual and sonic virtuosity and the scope of the story is so far and above everything he has done so far. His other films while also dealing with lives of individuals somehow felt smaller, perhaps because the layers in Birdman are intertwined with meta layers - a film with actors about actors, a film with former comic book movie star playing a former comic book-like movie star, a film where quite a bit of the cast has comic book/superhero/blockbuster ties, with Norton once being the Hulk and Stone playing Gwen Stacy. It's stage on top of stage, but it's not a flimsy house of cards, it's a strong, well thought out construction and a marvel to witness.

Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki yet again defies the boundaries of gravity and human comprehension with his work. It is a rare occasion where I cannot grasp how a certain thing was done in the movie but the camera movement here is just mind blowing. There is a certain scene following the rooftop moment and ending with a taxi cab driver's lines you should pay attention to, that is one of the year's best scenes. It's freeing just to witness a scene like that. The visual side of the movie and the rhythmic, pulsing drums of its soundtrack overwhelm but never overshadow the things the movie has to say.
When it comes to acting the ensemble is just incredible - from the small roles that have no false note from the great Lindsey Duncan and Naomi Watts, through enchanting Andrea Risebourough and compassionate Amy Ryan to effortlessly funny Zach Galifianakis they all show such authenticity and create a great support for the key players in the film.

Emma Stone has never been better than she is here - she is such a natural, likable and vivid young actress and while the most talked about scene here is the moment she yells at her father I enjoyed Sam's quiet moments the most - how mesmerized she is at the things Mike says to her and how she still wants to bond with her father in spite of the distance there is between them. With her Sam you can see glimpses of such maturity, heartache and understanding behind the surface.
Edward Norton is at his best here, on board with all the crazy things in his scenes. He is hilarious and unforgettable, just like Stone also being able to convey that there is more to Mike than just being an erratic method actor. But it's really Keaton's show and he gives the best male performance of 2014 as Riggan, fully capturing his quest to find the meaning and capturing the audience in the process. Is Riggan likable? Perhaps not, but we want him to be all right.

The key theme in the movie is the subject of how relevant we are in today's world filled with social media where everyone can be popular with sufficiently scandalous - or - idiotic - viral video. We are not irrelevant, contrary to what Sam says. Our stories matter because they are own. But for Riggan? He wants more, he is not even sure what it is but it seems that all that he wants is for someone to genuinely care about him. And it looks that in the end he achieved that. And then escaped the world he no longer - or maybe never - understood.
In some way the film does romanticize the idea of succumbing to psychotic break and committing suicide. We see Riggan gain confidence because of his imaginary alter ago talking to him. We see characters on the ledges of buildings and that is where they appear truly free. We see such peace on Riggan's face in the ending and we see Sam's happiness.

Perhaps what the film is trying to say is that this proximity of death, the fact that at any moment you can just be gone, not just irrelevant as Sam says, but truly gone forever is what makes all the moments in our lives feel precious. In fact while the story can seem nihilistic - with he use of Macbeth's famous tomorrow and tomorrow part and the moments such as Riggan wiping off 'the human existence' from a tissue I think the film has a whole different outcome.
We matter. Out lives while may seem insignificant as a statistic, but they belong to us. At the same time have impact on other people, we appear in their lives and subsequently in their memories. We are part of something that is not just our own - relationships, events, situations.You may think you are irrelevant but you are not - your dreams, fantasies, interactions, issues, troubles are all part of the whole.

The titular unexpected virtue of ignorance lies perhaps in that realization - that while you feel you may be failing, the chain reaction of what you do can have impact of others. Riggan may feel he is a failure but he has a daughter who in the end seems so happy to see what her dad managed to achieve. He also brought joy to so many people - not just the audiences but Watts's struggling actress who got her big break because of his play. He may think it will all be a catastrophe but for her it's a dream come true.
In fact, when you look at it, all the characters are thinking they are being ignorant to something - Sam runs away by using drugs, Mike uses his acting, feeling 'alive' only when he is on stage, Riggan's girlfriend seems to see her relationship with him as something than what it truly is and at various points of the movie people lie to each other just to get the reaction from the other person they were hoping for.

Take the scene where Jake lies to Riggan about Scorsese being in the audience - he does this to reassure Riggan everything will be fine. Is it a lie? Yes. Does it work? Yes. The film plays around a very dangerous idea balancing its point on contradictions - lies work but it's only when Riggan does something as real as actually shooting himself on the stage the play becomes a smash hit. Riggan is real and Birdman is a lie. But what really is the answer?
In the end it's only the true ignorance that seems to be the blessing - Riggan ignores quite literally everything and ends his life. Sam ignores that her father, if you go by what seems to be the most plausible thing, is dead on the ground and focuses on the fact he found freedom. It's a ballsy statement to make and the scene to end that movie with.

I'm not gonna sit here and argue it's distasteful that the film does show suicide as a happy moment. Mostly it's about my belief that you should be free to decide when you die if you want to die. But there were plenty of people so outraged they could barely got out words saying how Whiplash's ending is 'abusive'. The thing is that these are not universal stories - those films do not make the statements that in order to achieve what you want you have to be self destructive or/and sacrifice your life. Why do people always think that the movies show role models and are claiming that people should follow them? Movies tell stories. Stories you can often relate to, but stories that are not your own.
But in no point in either Whiplash or Birdman were you asked to do exactly what the characters did. It's really a peculiar kind of narcissism when women who watch Gone Girl feel that the film represents all women and says that they lie about being raped or people who see Whiplash say it's distasteful how the film says that in order to be successful you have to be an asshole. It's not your story. Let it the fuck go.

The card next to Riggan's mirror says 'A thing is a thing, not what is said of that thing'. Riggan's play and his feelings about it won't really change based on what people think, the review, the audience reception of it. Neither will his experiences change for him based on what others say. His feelings of anxiety, his experiences in life and his own emotions in the end allowed him to smile and decide to fly. And I find that beautiful.

Birdman (2014, 119)
Plot: A washed up actor, who once played an iconic superhero, battles his ego and attempts to recover his family, his career and himself in the days leading up to the opening of a Broadway play.
Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu
Writers: Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris & Armando Bo
Stars: Michael Keaton, Zach Galifianakis, Edward Norton
  RELATED POSTS:

29 comments:

  1. I adore this film as I hope Inarritu makes more films like this. Plus, Keaton should win that Oscar. He's that fucking good.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Another amazing analysis, girl! This is definitely a movie that I'm going to probably enjoy significantly more the second time around...it's a lot to digest in one sitting, especially after reading everything you just wrote! Seeing it again this week!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! I saw it 3 times already and it's just so mesmerizing

      Delete
  3. Brilliant review! I love your take on the ignorance here, which is a particular theme I hadn't picked up on, at least not wholly, and I love that you highlight that here. You have such a knack for exploring those details.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much, glad you liked it!

      Delete
  4. Excellent post! This is definitely my favorite of the year, and I'm not sure I coherently talked about it in my review either. There's just so much to appreciate. It's genius film making by all involved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! I really hope it gets at least some Oscar love on Sunday

      Delete
  5. Everyone in the cast nails their role. Endless (and well deserved) praise has been heaped upon Keaton, Stone, and Norton, but I'm really glad to see The Wire's Amy Ryan deliver another solid performance.

    I hope to pick it up today and have it on repeat in my player.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ryan is always so good. Loved her in both comedic and dramatic roles.

      Delete
  6. This is a fabulous piece, Sati. Lots of thought provoking points here. I loved Birdman but admittedly had issues with the end. However, I reflected on it and found it's ambiguity worked for the overall themes. It's a film that will also play better on repeat viewings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! I saw it 3 times so far and it's just magnificent every single time, even on small screen

      Delete
  7. I love your review of this. Michael Keaton deserves the Oscar, he is just so good in this. Really, the whole cast was top notch. I never got the hype about Emma Stone but I really liked her performance in this. Edward Norton and Zach G both were also very good in this movie too. Birdman is probably one of the best movies I have seen in a long time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much! Keeping my fingers crossed for Keaton getting his Oscar

      Delete
    2. WHOAH! Amazing review Sati, that's cool that you have seen this 3 times! But I think this is one of those films that'd be more rewarding on repeat viewings as there are so many meticulous details we'd miss the first time around.

      I don't like films that are mean-spirited and I'm glad this one wasn't, all the jabs about the other actors came from Riggan's personal views. It's interesting too that some of the main players here have been in superhero films, I bet it was fun casting this movie. I never thought of Emma Stone as a serious actress but she did show she's got the chops here. I do think Andrea Riseborough is massively overlooked though, not just here but in general.

      I'll be rooting for Keaton and Lubezki this Sunday. I think Lubezki has a better chance of winning but I'm not losing hope yet for Keaton.

      Delete
    3. Thanks so much!

      Riseborough really deserves to break out. People talk shit about Madonna's WE but it really wasn't this bad, mainly because of Andrea's great performance and lovely music.

      Delete
    4. Oh I totally forgot Andrea was in WE, was it w/ James D'Arcy? I'd watch that film just for her! I think people just love ripping Madonna's um, cinematic ambition to shreds, it just seems obligatory than anything.

      Delete
    5. Yeah I think he was there, I'm not very familiar with that actor but I think he played that prince who gave up the throne for her. WE isn't a great movie but she makes it worth seeing

      Delete
  8. This is such a great review. I like that you touch upon the topic of people stating negative stuff about great movies just because the topic isn't romanticized or heroic. Life is rough for many, and these difficult issues and bad characters, scary life triumphs and even suicide need to be out there as much as the next superhero movie.

    Sure, suicide is a very difficult topic but in a way it does mean freedom for those who escape life for reasons others won't fully understand. Sam smiling in the end made me wonder whether she understood her father better than anyone else, maybe even himself because she did not see her father dead, like you said, but she saw him free. Flying.

    I hope Keaton wins, he deserves it.. the whole Birdman cast deserves recognition and the technical team, man.. those guys rock! I saw somewhere than usually they adjust colors in few scenes but in Birdman they changed it in every scene in order to get the flow of scenes like it was. The transitioning moments and so on. I want to get my hands on a special edition DVD just to see all the behind the scenes stuff and director commentary for this one because I guess it will add more to the story!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! I really like my interpretation of events, I think it makes sense and Sam was kind of the character who could really see beyond what other people saw. She seemed the most grounded actually, not letting bullshit cloud her views.

      I really want to see the extras too, the amount of work they put into this film is really incredible.

      Delete
  9. Beautiful review! One of my favorite reviews I've read in a long time. Like the movie itself, it's "fiercely rich." :)

    I agree with everything you said, and I think that what makes this movie so compelling is that it's telling many stories, in myriad ways,all at once, and they all work. You can choose any level or angle you'd like and ponder it for a while.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much!

      It's really a wonderful movie filled with so many things that are thought provoking, it's the most thought provoking movie of 2014 even though some don't tend to see it because it's also not heavy and very entertaining

      Delete
  10. Excellent review! This movie is just brilliant all around. And just think: It might actually win Best Picture at the Oscars! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! It would be so wonderful if it did!

      Delete
  11. I liked the movie! So basically the theme is how important is to be remembered or popular in order to feel happiness, that no one is insignificant, that even if you're famous, most people have no idea what you're going through or the way you see things or the life you have. I think that even famous writers who left their books centuries after their death are thought to have explored lives by historians when we don't actually know that much about them.

    So I liked the message a lot, the cinematography while seemed a bit messy (I kind of felt dizzy after watching it) was really good, but I don't think it is the best movie in the year. Not for me at least. Maybe because I've already thought about the whole thing myself and having embraced the fact that it is not necessary to be famous or rich in order to be happy. While having more money would certainly make me happier (what? I want to go around the world and do awesome things) it is not obligatory.

    But that ending is the best of a movie I must admit!

    A detailed review is a great review!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well it's not really required for the film to make you think about things for the first time in your life in order to be insightful. And that was just one of the themes in the movie. Really glad you liked the ending!

      Delete
    2. Now that I read my comment again I feel a bit silly. Anyway. Glad you reviewed it! :)

      Delete
    3. Oh, you should never feel silly for expressing your opinion!

      Delete
  12. I don't read reviews very often, but when I do, the subject is so commonly judged, at least in part, based on its perceived morality; as though the purpose of a movie is to be an instructional video on how society should think and act. I came here to read your Great Expectations review, which I also liked, but I just wanted to say thanks for addressing that stupid approach to looking at art. It's the first time I've heard or read anyone even bring it up. Thank you for having some sense

    ReplyDelete