Birdman (new Alejandro González Iñárritu film)

[Noodle Lizard]

Surprised there doesn't seem to be a mention of this on here (although it's not coming out in the UK until January, so fair shoes):

TRAILER (which is bad and spoilery, don't watch it):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJfLoE6hanc

Just saw it myself.  It ... is ... fucking ... good.  In a way that so few films are these days.  Most of the time any praise heaped upon a big blockbuster like Argo or one of those Planet Of The Apes reboots always brings up the comparative plaudit "well, it's great compared to all the other shit we get".  This is just great, and I'm certain it'll gain "classic" status one day.

Great writing (for the most part), astounding direction and a really great cast.  There's not a single bad performance in the film, even from Zach Galifianakis and Emma Stone who I usually don't have much time for.  But if Iñárritu and Michael Keaton don't get nominated for Best Director and Actor respectively, I'll be severely confused.  Keaton is really good, with Edward Norton turning in another good performance as his antagonist.

It's doing that all-in-one-take thing pioneered by Rope and such, though it visually resembles something like Irreversible, especially with all the strangely-lit, tight corridors of the theatre's backstage where most of the film is set.  Some sequences are genuinely impressive, even with the amazing CGI we have now I can't figure out how some of it was done.  It must have been fairly grueling to make, as even without covered edits the takes are very long and complex - indeed you see actors flub their lines slightly once in a while, though this could well be deliberate.

It's only let down by a couple of things - some of the humour feels misjudged, and relies a little too much on current fads which may date badly, and the very ending is a bit of a letdown (I'll talk more about that when we've all seen it).

Overall though, fucking good.  Probably my film of the year, definitely in terms of direction and performances.  B minus.

P.S. Best opening titles I've seen in ages.

[RickyGerbail]

Need to see this. THe only fear i have is that it's going to be Extras-style wisdom about celebrity, can't have that.

[Noodle Lizard]

Need to see this. THe only fear i have is that it's going to be Extras-style wisdom about celebrity, can't have that.

Not a chance.  There's very little cliché about it.  I only wish they would have ended it five minutes earlier than they did.

I imagine it'll turn up on torrents once the awards screeners start going out (in December usually), though I'd say it's worth a trip to the cinema.  It's a bit disorientating, walking around felt weird for a little while afterwards.

[Garam]

The official website has a really weird little rabbit hole for you to fall down.

http://www.birdmanthefilm.com/site/3/

keep clicking for comics, videos, musings on life and a novella about Courteney Cox and her dogs.

[Blumf]

Those are by that Pictures for Sad Children guy, John Campbell, aren't they.

[thecuriousorange]

Can't wait for Birdman Returns in two years time.

Then Birdman Forever starring Val Kilmer.

[BritishHobo]

Why does my local Odeon have an enormous fuck-off standee for this film right in front of the entrance to the screens when it quite obviously has no sodding intention of showing it, meaning I'm going to have to take two buses for two hours to reach a cinema that will?

[WesterlyWinds]

Ha ha looser

[The Region Legion]

Yes, truly brilliant piece of work. The cinematography alone should win an Oscar, you really can't see the joins to the point that I have to wonder if some of them really are long single takes with actors having to reposition and just "get it right". One of the few films these days that not only might I physically buy but actually be interested in the "making of" portion.

I agree the ending lets it down. There's not much more to say about it other than it's perfect up to that point, and particularly as a child who grew up on the Keaton Batman films, there's a wonderful personal synergy to it too.

Is Batman that much of an albatross for Keaton? I suppose he's never been a big star since, but he's hardly been out of work either.

Also, kind of amusing that after this film about an actor from a blockbuster Hollywood franchise trying to be taken seriously, Keaton's next project is Beetlejuice 2.

[non capisco]

Strip away the formal experimentation of long takes and that bare bones rhythmic score and you're left with a big bag of cliches though. It seemed to me like a fairly prosaic backstage theatre comedy of manners with ideas above its station. It presumes to lecture its audience at one point which felt glib and unearned. Piss off, Inarritu, maybe I want to watch a superhero film every now and again.[nb]I should be clear I may be slightly prejudiced against this director's work seeing as apart from maybe Amores Perros it is a right load of old shit[/nb] It seems to want to be saying something profound but never settles on what that is. And the end is basically

Spoiler alert

Being There, but rubbish.

[close]

Ed Norton is good in it though.

[Noodle Lizard]

Strip away the formal experimentation of long takes and that bare bones rhythmic score and you're left with a big bag of cliches though. It seemed to me like a fairly prosaic backstage theatre comedy of manners with ideas above its station. It presumes to lecture its audience at one point which felt glib and unearned. Piss off, Inarritu, maybe I want to watch a superhero film every now and again.[nb]I should be clear I may be slightly prejudiced against this director's work seeing as apart from maybe Amores Perros it is a right load of old shit[/nb] It seems to want to be saying something profound but never settles on what that is. And the end is basically

Spoiler alert

Being There, but rubbish.

[close]

Ed Norton is good in it though.

That's odd, because what I liked about it was that it didn't really seem to have ideas above its station at all.  It wasn't preachy and I don't think it was really condemning of anything (superhero movies, the new social media audiences, even critics).  I think I know the scene you're referring to, but I never saw that as lecturing the audience.  It's a hugely flawed character delivering that screed and he hardly "wins" as a result.  It was a rare recent example of a story which didn't narratively serve any agenda or point - you'd be justified coming out of it taking almost any perspective.  I found myself sympathetic towards every character, despite how "wrong" they all were in their own way.

As I said, the very ending is a bit damp (when it becomes "available" I'm going to edit out the coda and make the film 5% better) but everything that came before it is consistently great.  It's definitely up there with Amores Perros for me.

[Puce Moment]

I'm one of the few people who seemed to have enjoyed the relentless dour misery of Biutiful so the farcical side of Birdman didn't sit with me all that well.

Regarding the above post I found the 'action' scene very preachy and self-regarding, and could have done without it in much the same way as the rewind scene in Funny Games. Other low points include any mention of Twitter and the aforementioned ending.

Overall, though, I did find it entertaining and the time seemed to whip by. Keaton really is fantastic and I found him highly watchable. He carries so much of the film. I also enjoyed Ed Norton's weird lower stomach hernia.

[falafel]

Those of you that liked it - what did you think of Babel?

[falafel]

If you liked Babel your opinion of any Inarritu film will be disregarded offhand and without further consideration.

[Noodle Lizard]

Those of you that liked it - what did you think of Babel?

Ambitious but very flawed.  I think its main problem is that it came around at a time where that "strangers with different stories connected by an incident" angle had worn out its welcome, especially with the success of the frankly rubbish Crash the year before.  It's odd because he played with that form quite well in 21 Grams, which has an astonishingly complex non-linear timeline which somehow doesn't get confusing.  I haven't seen Biutiful yet, but Birdman is significantly better than Babel.  I suppose it follows a similar angle to his other films, in that it juggles a few storylines all at once, but since they're all happening in the same venue and around the same setting and in one unbroken shot, it separates it from things like Amores Perros, Traffic, Magnolia etc.

[popcorn]

I remember finding Babel stimulating but tenuous, the different stories never really sitting together properly.

Birdman is great but it's far easier to complain on the internet about a film's small problems than praise its achievements, so I'll complain. I didn't get what his powers had to do with anything. Obviously they represent the power he believes he has inside that no one else sees, but that's what the Birdman persona is for, and is Birdman supposed to have telekinetic powers? That's a pretty weird power for a bird-guy to have.

I also kept wishing the actors were playing themselves and that it were Batman in the film instead of Birdman. Obviously that would have created a licensing nightmare (not to mention made the title more confusing), but I found the fictional characters to be an unnecessary layer. (I think the same thing about Bill Murray's character in Lost in Translation.)

[George Oscar Bluth II]

As I said, the very ending is a bit damp (when it becomes "available" I'm going to edit out the coda and make the film 5% better) but everything that came before it is consistently great.  It's definitely up there with Amores Perros for me.

Where did you think it should end?

Spoiler alert

Directly after he shot himself or as you find out he's just shot his ear off?

[close]

Cos yeah, I didn't really like the very end bit. Since it suggests that

Spoiler alert

he really can fly.

[close]

Or maybe that's just me misreading it.

[SteveDave]

I thought the "powers" thing was all in his head as (I think) those things moving by themselves only happened when he was by himself.

Spoiler alert

And the time he thought he was flying he was actually in a taxi.

[close]

I was reading a lot more into Keaton & Norton being in their pants than I should've been.

This film made Emma Stone look unattractive (to me) so kudos to the film-makers for that.

And Edward Norton was brilliant.

[popcorn]

Spoiler alert

On the one hand I think the film ending just as he's shot himself would be powerful - especially with the final shot of the standing ovation and the critic getting up and leaving, lovely and ambiguous. But it's also predictable. It's checkov's gun, blah blah, as soon as there's a gun involved (especially with a conversation about getting a "more realistic" prop) you know it's coming, plus it's the obvious direction to take the playing of fiction and reality that Keaton's character and the whole film's going on about.

[close]

Where did you think it should end?

Spoiler alert

Directly after he shot himself or as you find out he's just shot his ear off?

[close]

Cos yeah, I didn't really like the very end bit. Since it suggests that

Spoiler alert

he really can fly.

[close]

Or maybe that's just me misreading it.

Spoiler alert

From memory, there are at least two moments that seem to disprove him having real powers: the producer/agent guy discovering him trashing him room, and the taxi guy chasing him for money. You'd also perhaps expect more of a reaction from the citizens of New York if a guy really was flying down the street.

The ending doesn't really suggest he can fly. It's very careful about that; there's a reason you don't see him do it. He sees the birds outside, symbolising freedom, catharsis etc, then goes to the open window. He may have jumped to his death in a moment of delusion, or decided to kill himself, or otherwise escaped or hid somehow, it doesn't matter. The point of this scene is that he's found a kind of absolution of some sort, it doesn't matter if he can literally fly.

[close]

[Puce Moment]

I wish it had ended with him killing himself. I found that final section horrible and turgid and seemed tonally out place.

[Head Gardener]

agreed but it was a fantastic film up to that point and the best film I've seen this year[nb]other than The Penguins of Madagascar[/nb]

[Bad Ambassador]

I found it massively self-important and pretty empty. I doesn't say anything that I could comprehend, has an angry rant at critics, which ALWAYS looks Gervaisian, and is populated by fairly flat characters. Describe Naomi Watts's character. Keaton's fine, but the material really isn't stretching him at all.

And I fucking hate magical realism.

[Noodle Lizard]

I found it massively self-important and pretty empty. I doesn't say anything that I could comprehend, has an angry rant at critics, which ALWAYS looks Gervaisian, and is populated by fairly flat characters. Describe Naomi Watts's character. Keaton's fine, but the material really isn't stretching him at all.

The common criticism seems to be that "it doesn't say anything", which is something I just can't get my head around.  What does Under The Skin "say"?  What does The Shining "say"?  What does "Eraserhead" say?  None of them explicitly say a whole lot, they're largely aesthetic and thematic films and you're free to take what you want from them.  With films as competent as those, I really don't care if there's a clear message in there or not.  I also struggle to see how something can be too "self-important" without saying anything, at least as far as something like Birdman is concerned.  It didn't feel like it was trying to shove something in your face, although I notice some people did feel that way.  To me it seemed like it threw a bunch of ideas, perspectives, opinions out there and leaves it up to you to agree, disagree or "neither" with them.

As for Naomi Watts' character, she had maybe ... what, 10 minutes of proper screentime in a 2-hour movie?  She's more of a functional character, I suppose, but her performance was still memorable even alongside the far more nuanced roles played by Keaton and Norton.  It never crossed my mind to complain about her character's comparative lack of depth.

I feel pretty defensive about this film, really.  I just think it gets so much right that I'm even able to forgive that lousy coda.  I've also read the script and can't imagine how much effort must have gone into selling the film alone, let alone actually producing it (storyboarding, blocking, location work etc.)  It's bloomin' masterful.  Here's the script anyway:  http://d97a3ad6c1b09e180027-5c35be6f174b10f62347680d094e609a.r46.cf2.rackcdn.com/film_scripts/FSP3823_BiRDMAN_MINI_SCRIPT_BOOK_C5.pdf

EDIT: Regarding the "angry rant at critics", yeah.  This is a bitter, fading actor on the verge of a mental breakdown.  How is it at all unreasonable for him to have an angry rant at a notoriously vicious critic who seems to have a personal vendetta against him?  I might have thought differently about that scene if Iñárritu had a history of trouble with critics, but he's been more or less universally critically acclaimed (even the less popular Babel and Biutiful).  If Kevin Smith had done something similar, then I might be a bit concerned.  Within the context of everything, it didn't bother me at all, and I sympathised with the character enough for that scene to feel pretty powerful.  It's possibly Keaton's finest moment in the film for me.

[popcorn]

The common criticism seems to be that "it doesn't say anything", which is something I just can't get my head around.  What does Under The Skin "say"? ...  With films as competent as those, I really don't care if there's a clear message in there or not.

I think Under the Skin has a far clearer and more affecting message than the one in Birdman, to be honest (see my posts in the thread about that, which got on everyone's tits).

I'd also argue that a film without a message is by definition incompetent, because art is communication - but ooh goodness I can feel myself boring everyone to death already.

[popcorn]

I found the critic scene powerful because she's comedically harsh but not wrong.

The guy's an egomaniac desperate to be taken seriously. The play is driven less by a devotion to the trade and more by a vain need to be loved. The critic represents the part of art, and making art, that always has that petty, childish need there, the need for an audience.

CUTS NOSE OFF TO SPITE FACE

[Noodle Lizard]

I think Under the Skin has a far clearer and more affecting message than the one in Birdman, to be honest (see my posts in the thread about that, which got on everyone's tits).

If it's the one I'm thinking about, it's because almost nobody else took that from it.  Which sort of proves my point.  But okay, what about The Shining?  It has themes, ideas, but I wouldn't say it really has a message.  Of course, the contributors to Room 237 would disagree.

I'd also argue that a film without a message is by definition incompetent, because art is communication - but ooh goodness I can feel myself boring everyone to death already.

Not boring, but I'd be very interested to see where you're going with that.  I can think of tonnes of films, music, TV, comedy, paintings etc. which don't purport to have a "message", far less so than Birdman (which at least has some quite clear ideas, it just doesn't shove any particular one at you).  Perhaps we have a different idea of what constitutes "a film with a message".

[olliebean]

I'd also argue that a film without a message is by definition incompetent, because art is communication - but ooh goodness I can feel myself boring everyone to death already.

So does art that successfully communicates a mood or an emotion not count, then?

[popcorn]

If it's the one I'm thinking about, it's because almost nobody else took that from it.

This is bollocks (both on this forum and off it) and I was about to go and get shitloads of links to demonstrate it BUT YOU'VE ONLY PROVEN THE PETTY CHILDISH VANITY AND NEED FOR AN AUDIENCE THAT I AM TALKING ABOUT so thanks a LOT

Not boring, but I'd be very interested to see where you're going with that.  I can think of tonnes of films, music, TV, comedy, paintings etc. which don't purport to have a "message", far less so than Birdman (which at least has some quite clear ideas, it just doesn't shove any particular one at you).  Perhaps we have a different idea of what constitutes "a film with a message".

Art is communication. Films are stories. These communicate ideas. You can't tell a story without making some sort of claim about the universe, accidentally or not.

[Noodle Lizard]

This is bollocks (both on this forum and off it) and I was about to go and get shitloads of links to demonstrate it BUT YOU'VE ONLY PROVEN THE PETTY CHILDISH VANITY AND NEED FOR AN AUDIENCE THAT I AM TALKING ABOUT so thanks a LOT

In that case, would you consider the fact that a lot of people (including myself, a good portion of this forum and everyone I know) did not take that from Under The Skin mean that it failed as a film?

Art is communication. Films are stories. These communicate ideas. You can't tell a story without making some sort of claim about the universe, accidentally or not.

I think the "accidentally" part is key there.  With those standards, can you think of a film/story which doesn't make some sort of claim about the universe?  If not, then why bring that up when the initial criticism was that Birdman "didn't say anything"?  I think yer man and myself were talking in much broader terms before you came in and FUCKED IT ALL UP, yeah?

*explosion*

[Noodle Lizard]

Anyway, Bad Ambassador, I present you with this:



Still think Birdman doesn't "say anything you can comprehend"?

Thank you.