Birdman (new Alejandro González Iñárritu film)

[popcorn]

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?

I think to say Under the Skin isn't a feminist film - if that is indeed what we're talking about - is to misread it. If everyone else in the world disagreed with me (not the case, read some reviews) I would think they were also misreading it.  And anyone who doesn't see the major gender themes in Under the Skin has their eyes closed because to me it's loud and fucking clear.

So then you're going to say "then by definition it's bad communication", and that's fair enough, I understand completely why you're saying that - but that's the fucking mystery and power of art, innit, the fact that it's indirect, difficult, complicated communication that gets in via the back door. If Under the Skin wanted to be more comprehensible and less powerful it could just have been another feminist paper that no one on this forum ever read.

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?

No I can't!

If not, then why bring that up when the initial criticism was that Birdman "didn't say anything"?

Because it's the wrong line of questioning.

In film, when you have so many things to consider - the composition of any given frame could contribute to a thousand different readings, for example - message and meaning gets really complicated and messy really quickly, often in ways the creators aren't actually in control of (hence death of the author blah blah).

So look, I warned you this conversation was going to be tedious but you asked anyway, but maybe it's my fault for challenging this point in the first place, but I think the right question for Birdman isn't "Does this film have a meaning?" or "Does it matter that this film doesn't have a meaning when X Y Z other films don't have meanings that I can find?", because those are contradictory questions as far as I can tell. Instead the questions should be "What is the meaning?" and "Is the meaning coherent?" and "Is the message a good one or is it actually hugely racist or whatever", etc.

[Noodle Lizard]

'nuff said.

[Bad Ambassador]

Anyway, Bad Ambassador, I present you with this:



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

Thank you.

Divorced entirely from context, you mean? That's just gibberish. I don't even remember it.

[Bad Ambassador]

I'd recommend the Sight and Sound review, which tears Birdman to pieces. In particular, it points to the female characters, who are generally underdeveloped, manipulative (Andrea Riseborough claims to be pregnant, but then isn't in a twist that has no bearing on anything) or flat out made of straw (the critic, who exists solely to be hated, and whose turnaround makes no sense). It doesn't mention the girl-on-girl snogging, which is also completely pointless.

Innaritu is a terrible filmmaker. 21 Grams and Babel were similarly convinced of their own brilliance and were absolute shit. Birdman isn't complete shit, but the sweetcorn ratio is distressingly low.

[popcorn]

the critic, who exists solely to be hated, and whose turnaround makes no sense

This I disagree with (see also my comment on the last page about it). The critic is just another part of the artist's psyche,

Spoiler alert

vanquished when the play is a success, but then you have other questions like "at what cost was the play a success"?

To me, one of the points in favour of losing the last 5 minutes is that the amazing shot of the standing ovation becomes the final shot, and you can see the critic get up and leave while everyone's applauding. Before we got to hear about the rave review the next day, which I would prefer not to have known about, I thought that was a masterstroke in ambiguity, because she was either rushing off in a huff to write a damning review or shellshocked by the play's brilliance and at that point it didn't matter which one because she'd been defeated either way.

[close]

It doesn't mention the girl-on-girl snogging, which is also completely pointless.

I thought about that too. I think it does have a point, which is only to further characterise them both as melodramatic drama queens swept up in their own beauty and romance. Which doesn't help the case...

[Noodle Lizard]

Divorced entirely from context, you mean? That's just gibberish. I don't even remember it.

I'll give you a clue:  look at the number of words written in capitals, and then the ones which are not in all caps.  There's something about them.

If that doesn't help, consider the number of dots there are compared to parentheses.

[Garam]

I loved this movie.

[BritishHobo]

Andrea Riseborough claims to be pregnant, but then isn't in a twist that has no bearing on anything

I don't know if that's true, is it? She says her period is late, so while there's no definite, they're hopeful that she could be pregnant. Then later she comes to deliver the news that she isn't after all, but they end up arguing.

The lesbian kiss I could possibly be grasping at straws, but I thought it felt fairly consistent with the idea of Carver's writing - small, uncontextualised moments that hint at some larger dissatisfaction.

[Bad Ambassador]

I'll give you a clue:  look at the number of words written in capitals, and then the ones which are not in all caps.  There's something about them.

If that doesn't help, consider the number of dots there are compared to parentheses.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[brat-sampson]

Saw this yesterday. I thought the directing, editing, acting etc were all excellent, but left not sure if this was a movie that wanted to impart a message, and if it did, whether it was really thinking itself through.

If anything, the idea seemed to be that being a narcissist and focussing entirely on the glory of oneself, driving yourself insane through trying to make Something Not Shit is a Bad Thing to be/do. However in turn the film itself decides to focus entirely on the narcissist, and has no real time for the other characters other than in terms of how they affect him. Seems hypocritical at at best. I would've found it interesting if we got enough of the narcissism to get the idea, then events unfolded mostly through a lens of Not Him, which would demonstrate his actual irrelevance more easily.

I don't know. Seemed like a shoot and a miss, for me, albeit a fun and enjoyable shoot.

EDIT: Also agree movie should've ended pre-

Spoiler alert

hospital.

[close]

[Bad Ambassador]

I don't know if that's true, is it? She says her period is late, so while there's no definite, they're hopeful that she could be pregnant. Then later she comes to deliver the news that she isn't after all, but they end up arguing.

So that also doesn't go anywhere then? There's too much going on in this film, and it's impossible to concentrate on anything because its suffocating under its "style". The audience looked miserable when we left.

[Head Gardener]

info on the soundtrack

[BritishHobo]

So that also doesn't go anywhere then? There's too much going on in this film, and it's impossible to concentrate on anything because its suffocating under its "style". The audience looked miserable when we left.

Well, it's another aspect of his life, and the fact that he's overlooking it in obsession over the play and what it means for his career. The only time he really pays her any attention is when he thinks she's carrying his child, and this is somewhat resolved towards the end when they reconcile before Laura goes on for the dream sequence. She's not the most important character in the story, but it's another part of his obsession with being somebody at the expense of a relationship with the people who care about him.

[Noodle Lizard]

What the fuck are you talking about?

Look closer:

[jaydee81]

Saw this last night. Impressive visually, seemed full of ideas but seemed to run out of steam. Extra coda... meh.

Spoiler alert

[quote author] CUTS NOSE OFF TO SPITE FACE

[close]

I wondered if the above (spoilered but god knows why you'd read this thread if you haven't seen it) was an intentional pun on the ending of the film, or whether the fact

Spoiler alert

he literally cuts his nose off is the kind of play on words Inarritu would consciously put into a script.

[close]

[Noodle Lizard]

I haven't encountered anyone who liked the ending.  The only reason I can imagine they wouldn't end it on

Spoiler alert

him shooting himself

[close]

is that they thought a happy ending would be more palatable for wider audiences.  Otherwise it just makes no sense.

[popcorn]

I haven't encountered anyone who liked the ending.  The only reason I can imagine they wouldn't end it on

Spoiler alert

him shooting himself

[close]

is that they thought a happy ending would be more palatable for wider audiences.  Otherwise it just makes no sense.

Well, like I said, a suicide on stage would have been predictable. You also lose the "spite your face" gag, which ties in with the themes.

I know what you mean though - I'd be inclined to lose the last 5 minutes too.

[Noodle Lizard]

Well, like I said, a suicide on stage would have been predictable. You also lose the "spite your face" gag, which ties in with the themes.

I know what you mean though - I'd be inclined to lose the last 5 minutes too.

I admit I got a laugh when they revealed that he'd

Spoiler alert

only shot his nose off, but all the shit with his publicist coming in saying:  "Look at all the reviews!  They're amazing!  And the President wants to meet you!" etc. was just so much horseshite, not to mention the shite with him jumping out the window

[close]

llama priest.

[Bad Ambassador]

Look closer:

JUST FUCKING TELL ME ALRIGHT JESUS

[Noodle Lizard]

JUST FUCKING TELL ME ALRIGHT JESUS

"killer" is not capitalized, whereas "Bieber" is.  "But Bieber is a name, and therefore warrants capitalization" you might say.  Sure.  But then why are "RIGGAN" and "LAURA" (also human names) written in all-caps?  And "killer" has an ellipsis after it, whereas "Bieber" does not.

Makes you think.

[BritishHobo]

I knew that's what he meant. I knew without any clues or owt.

[Bad Ambassador]

"killer" is not capitalized, whereas "Bieber" is.  "But Bieber is a name, and therefore warrants capitalization" you might say.  Sure.  But then why are "RIGGAN" and "LAURA" (also human names) written in all-caps?  And "killer" has an ellipsis after it, whereas "Bieber" does not.

Makes you think.

No it doesn't. That's absolutely bog-standard screenplay formatting. What do you think it means?

[popcorn]

No it doesn't. That's absolutely bog-standard screenplay formatting. What do you think it means?

Unless you and I are being trolled, friend, I think BritishHobo is talking balls.

[Bad Ambassador]

I think BritishHobo was making a little joke, and that Noodle Lizard has either never seen a screenplay or is a drooling maniac.

[Mango Chimes]

I haven't encountered anyone who liked the ending.  The only reason I can imagine they wouldn't end it on

Spoiler alert

him shooting himself

[close]

is that they thought a happy ending would be more palatable for wider audiences.  Otherwise it just makes no sense.

I thought it was fine. It makes as much sense as anything else, and I would have been narked with the trad 'dark' ending The Internet is apparently clamouring for.

[Noodle Lizard]

No it doesn't. That's absolutely bog-standard screenplay formatting. What do you think it means?

?

[BritishHobo]

I don't really know how I feel about the ending. I agree that I'd have been less fond of the dark ending, him dying on stage, which seems to me more an attempt to be different than an ending that genuinely fits with the themes of the film.

The main thing that bothers me, I think, is all of the unambiguous stuff about him being a news sensation, the play being a smash hit, the gatekeeping critic being convinced[nb]Although I got the sense she wasn't completely bowled over - more cautiously intrigued by the splash Riggan had made and what it may mean for the future of her beloved Broadway.[/nb]. I would have much preferred the focus on his freedom from the obsession of his past career and his potential future one, if it came without any real answers as to how the play had done. What's important, or at least as it seems to me, is that he's no longer trying for some unattainable eternal fame; that he's free. Whether the critic liked it, or the audience liked it, doesn't matter. It has about the same level of importance as his going viral did.

I did like him finally taking power away from his doubts and regrets by leaving Birdman on the toilet though. "Goodbye, and fuck you."

[Sam]

I thought the ending was fine, if not  thought-provoking. I agree that the ending was in step with the tone and themes of the film, and ending on a suicide would have been a cop-out.

My reading was that the daughter coming in and being happy with him was part of his fantasy. Her looking up as if he had been out there flying was metaphorical. In reality she's still out of the room looking for the vase and he's at the window daydreaming.

A lot of the criticisms I've been reading here and elsewhere I don't agree with at all, although I can sympathise with them. I think the film is a bit more open-ended than some are giving it credit for.

It's not quite a flawless masterpiece but the highs it hits are insanely high and it's the kind of ambitious filmmaking that you can really get your teeth into. At its best moments it achieved a kind of ecstatic and unbridled feeling which was joyous.

Bit of a triumph really. 4.5/5 stars overall and 5/5 for acting, direction, cinematography and editing.

[Bad Ambassador]

?

Date and page number. Any more secret codes you want me to decipher?

[great_badir]

I've not seen it yet, but I find it very interesting that most critics seem to love it, whilst most audients seem to think that it is moderately whelming at best.  And even just casual Friday/Saturday night blockbuster cinemagoers seem to be raising the same problems the film has as the buffs.  It's not often that that happens.