BIRDMAN MOTHERFUCKAS (2014 film feat. Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, et al)

some of it was eye-rolly, but the movie was good

I thought the stuff with the critic was the only totally eye-rolly thing, though I expected something that cartoonishly dumb from something that could very well have been called "Acting!: The Movie." Everything else was OK, just didn't amount to much more than a feature version of The Actor's Nightmare or something, except not funny, and not profound, and not ... well, anything. I had pretty much no takeaway from this other than good acting is hard.

Reminded me a bit of Mike Figgis' "Timecode," novelty and all.

just watched this and i fucking loved it.

That episode of Inside No.9, The Understudy, was kind of a condensed version of this film.

Just finished watching this for the second time, taking notes and trying to make sense of my first impressions. For the most part, I like it. I don't quite love it, and the insistent reach for ~significance~ that's always been an irritant in Inarritu's films still irritates here, but it's rich, funny, technically dazzling and hugely energetic. Birdman's greatest weakness is that it's trying to cram so much in - so many incidents, details, jokes, relationships and observations - that character development is often reduced to a flurry of cliched bullet points. Obvious examples include Sylvia's first visit to Riggan's dressing room (Sam's out of rehab, "you're drinking", he's gone broke financing the play), or when Sam tries to explain her perception of Riggan's benign neglect to Mike on the rooftop. Speaking of which, Sam and Mike finally kiss at the end of a five minute sequence in which Mike has tried to rape and then been dumped by Lesley, Lesley has bonded and then made out with Laura, and Sam's confessed her soul to and basically thrown herself at Mike. It's very easy to get so swept up in the dizzying sequence of exciting events that you don't notice how thinly sketched and silly much of it is.

This reduction often reads as satirical in intent, exposing the shallowness of the characters, as in Sam's poor little rich girl complaint, Riggan's pathetically egocentric story of his Clooney-enhanced plane ride, or Mike's corny boasting about "wrestling with complex human emotion", but as such, it's rarely fresh or funny. When the comedy and character development do work, it's usually in spite of the two-dimensional and insistently pointed writing. Michael Keaton is GREAT. Emma Stone, Edward Norton, and the rest of the supporting cast are good to great. Many of the film's best moments exist entirely in their performances, like Keaton's heel-turning duckout as a stage light lands on a cast member's head, Stone's understanding that she's gone too far in attacking her father, and Norton's ridiculous brawling moves. That's not to say the writing isn't ever good. Mike is so fucking method that, when fed a line, he doesn't struggle to remember his own, but rather searches Deep Within ("Is that what I'm saying?"). And I loved the bit near the end between Sylvia and Jake where he claims he can see the future, so she slaps him. I also dug Innaritu's willingness to let us see that Riggan's play is horrendously bad (the reindeer things!) without making a big deal about it.

After wobbling around shooting off sparks for a little over an hour, the film suddenly snaps into sharp focus during the final rehearsal, when Riggan steps out for an ill-fated smoke break. Everything after that point works beautifully, which helps ease the memory of all the hamfisted rising action. And Inarritu's technique is flawless throughout. Technically, as an exercise in the choreography of sound, performance and camera movement, Birdman is utterly dazzling. I love the (nearly) all percussion free jazz soundtrack. The two "shots" that allow us to actually if breifly see the drummer are easily my favorite moments in the film. Overall, I could have done with a bit less Significance, a bit more room for naturalistic character development, but the end result is never less than entertaining. And a great showcase for Keaton, whom I've always loved.

no mention of the sexual assualt?

I have friends who can't get past it.

i mentioned it. was a bit distasteful to see it played for laughs, but i got a guilty lol from laura's "that's kinda hot" afterward.

combination of sam's "everything smells like kimchee" line and the long duk dong-style portrayal of the asian media reporter was kind of gross, too.

The movie does accelerate time a lot, so that's how I was able to deal with much of its cramming. It's a couple of days condensed into a nonstop two hours.

And actually, I don't think the movie ever gives us a clear idea of how good or bad the play is. Certainly the couple of scenes we see seem fine. The reindeer things are part of a dream sequence that we've largely heard referenced in passing. Certainly we don't see anything to justify the mustache twirling vitriol and animosity of the critic.

Why was the score disqualified for the Oscars? Incidentally: http://thetalkhouse.com/music/talks/stephin-merritt-the-magnetic-fields-talks-antonio-sanchezs-score-for-birdman/

i thought the chunks of the play we do see were deliberately clunky and stagy. at the end of the dream sequence, for instance, laura has a line about memory ("there's a distance to it all now, a wistful distance underscored by a gentle breeze") that struck me as a "BAD PLAY" notice in 10-foot neon letters. ymmv.

spoke tonight with a friend who defends the film by saying that every character and interaction is supposed to seem comically cliched, bad in the manner of riggan's play. i'm not sure what i think about this suggestion. it's certainly true in what it observes, but i'm not sure how intentional the film's banality is, or whether there's sufficient animating wit behind the accumulation of dull stereotypes.

Something it captures (speaking as someone who's directed a zillion plays) is that every performance is different, so instead of it being a good or bad play, it shows how whatever's happening is in the present and won't be duplicated. And so Keaton entering the play's final scene from the audience works on that night because he commits to the choice; other nights work when Norton or Keaton's characters fully commit to the choices they're making as actors in the show. It's such a huge difference between stage acting and film acting: in a finished film, there is one performance shown and open to judgement. In a play, it's a series of performances, each one different and, at best, suited for that particular evening.

i'm not sure how intentional the film's banality is, or whether there's sufficient animating wit behind the accumulation of dull stereotypes.

Yeah, that's sort of my prob with it, if it's even really a problem.

All the weird stuff, those were previews, right? But opening night, when people come out at intermission, they all seem to love it! Unless that is a delusion, but I don't think it is in that context.

Per the play dialog we hear, I haven't read Carver in a long time, but before we dismiss is as hacky or stupid or trite for the sake of the movie, are we sure it is not taken verbatim from Carver?

every character and interaction is supposed to seem comically cliched, bad in the manner of riggan's play.

felt this was v obv tbh

shrug. not always the 'stutest of waterfowls over here.

not sure that intentionality helps much (though maybe it makes riggan a better playwright, relative to the reality he inhabits). the problem for me wasn't so much the accumulation of sterotypes and cliches, but the accumulation of dull stereotypes and cliches. it undercut both the drama and the comedy. imo.

hey stuffs often obv to me and 100
% wrong

Per the play dialog we hear, I haven't read Carver in a long time, but before we dismiss is as hacky or stupid or trite for the sake of the movie, are we sure it is not taken verbatim from Carver?

a lot of it is. but what works on the page, etc...

felt this was v obv tbh

Yesss.

but before we dismiss is as hacky or stupid or trite for the sake of the movie, are we sure it is not taken verbatim from Carver?

I assumed it was more the way it was layered, compressed into melodrama. The ending we see so many times is certainly hokey and trite. And it's possible to use even good words badly. Thinking of Branagh's Hamlet here.

But opening night, when people come out at intermission, they all seem to love it!

I think the film is cynical enough to suggest the audience is not necessarily the best judge. I've for sure sat in audiences (even on Broadway!) that didn't seem to know good from bad.

http://www.avclub.com/article/original-birdman-ending-would-have-featured-johnny-214998

2nd rate all that jazz

similar style/tone sure but had different aims

plus no sandahl bergman

and ATJ isn't that great eitiher

Dumb question, maybe addressed: was this movie written for Keaton, or with him specifically in mind?

Because an older, generally off-the-grid former caped crusader superhero franchise anchor is a pretty specific role, and I don't see how it could have worked without the meta layer of the star actually being Keaton. Specifically.

think I read that it was

If this thing had actually ended with Depp the whole movie would have been much improved, and I say this as someone who is underwhelmed by Depp generally now

This needed to be a little more effusive about the immense courage and inner beauty of movie stars.

Christ on a cracker

it took 4 writers to simulate the howling self-absorption of Paddy Chayefsky gone New Age.

Innaritu was married to four writers of shrill, shrieking fraud.

bar scene w/ drama critic was worthy of Jerry Lewis at his worst

did you just watch it?

He's there right now

yeah i was too busy catching up with good movies til now

I've condensed the watchable moments in this movie to Emma Stone on the roof and Edward Norton's first scene.

"2nd rate all that jazz"

That is a pretty good film to be second rate to....

Depp ending sounds far better. Or just ending this movie pre-hospital which is how I basically imagine it ending. Critic scene is probably worst (well except maybe the pointless lesbian kiss) in the entire movie.

didnt see point of Norton-Stone angle except hey, vicarious middle-aged male audience wank

Is it cold atop yr high horse

i feel like Keaton in his BVDs (when he's with yr mom)

My mom's more of a Scotty McCreery woman

@pareene
The worst things about BordMang are the direction and script and the best thing was the acting so good work Academy

and ATJ isn't that great eitiher

It increasingly occurs to me that All About Eve is the exception to your taste levels, not the rule.

found this unwatchable, insufferable. didnt make it to the end

It increasingly occurs to me that All About Eve is the exception to your taste levels, not the rule.

― Eric H.,

I've seen our respective top ten lists. Race to the bottom (or top).

Enough Said

up there with Crash in the Best Film winners this one

How quickly we all forgot The King's Speech.

No, I mean literally, how quickly we all forgot it.

Crash is by several measures worse than Birdman, The King's Speech a somnolent eighties prestige film throwback (remember when those were supposed to make a comeback?).

Big Thinkpiece #2:

As for the big winner: Voters were obviously mad about Birdman, and everyone who was rooting for something else is … you know, mad about Birdman. It is possible to admire the exquisite craft and technical facility with which the movie was made, to be amused and charmed by its droll, darkly comic take on narcissism, artistic aspiration, and the fight of a creative individual to make a mark, and still feel a slight twinge of … This again? Another movie about showbiz and its lovable nutcases? There are stretches in which the Oscars seem to go into hibernation; think of the 1980s, when Chariots of Fire and Gandhi and Amadeus and Out of Africa and The Last Emperor won and it was hard to discern how much curiosity, or much of anything other than a desire to retreat from the world and the country into a kind of pictorial/historical splendor, the Academy had. In retrospect, I think those movies won not because Academy voters didn’t care about what was going on in America, but because they didn’t know what was going on with American movies. The 1980s — post–Raging Bull, pre–indie boom that began with 1989’s Sex, Lies, and Videotape — were a decade of uncertainty and trepidation about what American films were supposed to be, other than blockbusters.

http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/decoding-the-2015-oscars-the-birdman-win-and-what-it-tells-us-about-hollywood/

birdman was great btw anyone who hasn't seen it should watch it instead of reading this outraged tantrum of a thread