On the contrary! I thought it was a delightful premise from the very first scene to have someone with superpowers from another world simply try to live an ordinary human life. He knows that he could achieve fame & greatness simply by exposing himself (this is within the interpretation of him actually having the superpowers), but he knows that none of it would mean anything to him. He desperately wants to prove himself (to himself), and he knows that he can only really do that if he’s perceived as any other human would be.
So he hides his superpowers & tries to achieve greatness the normal way. And I would have loved that premise had the movie had the guts to stick to it unambiguously. (I do think it’s fully intended to be unresolvable. Sorry, Houngan.)
I think that he definitely won the “most directing” award.
I liked the movie but man, I don’t think I like the director very much. Though, I did like that the 3 main leads (Keaton,Norton,Stone) have all done turns in superhero flicks, I wonder how intentional that was.
I find it kind of funny that the movie criticizes other films for bombastic explosions and effects, when this movie is sort of the film nerd/armchair director version of that (with the 20 minute takes, scenes dissolving into one another, and surrealistic daydreams).
Like Babel, I thought that everyone in the movie was great, and that it was cool and interesting, but it got in the way of itself. It was distracting. Maybe it was meant to be, but it didn’t work for me. That Dissolve review listed kind of mirrors my thoughts exactly. There was some great stuff in there, but it felt really jumbled together and overly art-y. Like he was trying too hard. The performances from the actors within were excellent though, Keaton is amazing.
I think that Black Swan, which is similar in a lot of themes, worked a lot better as a film.
Nobody remembers that Naomi Watts was once Jet Girl? For shame.
My interruption of the ending was to do with his daughter regaining her belief in her father. He’s not nothing, he is important (in the theatre as well as in her social media sphere), and thus her metaphorical belief that he can fly.
Awesome movie, although always very risky to call acting into question in a movie. But I suppose that was also the point.
I agree, Jon. All good movies are funny and sad and Birdman, to me, was neither. I like the entire cast and the technical craft of the thing is impressive, but this felt like a personal film that revealed nothing likable about its author. And unlike Boyhood which I think is universally relatable (we’ve all grown up) this story had nothing I could connect with.
I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but Innaritu’s humblebrag acceptance speeches made my skin crawl. His “I’m wearing the tighty whities” comment reminded me of James Cameron’s tone-deaf “I’m the king of the world!” line when Titanic won. Note to future Oscar winners: don’t reference your own work! It’s not a good look for anyone. But at least Cameron had enough class not to say “smells like balls.” Ugh. Not my kind of guy.
Also, it took me till last week (I can’t believe it took me this long!), but I finally realized that The Incredibles already explores the “superheroes trying to fit in under the radar” theme I keep going on about in this thread. Granted, Brad Bird emphasized how they couldn’t handle the inanity of it all, whereas Birdman, if we accept his superpowers as real, plays up his search for greatness by ordinary means.
My summary. Pretty good movie. Good film in general, but… a bit too obvious:
Cool long tracking shots, but a bit too obvious in their use. what’s is worth doing, it’s worth overdoing?
Good theme, but too obvious in the themes. In the end this is a Hollywood movie and it’s all spelled out, from the opening phrase (we all want to feel loved) to the ex-wife saying to him straight, how he confuses admiration with love.
Good setting playing interestingly with the world of theater and actors, but a bit too obvious: We all know how the industry, both artists and critics, love movies about artists and the industry. And too obvious in how their fictional story they are playing can be applied to the main character, writers can’t resist to do it every time they write about a production.
A bit too obvious in the meta stuff, with Keane playing a old superhero actor, or the references to the actual state of the Hollywood industry.
Too obvious ending. “Obvious? If the film doesn’t have a clear ending!” You’ll say. Yeah, and that’s the thing, it’s obvious in the calculated ambiguity done just that in a specific way so the end seems open to interpretation and people can discuss it and etc etc. But it’s something less charged of meaning and more a calculated move to just bait reactions and discussions.
Jesus, I disagree with so much of what is being said in this thread, it’s crazy. I expected that more people would really like it, like I did. I was looking forward to reading some hyped up enthusiasm. Argh. I’m sorry so few of you enjoyed the movie.
I saw this back when my wife was watching all of the Oscar contenders prior to the awards but I adored this as well. All of the performances were amazing, in particular Keaton/Norton/Stone/Watts, and Zack G. was great as well. I thought the direction was excellent, in that the many “tricks” seemed innovative but also served to help take the audience out of the normal movie-going experience and provided a context where Keaton having powers because more plausible. The world seems implicitly surreal.
A number of the scenes stuck with me, in particular the one where Keaton is locked out and has to run through Times Square to get back into the theater. Not so much for another one-take extravaganza but because of the commitment exhibited by everyone in the play once he gets back into the theater, as well as what his run symbolizes.
I thought the movie was excellent at providing insight into a number of things: the world of theater, acting as art, and in the end, people.
I watched it, and I don’t see whats the fuss about.
I found almost all people perfomances to be very fake, the story uninteresting. I forced me to watch it till the end.
I found the moral of the story okay:
Dude hear voices. Dude is a asshole. Dude is tryiing to success in something that is not very interesting to anyone except him.
“You define your goals”.
I like what rhinohelix said about the one-take shots, how they take the movie-goer out of the normal experience. The timeline extends over several days, too, so it’s disorienting that the shots are continuous while time is disjoint. I was wondering why I liked the one-takes, and rhino clued me in.
I don’t know the director and I didn’t watch the Oscars, so I’m probably less distracted by extra-movie stuff than most, which I am happy about. Heck, I didn’t even know that that was Emma Stone as Riggan’s daughter. I only know her from the Qt3 podcast’s love for her. She’s responsible for my favorite scene in the movie, when she tells her dad that he’s not worth a single damn, and at the end of her rant, her face just melts into an entirely more complex emotion. Is she always this good?!
My wife and I watched it on a laptop screen, and a lot of the movie is quite dark, so she wasn’t able to see that Riggan was levitating at the start, nor did she realize that he turned off his TV with a flick of his fingers. So when Riggan spun the metal case on the counter, after his daughter chewed him out, she asked what was going on. I told her about the other telekenesis events, and her eyes widened and she said, “Ohh, this changes everything.” I loved that reaction.
And then later, when he’s trashing his dressing room telekenetically, and his friend pops in, and Riggan is now trashing his dressing room with his body, it changed everything back, and I loved that, too. That moment reminded me of the camera back-and-forth pan in Gravity when we realize that Clooney is an apparition.
I don’t care at all that I can’t express the message of the movie in a paragraph any more than I care whether it’s true that Riggan killed himself at one point or another in the movie. I just loved having my face rubbed in all of the movie’s questions.
Well, both, but primarily the Keaton one, where the foremost fucking theatre critic of New York informs him that she’s going to destroy his play sight unseen.
The scene would be fine if Innarritu understood how to deliver satire, but since he doesn’t, it all comes off as if he means it, and I’m stuck listening to a dumb high schooler ranting about how these fucking critics just don’t understand art maaaan.
Ugh. I’m getting angry again just thinking about it.
I see your point, although my experience was nothing like yours. I saw a guy, who had sunk everything (including a mortgage on the house that his daughter was supposed to inherit) into a piece of art that someone on a massive power trip was threatening, losing his marbles in a really entertaining way. I’m thankful that it didn’t make me angry like it did you.
That’s totally there. After all, it is what the movie thinks all critics are. Which is why it’s so ugly.
Also there: that man cripples/sincerely believes he crippled a man (depending on how you want to read the telekinesis stuff) but that’s ok he was a bad actor let’s laugh at him. Like those filthy fucking critics he was in the way of Art.
Again, this would be ok if Innarritu understood how satire works and gave us some sort of distance to that shit, but no. The movie plays it sincere about these caricatures and embraces Riggan’s petty, childish point of view.
I absolutely agree that there’s an intense ugliness to this movie, but I love ugliness in movies. I have no problem watching a movie where I’m rooting for nobody, as long as the movie is good for other reasons.
I disagree that the movie embraces Riggan’s petty, childish point of view, but I can’t argue for my position. I just didn’t get that vibe from the movie.
In fact, there are so many mirrors in the movie that I couldn’t help myself from thinking of everything in the movie being reflected, and if you reflect the name “Riggan”, it might be a clue as to what the movie thinks of its main character, or what he thinks of himself. Just popped into my mind when I saw his name on the marquee; no idea if it’s intentional.
Pretty much, yeah. Well, maybe not Amazing Spider-Man but check out Zombieland and Easy A to see some of her quality early work (and good movies overall).
