Alejandro González Iñárritu’s Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) is not only some kind of a masterpiece, it’s a film I unreservedly love — something I never thought I’d say about an Iñárritu picture. This is perhaps a new Iñárritu — certainly a more playful one than we’ve ever seen. It’s not that there isn’t a dark side to Birdman, but unlike the standard Iñárritu misery fest, it’s observed with humor and humanity — qualities that have been increasingly hard to find in Iñárritu’s movies. Best of all, though, his Birdman is alive — it lives, it breathes and it is propelled forward with a momentum that is both exhilarating and terrifying. Unless you are just one of those people who simply has to come down against anything that is extremely well-reviewed and crosses that cozy intellectual clubhouse line of art house exclusivity and mainstream acceptance, Birdman is almost certainly destined for the top half of your personal Ten Best list.
Birdman can certainly be described as an amazing conjuring trick (and really, isn’t that what movies are all about?), but it’s a conjuring trick with a point. Unlike many of my fellow critics, I’m not especially interested in digging up perceived flaws in the film. (I sometimes think that’s a game we play to make ourselves seem smarter than the movie we’re reviewing.) At the center of the trick here is Iñárritu’s collaboration with cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki to make the bulk of the film’s action appear to be taking place in one continuous take. On the one hand, this is a gimmick just as it was a gimmick when Alfred Hitchcock tried it in 1948 with Rope — and it can be something of a distraction, too. It’s very easy to get sidetracked by trying to spot the “invisible” cuts — some are obvious, some not so much. But it is this approach which gives the film its breathless momentum and sense of urgency. It takes the story — and the viewer — ever forward without a pause. And more incredible than the illusion of a single take is the fact that Birdman always feels — thanks to the choreography of cast and camera — wholly cinematic. The edits, the close shots, the inserts, the angle changes are all there, but they’re choreographed into the movement.
All this stunning technical work is at the service of what can only be called a meta (how I dislike that term) show business story that is grounded in the reality of its star. Michael Keaton’s Riggan Thomson is a no-longer-famous actor who is out to prove that he is more than the Birdman superhero he played 20-plus years ago. It is impossible not to see the connection to Keaton’s Tim Burton glory days as Batman — and it is hardly coincidental. That the character comes with his own issues, baggage and troubles doesn’t change this — nor does it erase the fact that this is the best break he’s had since the Burton era. Unlike Keaton, Riggan is attempting to create his own break — writing, producing, directing and starring in a Broadway show based (for personal reasons) on the works of Raymond Carver. It’s a borderline insane act that may be driving Riggan himself actually insane. (The film very wisely stays mute on the reality — or lack thereof — of Riggan’s conversations with his Birdman alter ego and his developing superpowers.) Similarly, Edward Norton’s pain-in-the-ass, glory-hog Method actor is clearly a riff on Norton’s own reputation, but an intriguingly human, self-deprecating riff, especially in his scenes with Emma Stone as Riggan’s damaged daughter.
Despite the continuous take approach, the action covers an unspecified period of time — at least several days — surrounding the harried production of the play. The approach turns that production into a black comedy nightmare for Riggan that we live through with him — sharing his hopes, fears and possible delusions (which are presented as real to us). It is one of the most immersive, remarkable moviegoing experiences I’ve had this year — one that has thrown my “best of” list into complete disarray. And that’s the kind of problem I love to have. Are there flaws in Birdman? Maybe, but the overall film is so strong on every level that I don’t care. Rated R for language throughout, some sexual content and brief violence.
Did you read the Scott Tobias review?
No. Is that a pre-requisite? I’ve never especially cared what he said before.
I think he was one of the first ones to come out pretty harsh on the film. I was looking on Rotten Tomatoes and it looks like Richard Brody gave it a bad review too.
http://thedissolve.com/reviews/1152-birdman/
Just because it’s on The Dissolve doesn’t make it Holy Writ.
I wholly disagree with the notion put forth by multiple critics – Tobias included – that the theatre setting of Birdman requires restraint. For me, the film’s bravado is what makes it so damn exciting. Otherwise, we’d likely have another ho-hum anonymous little indie.
I rarely want restraint in filmmaking.
What’s with the picture? I thought Keaton was Birdman, so who’s in the costume beside him?
Perhaps you should see the film
Planning on it. Do you think it will go wide? I might wait if it expands.
Wide wide? Probably not. Wider than average for art titles? Yes.
Got my ticket for tonight and I can’t wait. I’m not a gambling man but I’m sure this will be my pic for Best Picture this year.
My last thread was correct. This is the best film of 2014, as a struggling actor it’s more than that, if you love show biz/art in any way you must see this. The best thing about this film is that it hits you with a two part question. Have you achieved the things you want to do? Does it matter if you have? I am going to annoy all my friends until they see this. If you read this blog you are a smart person and that means you must see this ASAP! Back me up Ken. ( if it helps, I saw Interstellar before this and as much as I love Nolan, his film falls off the top ten list this year)
I agree with you that it’s one of the top three films of the year. I can’t relate to on the struggling actor level, so I won’t get into that. Interstellar isn’t even an also-ran, though I liked it better than I expected to.
Another surprise? Zak Galifinacas can act beyond the dumb man-boy routine. Wow, just wow!
Mostly I agree with that, but he was pretty good in It’s Kind of a Funny Story.
Up in the Air too.
He is a serious actor, he gives acting seminars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x068o6Wtw4
Thought you could sucker me into watch the kings of the unfunny, huh?
Rats!
You gotta get up pretty early if you want to get out bed.
After a third viewing this is the best film of 2014 but…………the scene in the hospital is not needed, feels like a dvd extra. It should have ended with the scene of the audience applauding and critic leaving, pan up, fade out. That being true ….I love love love love this film!
Oh, I disagree about not needing the final scene. So much.
I dig but…….What did it bring to the story?
A sense of mystery, ambiguity…the possibility of redemption or transcendence perhaps.
Yeah, the final scene was a real eye roll moment in an otherwise good film.
No, it wasn’t.
Hey, the original ending could have been worse.
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/the-original-ending-of-birdman-wouldve-featured-a-cameo-by-johnny-depp-20150209
That would have been horrible. They already covered meta scenes well enough with the subtle jokes about Robert Downey Jr.
It wasnt a bad scene and I did like her looking up into the sky but I just thought ending it after the gunshot would have been more powerful. Its like eating two wonderful steaks when one was great enough.
Can’t agree. Can’t even conceive of agreeing.
Well, this finally leaves us come Friday. It had a good run. Three-plus months.