Listen now | It’s the last week of June, and it’s time for the final movie in our “Story within a story” series. This week’s episode is Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) directed by Alejandro Iñárritu. We both really enjoy watching this movie. It’s impressive shooting style and original music give
Having only heard about this movie before, my expectations were entirely too high for this, as the thing I mostly got out of it was just that of a fun themepark ride.
It feels to me that the initial idea was this behind-the-shoulder view of Keaton's life, mostly from his viewpoint (imagined telekinesis and whatnot) — and the jellyfish scene actually works for me in that regard, as that is the point when his lifeline actually terminates, breaking his continuous consciousness, unlike sleep.
Sadly, camera's ventures following other characters break this Keaton's worldview illusion very soon, but the idea is too good for me to give that up. To bring back the illusion, I have a theory (that probably won't stand any scrutiny, so I'm reluctant to rewatch anything) — that the whole view we're looking at _is_ a variation of Keaton's own view all the time and, when the camera follows others doing something, that is actually his imagination of the events happening.
Eh.
Anyway, there's a neat alternate story hiding in this movie, the one about an old guy with actual, real superpowers, tired of everyday sludge, passing his days as an depressed actor in a murky theater. I'd watch that.
The parallel with theater and the continuous shot is interesting but like Casey said it's pretty much the experience of watching a movie since the director uses classic cinematographic language throughout (with establishing shots, shot-reverse shots, close-ups, etc.)
I liked the idea of the contrast between high art and commercial art but I'm not sure Inarritu explored it super well. Like when the critic at the bar says to the actor that he isn't a serious stage actor, just a celebrity, I think the idea should have been more developped to make it more than a passing remark.
I would have the same observation with the scene in Ed Wood when he meets Orson Welles. It kind of felt like it devalued Ed Wood's cinema, which is weird considering that Tim Burton was clearly influenced by him with movies like Mars Attacks!
It's like it's a difficult theme and they have a hard time finding an angle. But in general Birdman is a very well made movie, I enjoyed watching it.
I re-watched this film for the podcast and still love it. The comedy is what works best for me given that so few films make me laugh out loud, that happened many times in Birdman. Because the story is quite static I do think the first 25 minutes are the best part of the film. While I did care about the outcome of the play and its public reception, there was not too much at stake and I felt that the film could have been trimmed by ~20 minutes, especially around the 50-90% range.
The uncompromising (jellyfish excluded) continuous shooting actually didn't feel particularly important, but it I did enjoy its flow in many moments. I think the film would have worked equally well with a hybrid approach. In terms of technical execution and usefulness, 1917 does a much better job there (highly recommend watching this film, it's also one of the better 4k Blu-rays).
The parts which worked the least for me were the surreal scenes, and I didn't get much from having the fictional Birdman voice/person. In general there is something a bit off with Riggan's psychological issues, probably because not enough time was spent developing that backstory.
In a way, as Casey said, the film would have been more satisfying with clearer invested stakes, but that might also have clashed with what it was trying to communicate. The writers clearly didn't want a fully happy ending resolution, which could be regarded as a sellout. There probably was a better solution though, given that the ending where the surreal becomes real doesn't feel very relevant to the rest of the film.
PS: super low stakes films with almost no story could be a great monthly theme, at the expense of Casey's well-being! Before Sunset, Paterson, The Square, Long's Day Journey Into Night, Marriage Story.
Having only heard about this movie before, my expectations were entirely too high for this, as the thing I mostly got out of it was just that of a fun themepark ride.
It feels to me that the initial idea was this behind-the-shoulder view of Keaton's life, mostly from his viewpoint (imagined telekinesis and whatnot) — and the jellyfish scene actually works for me in that regard, as that is the point when his lifeline actually terminates, breaking his continuous consciousness, unlike sleep.
Sadly, camera's ventures following other characters break this Keaton's worldview illusion very soon, but the idea is too good for me to give that up. To bring back the illusion, I have a theory (that probably won't stand any scrutiny, so I'm reluctant to rewatch anything) — that the whole view we're looking at _is_ a variation of Keaton's own view all the time and, when the camera follows others doing something, that is actually his imagination of the events happening.
Eh.
Anyway, there's a neat alternate story hiding in this movie, the one about an old guy with actual, real superpowers, tired of everyday sludge, passing his days as an depressed actor in a murky theater. I'd watch that.
The parallel with theater and the continuous shot is interesting but like Casey said it's pretty much the experience of watching a movie since the director uses classic cinematographic language throughout (with establishing shots, shot-reverse shots, close-ups, etc.)
I liked the idea of the contrast between high art and commercial art but I'm not sure Inarritu explored it super well. Like when the critic at the bar says to the actor that he isn't a serious stage actor, just a celebrity, I think the idea should have been more developped to make it more than a passing remark.
I would have the same observation with the scene in Ed Wood when he meets Orson Welles. It kind of felt like it devalued Ed Wood's cinema, which is weird considering that Tim Burton was clearly influenced by him with movies like Mars Attacks!
It's like it's a difficult theme and they have a hard time finding an angle. But in general Birdman is a very well made movie, I enjoyed watching it.
I re-watched this film for the podcast and still love it. The comedy is what works best for me given that so few films make me laugh out loud, that happened many times in Birdman. Because the story is quite static I do think the first 25 minutes are the best part of the film. While I did care about the outcome of the play and its public reception, there was not too much at stake and I felt that the film could have been trimmed by ~20 minutes, especially around the 50-90% range.
The uncompromising (jellyfish excluded) continuous shooting actually didn't feel particularly important, but it I did enjoy its flow in many moments. I think the film would have worked equally well with a hybrid approach. In terms of technical execution and usefulness, 1917 does a much better job there (highly recommend watching this film, it's also one of the better 4k Blu-rays).
The parts which worked the least for me were the surreal scenes, and I didn't get much from having the fictional Birdman voice/person. In general there is something a bit off with Riggan's psychological issues, probably because not enough time was spent developing that backstory.
In a way, as Casey said, the film would have been more satisfying with clearer invested stakes, but that might also have clashed with what it was trying to communicate. The writers clearly didn't want a fully happy ending resolution, which could be regarded as a sellout. There probably was a better solution though, given that the ending where the surreal becomes real doesn't feel very relevant to the rest of the film.
PS: super low stakes films with almost no story could be a great monthly theme, at the expense of Casey's well-being! Before Sunset, Paterson, The Square, Long's Day Journey Into Night, Marriage Story.