“You know what kind of flower that is? What's it called? Of course not! Why? Because you do not see that the labels do not tolerate!
The famous actor who played the first superhero on the screen can not accept the fact that he is just a blockbuster buffoon. Therefore, he organizes a production on Broadway with an adapted script of the book. However, the inner voice and problems around become obstacles on the way from popcorn movies to real art. The daughter uses drugs and despises her father, his unsuccessful love interests make themselves felt, the main critic of New York fundamentally wants to defeat the production for the fact that the actor starred in pop shit, one of the actors was injured at work and demands compensation, and Edward Norton spoils previews time after time with his unpredictable behavior.
The plot of the film is quite original, and the ending completely killed. It is very interesting to follow the events of the film, only with isolated exceptions, and the disclosure and even a small development of the main character is made exactly at the level to be an exemplary personal drama, despite the fact that the main character himself does not shine with his mind, and he does not always want to empathize. There is this feeling: “I do not support, but I understand.”
Speaking about the characters of the film Birdman, first of all, I want to highlight not the above development and disclosure of the main character, but the chemistry of all the characters on the screen. These are all people, certainly burdened with talent, often tied to the depths of the actor’s soul, but at the same time very stupid, constantly making mistakes, incorrectly setting life priorities and unable to control themselves. I would call them the creative team "Hysterics Plus", because despite their difficult temper, they remain quite interesting due to their talent and creative nature. It is also worth highlighting the amazing play of Michael Keaton, Edward Norton and Emma Stone. Gathering these talents in one movie was worth it.
The atmosphere of the film is very unique. And it is unique primarily because with the help of editing and long takes, it feels like the whole film was shot in one long take. It also makes for a relatively cozy cameramanship, because 95% of the film takes place in the same building - the very theater where preparations for the production, previews and the production itself take place. It also stands out that the whole film is played by the hype on percussion instruments, which prepares for something very bright at the end. This music is a little annoying with its monotony. The point is not even that the music is played only on drums, the fact is that it is almost always the same motif for 2 hours. However, it does not affect much. Still, from an artistic point of view on all other points, especially if we talk about camera work, this film is a masterpiece.
Why not top grade, then? Since the plot is so interesting, and the characters are so perfect, and the atmosphere of the film suffers only from drums, why not put 10 out of 10?
First of all, because I feel that way. And the second reason I almost gave this film an 8 out of 10 is because it's all very pretentious. Like, look: here you have deep personalities, here you have complex feelings, here you have philosophical questions about the meaning of life, here you have an unusual way of shooting, here you have absurdism three tons, here you have the division into real and fake art, like we are the smartest, here you have an unexpected and complex ending. Please put us on the list of high art. Here we go. But with the caveat that the director had a lot of survival. Nolan's smell. . .
However, despite all the survival, the work is really very strong and beautiful. I would even say one of the most beautiful.
Birdman is a character who conquered the whole world with his strength, endurance, courage, but also, like any hero, retired. He was a legend, loved and discussed with him, and now he is only an actor. The actor himself knows that the whole world does not revolve around him, realizing that the apogee of his story is already behind him, but the end is not set. In search of his place in the world, the answer to the question “who am I really?”, he decides to stage a play in which he takes on many tasks.
The main task is to conquer the hall as an athere, as a person, as someone who grew out of Birdman’s skin. At the moment of work, we realize that he was a “wow” father and husband, lost a lot, including faith in himself. Continuing to sacrifice his goal, he feels that the world around him lives in the past, and the present is fleeting.
Having gone to accepting himself for who he is, he realizes that the actor is the one who sacrifices and suffers, proving to everyone that being real is the hardest part.
This movie depicts an era of fantastic action movies, where big money, fame and single-format roles are golden anchors for those who perform them. The world of the theater is much wider, more diverse and more lively for the main character, and most importantly, more difficult.
Accepting yourself as you are, you begin to feel free and real.
___
The technical work on the film was fantastic – a fact. Doubles, transitions, musical accompaniment, chamber scenery, here everything complements each other. It turns out to follow the film as it is in the theater, it is really unique.
The film is not easy to watch. If you are used to watching a popular movie, it will not be fully understood and revealed, secondary characters may be completely forgotten. This movie is for those like Bairdman who are cold to the media “hype” of social networks and ready to accept the not the simplest narratives to evaluate the picture.
I played Birdman in the middle of the night in order to occupy them for half an hour, and to watch tomorrow, naively believing that the third time it will not take me so long. . .
... And he came to his senses at almost three in the morning, during the final credits. Ingenious Inyarritu together with experienced operator Emmanuel Lubecki, enlisting the support of stunning Michael Keaton, Edward Norton and Emma Stone again outplayed me, glued to the screen, leaving no chance to escape. “Birdman” is almost physically difficult even just to pause for a few seconds, let alone turn it off in order to return to viewing in a few hours – so monolithic, powerful and exciting movie made the above creators.
The main character named Riggan on the screen embodied Michael Kitton, and this is the best of his roles (at least among the part of the filmography of the actor, which I have seen). His character is interesting, complex, he evokes empathy and a desire to learn about how his fate will develop. In part, the image of Riggan, who many years ago played a superhero in an ultra-successful trilogy, and since then has been trying to cement the image of a serious actor, in some ways echoes Kitton himself, who for a very long time was associated exclusively with Batman.
There are parallels between Mike and Edward Norton. Both are brilliant actors on stage and complex and sometimes unbearable people outside. I don’t know how Norton got along with Iñárritu (although I have a feeling that even such a rebel will not spoil a strict Mexican), but in the frame Edward looks amazing, making his character multifaceted, lively, characteristic, interesting. The scenes in which Kitton and Norton interact are delightful simply because two great actors converge in the frame, demonstrating the peak of their skill right here, right at this second.
Against their background, the character of Emma Stone fades a little, but it is not the fault of the actress: the two above actors turned out to be too powerful images. The main thing is that she and other characters of the second and third plans withstand the general high bar, polishing the film to perfection.
Birdman is a film-event, a piece of merchandise, one of the few times an Oscar has been given for a real cause (although I wouldn’t be upset if the award went away that year with a masterpiece of Obsession). It is necessary to check it out.
Birdman by Alejandro Iñárritu is a very unusual film for the director, the genre of which is also not easy to determine. But I really liked the movie. Beautiful in the title role Michael Keaton, in the fate of which there are some aspects similar to the fate of the main character (Batman films), although, of course, he is more successful. The other actors are good, too. The actor, who has long become famous (still recognized on the street and asked to be photographed with him), starred in several comics, is not satisfied with his fate, his share did not fall serious roles, and he wants to fulfill his childhood dream by putting on stage an adaptation of the book once praised by the writer. Everything goes through a stump-deck, he is afraid that he will not succeed, rushes. His personal life also failed, his daughter has problems, she is undergoing rehabilitation from drugs. There are no happy people in the film, everyone has their own little drama and everyone wants to prove themselves somehow, everyone is afraid of something and everyone wants to be loved, and people often have problems with this. And the roots of unexpected success are completely idiotic, as are the articles in the press about this. The ending is fantastic.
“What must happen in a man’s life to become a critic?” ?
"The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance" (2014) - Oscar-winning film by Mexican director Alejandro González Iñárritu.
Iñárritu filmed his intricate, uninterrupted flight of storytelling, accompanied by improvisation, eccentric characters, absurd scenes and technical uniqueness.
In the center of the storyline, the vain elderly actor Riggan Thompson (Michael Keaton), who played the main role in the once popular superhero franchise Birdman, trying to get rid of the fame of an actor of one role and gain status with the theater audience, putting a play on Broadway based on the story of Raymond Carver himself.
"Birdman" is the tragedy of a man whose sense of self-importance has consumed his mind and his mania of recognition has clouded his eyes. Devaluing pop culture, the progress of the media, considering poor people sitting on social networks “only doing what likes”, the main character is convinced that only playing on stage is something worthwhile in this world and truly significant, weighs for the viewer himself the label of a person who has fallen out of reality, or even completely devoid of common sense.
In the modern world, power is a social network where you can become popular in a moment and without much effort. Nothing in the world matters anymore. Today you are at your peak, tomorrow you will not be remembered. And walking in one underwear on Broadway will be more significant than your directorial debut.
Thompson’s inner voice and his growing bouts of anxiety, brilliantly shown to Iñárritu in the form of an image of an unstoppable man-bird and percussion solo accompaniment, is what turns the author’s theatrical film into an entertaining attraction.
The cult, profound, life-affirming picture is an allegory of the simple human desire to perpetuate himself and to rise, if not in his own, then in the eyes of others. Birdman has unquestionably left its mark on film history and human consciousness, and even though I try not to write about my personal opinion of the films being reviewed, damn it, you must see this film.
10 out of 10
I want to start with a little disclaimer. Birdman has been my favorite movie for many years without any chance for other films. This leads to the fact that any attempt to tell about him boils down to an endless cascade of compliments. However, today I will try to focus not on how much I love this movie, what every negligent person I meet has to listen to, but on what I love it for and what I see in it.
The first layer of impression that is often formed by viewers who watched Birdman is a movie about how the conveyor machine of Hollywood, together with brainless popcorn eaters, perverts the idea of art, turning it into meaningless slag. Movie from movie snobs for movie snobs. However, I am inclined to believe that this is not so. In a sense, we can even say that things are exactly the opposite.
One of the central themes of the film is labels, as Riggan meets a theater critic in a bar. But at that moment he himself believes that he is free from these fetters, as perhaps many viewers, for whom the idea of labels is not new, have worked out and, moreover, seem terribly boring and banal.
But there are two invisible but powerful titans among these most banal cliches, to which I appeal in the title. Their names are Art and Pops.
Riggan lives in a world where this ever-adversarial couple is the foundation of everything. He is a former superhero, a person who represents Pops in the eyes of society. This label is considered offensive and Thompson is ashamed of it, wanting to reconnect with the desired Art, which is accepted to respect and love, which he, of course, never lacks in life.
Through this unattractive character, the picture reminds us that we have begun to forget behind the veil of clever phrases and reasoning about the structure of the narrative. The main goal of creativity in its quintessence is the transfer of emotions from person to person. The birth of empathy and deep feelings. The re-experiencing of an experience that belongs to one, now by many people. And if this goal is fulfilled, then the belonging of the object to any of the titans in the eyes of society does not matter. Another subtitle of the movie could be attributed to the question “So what?”
After going through a series of trials, the hero comes to this realization and the two opposing sides can now reunite, because they are free from stamps. What happens next, in my opinion, is neither reality nor fiction. This is what happens in Riggan’s thought stream on the road to self-acceptance, and how it manifests itself somewhere in the background is already minimal. Yes, he got rid of the shackles, but in the eyes of others he remains the same. This is very pressing and does not allow to open up fully, because he decides semi-metaphorically to literally kill the former himself in front of everyone. Riggan Thompson is a man who needs publicity. So what about that?
In the end, we can see that his plan has worked. And this is measured not so much by the “unexpected” success of his performance, but by his transformation, both internal and visual, as well as the look into the heavens of Riggan’s daughter, who saw him as he is.
Manipulating the thought of art and pop, Birdman tells us about such fundamental things as self-acceptance, the beauty of the diversity of human personalities, the absence of an ideal, the insignificance of this absence and further down the list.
It is the grace with which cinema juggles all these themes with completely new introductory data, deepening reflections, that causes me the childhood delight with which I tell about the film to all my friends.
Do not forget that for the key actors of the picture, it became a kind of reflection and, perhaps, even therapy, which helps her to open up in all its glory. And this is not just about Michael Keaton, who, like Riggan, found popularity playing a superhero in the nineties. Edward Norton gets his moments of fame largely due to his outrageous behavior. So what? Naomi Watts gained first recognition not without the help of frank eroticism "Mulholland Drive". So what? Emma Watson started out as an actress for leading roles in teen B films. So what about that?
The main thing is that each of them conveyed a lot of unique emotions and experiences to other people, in particular, you and I, my dear reader. This is called The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance.
I could talk a lot more about the various trivia and techniques chosen by the director, and how they work on history, but then this review will turn into a doctoral thesis, so I will stop.
10 out of 10
(Not) Superhero movie about the real: "Birdman" with Michael Keaton
If you try to briefly explain what the film “Birdman”, it will be difficult to give an unambiguous answer. On the one hand, it is the story of an actor who struggles with his alter ego (which manifests itself as a superhero who brought him fame). On the other hand, this is a parable about the benefits of the same shadow part of his personality, which in a critical situation takes the leadership and helps him to bring his creative work to the end.
On the third hand, it can be a tragicomic satire on a superhero movie, the purpose of which is to visually demonstrate the difference between naive film fantasy, presented to the viewer on a platter as entertainment, and the real behind-the-scenes, the pain of which this entertainment is created. And also the story of the midlife crisis, which overtakes everyone, including the most beloved movie superheroes.
After all, perhaps the most appropriate description for this film would be: “When the chess game ends, the king and the pawn fall into the same board.” The attempt to bring a creative dream to life, to overcome the oppressive burden of the old name in trying to create a new one ... and all this is on the verge of falling into this very board - that is what this picture is about.
Director Alejandro Iñárritu brought to clean water and publicly exposed the “skeletons in the closet” of New York Broadway, dispelling the illusions of its false grace, which is instilled in the ordinary man by the shine of his bright signs. And he showed it through the prism of the creative tragedy of a person at the end of years, despite everything trying to realize himself.
A vivid drama with a rich, fast-paced history. And with a very prestigious cast, which gives the film a double flavor.
10 out of 10
As one film critic remarked, Birdman is played by an actor who played Batman for Burton. Coincidence? A movie worth watching at least for the sake of cinematography, because everything the camera did was genius. Almost the entire film, except for the final scenes, does not contain glues and transitions and is shot as a solid indivisible scene. And it looks like real magic because I've seen things that can't be. The camera, which was always in cramped rooms, flew between the characters like a haunted ghost and never switched in more than an hour. The real magic is that you don't understand how it's done. How can actors play so perfectly without ever getting lost, without a single glue? It must be assumed that these gluings were, but the power of the graphics they were fused without a single seam. Everything about the characters, the actors, the plot, the idea is also solid beauty, extravaganza. The atmosphere of the theater, its squabbles and bustle, the shining of its stage and the deep imperfection of the backstage are perfectly conveyed. Anyone who's ever been there will understand. However, there are downsides that I couldn’t forgive for the film, so I won’t give 10 points. Everything about the critical character repeats the theme in Ratatouille. There is a lot of obscenity in the film, the characters are often expressed in non-theatrical terms and discuss their sexual problems for a long time, in my opinion it was completely inappropriate. Well, the last 10 minutes of the film are completely crazy, they contradict first medicine, and under the credits and at all – common sense. But in general, of course, I liked the film, strong, ideological, left an impression for a few days. I recommend it.
It's one of the best films I've seen, especially in this genre and with this theme. The movie is like a theatrical production and the actors are right next to you. That's the whole Hollywood thing, and what's going on in the movie world! And most importantly, the script of this film is not taken from some book, this story is not a sequel, not a prequel, or anything. It's an original script, and it's really cool! What a pity that there have been so few really high-quality new stories lately.
Emmanuel Lubecki - you're a genius!!! Thanks to his camera work, it seems that the entire film is made of one frame, without gluing. These camera shots on the narrow aisles of the theatrical scenes look magical. There is very little music in the film, but the one that is remembered for a long time. Those drums!!! In the film, even the action is absolutely to the place made and not at all surprising.
We can talk about actors endlessly. Edward Norton. Why is there so little Norton in the movie? He is brilliant (as in any movie). Even his stand-up was well played. It is a pity that his character and studio bosses will never find a common language. It's rare, but accurate. Emma Stone's eyes are worth a lot. It feels like her level of play is just too high. Zach Galifianakis is finally stepping away from the role of the "fun beard." And it worked (although there were times when he felt the same one from the "Bachelor Party"). But I think if he plays more serious roles, that memory will not be traced. And finally he! Michael Keaton. He gave 200%, his best role in his career (my personal opinion). I wish I had won an Oscar for this role. Perfect. He essentially played himself (also a superhero, was popular before, and now is not). And you can see how every minute of the film he plays better and better (smooth elevation).
The movie is great. If you haven’t seen it, you have to look. This show cannot be missed.
10 out of 10
P.s. Why don't people fly like birds? I think they're flying, they just don't notice it yet.
We all desperately strive for the peaks, reaching them, afraid to fall. But not the strong one who was world-famous, And the one who fell and was able to stand up.
The film tells about the former actor Riggan Thomson, twenty years ago, played the role of the popular superhero Birdman, being at the peak of popularity. He suffers from bouts of aggression and hallucinations, fixates on himself, renounces the rest of the world, and generally ignores and denies all the changes that have occurred. He lives in the past, obsessed with the idea of regaining his place and former popularity. It is for this purpose that he puts the play in the theater on Broadway.
Riggan is very self-centered. It would seem that as an actor, as a director, he should put art above all else, but it is obvious that the first place for him is his own ego, the return of former fame and popularity. And let art stand clearly above all the values of the ordinary layman: material wealth, health, family; obviously, he risks his life precisely for the sake of self-affirmation, the return of former greatness and the elimination of the discrepancy between conceit and the real state of affairs.
In addition, he suffers from the voice in Birdman’s head, who constantly tells him that he must prove to everyone that he deserves more, to regain his former glory and greatness. Yes, the main character resists him with the help of all kinds of practices, but unsuccessfully because he internally agrees with this voice. In parallel with this, the voice causes Riggan bouts of aggression, in which he then smashes his dressing room into pieces, then paints the face of Mike Shiner (Edward Norton).
Riggan Thomson does not accept, rejects the modern world. He cannot accept the fact that he has long been forgotten, that his name says nothing to most people, and for the whole world he is no longer a celebrity, not a figure of the first value, but another forgotten actor who once played another superhero. He cannot accept that the main celebrity of his performance is not himself, but another actor. Riggan does not recognize social networks, denies their importance and believes that the indicator of popularity is the size of the article about you in the Times.
The second title of the film “The Amazing Seduction of Delusion” perfectly conveys what the main character is exposed to. After all, his opinion about himself, about his own importance, about the world around him, about the order prevailing in him, his mania for regaining his place, the idea of the obligation to prove his own significance is nothing but delusions. But he creates, he acts, he succumbs to their temptation.
The film was shot in a continuous shooting technique, and it is definitely a winning solution. This method perfectly reflects the theatrical turmoil, the dynamics of events, the focus of the protagonist on himself and his play, as well as the completely opposite fact-insignificance of what is happening for the whole society, as in a scene where the main character, obsessed with his idea, flies into the theater, but the camera stops in front of the doors. The frame is static, and shows people indifferently passing by, talking about their own and even unaware of those events that seem to the main character almost the main thing that is happening around the world.
The color solution of the film is not bad, but in some places I lacked a more subtle work with color, a more expressive solution instead of a standard fad.
The sound solution is very good. Percussion, perfectly conveying the rhythm of action, hectic thinking of the main character. Old-fashioned retro-motifs perfectly convey the detachment of the hero from the modern world and internal stay in the past.
I have not found obvious disadvantages, except for the feeling that in some places the film is incomplete, damp.
I definitely recommend this film for viewing, creative people in particular, because the problem of understanding the real self-importance, fixation on oneself, on the past, endless attempts to regain “former greatness” and “one’s place” in this world, unwillingness to understand and accept modern realities, inability to live in a constantly changing world is an actual problem of many people in modern society.
7 out of 10
The critic becomes the one who is unable to create, just as the one who is unable to fight becomes the informer.
This is the first time we see Michael Keaton in his pants in Birdman from behind. His character, a former high-profile movie star, sits in a lotus position in his dressing room of a historic Broadway theater, only he hovers above the ground. Drenched in sunlight streaming from an open window, it looks peaceful. But the voice in his head growls, grumbles, grotesquely gnaws at him on issues large and small.
The next time we see Keaton in his panties in "Birdman," he races desperately through Times Square at night, accidentally locking himself outside the same theater in the middle of Raymond Carver's play, in which he stars. wrote and directed. It swims against a stream of river full of staring tourists looking for autographs, food carts and street performers. But despite the chaos that surrounds him, he seems purposeful, purposeful and - for the first time - strangely content.
These are the extremes directed by Alejandro J. Iñárritu overcomes with daring ambition and impressive craftsmanship in Birdman, whose full title is Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) He made a film that was striking from a technical point of view and at the same time emotional, intimate, but at the same time huge, sharp, but warm, satirical, but cute. It's also the first time Innarritu, the director of heavyweight downers like "Babylon" and "Boutiful," seems to be really entertaining.
Make it fun. Birdman is a complete explosion from start to finish. The trick here -- and it's stupid, and it works beautifully -- is that Innarritu made it feel like you're watching a two-hour movie at a time. Working with brilliant and inventive filmmaker Emmanuel Lubetzky (who won an Oscar this year for shooting Gravity for Iñárritu’s close friend and fellow Mexican director Alfonso Cuarón), Iñárritu has created the thinnest and dazzling high-wire number. And indeed, even before the start of filming, the director as an inspiration sent the actors a photo of Philippe Petit walking on a tightrope between the towers of the World Trade Center.
In incredibly long, intricate surveillance footage, the camera flies through narrow corridors, up and down narrow stairs and onto crowded streets. It is suitable for quiet conversations and hovers between skyscrapers for magical realism-style fantasy flights. Antonio Sanchez's percussion and energetic score, saturated with drums and plates, keeps a jazzy ambiance throughout. Sure, you can take a closer look to find where the cuts likely occurred, but it takes a lot of fun. It's all about giving in to the thrills.
Equally exciting is Keaton's powerful performance as Riggan Thompson, a forgotten actor trying to regain the former glory he achieved as Birdman's winged action hero. The film follows the heavy early debut of his Broadway debut, which is also his last chance at greatness, though his on-screen alter ego doesn't help much by expressing his fears and making him constantly doubt himself. Yes, it's certainly funny that Keaton, who became a superhero 20+ years ago, plays an actor who became a superhero 20+ years ago. While I’m happy to argue that Keaton’s Batman for Tim Burton in 1989 is the ultimate rendition of the iconic character, it’s a separate conversation another time.
Or this? Although "Birdman" exists in its own carefully crafted world, it's largely a time and place in terms of pop culture, with references to other real-life actors like Robert Downey Jr. and Michael Fassbender who enjoyed huge success when they donned superhero costumes. The script from Iñárritu, Nicolas Jacobon, Alexander Dinelaris and Armando Bo is a clever meta, but he is not too pretty and complacent.
Keaton has played a bit with his persona and also realised how calm his career has been in recent years, but seeing him in hardened form is a joy. He's still hyper-verbal and playful, and he can still amuse and annoy in his speech, but now there's an ironic drearyness and even despair in the mix that is now painfully painful.
Also facing his real-life reputation is Edward Norton as Mike Shiner, a brilliant but infamous moody actor who plays the role of fellow filmmaker Riggan when previews of his love production of What We Talk About When begin. We talk about love. "" Norton, who has been difficult and demanding over the years, finds the right balance between arrogance and sincerity.
They also need each other, as they find in the days leading up to the premiere. They all need each other. Inarritu assembled an amazing supporting cast and presented them with ridiculous technical requirements, but they all more than met the requirements and enjoyed the chance to prove themselves.
Zach Galifianakis strongly opposes the type as Riggan's manager and the rare voice of reason in the midst of all this madness. Emma Stone is adorable as Riggan’s world-weary and wise daughter, who also serves as his assistant. (He and Norton have stunning chemistry in a couple of crucial scenes.) Amy Ryan works wonders with her short screen time as Riggan's ex-wife; she reveals it and lets us see in him both selfishness and goodness. And Naomi Watts, who played the main role in the excruciating film Innarritu “21 grams”, gets the opportunity to play both easy and hard moments in the role of a neurotic actor.
It's pretty obvious they've all worked on themselves to make this challenging, exciting ride look easy. .
Once upon a time, being young, famous for the role of a superhero Birdman Riggan left the film industry in order to become even more exalted. Become something more than mediocrity. For this purpose, he puts the play on the stage of Broadway.
As part of the troupe, Riggan has the eminent actor Edward Norton, a personality living within the stage, existing outside it, but ready to raise the rating and sales of tickets for the production. And it seems to work out. Yes, that's the trouble, the critic writes already angry review. And you have to somehow get out and surprise at the premiere.
And in the life of the old Birdman reigns a mess. Daughter Emma Stone, a former drug addict, is abandoned to fate, busy only grief parent. They broke up with their wife. And he's not thinking about a new girlfriend.
If I had known the film had a problem with meaninglessness, I would have read Wikipedia. It's a very meticulous story. I wouldn't waste my time. Because of course, viewing for the sake of viewing - no more.
Birdman does not justify either good acting or brilliant camera work - the camera just flutters like a butterfly from shoulder to shoulder. And the inner voice of the protagonist in the form of the same notorious superhero mirage adds highlights, but does not surprise (we know, sailed, saw). Demonstrating to the viewer that the hero thoroughly goes crazy.
To understand why all this was told and shown is impossible for me. To capture the terrible fate of acting? Unknown? Are you crazy? To highlight the primitiveness and degradation of Hollywood cinema? I don't know. It's weak for me. I didn’t laugh, I didn’t even smile or cry. Fish, whales and sharks swimming in the oceans of publicity in the sofits of the stage - of course, more visible. But to me, this movie is just a seaweed, with which you swim together at the surf, sometimes with legs.
Film-winner of 4 Oscars: ' Best Film', 'Best Director', 'Best Screenplay', 'Best Operator' certainly deserves the attention of a layman (me). But in general, even if there were no awards, the film would definitely be on my watch list, because it opens the backstage of the theater. It’s interesting to see how actors in real life embody the roles of actors inside the film. Isn't that beautiful?! If you are not impressed, then I want to tease you that the characters of the play, which is staged in the film, live (play) in many ways similar to the actors of the play life. That is, the actors in the film play actors who play a play in which the characters in the play play play actors played by the actors in the film! I hope you're completely confused and go see the movie to sort it out and/or argue with me about it. Another interesting point is that the universe of the film is our universe, I explain: the film mentions the real names of directors, actors, newspapers, etc. Which, of course, brings the audience closer to the story. After viewing, I also recommend reading the section ' Did you know that...' there are a couple of very interesting ones on Kinopoisk.
The audiovisual component is scarce in the amount of means used, but does not suffer from this, but rather wins. The film is made with one plan: yes, there are obvious editing gluings, but very high-quality and even logically justified, such as changing days, for example. The soundtrack consists almost of drums, reminding me of the drum roll in a circus before some final and dangerous climax trick of a trainer or acrobat. For me, such sounds are associated with inappropriate solemnity and ' fun' or what, especially against the background of dramatic events unfolding on the screen.
One of the themes of the film is the choice between mediocre, but popular with the audience and truly creative, but at risk of failure. The topic of recognition is important for a creative person, but where is the line when in the search for popularity a person betrays his inner creative impulses. And more: should a creative person be ashamed that he likes something more than himself 'pop root'? What will the main character choose? The finale of the film, in my opinion, gives us evidence for the opposite conclusions, as was, for example, in 'Joker' Todd Phillips. It’s time to look at it!
P.S. If you haven’t read Emma Stone’s work yet 'Birdman' may help. It’s as different as any other role, in my opinion. I am fascinated.
Nothing but bees... But if you think about it... The bees are also bullshit.
Trying to explain why this film is an extremely weak work of fiction, without debriefing scenes, is like trying to put trousers over your head: fun and pointless. They're spoilers. But if there is such a rule, then there is nowhere to go.
Great actors, good acting and wonderful dialogue. It’s all in the movie, but it doesn’t work. It does not work because the writers could not connect everything and turn into something more than stroking the ego of the actor (Hollywood) party.
Why should the viewer feel at least some emotions (even negative ones) towards the main character? He is not a poor man; there are many people who care about him. He is not poor, not deprived, albeit of former glory. He doesn't have rectal cancer and isn't going to move horses anytime soon.
He does not have 'smiling' depression. Quite the opposite. Just like the joke:
At a psychiatrist's appointment.
- Patient, you suffer from megalomania.
- Why am I suffering, I like it so much!
His desire to prove that he is worth something and can be in the theater is not something for which one can feel sympathy. Or antipathy (depending on your attitude to the theater). He's not like a character. Therefore, what will happen to him in the end, personally, was parallel to me. His final act only reinforced this impression.
And since everything in the film is tied to him, all the other actions of the characters become somewhat meaningless. The whole film resembles a kaleidoscope: individually everything sparkles and looks beautiful. But this is not going to be a single pattern.
Finally, I can fully talk about the director with the big name Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu. Of course, before 'Birdman' he famously made a fuss with his ' trilogy about death' - 'Bitch-love', '21 grams', 'Babylon;''' and it is only difficult to single out some of the concepts.b> And b) Given what a gloomy sediment remains after viewing, there is no desire to talk about them somehow.
This is really the case where the film rocks my opinion - from ' Oh God, how much tequila did it take to make this?' to 'Figase, it was really a super movie!' But by rocking the boat like that, the movie got me hooked. And while I haven’t heard Birdman speak in my head, raised on superhero movies and others 'show for the audience', I hasten to say that I saw a really smart movie. Iñárritu demonstrates a whole, and at the same time a multifaceted story about a man who is experiencing an internal crisis, why everything falls out of his hands - the production on Broadway threatens failure, it is difficult to communicate with his ex-wife and daughter, and then the inner voice suggests forgetting the idea and returning to the origins, they say, the audience now adore superheroics and other attractions, so put on a costume and run to all the Marvels to shoot a restart & #39; Birdman' and there is already fame and recognition will come.
Here is a similar conflict that drives the flywheel of the plot, now you rarely find anywhere. I will talk about the idea and my perception of the film a little later and in a separate paragraph, because there may be enough material for a whole forum. What I was really impressed with was the simplicity of the film. No, the meaning of this film is far from simple, I mean how competently it was made. All the action takes place in the theater building and the area covering a small area near it. So you can figure out where the theater is, where the dressing room is, where the fire exit is. Cinematography - well, so the film got a golden doll in this area. Emmanuel Lubecki not only did the work ' one take', in some places moving to gluing, the camera is located in close proximity to the characters, which creates the effect of presence. The soundtrack in the film is uncomplicated, but falls well in the background.
Well, we will not go around - Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone and Naomi Watts - just bravo. Each of these images is remembered. It’s funny that the character of Michael Keaton suffers from the fact that he is perceived solely by the sensational role of a dude in tights, because think about it – you can personally remember Michael Keaton not only for the role of Batman? With Edward Norton, by the way, it also turned out that the role was written exclusively for him - a professional, but capricious actor who remakes the whole process to his own desires. Naomi Watts keeps the balance between easy and hard moments, playing a neurotic actor. Emma Stone also showed herself professionally, playing a hot-tempered heroine who had problems with drug addiction, which makes it seem that she will go crazy. It is funny that Stone was nominated for an Oscar for this role, in the next film from Iñárritu Lenja Dicaprio received his statuette, and then Dicaprio announced that Emma became ' Best Actress - 2017'. Irony.
What's this movie about? About the struggle between soulwork and all sorts of rides? Maybe this is a movie about how to get out of oblivion? Or are we seeing a story about a man with bipolar disorder? The beauty ' Birdman' in that it is multifaceted, and while watching it turns out to savor what is happening. At least under my description fit all of these assumptions. Riggan Thompson is burning with the idea of doing something important, realizing himself as a creative person, but Birdman stuck in his mind. The image sticks, the dark side of the actor, fueled by his failures. Perhaps the main character is shattered by a number of problems and add a couple of moments from his past, especially when he wanted to kill himself. But Riggan resists, invents superpowers, when in reality he smashes the dressing room or just rides in a taxi. The hero puts himself into the production of the play, but everything falls out of hand. Three previews are comical, plus the famous critic promises to bury the still unstaged production. If you look into the details of the plot, then notice how the play is intertwined with the tragedy of Riggan. 'What's wrong with me? Why do I ask for love? #39 What is our life? Game. For this idea Alejandro González Iñárritu is definitely commendable.
Hmm. Very interesting. As a person who is engaged in theater, I appreciated this picture positively. I really liked the movie, it’s really exciting. The film raises either the theme of how important it is not to go in pursuit of a dream, forgetting where reality is, and where your career and fame is, or the theme of how difficult and difficult it is to get somewhere for actors of one role. I think it's the first.
Indeed, the main character completely falls out of this life, paying attention only to his career and reputation. The hero of Michael is ready to do anything, and is ready to endure everything just to get this pathetic good assessment from the critic. And it prevents him from his past, his role in the superhero. He refused Birdman, but Birdman did not refuse him. Deep down, when the hero is once again disappointed in what he is doing, he is called Birdman, the personification of the times when he was famous and famous. The idea and the plot really surprised me, and from the film I just could not from the screen. And how the film culminates it is simply incredible (I will not talk about the climax and finale, because without spoilers here can not do).
Let’s talk about the rest of it now.
I like the way the camera works in this movie. There are many scenes where the camera without gluing goes only for the hero. This is an unrealistically cool decision, the atmosphere of the behind the scenes of the theater is well conveyed, the camera sweeps through small corridors, dressing rooms and costume rooms, and it looks impressive. Especially under the awesome soundtrack.
The soundtrack is one of the features of the movie. All songs are recorded on drums alone, as slow and calm beats on plates in calm scenes, as well as quick jazz parts in moments of rush, panic and tension. This minimalist style of compositions only paints the picture and more immerses in the atmosphere.
Separate plus-acting cast. I love Nortana and Keaton at the heights too, everyone is playing great, and the comments are superfluous.
Unlike most of Iñárritu's previous films (21 Grams, Babylon, Love Bitch), this picture is more chamber, inward-looking, deep. Here in the first place is not history, but a person with his fears, complexes, hopes, despair, challenges to himself and the surrounding reality.
And if we go directly to the plot, the main character Riggan Thompson, twenty years ago shone in the role of Birdman - the superhero of the popular comic book, is busy staging a theatrical play on Broadway. However, "busy" is a weak word. For Riggan, this is the last attempt to find himself, to prove to the world that he is more than the elderly Birdman. The whole life is at stake.
But theater is complicated. There are partners on the stage, including partners-stars, the harm from which is sometimes more than good, there are theater critics who do not want to let any Hollywood upstarts into this high sphere, there is an annoying inner voice-Birdman, persistently calling for a return to the image beloved by the audience, there is an inappropriate pregnant actress-lover, there is a difficult relationship with an adult daughter... In a word, a lot of problems.
And it would seem, why all this is necessary?! You can invest your whole life in the production and lose everything, but you can only run down the street in your underpants and get 350 thousand views on YouTube in an hour.
It is worth noting that the plot is not too full of action, everything happens, literally, in one location, but it is impossible to break away from what is happening on the screen, because there is a real flurry of feelings, emotions, passions on the screen.
Magnificent dialogues - bright, juicy, lively, frank, cruel, sentimental.
Stunning camera work - many expressive close-ups, interesting angles, games with light-shadows, the camera, literally, lives among the heroes.
But that's not surprising. In the camera chair – Emmanuel Lubecki, who received an Oscar for “Gravity”.
And, of course, fantastic acting. Especially by Michael Keaton.
We all know Michael Keaton. We know primarily from the roles of Batman. Well, it turns out we don't know him at all. Michael Keaton never was and probably never will be. It’s an incredible range of feelings and emotions, it’s amazing sincerity, it’s respectable courage – not every actor will dare to show himself as a spectator, frankly, in a pathetic way. And in this case, when the parallels - Batman-Birdman - are obvious, even more so.
In conclusion, it remains to use the word "magnificent" in relation to the musical accompaniment.
Summarizing the above, I think Iñárritu created something close to a masterpiece. Tragicomedy, drama, confession, mockery of Hollywood and the world of show business, love for the theater and ironic attitude to it, and all this is very piercing, harmonious, sincere and highly artistic.
Confrontation of smart cinema and stupid blockbusters, thirst for fame and the desire to be heard.
“Birdman” from Alejandro González Iñárritu is an extremely interesting film, which can not leave you indifferent: either the film becomes a favorite, or just passes by because of its unusualness.
This film tells the story of the already forgotten actor of the popular earlier series of films about Birdman, who tries to find fame again, the love of his daughter and wife, but in the end acquires something more, namely, a sense of true art, which is perceived by all the recesses of the soul.
I can say the following:
+ Acting play. Both Michael Keaton and Edward Norton play very plausible and sincere, but this is understandable, they play characters very similar to them and the facts of their biography. It’s fun to watch at least.
+ Magnificent camera work.Emmanuel Lübecki, as always, at a height - long shots with one take mesmerize, the constantly moving camera adds the effect of presence and all this just incredibly reflects the state of the characters and the atmosphere of the theater.
The atmosphere of theater and tragedy both in the play and in the life of the characters is so realistic that it is impossible not to empathize with the characters. The life of the theater behind the scenes is captivating and does not allow you to break away from the screen.
+ The soundtrack, consisting of jazz drum tracks, perfectly conveys the heated atmosphere.
+ Interesting thoughts and ideas can be gleaned from this film. Why do we need popularity? Can an actor get rid of the status of an actor of one role? Which is more important, career or family? And so on and so forth. This work can be interpreted infinitely.
Disadvantages?
Yes, maybe the plot line between the characters of Emma Stone and Edwart Norton is superfluous.
Yes, it may be difficult for some to understand the film.
Yes, the opinion that some techniques are quite cliched has a right to exist.
Summary:
"Birdman" is a dynamic talented statement from Iñárritu and Lübecki under jazz arrangements and bright emotional shouts of actors about theater, criticism, acting and simply about the life of a creative person.
I think no one will deny that “Star Wars” have been living their lives for decades and it is hardly possible to argue about the title of the cult saga. The main thing that is interesting in the “star” is the complete absence of mention of the land. "Star Wars" is more like a fairy tale, some distant realm of its laws, where good is white, evil is black. As time goes on, we have seen a lot of things that have appeared in mass cinema. For example, the “Fifth Element”, where the story is not devoid of scale in saving the universe and the act of self-destruction, but in general, the cinema becomes closer to the experience of the audience and perhaps even about loneliness. Of the recent remarkable appearance of the “Dark Knight”, where you can generally break your head about what the film is about, but in general, the movie turned out exclusively about the loss of the main character in the general flow of what is happening. And in the last film, Birdman is very similar in purpose to which the Dark Knight came, but Birdman comes only to the duality with which he lives.
And it can hardly be argued that the cinema is still trying to take the spectacle, as in the beginning of its formation. Still, there is still a contradiction in mass cinema, and this film only increases this gap. The film “Birdman” is a rather bright film in the genre of “film about cinema” with a comment on the question of how different goals can coexist in one subject. On the one hand, cinema is nothing more than a seed for popcorn and burning away the extra time we have in our pockets. On the other hand, cinema is a good subject to consider in human activity. Both sides of the film kind of shows and maybe the next one will be more of a minus - the film condemns everything and offers nothing. The disadvantages include the clumsiness and rudeness of the film. A film about everything and nothing, in other words, throws only in confusion. And sometimes you can even say and very reasoned about the falsity of the film, but it has something to praise, at least for what is remarkable cinema, its mixture. Such a transitional film on the verge of mass and festival cinema, which is entertaining.
The films listed above, they have a lot in common, especially through them it is convenient to convey where to go cinema. “Birdman” although it does not pretend, perhaps, to some key chain, but hangs in one stream. And like the recent Logan, Birdman is a film where the main character absorbs the environment completely, even those that seemingly do not concern him. One way or another, mass cinema strives for total realism and with an easy portion of deepening into the character.
Regan Thompson will be the only object of attention, because all the other lines in the film, although occupying one-third of the time, but they both flash and fade – quickly and uninterestingly. In this regard, "Birdman" is quite noisy, moreover, there is a montage without gluing, which at first thought should contribute to a smoother flow of time, but instead it tears the image even more, like a drum shot right in the head. And after a while, it seems, the minuses acquire a positive sign. Now, Regan has a kind of subconscious phantom that he's talking to, which of course contradicts him. I love these tricks, because the secondary characters become not just garbage, which is not included in the personalization, but instead become a fat addition to the main character. Another film with similar images tends to think that everything is done not for nothing and everything that happens in the film is not accidental, but aimed at certain goals. The film is rich in visualization and all the noise that I usually take as a minus, here it is more than relevant, because it perfectly describes what is happening inside the main character. The ubiquitous critic in the bar becomes a devil on his shoulder, and the screaming madman on the street becomes the voice of the main character’s plea, and the lights in the booze stall are nothing but bitterness about Regan’s unattainable dream. Images, images, that's why I love this film, especially for the image of the theater and dressing room. But first, talk to yourself. Such communication is unlikely to have anything interesting in clinical terms, except that it is very similar to what the audience does in the movie. For me, symmetry is the best answer than I like movies, and even video fragments, even if they are isolated, too. It’s a fun thing to associate with people who don’t. No one has forgotten that cinema probably best conveys the spirit of the times, the nation.
The theater and the inner part of the theater – dressing room I will highlight, first of all, to describe the character. The whole film is some kind of dream of the protagonist to betray everything that happens around the price, meaning and he realizes this, trying to create the best play on Broadway. And it is more characteristic to describe under what pretext the hero rushes from the stage of the theater to the dressing room, from the dressing room to the street, from the street to the stage, etc. A little something goes wrong, the actor replays - in the dressing room, disrupted the performance - in the dressing room, everything went successfully - in the dressing room. Backstage in a movie is always a way to take a break or run away from yourself. Regan is generally a person closed on himself and his goals, symbolically, but also as the director of the film, Iñárritu. The dialogues with Regan’s wife are especially interesting, where the hero of the film often reminds of his character and aspiration. Here's the wife talking about problems of a joint nature, and Regan something about his own. He is told to remember those around him, about his daughter, he continues to pursue the purpose of his life. And all the assortments of humor and farce in the film are rather reminiscent of the theme of the film with the question: “Why all this and am I where I should be?” But as I said, the film doesn’t give a direct comment, just shows, and we just watch. How can you be an actor and be introverted, talk about love and star in blockbusters, but apparently you can – this film as proof of how you can be both. And yes, in "Birdman" you should not look for a deep meaning, you will stumble.
Mike: "Why is Ray Carver [his play]?"
Regan: “I used to play a drama club in high school and he passed it on to me.”
(on the note: "Thank you for your honest work")
Mike: "And?"
Regan: And I knew I was going to be an actor out of his words.
Given the controversial reviews about this film, I decided to watch and evaluate with my own eyes. Honestly, I was pleasantly surprised by the content of the picture.
The plot tells about the life of the theater (Broadway), which is interesting not only for performances, but also for life behind the scenes. This opens eyes to many details of psychology beyond what ordinary people cannot see.
The script can be decomposed into quotes that were pleasantly surprised by their depth. Most importantly, they kept the simplicity. This is not German classical philosophy, gentlemen.
It is so interestingly built here that you did not even have to choose between other film masterpieces, compare and so on. Well done. Special respect for the writer.
Attention also deserves operator work, which through its originality. The camera is set in such a way that the viewer becomes part of the artistic narrative within the framework of the film masterpiece. Very few long-range plans, large pictures and rich color. The characters lead you by the hand, along the way revealing themselves. I think it would have been more difficult if the film had been shot a little differently in terms of script elements. It also adds to its value.
On the subject of heroes pictures with their own problems. I noticed the division into external and internal problems. The viewer will be very surprised when he sees the difference in the position of the characters in relation to the personal drama. The film is filled with deep personality psychology.
In general, regardless of the number of Oscars that the picture deserves, you need to read it. I can say for myself that this is the brightest, truthful and deepest tape that touches the most terrible secrets of human relations, position in society and position regarding cinema in general.
The story of the film is about how a former popular actor, a comic book hero, already in old age, puts the play on the Broadway stage. In this production go all the remaining resources, money and time. The only challenge remains – can a Hollywood actor conquer the theater stage?
The film “Birdman” is a work that very well manages to show “emptiness”. The first thing you can see is the techniques that are used. The whole effect of admiration rests on the art of combining all the available special effects in a movie, which cunningly masquerades as an arthouse movie. Director Alejandro González Iñárritu shoots the picture, which when shown will look shot in one frame. It is as if the life of any person passed without mounting glues. Aesthetically, thanks to the excellent work of the cameraman Emmanuel Lubetzky and the equally excellent work of the editor Douglas Kryce. Together, they were able to realize the idea of Iñárritu, when with great pleasure and without fatigue watching the constant movement of actors. Intuition suggests that the surrounding scenery of the theater will be transformed along with the heroes, which is actually happening.
A great work by composer Antonio Sanchez, who wraps the entire film in jazz improvisations. Drum installation forms an emotional connection with the viewer. It conveys the inner experience of the main character. At the same time, rhythms fit very well into limited scenery. Warm sound has a home atmosphere and how much the sound changes when the characters are in the open air. Lightness disappears and heavyness appears.
When watching the picture, you understand that a huge number of rehearsals of actors and the crew allowed you to embody the effect of one frame. You need to know your role and movement perfectly, understanding that any spoiled take of hello to new shootings of quite large scenes. The role of the actors in the film largely repeats their real life. For example, Edward Norton is known for his perfectionism and harsh temper, constant scandals. His on-screen hero is not restrained and climbs into all the processes that are set by the director of the play in the person of Michael Keaton. As a result, it is easier for actors to play, and I, as a viewer, look at actors through such a prism.
By the middle of the film, you understand a simple truth: form wins over content. Director Alejandro González Iñárritu perfectly conveys the mood and completely forgets that in addition to a beautiful picture and the desire to play arthouse cinema, the concept of “not for everyone” becomes mainstream. Because just as Edward Nortan’s character shouts that he’s real on stage, and in real life he constantly pretends, Iñárritu instead of revealing one plot problem offers to look at the many small problems that are invented for the plot. You don’t believe anything: Riggan’s midlife crisis, theatrical intrigue, or the complexities of staging. The semantic load of the film is at the level of reading script plays by Woody Allen. He has heroes running around the stage, on the go invent turns, involve the viewer from the hall and do not lead anywhere. For example, it is possible to look for many meanings in a table lamp only or when it is part of a whole and thus can be distinguished. Another alternative to such a game, when a banal lot of free time. It is funny that the only “real” character of the film is actor Zach Galifianakis, who clearly conveys the mood of the picture.
Take, for example, Darren Aronofsky’s Black Swan. There is not a very complicated story, but thanks to the director, we feel the motives and life purpose of the main character on our “skin”. Cinema remains pleasant to watch, but try to look for meaning where you just need to enjoy the visual picture – is not worth it.
8 out of 10
Alejandro González Iñárritu is famous for filming theatrical productions. Long takes, which force actors to learn an unimaginable amount of text, create an incredible effect. Of course, this is in the hands of viewers who can enjoy watching from the heart.
Iñárritu has always had dramas. He just can't work without it. Birdman is undoubtedly a drama. There is a significant element of black comedy. But the general, parable message says that life is such a thing, this is mine.
The film won an Oscar in four categories. There were other nominations. And other awards. This suggests that the film has significance for the official cinema of critics. Although there was a scandal with one of the nominations for the Academy Award. They did not like the soundtrack for the film, which consists entirely of drum shots. But who cares if not the composer?
The film is based on actors. And their play is perfectly linked to the script. Everyone who played a role in the film worked for a hundred. This led to a Golden Globe for Michael Keaton. He's just great. He's levitating, he's walking around in his underwear in downtown New York. The last one actually happened. People were shocked when they saw the star of “Batman” and “Beatlejuice” in the underwear. But it worked really well.
Keaton was able to go back to the movies. His alter ego allowed him to return. The story of the character is closely intertwined with the life of the actor. Birdman-Batman, acting, himself Michael Keaton. For film lovers, this is just incredible.
Edward Norton didn't push either. Here he is just a star who creates all sorts of necessities right on stage. Emma Stone is also good. Interestingly, she also starred in the second part of The New Spider-Man. Everyone tried.
The result was dramatic and shocking. But you can't stay in place and live in the past. It is worth resting and continuing to move. It is necessary to find a goal that needs to be overcome.
The simplicity of the philosophy outlined in this film is accessible to any mind that distinguishes thriller from comedy, and the psychology is just as simple. You don’t need to be Freud to understand the protagonist with his inner component.
In most of his films, Iñárritu does not make psychology difficult, everything floats on the surface and the water is so clear that you can see the bottom. The trick of this director is how it is presented to us, most often it is metaphors.
Here we see an actor going through a crisis, both age and creative.
In an attempt to give himself a second breath, he enters into a struggle with his inner self, which denies and criticizes his actions.
The second “I” is a symbol of change that the protagonist is not ready to face, as a reality that he does not want to see and accept. This struggle lasts throughout the film, and the attempt to come out as a winner turns into accepting oneself as whole with the second “I”, personality, and this is what ensures the “takeoff” of the hero in professional terms.
Everything in the film is clear and verified to the smallest detail, dialogue and emotions are available for understanding. The excellent work of the operator, as everyone knows, the film was shot in continuous takes, which made it possible to plunge into this atmosphere of theatrical passions.
And of course, how not to celebrate the actors. Since Iñárritu is still a good at picking up an excellent cast, and here he was not mistaken, all the actors were in their places, and literally lived their heroes.
In general, for those who prefer to immerse themselves in the movie "with their heads", this picture will please, and will provide food for thought.
For a long time, this film was on my watch list and just spontaneously for myself suddenly included it on Friday evening. I didn’t expect anything from him, I didn’t know anything, I think I heard from the corner of my ear that he was nominated for an Oscar.
I must say that I love theatre. I love it, I won’t even try to say how much. And of course, I always go to shows. The fact that the film about the production of the play was a pleasant surprise. Impressions from the whole viewing — amazing, but suddenly I find it difficult to find words now. I want to scream with delight! Strange thing, this film is unlikely to become a favorite, again, I do not know why, but it is so energetically strong that I just burst out with the feeling of aesthetic high. Keaton and Norton were fantastic. Others also did not hit the dirt face and coped well. It was so vivid that I lived with them myself. Like a theater. The director's amazing work. That's not often seen in movies. I don’t want to disassemble this film by parts, pros/minuses or characters/actors. Everyone's done great. I didn't notice the drawbacks. It's been so calibrated. Now I understand that especially when the same Birdman appears. Well, who doesn't have that voice? I shut up, otherwise I risk a very long and possibly confusing discussion.
Bravo! Bravo! A standing ovation.
This picture is an amazing discovery. I’m sure I’ll definitely review it again.
In short, the film is not for everyone. And it’s not surprising that someone is delighted with him, and someone turned off in the middle. This picture is atypical, strange, somewhere even ridiculous and absurd. But it has undeniable advantages. The main advantage is the cast. Each hero is revealed perfectly, all his priorities, experiences, moods are visible.
The plot of the story is quite simple: the once shot actor wants to take a place again in the Hollywood sun, but it is naturally not so simple, especially since the old cliché pursues him and wants to wall him up as a man of one role.
This inner voice, which the protagonist hears during the film, is inherent in everyone. He discourages undertakings, implementation of ideas and various plans. And in order to really achieve something, one must be able to resist this very voice, which is what Riggan does: he does not give up and continues to try himself in a different way, and in the end even goes on a rather crazy move. Also in the film sometimes slip appropriate jokes and you can see some funny scenes.
It seems to me that the main message to Iñárritu is precisely that we do not give up under the pressure of our inner voice, which tries to interfere with their ideas.
The film is good, but I wouldn’t say it deserves all the nominations and awards. Honestly, I would give the Best Picture statuette to Damien Chazelle for his phenomenal comeback in the face of Obsession.
Riggan Thompson - a former Hollywood celestial, once omnipotent and universally adored by the superhero Birdman, by inertia levitates, looks open doors, drops lights and spins ashtrays (albeit in the imagination). He still does not realize that he is no longer a megastar of tooth-bending blockbusters, but rather a huge mollusk, plucked by the Hollywood ocean into a theatrical shoal, forced to start all over again in inhospitable New York. Thompson has no idea how to survive when everything is at stake, and you have a financial crisis and a psychological breakdown, and around you there is a drug addict daughter, a moody theater star in partners, a mess with women, eternal fakes with a production, more than a million views of your tired flesh on Youtube and a bloodthirsty NY Times critic who fiercely hates the upstart on the West Coast. Yes, this “bird” of former arrogance and vanity in the head.
We've seen all this before. Fellini’s 8 1/2 saw the artist’s reflection and inner monologue during a period of creative crisis. “It’s all jazz” Fossa told us about the creative process in the last breath, a race against death. Wilder in Sunset Boulevard has already told us the story of an aging star who does not want to believe in his uselessness. Figgis and Sokurov already had a one-frame film. Keaton was seen as a flying superhero, and even Naomi Watts in a passionate lesbian kiss at Lynch.
But at the same time, we haven't seen anything. Never seen such a brilliant performance as Iñaritu – he had seen too much theatricality in cinema, but such a wonderfully cinematic theater – no. We have not seen such a brilliant script for a long time, built, it seems, mainly on dialogue, with the addition of almost macaberic kulbits from the consciousness of the main character, but despite this, turning the stage and its stage, and with them the film itself, into a miniature of life with love, betrayal, laughter, grief, sadness and joys. It was assumed that Lubetzky was most likely a genius, but even such a virtuoso camera, such stunning travels in the limited space of theatrical alleys and their surroundings, something cannot be remembered from him. Never seen such a gushing Keaton and the best since "Fight Club" Norton.
We haven’t seen this before.
And yet, I am glad that the idea of unmounted cinema did not become an end in itself for Iñaritu – on the contrary, with the help of this idea he managed to detect such intensity and nerve in, for the most part, the chamber world of Birdman, which many tear-pressing dramas did not dream of.
8.5 out of 10
Birdman - how little in this word, but how much in this film!
Once played the role of a superhero, so firmly rooted in Riga that literally drives him crazy. In my opinion, this annoying shadow also symbolizes the pride and egocentrism of the hero, and I personally wondered whether this is a struggle with myself and my vices or a struggle with the obsessive image of Birdman as the beginning of schizophrenia. At that moment I remembered the Black Swan, who watched, will understand. All-consuming emptiness and worthlessness is expressed in the words “I am not, I do not exist”, which leads to such a finale. A film about unrealized opportunities, inflated ego and the illusory nature of what is happening.
Piercing dialogue, beautiful actors, with magnificently conveyed characters of each, sexy Edward Norton (and here he is real sexy), style and presentation, make the picture atmospheric and immersive. In general, watching the film, you begin to recognize the handwriting of Iñárritu, because almost every film is saturated with absolute life, affecting the most important aspects of life, without glamour and gloss (take “Survivor”, “Love Bitch” and “21 grams” for example), roughly speaking “truth as it is”, which can not catch.
I would recommend it to everyone! Whether you like it or not, it will make you emotional.