I am not
saying that Birdman is not a masterpiece. I am not saying that it is truly an
experience to watch. But in case you hadn’t pieced it together, yes I am firmly
in the #Boyhoodwasrobbed camp. In my post today, I will attempt to explain why,
while giving as objective a review as I can of it.
Of course
if you have any connection whatsoever to films and news, you have some idea of
the plot. Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton)is a washed up actor, best known for playing
iconic comic book inspired superhero Birdman (cue endless comparisons made with
Keaton’s own career playing Batman). In the autumn of his years – in any case
in what looks suspiciously like the autumn of his career – he is trying to do
something that truly “matters” artistically. He is putting on a play on
Broadway. He has written an adaptation of Raymond Carver’s story What We Talk
About When We Talk About Love, he is co-producing it with his best friend Jake
(Zach Galifianakis), directing it and playing one of the lead roles in it… If
he pulls it off, it is going to be one heck of a debut on Broadway. However,
with what artistic reputation he has left (and his fans would really prefer him
to just do Birdman 4) and his life savings riding on this, Riggan is in the process
of finding out that there is more to putting on a Broadway play than he might
of thought. It all starts with him having to replace a key actor at the eleventh
hour. Mike (Edward Norton) – the replacement – may well be the talent the team
needs but his ego threatens to destroy the project. Then there is his daughter
Sam (Emma Stone) who is really worrying him… And on top of all that, the shadow
of Birdman, the old character he loves and hates so much just will not leave
him alone in more ways than one… As the previews begin Riggan sure has a lot on
the line – and so far he seems set to lose it all…
This is the
first heads up to me, to be honest. I enjoyed writing that blurb, but anything
that takes that long to explain needs to take a good long look at itself just
to start with. I am a big fan of philosophy being used in film of course
multi-layered stories and metaphors are a delight to watch when well-executed.
But I reckon, the minute you have to explain a film to death as a mere
introduction or if you have to google multiple concepts to understand what the
film was trying to tell you, well… Something has gone awry. Birdman is
absolutely knee-deep in metaphors. It is laugh out loud funny and
heartbreakingly touching when it comes to the storyline itself just on face
value. Sprinkled into this beautiful story are truly extraordinary and deep
considerations on being an artist, growing old, how the two combine and how we
come to terms with our own fading glory – be it as an artist or simply as a
human being past their prime… By and large the metaphors are quite easy to
follow and we can marvel at the way Innaritu has woven them into his story.
Except, of course, there is the obligatory few incredibly obscure ones, you
know, the ones you have to have pages and pages online discussing. I am, principally,
talking about the famously obscure finale. I personally lean towards the “it’s
the afterlife” interpretation of it. I also think it’s the scene what pushes
the film over into having one foot firmly planted in “pretentious” as opposed
to both feet in “intelligent”.
This is not
the only showing off going on of course. A lot has equally been said about the
“extended shot” format of the film. I have to say I was filled with dread when
I first read this – my first encounter with the style was in Magnolia. I found
it nauseating (as in, it made me physically feel sick, I did respect it
cinematically). This one is a lot “tamer”. It’s like the camera has its own
mind and it wanders the halls of the theatre quite playfully. Another famous
sore point was the sound track – I wasn’t that bothered by the drumming to be
honest, but the whole gimmick with the drummer (you know what I mean if you’ve
seen it) is again, in the domain of the pretentious as far as I’m
concerned.
But of
course, between it being a story inherently about art, acting and Hollywood
itself (Birdman – Batman, what’s a couple of letters between friends!) the
technical “showing off” and Innaritu openly trying to make a film that “cannot
be explained”… Well it’s showy. It’s good but in my humble opinion in tries too
hard. It crams in too much. Yes, Inarritu crams the too much in with elegance.
But there is more skill involved in doing less sometimes. I would argue that
Boyhood achieved to make a much deeper philosophical point with less show and a
single “gimmick” that was executed with grace and dedication… Birdman is
definitely a carnival you should pop in to see. Just don’t go putting it on a pedestal…
Kayıtlar
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder