Birdman

Ah...obscure indie films.

Welcome to movie #2 of Indie Weekend + John Wick 2014! Ever since I've started this venture into being an amateur movie critic, I've tried to expand my horizons by going to see more "indie" films at the local Denver art house theaters. For the most part, I've enjoyed them immensely and only found a few to be overhyped and overrated. 

So when Birdman began to get stellar reviews, I researched it a bit and found the premise to be borderline genius. It tells the story of Riggan Thompson, who used to be a big time movie star because of his Birdman movie trilogy. Now, he struggles with not being relevant anymore and is trying to stage a comeback by producing, directing, and starring in a play on Broadway.

But that's not even the genius part.

The best aspect is that Michael Keaton plays the role of Riggan, which creates an uncanny number of parallels between the fake character and the real life actor. After turning down Batman 3 ages ago, Keaton has struggled to stay relevant and truly only been in a handful of significant roles. Ironically enough, Birdman plays as his comeback (or hopeful comeback) onto the silver screen. I commend him for taking this role as it probably took a good long look in the mirror to realize how biting the truth of the film's satire is to his own life.

Birdman has its fair share of problems, which I'll get into next, but the initial premise and Keaton are certainly not one of them.

Funny enough that BOTH of these actors have been part of a
superhero franchise

So let's discuss those problems shall we? Because I think that a lot of critics are glossing over them despite them being actual detriments to the film. Which, let's be honest, I gloss over plenty of movie issues when talking about superhero flicks, comedies, etc. so it's not a great travesty. For starters, Birdman has some brilliant commentary about relevance and the tiresome process that one has to go through in order to stay relevant today. But it also has some biting commentary about the current state of Hollywood with all of its big budget blockbusters and sequels/remakes/and reboots. While I agree that there is a lack of imagination in Hollywood to a certain degree, it's also these films that keep that industry afloat, not to mention, some of these "big budget blockbusters" that the movie essentially trashes, have been some of the better films of the year (i.e. Guardians of the Galaxy, The Winter Soldier, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, etc.). At one point a character asks something along the lines of "Don't you just love those big budget piles of s**t as opposed to those movies with all the depressing talking and talking?". My immediate answer to that question in the theater was: A) most of the time they aren't piles of s**t, and B) why yes! Yes I do enjoy the former type of film more than the latter! It was a biting commentary that I thought was too biting simply because I found it to be wrong and misguided and quite honestly, pretentious.

Furthermore, Birdman is just a plain weird movie. Sometimes it works and others it had me sitting there thinking, "What the f**k is going on?". Maybe I just didn't "get it", but the weirdness aspect worked only about half the time for me and I found that between that, and the overly confusing and complicated side stories, the movie falters under the weight of its own ambition. By the looks of most people's faces walking out of my theater, the feeling was mutual. And the entire film is surrounded by an incredibly annoying, staccato, and random snare-drum based original score that was probably my least favorite thing of the film. About halfway through the film it became incredibly grating.

One of the weirdest scenes in the film...I would say that this
one worked for me

Hulk vs. Batman! FIGHT!

Despite my above harping on the film, Birdman is still a very good movie. It's shot with some extraordinary camerawork that makes it seem like one, long tracking shot which I enjoyed very much. Just as impressive is the performances by the entire cast. Keaton is obviously the star here and he should get a well deserved Oscar nomination for an intense, funny, and quirky portrayal of what I'm guessing is a shade of himself. He has some great inner monologues and scenes of self-destruction. On par with Keaton is a hilarious Edward Norton who was the funniest part of the film for me. He portrays a talented actor with an incredible ego who pretty much believes that real life happens on the stage. Some of his one-liners were great and his character's general intentions are also comical. Emma Stone does well here, particularly in one scene where she is setting her dad (Keaton) in his place. Personally, I was most impressed by Zach Galifianakis (other than Keaton) who is subtly funny here - a far cry from his usual antics. He plays the probably-gay manager of the play who is easily frustrated, but still displays a large range.

Birdman is also a very funny film, although I found its second half much less so. It's a lot of dark humor mixed in with that commentary that I mentioned before. I would say about 75% of the jokes hit their mark with my audience, with some scenes being quite funny. Even some of its weirder scenes had some laughs hidden once you figured out what was going on.

Birdman is not a bad film at all; it's a good one. But I think that it's a film that, much like its main character, needs to be brought back down to earth. I gave it more than a fair shot but found it overly confusing just for the sake of being so, overly weird just for the sake of being so, and just generally not a film that I would praise as "one of the year's best".

I guess I'm just one of those people who DOES enjoy the big budget s**t more than these depressing films full of talking...

CONS:

• Much of its commentary is worthwhile. But I found the commentary on the state of cinema and its opinions on big budget films to be misplaced, especially in a year where many of the big budget films it trashes have been some of the best of the year. At times it comes off as pretentious and I personally cannot stand that in a film
• Weird and confusing for the sake of being weird and confusing. The film successfully pulls off this combo about half the time. The other half it's just annoying
• An atrocious original score. The random, incessant, pitter patter of the snare drums was nothing short of incredibly annoying and it goes on for almost the entire length of the film

PROS:

• Amazing performance by Michael Keaton that definitely took some cahones to say yes to. I'm sure it held a lot of personal reflection for him and it's evident in his performance. Definitely one of the best of the year
• Nearly-as-good performances from the rest of the cast including Ed Norton, Emma Stone, and Zach Galifianakis
• Great camera work that makes it seem like one continuous shot
• Darkly comedic with some hilarious situational comedy and one liners. Not all the jokes hit the mark, but when they do it's pretty damn funny
• Some fantastic commentary about the troubles of staying relevant in today's society. How does one stay relevant? Why does it matter? What's the difference if we don't? It has some great conversations about these topics
• Genius premise and the fact that it snagged Keaton for the role was equally as genius
• I enjoyed the open ending, but I imagine it confused some

Rath's Review Score: 7.5/10