Birdman

Birdman has a Woody Allen-esque theme and environment conveyed by the unique optics of Lubezki’s long shots, but without Woody’s wit and detached perspective and with irritating jazz disharmony. An occasional good scene (Times Square in boxer shorts, waking up on the sidewalk), some occasional good dialogue (Emma Stone and Edward Norton on the roof) and always great actors. But for an uplifting “artistic” experience, this portrait of a mid-life crisis and creative burnout is not enough for me. (02/17/2015)

Watching Birdman was very hard for me. In fact, it took me about the first twenty minutes to even figure out what I was watching. After those twenty minutes, I still wasn’t quite sure what was reality and what was fiction, but at least I was beginning to notice the outrageously perfect camera that shot everything without me feeling any cuts in the scene. Some moments were absolutely divine, and it seemed to me as if some of the actors were having endless dialogues, in which I wondered how they were able to remember so many lines. And since I doubt they remembered them by heart, I bow down before their perfect improvisation abilities. Whatever else could be said about it, this film will show you that Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, Naomi Watts and Zach Galifianakis can act like gods. I perceive this film a bit as a celebration of acting, but it also contains a feel of a certain ignorance and contempt for Hollywood. Everyone seems spell-bound by some kind of an oracle who knows everyone and makes them appear on the screen to justify themselves. Thus we see Michael Keaton making fun of superheroes despite playing one. When Edward Norton appears on the stage, he immediately starts to give everyone orders. Zach Galifianakis is unusually serious here and Emma Stone has a few dialogues that will take your breath away. Birdman is an incredibly strange film. Distinctive, never boring during its two-hour running time and definitely worth remembering. It’s not for everyone, but whoever wants to give it their attention will undoubtedly enjoy this movie full of well-made shots. And will fall madly in love with at least a few of its actors. (01/27/2015)

Finally a true animated movie which means the same for the theater what the Day for Night (1973) meant for movie industry back than. And its qualities are best illustrated by the fact that, although it has a form that is as captivating and immersive as the fascinating technical side and its consistent execution (I don't remember when visual effects were used so abundantly in almost every shot and still only "a good servant and not a bad master", as is an unfortunate standard today), so you film remember this movie for a long time. I'm just wondering how to approach the final scene. It is no less excellent than the mosaic of (un) theatrical (un) backstage, where "everyone drives the show for a while", which precedes it, but how can get you excited with gradation, emotions and ending of Keato... Um, Riggan's line, everyone and everything else is being sidelined so the movie can fully concentrate on this; and this is, on the one hand, pity, and then, thanks to that, it gives (the question for 10 points whether erroneous or justified) the impression of losing pace. In any case, the best "art for general public" (and this is not exceptionally meant to be negative) ever. (01/22/2015)

Iñárritu's debut Amores Perros once knocked me off my feet and I developed a special relationship and understanding with this Latin American director. None of his other films surpassed that debut, but I never gave Iñárritu less than 4 stars, simply because it wasn't necessary. I went into Birdman with a sense of certainty that I couldn't go wrong regardless of the positive reviews, yet after just ten minutes, I felt that I was missing the director's vision of the world this time. With every passing minute, my displeasure and rejection of what I saw grew. On the way back, I drove through red lights at intersections, scaring pedestrians on crosswalks with a devilish laugh. But that still didn't help; I had a perfectly ruined evening. If I had relied solely on emotions, it would have turned out even worse than a mere 2 stars, but I can't deny Iñárritu's formal filmmaking quality. I simply don't like theatrical, pretentious, and affected films. I avoid the term pseudo-intellectual because it is often used by ultra-right-wingers to label uncomfortable individuals, but the term pseudo-intellectual fits this film like a screw to a nut. A typical example of midcult, desperately pretending to have intellectual depth. Some time ago, a doctor diagnosed me with a throat infection and prescribed a treatment regimen. After completing it, I locked myself in the toilet for two sunsets and observed my stool to see if I was okay. I find Iñárritu's approach to be similar to that unpleasant activity of mine. If there's anything I can appreciate, it's Edward Norton's performance. His confident and spoiled theater star played with pleasure is the highlight of the film; this type of selfish jerk suits Norton perfectly. Emma Stone's presence was also nice. I anticipated the Academy Award nominations for her, and I think this kind of artistic torment and perspective suits her perfectly. Personally, I say - never again to this film... Overall impression: 40%. (03/02/2015)

What an amazing film experience! Birdman is a sad story about a broken man who longs for the recognition he will never receive. So, basically, your typical Iñarritú’s downer, but this time wrapped in a very refreshing and energetic format. We can debate about the ending, and I’m going to write my opinion on it (spoiler!), so if you haven’t watched the film yet, stop reading now! The entire film is about Riggan trying to gain recognition and long lost glory. He’s convinced that he has abilities that those around him don’t appreciate. He’s not so much after inner artistic expression, he simply wants his play to be successful. When he realises that an unlikeable and influential critic will bury his play at any cost, he attempts to “buy” its success with one last desperate idea: suicide on stage, but not a real suicide – that would simply kill him. With manifest and embarrassingly vulgar gestures he tries to give the aura of an artist who has put at stake his life for his work. Cheap attraction, action, people want to see blood, they are used to it from mainstream movies. The audience applauds, the critic leaves in disgust because Riggan did exactly what she was expecting, maybe even worse. And Riggan dies, because when someone puts a gun to their head and shoots, they usually die. This is followed by a montage (!) and the epilogue. Thus far, the film pretended to be shot in a single take, even if it jumps in time and space, or when we follow the real Riggan or his hallucination. Since the epilogue is separated by the montage, it should make some sense that what we are watching is something different than we’ve been watching so far. It can’t be an alive Riggan, nor can it be what an alive Riggan is imagining while doing something else. To me it’s just an image of how Riggan would have liked his suicide-as-manifesto to ideally work out: a) he doesn’t die: b) the stunned critic writes a positive review, even though she said she would never do it; c) people are interested in him again; d) his daughter acknowledges what he has within himself and his miraculous abilities (the final look upwards). (End of spoilers). So, as I say, quite a downer, but I’m sure other people can have a different opinion. And that’s what’s so great about it. (01/24/2015)