"Birdman" is the latest film from "21 Grams" and "Babel" director Alejandro González Iñárritu.
Actually, that might not be the real title of the movie, as journalists received the following message prior to the screening: "Please use the film's full title, "Birdman or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance," the first time the film is mentioned in an article. " Meanwhile, on IMDB the title is listed with brackets: "Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)."
If this seems a mix of confusing and pedantic, then that's in keeping with the tone of much of the film. There's a lot to admire about this work, but it also feels like it's trying too damn hard at times to be quirky and different, right down to the convoluted title.
What's it about?
Plot-wise, we follow a Hollywood star that's looking for a bit of authenticity by staging a Broadway adaptation of Raymond Carver's "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love." What's perhaps more interesting is that the film is also madness brought about through the artistic process, about coming to terms with success in its myriad of forms, and how love, jealousy and revenge can all be pretty much the same thing, depending on the moment.
A surreal and at-times-energizing fantasy, it's a backstage romp with the added elements of supernaturalism, marching bands, and some stellar camera work.
Is it really all one take?
Well, no. But famed cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki helps create that sense through some extraordinary sequences; sometimes it looks like the entire film plays out as one long moment. Through clever editing and some quite theatrical staging, the film unfolds in a captivating way. Much of the pleasure from the movie is drawn from these extended moments, but much like Hitchcock's "Rope," at times the mechanism gets in the way of the storyline.
When it works, it's an amazing and enthralling thing for any cinephile. Yet while Cuarón's Oscar-winning direction on "Gravity" proved a perfect marriage of the long take with its subject matter, at times this feels superfluous to the moments taking place, that the occasional close-up or reverse angle might actually be more engaging.
I hear this is Michael Keaton's big comeback.
Well, in some ways it is. It's not like Michael Keaton hasn't been steadily working, and he's been the best part of some pretty dull films of late ("Robocop", "Need For Speed"), but "Birdman" certainly (re-)establishes his leading man potential. Of course, the notion of a former movie superhero brings with it Keaton's own Caped Crusader baggage, leading many to suggest the role is quite literally the one he was born to play. I think this doesn't give him enough credit, as his performance is pretty terrific, and doesn't overly rely upon our own expectations of the actor.
He's joined by some other terrific actors -- Amy Ryan, for one, plays a small but integral role, and she always seems to illuminate the screen every time she shows up. Emma Stone does a decent job with an underwritten part, while Naomi Watts does more with more to work with. I really enjoyed Zach Galifanakis in this part, his attenuation of passions spot-on at the various points where he's called upon to emote. There's also Edward Norton, who has the most manic/showy of roles, and who I found not entirely convincing.
Loads of critics will pick up on Lindsay Duncan's villainous New York Times reviewer character as somehow dismissive of our own profession. I, for one, just found the role underwritten, and would hope that such a shallow, cartoon-like entity wouldn't hold a coveted, paying position at a major paper for long.
It looks really weird.
Oh it's weird, all right. Charitably, you could say the film is playful with reality. Others may deride it as mere wankery as it stumbles to create a coherent whole.
I found myself going through various phases during the film, at times ecstatic, at others bored. Scenes would begin with purpose and vigour, only to flame out as they played out in conventional ways. The single-take shtick helps the film feel longer than it is (montage can shape the way we experience time in pretty fascinating ways), and the ebb and flow between enjoyment and boredom didn't help things.
The film feels more like an interesting experiment than a fully formed film, with some bits that are genuinely terrific marred when things overstay their welcome. With a bit more grounding and some tightening up of the storyline to leave some things more vague, some things less overt, we'd have a certified masterpiece.
Instead, we're left with a flighty film that never quite soars, a bizarre "Birdman" with some great bits but a pretty unsatisfying whole. It's one of the more frustrating films of the season because of what it feels it could have been, its great parts weighted down by the baggage of those moments that really don't work. Because they're all presented as one take, the annoying parts directly relate to the moments that are sublime, another perhaps-unintended consequence of this brash method of presentation.
So, should I see "Birdman"?
Yes, you should see "Birdman," as its great parts are certainly captivating and interesting. I simply wish it was more than a pretty experiment, and that there was another way to describe it other than it's pretty plumage that gets ruffled along the way.
"Birdman" is now playing in theatres.
from The Moviefone Blog http://ift.tt/1vZfQvt
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment