Saturday, April 18, 2015

BIG SCREEN: Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) - (Rated R)

If you pay any attention to movie industry scuttlebutt, no doubt you’ve heard at least some of the Oscar buzz surrounding Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance). Critics are falling all over themselves with praise for it, declaring it the year’s best film, and a shoo-in for an Academy Award or two. But, for me, this wasn’t a simple thumbs-up or thumbs-down kind of movie. (Gasp!) If that excludes me from the cool kids’ table, well -- I can live with that. Probably won’t be the last time.

Birdman is a dark comedy that stars Michael Keaton as Riggan Thomson, an aging actor whose uber successful super-hero movie franchise made him rich and famous back in the day. Decades later, we find him plagued by (a) self-doubt, (b) the notion that he sold his soul and integrity to Hollywood, and (c) a menacing phantom voice -- that of Riggan as Birdman (a la, Keaton as Batman) -- which constantly fills his head with delusions of grandeur and super powers from yesteryear. In an attempt to prove his relevance and regain some dignity, Riggan is writing, directing and starring in a Broadway play, based on the work of the highly respected writer and poet, Raymond Carver. He’s desperate for the play to be successful, and terrified it’ll fail -- and with good reason, especially considering the cast of characters surrounding him.

First, there’s his troubled daughter (Emma Stone) who’s fresh out of rehab, begrudgingly working as his assistant, and hellbent on constantly reminding him of his failures as a father and a legitimate actor. His jittery producer (Zach Galifianakis) is truly trying to be supportive of his friend, but recognizes the potential disaster at hand, and is ready to just pull the plug and go home. His new co-star (Edward Norton) is a loose cannon and veteran of the theater. He’s beloved by the critics and represents Riggan’s most urgent desires and fears, while undermining him at every turn. His lead actress (Naomi Watts) is the embodiment of all the worst acting stereotypes -- desperate for validation, emotionally fragile, and a terrible judge of character -- both her own and others’. There’s also a horribly elitist New York Times theater critic (Lindsay Duncan) who promises to destroy the show, based merely on her hatred of Riggan’s Hollywood pedigree. And finally, there’s Birdman himself. Though he’s a figment of Riggan’s imagination, his incessant nagging about returning to their vapid, but lucrative and familiar movie roots seems destined to send Riggan right over the edge. Quite literally.

That’s really the big, lingering question throughout the movie… will Riggan go completely insane, or will he achieve the critical success he craves?

It’s a pretty good premise, right? I think we all can relate to his inner conflict as he strives to reach his goal. Should you measure success by wealth, or by personal satisfaction? Is your identity based on who you think you are, or how others perceive you? Can you possibly hope to completely overhaul your life and correct past mistakes in your later years?

Great questions. But I can’t say that Birdman does a particularly thorough job addressing them.

While it’s fascinating to witness the dissection of these egomaniacal, narcissistic actors and the battle of Hollywood schlock vs. Broadway grit, in order to really connect with a movie’s characters and their struggles, I really need to either sympathize with them, or to find them relatable. There are moments -- squeezed in between wink-wink, nudge-nudge industry jokes about X-men prequels and Robert Downey, Jr.’ acting abilities -- when Birdman comes awfully close to achieving this. It frequently hovers right on the edge, but because it remains so focused on Riggan the actor and all the sad and comical trappings of the profession, I never got that raw, painful moment of truth I was hoping for, when all the artifice is stripped away, and we get to the core of the actual man. Maybe that was their point -- that there’s nothing behind an actor’s facade? But, I doubt it. That seems a bit too cynical, even by Hollywood standards.

All that being said, Birdman has a lot of other things going for it. While so many movies today go crazy with quick edits and jumpy hand-held camera sequences, Birdman takes the opposite approach with smooth, seamless long shots that create an endlessly unflinching effect throughout the movie. It’s also filled with really great performances. I mean, how could you go wrong with a cast like this? Especially with Keaton providing such enormous depth and texture, and Norton bringing his signature intensity and humor. I can certainly see how the Oscar buzz could pertain to the two of them.

Despite what I perceived as its shortcomings, Birdman is still a good movie, and worth seeing for its originality, cinematic style and great acting ensemble. I’ll be curious to see if moviegoers will be as blown away as the overwhelming majority of critics, or if they’ll be with me at the “uncool” kids’ table. (There’s plenty of room, I’ll save you a seat.)

0 comments:

Post a Comment