11-22-2014, 09:50 AM
I know I've said I'm done with superhero flix, but then along comes Big Hero 6 & this.
Mark my words - this is an Oscar contender. It's a film about the art of acting, of broadway theater vs. blockbuster movies, of social media vs. relevance, of some big 'what's it all mean?' questions. The Academy loves that shit. It's a film that cinemaphiles can discuss at cocktail parties.
From a technical standpoint, the camerawork is fantastic. Anyone who's ever been behind a camera, Birdman is a staggering achievement (talking to y'all, Greg, cf & tg - you guys must really see this just for the camerawork). It's presented like one long continuous shot. It isn't that, of course - the choreography and cinematography is swirling and hectic and it would have been impossible to achieve what this film does that way. There are dark passages, mostly through doors, when the scene cuts are cleverly hidden. Watching so many fight scenes has me sensitized to challenge of long single shot scenes and Birdman is a stand out example of this style of filmmaking.
Also baiting the Academy, Birdman sets up long complex soliloquies for the actors to chew up scenes. Keaton hits it out of the ballpark with his self-referential, self-degrading, self satire. Norton dials in his inner prick, quite literally. Emma Stone, who has eyes the size of oranges, so big that anime characters are envious, delivered a fine performance that forces me to reassess my opinion of her. Galifinakis (sp?) is okay in a minor straight man supporting role but is way overshadowed by the rest of the cast. The film is funny, thought-provoking, dramatic and engaging.
No sword fights (but a funny wrasslin scene), no dance numbers, no dog and the set is the backstage of a theatre for the most part so I don't know if that counts. Nevertheless, Birdman gets extra credit for exploiting one of my fav elements that I don't always bring up because good examples are so rare - Birdman has excellent hallucination scenes. A good hallucination makes you question reality, makes you wonder where the line between real and surreal really might be, and Birdman nails that.
It's not a perfect film. It's long and very self-absorbed (another film about the process of acting? oh puh-leese...) It has an almost French film ending, but while this seldom works for me, it worked for me here. S was bothered that it didn't offer any answers to the philosophic questions. It just raises the questions and spins its wheels, but that's a philosophy major for you. That's a lot to expect from a film. But she's right (she always is :roll: ) - Birdman goes a lot of places, but in the end, it doesn't really get anywhere at all.
I'll be curious to read DOOM comments on it, as we're all cinemaphiles here after a fashion. Me personally, I'm more of a B-grade grindhouse cinemphile, as are many of you. Birdman is the sort of film that is fun to deconstruct.
Mark my words - this is an Oscar contender. It's a film about the art of acting, of broadway theater vs. blockbuster movies, of social media vs. relevance, of some big 'what's it all mean?' questions. The Academy loves that shit. It's a film that cinemaphiles can discuss at cocktail parties.
From a technical standpoint, the camerawork is fantastic. Anyone who's ever been behind a camera, Birdman is a staggering achievement (talking to y'all, Greg, cf & tg - you guys must really see this just for the camerawork). It's presented like one long continuous shot. It isn't that, of course - the choreography and cinematography is swirling and hectic and it would have been impossible to achieve what this film does that way. There are dark passages, mostly through doors, when the scene cuts are cleverly hidden. Watching so many fight scenes has me sensitized to challenge of long single shot scenes and Birdman is a stand out example of this style of filmmaking.
Also baiting the Academy, Birdman sets up long complex soliloquies for the actors to chew up scenes. Keaton hits it out of the ballpark with his self-referential, self-degrading, self satire. Norton dials in his inner prick, quite literally. Emma Stone, who has eyes the size of oranges, so big that anime characters are envious, delivered a fine performance that forces me to reassess my opinion of her. Galifinakis (sp?) is okay in a minor straight man supporting role but is way overshadowed by the rest of the cast. The film is funny, thought-provoking, dramatic and engaging.
No sword fights (but a funny wrasslin scene), no dance numbers, no dog and the set is the backstage of a theatre for the most part so I don't know if that counts. Nevertheless, Birdman gets extra credit for exploiting one of my fav elements that I don't always bring up because good examples are so rare - Birdman has excellent hallucination scenes. A good hallucination makes you question reality, makes you wonder where the line between real and surreal really might be, and Birdman nails that.
It's not a perfect film. It's long and very self-absorbed (another film about the process of acting? oh puh-leese...) It has an almost French film ending, but while this seldom works for me, it worked for me here. S was bothered that it didn't offer any answers to the philosophic questions. It just raises the questions and spins its wheels, but that's a philosophy major for you. That's a lot to expect from a film. But she's right (she always is :roll: ) - Birdman goes a lot of places, but in the end, it doesn't really get anywhere at all.
I'll be curious to read DOOM comments on it, as we're all cinemaphiles here after a fashion. Me personally, I'm more of a B-grade grindhouse cinemphile, as are many of you. Birdman is the sort of film that is fun to deconstruct.
Shadow boxing the apocalypse