Directed by: Alejandro González Iñárritu.
Written by: Alejandro González Iñárritu and Nicolás Giacobone and Alexander Dinelaris and Armando Bo.
Starring: Michael Keaton (Riggan), Edward Norton (Mike), Emma Stone (Sam), Zach Galifianakis (Jake), Naomi Watts (Lesley), Andrea Riseborough (Laura), Amy Ryan (Sylvia), Lindsay Duncan (Tabitha), Jeremy Shamos (Ralph), Merritt Wever (Annie).
There
has been a law of diminishing returns with the first four movies by Mexican
director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu. As the films moved from Amores Perros
(2000) to 21 Grams (2003) to Babel (2006) to Biutiful (2010), so did Inarritu’s
ambitions – and the sense that he felt he was making VERY IMPORTANT art that
had to be taken very, very seriously. The movies became an increasing parade of
misery, that were mainly redeemed by the fact that Inarritu is a talented
visual filmmaker, and is capable of getting some great performances from his
actors (while no one has won an Oscar yet for his films, there have been five
nominations between them). His latest film, Birdman, is his first comedy – and
if that’s not a welcome enough change, the fact that it is a comedy about a
number of artists who take themselves too seriously shows that Inarritu may in
fact have a sense of humor about himself – and how he is perceived. Either that
or Birdman is little more than a bitter rant by an artist who despite a lot of
success, is still angry that some don’t take him and his work as seriously as
he takes it. But I’ll give Inarritu the benefit of the doubt on that one.
The
film stars Michael Keaton as Riggan Thomsen, who 20 years ago was a huge movie
star in a series of comic films – entitled Birdman. But he walked away from
that stardom, and in the interim doesn’t seem to have done very much (or at
least anything the movie lets us know). He is now about to make his Broadway
debut – having adapted Raymond Carver’s What We Talk About When We Talk About
Love for the stage, as well as directing the play, and playing the lead
character. His life is in chaos – his latest girlfriend, and co-star Laura
(Andrea Riseborough) thinks she’s pregnant. His recovering drug addict daughter
Sam (Emma Stone) is working as his assistant. One of the key actors in his play
is horrible, but when he gets hit in the head by a falling light, he has a
chance to recast the roll – only to discover that all the actors he wants to
cast are making superhero movies. He finally settles on Mike (Edward Norton), a
committed method actor, who is a mess offstage, but brilliant on it. This is
even more complicated since he is dating co-star Lesley (Naomi Watts), and
hitting on Sam. The previews are about to start the next day, and Riggan, along
with his partner/lawyer/producer Jake (Zach Galifianakis) are trying
desperately to hold everything together – even as he mentally falls apart. He
hears the voice of Birdman (also Keaton, but made to sound like Christian Bale
in the Nolan Batman movies) in his head telling him he’s worthless – and he’s
starting to think he may well be right.
Birdman
works best when it’s at its broadest – which thankfully is most of the time.
The movie doesn’t really have any particularly original to say – it’s insights
into the shallowness of fame and superhero obsessed culture, where “twitter is
a real thing” isn’t really all that profound, and doesn’t really go very deep
(then again perhaps the shallowness of that culture doesn’t deserve very deep
treatment). Neither is the movies insight into how hard being an artist can be.
Everyone in the movie is a caricature – from Keaton’s has been star trying to
be relevant to Norton’s method actor insanity to Riseborough and Watts as
insecure, aging actress (seriously, we didn’t need two of them – and Watts in
particular shows she could have done so much more than the movie gives her to
do), to Stone’s entitled daughter, blaming her daddy for all her issues, to Amy
Ryan, as the perfect ex-wife who got away, to Lindsay Duncan as a New York
Times critic who wields an unrealistic amount of power, and relishes it to
insane degrees – no one is above Inarittu’s scorn, although some more lovingly
than others.
To
a certain extent, Birdman feels like nothing more than Inaritu and his collaborators
showing off for two hours – which may sound insufferable, except for the fact
that they are so good at it. The cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki outdoes the
long takes he did in such movies as Alfonso Cuaron’s Children of Men (2006) or
Gravity (2013). Although the movie takes place over the span of a few days, the
entire film is made up of a series of very long tracking shots, nearly
seamlessly cut together to make it all look like one continuous shot. It is all
ridiculously complex, and requires perfect timing from all involved – and they
make it look effortlessly. The performances in the film are all wonderful.
Keaton has to bounce from one extreme emotion to the next, often in the same
scene and he makes it all seem to make sense. It’s tempting to say he’s playing
a version of himself, since like Riggan, he was one of the first superhero
movie stars, who turned down a sequel, and has never recaptured that star
again. But that’s not really true – as Keaton has always seemed like the type
of actor who doesn’t really give a shit about stardom, and has simply done
whatever the hell he wants. This may well be the best work of his career. Even
better is Norton, as Mike, the egotistical method actor – also brilliantly
playing off his own image as an egomaniac who is impossible to work with, but
delivers greatness onscreen. He shares some real chemistry with Stone in their
scenes together – who is also doing career best work as the damaged daughter.
The rest of the cast is in fine form – but these three are great.
Birdman
isn’t quite the masterpiece that some have made it out to be – at least not to
me. It’s fun from beginning to end, with great cinematography, direction and
performances. But I do wish it had gone a little bit deeper – and pushed a
little bit further. Yes, being an artist is hard, and the culture around it is
rather shallow. Inaritu is perhaps a little too enamored with Riggan – and
doesn’t go far enough in examining him. Perhaps being an artist is so hard for
Riggan because he just isn’t very good at it. Is it just me, or does the play
he’s working on look horrible?
No comments:
Post a Comment