Friday 16 January 2015

Film: 'Birdman'

This film has received fulsome praise from multiple directions. However, I'm not going to pretend to join the applause. I feel I ought to have liked it more, and could well do so on second viewing, but for an initial reaction more positive feelings are wanting.

First of all, must admit that I wasn't in a very receptive mood yesterday. 'Birdman' has been around on screens here since before Xmas, and now at the tail-end of its cinema run I was determined to catch it on the big screen, particularly as such marvellous things have been said about it. Unfortunately this meant taking a chance that it would be okay to leave my ageing black cat, disappear for five hours and return in the dark, expecting to find him sitting outside, lone and vulnerable, awaiting my re-appearance. Anyway, I'm afraid that his plight kept returning to my mind whilst travelling to and from the cinema, and on and off while the film was playing, wondering if I'd done the right thing and would regret it. As it turned out, I returned to find him sleeping on my bed in the very same spot in which I'd left him!

In 'Birdman' Michael Keaton plays an actor approaching advanced years, most renowned for having appeared as the film's eponymously-titled hero in a three-film franchise. He's now trying to transform and lift his career from the doldrums into a live theatre actor through a Raymond Carver relationship drama, while having to put up with know-it-all Edward Norton who comes in to replace his injured co-principal lead in the play.  Most of the action is concerned with the sparks these two strike off one another outside the play through their respective highly abrasive and confrontational  personalities. Keaton also has, incidentally, telekinetic powers (don't ask!), as well as he being regularly sniped at by the snarky, critical voice of the 'Birdman' character he'd created. There are a number of highly surreal moments in the film, the most extended one being in the film's final quarter when the owner of this ghost voice makes a fully-feathered appearance.

For me the most distracting aspect of the film (and this is one which is being remarked on as a brilliant tour-de-force) is the camerawork. It's all done very smoothly as if it to suggest that the entire film has been made in just one single camera take, with its continuous perspective gliding here and there, inside the theatre and its rooms and out on the street, veering round corners, up and down stairs, glancing this way and that - I found myself wondering where it would go next and who would be the next player to come into shot, more than the film's actual content. (Alfred Hitchcock tried much the same thing in his film 'Rope', though that was all set in a single room and the technical limitations of the time mean that one can tell where the 'joins' are - around every 10 minutes.)  I wouldn't deny that the camerawork in 'Birdman' is an accomplishment, but to what end?, I ask myself.
The non-cliche script was, on the whole, impressively constructed.
Acting from all parties is excellent. I'd single out Naomi Watts - and there's the unexpected two-scene appearance of the marvellous Lindsay Duncan as a blood-freezing theatre critic determined to destroy the play and Keaton's career along with it. As for Keaton himself, his performance has 'award' written all over it, and he'd not be an unreasonable choice as winner. I doubt if he's ever been so stretched on film up to now. (The Oscar nominations were actually announced yesterday while I was in the cinema. I'm still rooting for Eddie Redmayne to win, with Keaton as an also-ran.)

'Birdman' is a curious, unusual film, presented with total visiual confidence through the unfettered imagination of Mexican director Alejandro Innarritu, who fully utilises cinematic technique the way it's possible be used. Though after it was all over I did look back and find it all somewhat a bit overburdened with camera tricksiness which skewed it away from a strong central focus. Incidentally, I gave similar very qualified approval for the widely well-received 'Grand Budapest Hotel' (also nominated for Oscars) which was remarkable visually, often glorious to look at, but otherwise over-dressed for the slightness of its story. I offer rather different reasons for giving 'Birdman' a like-reserved 'yes'.
Oh, and one more thing. I've seen/read critics calling this a 'funny', even 'very funny' film. Apart from a few amusing one-liners I didn't really see much to laugh at in it at all.

As I say at the start, if I were to see 'Birdman' again I'm pretty sure that my opinion would be higher than it is now - and hope that next time I wouldn't have to be battling thoughts again about my cat! But for an initial appraisal, after just one viewing, and fully aware that my judgment may make some shake their heads at my failure to recognise a 'masterpiece', I must be honest - which means awarding it a..................6..




20 comments:

  1. I have to admit that I was disappointed at your rating since I really loved this movie. But I can understand how "mood" can affect your experience. Glad that your worry was needless and that he was serenely sleeping.

    When I went to see this, I was in a very receptive mood. It was filmed at the St . James where I spent many hours and have some wonderful memories and I got to see NYC.

    I do agree with you on some things: (1) I didn't find much to laugh at. (2) "Budapest Hotel" was over-dressed - one of the few films I have walked out off. (3) I'm also rooting for Redmayne .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul, pleased to see that you're there. I'd started to think that you might have been having computer troubles, especially since your not making any comment about 'into the Woods'. Perhaps you haven't seen it? - as yet?

      Your very positive view of 'Birdman' was uppermost in my mind when I was writing the above, as well as while actually watching the film, so I was definitely expecting to like it substantially more than I did. I think you said in a recent comment that your own 'Film of 2014' was between this and 'Boyhood' - and praise hardly gets any higher than that. Of course your personal connection to where it was filmed will have given a major boost to your appreciation.
      Btw: I found it satisfying to see that 'Matilda' was playing at a nearby theatre. Not that I've seen it but it did get very good reviews when it opened, and it's got both music and lyrics written by the talented Brit/Aussie comedian, Tim Minchin who, at least from what I know about him and from his TV appearances, seems to be a nice bloke.

      I'd forgotten what BBC Radio's chief film critic had said about 'Birdman' when it opened (it was so many weeks ago) but just an hour ago he recapped his view as he comments on the British Top 10 Box Office takings - and it's still in there (just). He said he thought that it's been over-rated, he found the camerawork too distracting and he thought the film was "full of itself". Not that that means that I was right, only that two of us agree - though we're still in a minority.

      I'm quite taken aback by reading that you actually walked out from 'Budapest'. I would have thought that the visuals alone would have been reason enough to stay, though for some I suppose that all those vivid colours might have been headache-inducing. I walk out from maybe two films a year (though never until I've watched at least 2/3 of it), but I wouldn't have considered that this one would have been so bad as to cause that ultimate act of indignation. I suppose that you, unlike me, would not like to see it again. It comes on to one of the Movie channels this week for the first time, one which I don't receive.

      I've a feeling that Keaton will pick up the Best Actor Oscar. The form is usually that when there are two or three strong Brits against an especially strong American, the majority of those voting will be in favour of their plucky compatriot.

      I want to see 'Birdman' again, just to check that I wasn't wrong, though I don't think I'd pay to see it again, rather wait for it to turn up on the telly. Whereas 'Woods' I would like to re-see in the cinema and would be willing to pay for a second experience.

      ....and Blackso wishes to thank you for your concern.



      Delete
    2. Ray, I haven't seen "Into The Woods" nor do I intend to see it. I have fond memories of it from the 80's and I do not want to watch Ms. Streep ruin it as she did with two of my favorite plays: "Doubt" and "August: Osage County." I read that Rob Marshall is planning on bringing Sondheim's "Follies" to the screen and, of course, La Streep is the No. 1 choice to play the role of Phyllis.

      "Budapest" aired on HBO recently and I gave it another shot. I got a little further into it than I did at the theater, but still couldn't get into it. Some beautiful images of the hotel, trains, outrageous costumes, but MEH! - one of Anderson's worst.

      I'm sounding so negative today.

      I share your feeling that Keaton will pick up the Best Actor Oscar. We are into Awards Season and The Critics' Choice Awards was televised the other night. Keaton picked up two: Best Actor In A Comedy and Best Actor. As I wrote before, I don't consider "Birdman" a comedy. I'm still rooting for Redmayne.

      Delete
    3. Must confess to being a little disappointed at your deciding not to see 'Woods' as your opinion would have been of even more interest than that of some others. But I respect your decision not to go. Anything that disturbs precious memories is not to be taken lightly. Incidentally, it's doing very well indeed at our cinemas (surprisingly but also reassuring). It's been taken up by the big chains and with some mutiplexes showing it on more than one screen simultaneously. The audience reaction when I went was very favourable too.

      Hadn't heard about 'Follies' being filmed, which I saw twice on stage - Diana Rigg, Daniel Massey - and Julia Mckenzie, again - she being much the British equivalent for Sondheim as Bernadette Peters was. So when and if it appears, comparisons will abound. I can't see it being as much of a success as 'Woods' because it's much more subtle and 'adult' - though 'Woods' also did go to some dark places for the second part.

      I badly want to see 'Budapest' again - and maybe on the back of the Oscar nomination it'll get a short re-appearance in the cinema. I'm feeling a bit guilty that I might have been a bit too harsh on it.

      I'm glad you say that you didn't see 'Birdman' as a comedy as that was precisely what I wanted to ask you - whether you thought it was 'funny', which I did in no way - apart from a few sharp one-liners.
      I think what Keaton also has going for him is his age. Those qualified to vote will be thinking that at his age he deserves to win, and this could well be his last chance - the sympathy vote. All of which doesn't get round the 'fact' that depriving the extraordinary performance of Eddie R will be a travesty.

      Pencilled in three more films for the coming week, one of which has got some Oscar nominations. Ah, but which?.....

      Delete
  2. Raybeard,
    I'm trying to get an e mail to you. Unsuccessful so far. If you are welcoming of such...can you go on fearsome and click the Fearsome sells San diego link and on there is a contact button. Send me a contact and I will resend my two e mails that were returned. Thanks! FB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will do, FB. I'm honoured!

      Delete
    2. Ok watched this last night. Your description of "curious and unusual" is a term I can use that wouldn't be to harsh but accurate.
      I did not like this film.
      Tha acting is amazingly well done, the camera work great. The story is horribly negative, quirky and not believable. The film does make a strong statement about Hollywood, Broadway and actors. While very well portrayed the characters are too far out there and not believable.
      Don't get me wrong, I don't expect all films to be Cinderella, but at least one charachter should be available to the audience to relate to, one charachter that evolves. These are all self centered crazy people that are just not believable outside of an asylum.

      Delete
    3. Sounds like you too didn't find this film as 'funny' as many critics have done, F.B., which I find reassuring. I think I hardly smiled even the once!
      Yes, there was really no one to whom we could relate, which isn't always necessary, but if there isn't there ought to be a strong grounding of some sort of moral dimension on which to impose our own emotions. Here it seemed to be all but absent.
      I agree that the acting throughout was good though finding the camerawork too self-regarding and showily distracting.
      I'm still guessing that Keaton will pick up the Oscar and, were it not for Eddie Redmayne being in the running, if Keaton were to get it I wouldn't be overly fussed. If however he does win over our Eddie I'll be livid!
      The entire film of 'Birdman' is a bit of a drug-induced trip (or I should imagine it is, never having taken any recreational drugs myself). There are moments of near-lucidity among the fantastic ramblings but it all comes wrapped in a fog of unreality. Worth a viewing, perhaps - but only as a one-off.

      Delete
  3. Ray,
    What I like about your film reviews, in addition to being well written and balanced is your total honesty. You owe nothing to no one (you livelihood doesn't depend on kissing up to the Powers That Be) . I'll admit when I read over the top reviews of the previews of movies like "Birdman" I am always a bit skeptical because all too often those reviewing are the insiders (movie industry) and love the "inside" jokes and revelations which all too often escape us, the Great Unwashed Masses. I've always liked Michael Keaton and have thought he was underrated so I will see this movie, with reservations. Tricky camera work often doesn't work for me but distracts my attention from the film. Sometimes I think that directors employ such devices to make up for the lack of a storyline.
    Thank you again for yet another incisive movie review.
    Ron

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My pleasure, Ron. I've been very lucky indeed in getting no really hostile reactions since I started reviewing - there's only been one which went beyond a simple disagreement and descended to personal ridicule, but of course I don't mind a bit when others have different views which are cogently expressed, which is totally fine by me.
      if you're a Keaton fan (and I find him a bit more than just okay) you'll be astonished at the range of emotions he produces in 'Birdman'. I think he's now edged Redmayne out to now become Oscar favourite. In spite of my reservations I still wouldn't hesitate to recommed giving the film a view. My esteemed blogpal Paul rates at as one of THE films of last year, if not the best of all, so that needs taking notice of and the verbal tussles with Edward Norton are rewarding to be witness to. (Sorry for all those endings on preposition!)
      Now gotta go - another film coming up.

      Delete
  4. Ray,
    I've always considered Michael Keaton to be one of our most underrated actors.
    Ron

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe, Ron, though his output hasn't been as great in number as some - and only a few of them might be considered as 'distinguished'. However, there's no doubt that 'Birdman' can fairly be described as being in that rare category.

      Delete
  5. I was commenting this morning that I want to see this movie before it leaves. Your insights have helped set my expectations but have not dissuaded me. I am intrigued to see it.

    I confess I'm tired of all the hype about the camera work. It is an interesting gimmick but a gimmick nonetheless. When the camera work pulls focus from the story one has taken a step in the wrong direction The last time I saw it used effectively was in the opening of Altman's The Player and, even then, I found it distracting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The camerawork definitely skewed it for me, HK, though in itself it was 'interesting', though for the wrong reasons.
      The film ought to be seen, if only for Keaton's performance which, I'd argue, is surely his most extended and testing on screen.
      I'd like to give the film a second viewing and have a strong feeling that were I to do so my opinion would be revised upwards.

      Delete
  6. I was just about to write we are probably going to see this tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope you manage it, Dr Spo. If so,I'm banking on getting individual opinions from both you and Someone else.

      Delete
    2. Alas, we both took naps rather. :-( Perhaps next weekend.

      Delete
    3. The question is, which will you value more? Having had your nap or having seen said film? It's delicately poised.

      Delete
    4. I am seeing naps more and more valuable than anything!

      Delete
    5. And I was wondering if it was just me who gets the most satisfaction, even 'fun' in my life, during sleep!

      Delete