"Birdman"

[Stewball]

It pretty much lives up the buzz. The acting is probably it's strong suit; and the dark...ish dramedy/satire on how the superficial entertainment industry works, and with some really sharp dialogue as well. The thrust or direction is sort of haphazard and aimless which I think was intentional through most of it. But with the ending approaching, it seems at first like it was trying for something profound, veers off of that aiming, apparently, for "cool", but finally settling on cute. The scene with Keaton and the critic was the best part for me, even though (or maybe because) it reminded me of Anton Ego's summation at the end of Ratatouille The "Truth or Dare" exchanges between Stone and Norton on the roof was also exceptional. 9/10 (revised up from 8. See post 14 for my retake on the ending.)

[Ocelot]

I loved it. I'm not sure I understand the criticism of it being thematically simple; I didn't find that to be the case, and I'm not sure what people tend to mean when they throw a phrase like that around anyway. Birdman managed to bring up a bunch of different topics with ease and without any feeling forced.

[Stewball]

I loved it. I'm not sure I understand the criticism of it being thematically simple; I didn't find that to be the case, and I'm not sure what people tend to mean when they throw a phrase like that around anyway. Birdman managed to bring up a bunch of different topics with ease and without any feeling forced.

I think the ending felt forced, like a punchline that didn't work.

[mattorama12]

I loved it. I'm not sure I understand the criticism of it being thematically simple; I didn't find that to be the case, and I'm not sure what people tend to mean when they throw a phrase like that around anyway. Birdman managed to bring up a bunch of different topics with ease and without any feeling forced.

This thread is the first criticism I've read about it so far, but I think I understand what people mean by thematically simple. It doesn't really attempt to be profound at all. It obviously explored the ego of an artist and some kind of schizophrenia or related illness, but I don't think it was trying to say anything really new or profound about either of them. Of course it's possible I just missed some attempt at a deeper exploration of the themes, but I don't think so. Instead, it just seemed content to have a simple thematic focus, and execute stylistically. And that's not a bad thing by any means--it was done extremely well.

[Stewball]

I loved it. I'm not sure I understand the criticism of it being thematically simple; I didn't find that to be the case, and I'm not sure what people tend to mean when they throw a phrase like that around anyway. Birdman managed to bring up a bunch of different topics with ease and without any feeling forced.

This thread is the first criticism I've read about it so far, but I think I understand what people mean by thematically simple. It doesn't really attempt to be profound at all. It obviously explored the ego of an artist and some kind of schizophrenia or related illness, but I don't think it was trying to say anything really new or profound about either of them. Of course it's possible I just missed some attempt at a deeper exploration of the themes, but I don't think so. Instead, it just seemed content to have a simple thematic focus, and execute stylistically. And that's not a bad thing by any means--it was done extremely well.

A simple thematic focus on what? To what end? Is its purpose to just put together a string of detached evocative scenes? I think the end was the only part that was detached, being unable to tie it all up with some kind of coherent thought. Yeah, maybe that was the intent, but if that's the case, then it opens itself up to the accusation of sleaze--for which I would have to knock it down a few more pegs.

[Kublai Khan]

A simple thematic focus on what? To what end? Is its purpose to just put together a string of detached evocative scenes? I think the end was the only part that was detached, being unable to tie it all up with some kind of coherent thought. Yeah, maybe that was the intent, but if that's the case, then it opens itself up to the accusation of sleaze--for which I would have to knock it down a few more pegs.

Could you elaborate on what part of the ending you felt was "detached"?

[Stewball]

A simple thematic focus on what? To what end? Is its purpose to just put together a string of detached evocative scenes? I think the end was the only part that was detached, being unable to tie it all up with some kind of coherent thought. Yeah, maybe that was the intent, but if that's the case, then it opens itself up to the accusation of sleaze--for which I would have to knock it down a few more pegs.

Could you elaborate on what part of the ending you felt was "detached"?

[spoiler]If you can find a coherent thread in the ending sequences starting with flight over NYC, to shooting his nose off sparking a rave review, and then the obscure open window, or how any of that fits in with the rest of the movie, I'd appreciate being let in on the secret code.[/spoiler]

[Kublai Khan]

A simple thematic focus on what? To what end? Is its purpose to just put together a string of detached evocative scenes? I think the end was the only part that was detached, being unable to tie it all up with some kind of coherent thought. Yeah, maybe that was the intent, but if that's the case, then it opens itself up to the accusation of sleaze--for which I would have to knock it down a few more pegs.

Could you elaborate on what part of the ending you felt was "detached"?

[spoiler]If you can find a coherent thread in the ending sequences starting with flight over NYC, to shooting his nose off sparking a rave review, and then the obscure open window, or how any of that fits in with the rest of the movie, I'd appreciate being let in on the secret code.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]Well, my interpretation was that he comes to the conclusion that audiences want just explosive mindless action hero stuff. In fact the alter ego Birdman even tell him "People, they love blood. They love action. Not this talky, depressing, philosophical bullshit."

So in contemplating the regular referred to window quote of "A thing is a thing, not what is said of that thing.", Keaton decides to not play-shoot, but to actual-shoot himself. He gives the audience blood and guts, he out-"reals" the "real actor" Norton, he impresses his dedication to cinema to the critic, he guarantees that his play will make money, and he becomes a hero to his daughter. It seems to wrap up all the conflicts.

Right at the end, his bandages (with large nose portion) and the positioning of the pillow gives him a birdman-type look.


Instead of rejecting his past and trying to re-invent himself, he successfully integrates his schlocky past and impressed everyone.[/spoiler]

[Stewball]

[spoiler]Well, my interpretation was that he comes to the conclusion that audiences want just explosive mindless action hero stuff. In fact the alter ego Birdman even tell him "People, they love blood. They love action. Not this talky, depressing, philosophical bullshit."

So in contemplating the regular referred to window quote of "A thing is a thing, not what is said of that thing.", Keaton decides to not play-shoot, but to actual-shoot himself. He gives the audience blood and guts, he out-"reals" the "real actor" Norton, he impresses his dedication to cinema to the critic, he guarantees that his play will make money, and he becomes a hero to his daughter. It seems to wrap up all the conflicts.

Right at the end, his bandages (with large nose portion) and the positioning of the pillow gives him a birdman-type look.

Instead of rejecting his past and trying to re-invent himself, he successfully integrates his schlocky past and impressed everyone.[/spoiler]

Yeah, I remember thinking it might be a keep it real ploy, but dismissed it just as fast. It's an absurd goal, unless we want the Thespian community to disappear overnight, and for what real pain instead of talented actors? Yes I'm being literal but so is he if that was his point. [spoiler]And if that was they point, they should have shown him on the sidewalk below the window, but she acted like she didn't see him either up or down.[/spoiler]

[Kublai Khan]

Yeah, I remember thinking it might be a keep it real ploy, but dismissed it just as fast. It's an absurd goal, unless we want the Thespian community to disappear overnight, and for what real pain instead of talented actors? Yes I'm being literal but so is he if that was his point. [spoiler]And if that was they point, they should have shown him on the sidewalk below the window, but she acted like she didn't see him either up or down.[/spoiler]

No, you're right. It's like hitting a grand slam in the first game of the season. It's a nice slice of life, but it's probably meaningless in the long run. But then again, Keaton's character (and pretty much every character in the movie) is only focused on the present.

[spoiler]When she got to the window, she looked down, left and right, then looked up and smiled. I think it's implied that she sees him soaring, but.. does it imply that the moments of telekinesis were real? Eh.. I think it just means that she sees him as he sees himself (powerful).[/spoiler]