Birdman. At first I wondered why Iñárritu was sticking all that magic realism into a perfectly good New York backstage drama. It made me suspicious; maybe, I thought, he just didn’t want it to be All About Eve all over again, and that’s why he gave the central character, Riggan, washed-up former star of an old superhero franchise, the superhero himself as an alter-ego who spurs him to narcissistic fantasies and then (spoiler) destruction — you know, the way Jimmy Cagney told Raoul Walsh, when they were trying to figure a way to make Cody the gangster in White Heat more interesting, “Why not make him nuts?”
Still, White Heat’s a pretty great movie.
There is something old-fashioned and melodramatic about the Birdman Broadway plot: Riggan has put himself in hock to finance his stage adaptation of Raymond Carver stories (hello Room Service!) and it’s a mess (hello The Bandwagon!); he loses an actor during tech week, but rejoices when a young phenom steps in (hello 42nd Street!), only to find that the phenom is a total snake-in-the-grass asshole (hello Eve Harrington!).
Of course Iñárritu’s mise en scène is a little more, um, ambitious than Joseph L. Mankiewicz’s, and the main thing about Emmanuel Lubezki’s holy-wow camerawork isn’t the single-take illusion (though that helps with the paranoid-schizo vibe) but how grubby he makes everything look, from the backstage tunnels to the canyons of Manhattan — I don’t think there’s a clean surface in the movie until we get to the hospital. And the story itself has some very contemporary modifications beyond the Birdman bit, like Riggan’s tough relationship with his daughter who’s just out of rehab. Still, there’s enough razzle-dazzle in the dialogue that even the scene that (spoiler I guess) ends in a Sapphic embrace plays like something from Out of The Frying Pan (“Why don’t I have any self-respect?” “You’re an actress, honey”).
So why the weird stuff? Well, I think it’s like this: Riggan isn’t happy. But it’s not because he’s about to lose his shirt. No, it’s because he’s doing what actors do — but unsuccessfully, aimlessly, because he doesn’t really believe in it. (The play looks awful, and his why-Carver explanation is just ridiculous.) When the phenom starts throwing around actorly shit about “truth,” it drives Riggan crazy — particularly when it works on his daughter — because he knows he’s not coming up to scratch on that score and he thinks he should be. But the truth the phenom's talking about is limited, it’s grubby and narrow and circles in on itself. And the costumed superhero is coming around because Riggan is realizing he prefers something else — and, despite what we might have assumed if the movie didn’t show us different, it isn’t his old tattered stardom. It’s magic. Even when no one else sees it, even when it’s insane, he has it. And with that he can fly. We see him fly.
We don’t see him fall. Does he fall? But with that question the movie, and all its tunnels and circles, is over.
Bonus spoiler: I don’t know if it means anything but I have this in my notes: He shoots off his nose to spite his fate.
Are you really trying to tell us that Manhattan is clean? Soft-focus rosy-tinted memory much?
ReplyDeleteCome on, Roy, is Keaton going to win the Oscar or not?
ReplyDeleteIt's the cleanest of boroughs, make of that what you will.
ReplyDelete"how grubby he makes everything look, from the backstage tunnels to the canyons of Manhattan" -- I think you may have misunderstood me.
ReplyDeleteYes.
ReplyDeleteWife and I just saw it. Her first reaction as we left was its similarity to "All That Jazz."
ReplyDeleteYes.
ReplyDeleteLoved this movie, except the ending (i.e. everything post-shooting) seemed to do nothing but detract. They committed at the point of the shooting to the movie being a tragedy, then seemed to regret that decision. (A friend of mine said, "we're supposed to care about him killing himself, and then we're supposed to care about him killing himself again?")
ReplyDeleteCould be! I liked the movie a lot and wouldn't mind if Keaton got his statuette for it. But the music shoulda been nominated (and shoulda won) — the brilliant Antonio Sanchez score was disqualified because of the inclusion of some other stuff I don't even remember.
ReplyDeleteMY batman.
ReplyDeleteCall me crazy, but I actually LIKED Mr. Mom.
ReplyDeleteIt made me laugh.
I'm the goddamn Mr. Mom!
ReplyDeleteMy Bill Blazejowski from Nightshift.
ReplyDeleteSPOILER ALERT
ReplyDeleteI have to veer off topic a bit here and mention a delightful movie I saw a couple of nights ago on Netflix: a German film called A Coffee in Berlin. Black & white. Felt at times like Woody Allen, other times like Jim Jarmusch. The director and screenwriter is one Jan Ole Gerster. I predict great things from him.
ReplyDeleteMy thought was that maybe the post-shooting didn't happen in reality, because it didn't make sense to me either. The (spoilers) attempted suicide that accidentally blows off your nose doesn't make sense, and then what's described as a horrible disfigurement actually looks like no more than a broken nose in the mirror. And it makes no sense that his circle of family and friends would respond to a suicide with such adulation, nor would the dreaded Times critic. The scene seemed to unfold as a suicidal man would fantasize it, culminating in him finally revealing his magical powers to his daughter.
ReplyDeleteOops, pardon
ReplyDeleteThat kind of makes sense to me, but I don't see it in the movie... I've heard several good suggestions trying to make sense of the ending but none of them seem inherent to the movie.
ReplyDeleteI think that the "weird stuff" [SPOILER, although it shows up in the very beginning], i.e. what seems like telekinetic powers (starting with him levitating about three feet off the ground in a lotus position), is part of the movie's meditations on how fantasy and reality get all interleaved and mashed up and about as inseparable as the strawberries and ice in a smoothie. In the process of creating his adaptation of Raymond Carver (one of the ascended saints of dirty realism), which still requires a considerable amount of stage artifice, Riggan slips more and more into the superheroic fantasy of limitless, effortless power, even as he gets into a power struggle with Edward Norton's character, whose theatrical "genius" seems to consist mostly of not faking it (demanding real booze for a drinking scene, getting a boner during a bed scene, etc.). There's a ton of metatext about superheroes, not just in casting Keaton, but Norton (cast in the Hulk remake, but replaced in The Avengers by Mark Ruffalo because of his chronic inability to play well with others) and Emma Stone (cast as Gwen Stacy in the recent Spider-Man remakes, killed off in the second one). This movie exquisitely nails how painfully, inescapably vulnerable actors are on the live stage, and why that's the reason for the continued success of live shows, despite home TVs getting ever larger and sharper. (I believe that the belated sort-of success of the beleaguered Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark Broadway show is precisely because of the possibility of an accident occurring; if the show goes off as planned, it's impressive, but if not, Instagram gold, baby. Wait... another superhero tie-in!) Balance that against the constant internal knowledge of Riggan's that if he goes back to Hollywood with his hat in hand, he could probably convince the current purveyors of the BatBirdman franchise to give him a role in it as not-Alfred or not-Commissioner Gordon that, while not equaling his old paychecks, would still be way more than he would make off of the play.
ReplyDeleteI saw it around Christmas in a movie theater in Evanston, the Chicago suburb just north of the city, and across the street from the theater there's a sculpture on top of a parking deck that looks like two people balancing on either end of an I-beam. I went at dusk, and for a second, seeing the sculpture silhouetted at twilight, I thought that there were actually a couple of crazy people up there.
Beetlejuice!
ReplyDeleteI didn't think the play was awful. It reminded me of Sam Shepard's "Fool for Love."
ReplyDeleteAmores Perros is one of my favorite movies, so I slog through everything by Iñárritu when it comes out. I like Michael Keaton a lot as well, so I really wanted to like Birman, but try as I did, I just couldn't.
ReplyDeleteNot that it was bad, and it certainly had a lot of very good about it (the acting, the score, the camerawork) It just wasn't great and I want great from Iñárritu.
I would say the magical elements detracted from the whole. It would have been enough to just have his Hollywood voice in his head. It cluttered up the other narratives and distracted from the acting and camera work.
ReplyDelete"We don’t see him fall. Does he fall?"
ReplyDeleteWe don't see him fall. What we do see is Emma Stone's expression of astonished delight. Riggan's daughter is not inside Riggan's head, so we can be sure that she is reacting to what is happening.
So no, he does not fall. He flies.
I found it distracting too. But per Roy (if I'm reading him correctly), maybe that aspect was really what the film was "about". Saw it in the theater over the holidays and will see it again to find out if it gains on subsequent viewings.
ReplyDeleteThis was my interpretation as well, though I don't know that it improves the film at all. Jeremy gets at one problem I had, which was that I had a hard time empathizing with the Riggan character. The entire film seemed a bit self-absorbed.
ReplyDeleteMe too. The wife and I quote some lines frequently ("220, 221, whatever it takes," etc.).
ReplyDelete