Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu
Writers: Raymond Carver (Play)
Alejandro Gonzláez Iñárritu
Armando Bo
Alexander Dinerlaris Jr
Nicolás Giacobone
Runtime: 2hrs
Plot: An old comic book actor tries to make his mark on the stage but his past seems to bother him more and more.
A special request from May 21st that I just...did not get around to until the other week and then I had to do a buttload of research on too because this is just such an interesting and cool film. I'm sorry it's taken almost 2 months to get around to this Lewis, but...here it is.
First off, I wanna talk about the parallels between Michael Keaton's career as Batman and Riggan Thompson as Birdman. That sounds weird but as we know, Michael Keaton was Batman from 1989 to 1992 in the two Burton films. This film makes a lot of comparisons to the man and the character, for example at one point Riggan (Michael Keaton) is doing a press thing for his adaptation of Raymond Carver's short story What we talk about when we talk about love he mentions he hasn't played Birdman since 1992, just as when Keaton stopped being Batman. There's another moment where Riggan is talking to...I don't know whether to call it a mental health issue or just an over obsession with the character or maybe just an emotional connection based on nostalgia that he can't get rid of. But there's a scene where Riggan is talking to...whatever that is but in Birdman form and it's telling him he should do the third Birdman movie, which Riggan had rejected doing, just like Keaton had done in the past. There's a fair amount of other little things such as the design of the Birdman costume looks a hell of a lot like Batman's costume but...looks more like a bird with feathers than a leather outfit with a headpiece that restricts head movement. Both look hella cool tho.
Also, I love how much of an exaggeration of the reports that Edward Norton is a dick to work with had contributed to the character of Mike being such a pretentious dick of a method actor. Disclaimer: I have nothing against method actors, just this character being a dick with it.
I have a problem with how I went into this film being told and thinking that this was a "one-shot" film. Obviously, there would have been cuts and stuff for time and editing purposes and stuff but you see...it's not. There's a moment towards the end where the "one shot" thing just gets completely abandoned and it just kinda took me out of the whole film, I know that sounds stupid and I know that what I'm talking about is a "dream sequence" I guess, and it's near the end of the film but like...I dunno, you wanna advertise your film as a "one take" thing and then have a scene where you have multiple cuts? Seems a bit off to me. There were a few other obvious cuts such as a day to night thing but they at least made that look like time was passing and stuff.
There's a fair bit of critic bashing in this too, which I get because most of the time artists and their respective critics aren't always the best of friends, for example, Adam Sandler gets absolutely slammed for near enough every project he takes part in. Hotel Transylvania is and was a very funny comedy based on classic horror movie monsters with a message about love and letting go and stuff. Go look at the reviews for it, the poor guy got absolutely rinsed for it. The point is, this film took a look at critics, saw that some are just dicks who don't like anything and when they do they're probably bribed to write something good and it shows here. Quote: What has to happen in someone's life for them to become a critic anyway? Is a phrase said in this film and...I see where they're coming from when you see the mindset of the woman playing the critic. She thinks film actors aren't artists and for them to try and do stage work is an insult to theatre. In my wonderfully young, naive and unprofessional opinion, she's wrong as hell. Yes, theatre is an art form and to get a performance perfect and do it better night after night after night, one after the other is hard as hell. But once that play is done, it's done, the only record of it happening is playbills and reviews. Film is also an art form, and with film actors, there might not be pressure to get it perfect the first time but once that film is out in the public there's a hell of a lot of pressure to get that film seen to at least get the studio their money back. There's pressure on their public image, their career and so many other things. They do have to give a good performance but if that film doesn't do well then their career can take a hit and studio's may not want to give them a chance again. I don't think it's fair that some people don't think about this sort of thing because they should at least take it into consideration when comparing the two. For as much as I don't like some actors, it's nice to see they still get work and I'll always appreciate the work these people put in. (Unless you're Rob Schnieder, please find some other work to do, as long we don't see your face or hear your voice on screen again I'm happy, hell be a director or producer or something just...fuck man.)
I think that's all I've got to say about it, it's a good film, very good in fact. I don't know how I'd never seen it before, but I guess it's just a case of it being out there just waiting for people to watch it and if they're not gonna watch it they're not gonna watch it and that's fine, it really is, it's what freedom of choice is all about. Speaking of freedom of choice, go watch it if you liked what I said about it and have a good ass day guys.
(I'm very sorry to Lewis because this was so late) If you wanna request something for me to look at then drop a comment here or hit me up on any contact method listed on my Contact info page and I'll put whatever it is on my list for next month, unless it's already on my list for this month but y'know.
No comments:
Post a Comment