Showing posts with label Alejandro Gonzalez Inarittu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alejandro Gonzalez Inarittu. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Who Needs Batman When You Can Have "Birdman"?

Birdman
"Hey, I'm in this movie too, Keaton, and I'm pretty damn good."
Movies about actors and the industry can be annoying.  There are usually a lot of in-jokes and most of the characters are egomaniacal and unlikable.  Birdman doesn’t buck the trend of in-jokes or unlikable characters, but it is certainly funny and one of the most entertaining films of the year…although some might still find it a bit annoying.

Birdman is about fading actor Riggan Thomson’s attempt to gain respect by directing and starring in a stage production of Raymond Carver’s “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” on Broadway.  That sounds awfully pretentious (and it kind of is, which is the point), but it’s less about the play Riggan’s putting on than it is about himself.  Riggan has some ego/fame issues.  After giving up playing a superhero (Birdman) for the big studios, he has now become something of a footnote.  Riggan hopes his play will somehow show the world how great he (still) is. 

Birdman is much more complicated than that, though.  First off, Riggan has superpowers.  Or at least he thinks he does.  The first time we see Riggan, he is levitating in his dressing room.  The film has multiple sequences of magical realism that may or not actually be happening (there’s a stronger case for them not actually happening, however).  Regardless, Riggan’s “powers” just show how egotistical he is.  As if that’s not enough, he also hears the voice of Birdman, who is constantly deriding this artistic move and urges Riggan to go back to the blockbuster scene.  As you can imagine, this allows for plenty of thoughts about the state of Hollywood, acting, fame, etc.  It’s all very existential and interesting on multiple levels.

For instance, when you read the name Michael Keaton most people will automatically think of Batman.  Keaton famously decided not to play Batman for a third time and has been less relevant ever since.  His casting adds another layer to consider.  (For the record, Keaton claims he has less in common with this character than any other he has portrayed.)  The meta casting does not stop there.  Edward Norton plays a famously difficult actor who is combative throughout (Norton has been accused of being difficult many times).  Oh, and Norton also once played the Incredible Hulk.  Emma Stone, who plays Riggan’s troubled daughter, was in The Amazing Spiderman.  And there are a few references to other actors involved with superhero movies as well.  This is perhaps Birdman’s most relevant theme: the superhero film’s destruction of actual acting.  Now more than ever, Hollywood is obsessed with superheroes.  Both Marvel and DC have movies planned out for the rest of the decade.  Birdman is very much an anti-superhero movie.  Sure, there are plenty of movies that are not superhero movies, but this one is making a point by defiantly not being a superhero movie.  Birdman isn’t likely to take away from the audience of those other films, but it proves a film can be more entertaining and certainly more interesting with a good script, great performances, and some inventive camerawork. 

Speaking of camerawork, Birdman is getting a bit of attention for being cut to appear as if it is one long take.  This is not a gimmick, even though it adds a respectable layer of difficulty to the process.  The camerawork actually fits into the free-flowing nature of the film.  This is not just about Riggan.  The camera wanders throughout the theatre stopping in on an assortment of characters.  It helped create the feeling of chaos that surrounds the production of the play Riggan is staging.  The percussion heavy score adds to that chaos, too, making Birdman one of the most frenetic films of the year.  It’s fun, though, rather than exhausting.

The film is about so many things it’s hard to pinpoint what the overall experience is about really.  It might sound pretentious, but Birdman is simply about life: love, art, ego, comedy, fame, etc.  It’s all there, and there are plenty of messages to be gleaned from the film, but one moment summed it up best for me.  During one of the more chaotic times for Riggan, he comes across a man yelling Macbeth’s famous soliloquy about life being “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”  Birdman is certainly full of “sound and fury,” and maybe it’s even about nothing.  But Macbeth was pretty crazy when he said that, so what does he know?  I, for one, found that to be a key scene.  Everything is too complicated to be boiled down to some singular point or lesson.  I could go on and on about different issues presented by the film, but I’ll just point out one that is very relevant for this review.

At one point, Riggan verbally assaults a theater critic.  He rants at the critic, telling her all she is doing is labeling things.  She’s not really saying anything.  She’s not really doing anything.  Is that a fair assessment of criticism (a criticism of criticism, if you will)?  I think so.  I’ve always held that my reviews are simply opinions.  I cast judgment, sure, but I write in the first person because I know my views are not definitive.  Who am I to tell you if something is good or bad?  All I can do is give my personal opinion of it.  This is dangerous territory for writer/director Alejandro Iñárritu, however, because no matter how good your argument is, it still comes across as a bit petty when you write a rant aimed at critics.  But then again, isn’t every review a rant (good or bad) aimed at the filmmakers?  Hmm…okay, it’s cool with me, Iñárritu, especially if you keep making awesome movies like this.  Give those critics hell!

This film took me by surprise because I was expecting an acting display first and a film second.  Keaton has been the focus of all press and previews for the film, and rightfully so, to the point that it seems like it’s a one-trick pony.  Keaton is certainly amazing.  He is funny, sad, intense, and utterly believable in this role.  Most importantly, he makes what should be a hated character likable.  I should not have wanted things to work out for him, but I did.  I credit Keaton for that.  He is absolutely entertaining and is on par with the rest of the filmmaking.  The rest of the cast is up to task as well.  They’re all great, but Emma Stone stands out mainly for one great scene she has with Keaton.  But it’s Edward Norton who nearly steals the show.  He may be playing a perceived version of himself, but it’s so good.  I loved the scenes in which he is “acting” as much as his “real” moments.  This film reminded me how great of an actor he can be (not that he’s been bad; it just seems like great roles like this have been few).  I foresee at least one Oscar for this cast, but I hope I see two. 

Birdman obviously worked for me.  It made me laugh consistently but also think about life, love, the film industry, fame, viral fame, ego, criticism, etc.  The film juggles so many ideas while also being visually impressive.  It is easily one of the year’s best films.

Birdman receives a:

Thursday, January 27, 2011

"Biutiful"

Biutiful - Directed by Alejandro González Iñárittu, written by Iñárittu, Armando Bo, and Nicolas Giacobone, starring Javier Bardem - Rated R

It's very fitting that I can give this movie a Bardem-worthy Chigurh.



Biutiful, the latest from filmmaker Alejandro González Iñárittu (21 Grams, Babel, Amores Perros), is not a pretty film. The film, which is mainly about death, is gritty in the best sense of the word. The world of the film is lived in and realistic, even though the film itself has a supernatural undertone. It’s a tough film to sit though, but it is ultimately very rewarding.

Consider the above paragraph the full review if you want to go into this one fresh, which I highly advise. This isn’t a big twist ending kind of movie or anything, but if you only have a vague idea of what the film is about it will most likely be a much more rewarding experience. The rest of the review won’t be filled with spoilers or anything, but it will spoil the supernatural element, so be warned.

Biutiful is about Uxbal (Javier Bardem), a single father who is about to die of cancer. He has to deal with an estranged wife, dealings with illegal immigrants, and the fact that he can talk with the recently deceased. Yes, you read that last part right. Don’t be alarmed, though, this is not a Spanish version of The Sixth Sense. The supernatural element is extremely toned down, but the issue of death in general certainly is not.

Death is in Bardem’s eyes throughout this entire film. He gives a truly understated performance (it was great to see him get an Oscar nomination for Best Actor this week). Much of the film focuses on Bardem’s facial expressions and you can see such desperation in his face. It’s a very sad performance that will stick with you after the credits roll.

When the camera isn’t focused on Bardem’s face, there are some interesting things going on. A careful viewer is rewarded with very slight visual effects (reflections, shadows, etc.) that make the film a bit unsettling at times. Unsettling is a good thing when the film in question is about death. If you miss out on those details, the film may be a bit too slow and languorous; so make sure you focus on this one.

There are strange audio aspects of this film, as well. The soundtrack is a bit different here and there, but that’s not it, exactly. The sound design of the film (usually something that doesn’t draw attention) is a bit odd. When characters hug, it sounds like they are wearing microphones. But you can also hear their heartbeats. It’s an effective use of sound. There are many moments that stick out in this film because of sound and they work to develop Uxbal’s character. Uxbal is all about order and discipline at the dinner table, that’s obvious from how he reacts to his son making too much noise as he eats. But the sound puts you in Uxbal’s shoes. The grating sounds of a fork on a plate and a table leg being kicked are amplified to the point of annoyance. The entire film shows Uxbal’s perspective in ways like that and it ends up being very effective.

Biutiful does have its faults, though. At two and a half hours it runs a bit long. This wouldn’t be an issue if the film maintained focus on Uxbal. But Iñárittu couldn’t resist adding more storylines. The subplot with the Chinese couple could’ve been left on the cutting room floor. The characters are needed for the story to build Uxbal’s character and to show why he needs redemption, but there was no need to follow their story when Uxbal wasn’t around. This is just a minor problem; though the film would have been better if it had been limited to two hours.

Biutiful is an interesting film that leaves the viewer with plenty to think about. It won’t hit you over the head with a message or strong visuals, but if you pay close attention to it you will find it very deep and possibly moving. In a cinematic world that seems to be obsessed with astounding visuals and straightforward messages, it’s nice to see a low-key film like Biutiful.


Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Just wanted to point out the interesting things I spotted during my viewing:

Uxbal's reflection when he bends over to pick something up in front of a door doesn't move, even though he backs away into the street.

The shadow of the fork Uxbal uses when he gets home from the nightclub is a bit behind (or ahead?) of the actual fork's movement, though this one is fairly obvious.

The butterflies on the ceiling lead to some speculation of their meaning. There are plenty of theories out there, depending on what culture you belong to. Either way, it's something to talk about.