I didn't like it. I felt like the entire point of the film was just to win an Oscar, so the filmmakers made sure to include every trope possible that could get them one. Pretentious quote at the beginning? Check. Pretentious title ("Birdman, or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance" is the full title)? Check. Soundtrack that sounds like it was written and performed by one person who can only play one instrument? Check. Unique cinematography gimmick to make people forget the fact that the film is boring? Check.
I won't say too much about the story because, for the most part, that was all right. Not good, not bad, just okay. The acting, however, was the one good thing about this film. It was phenomenal.
Now let's go into the moral of the story, aka what the filmmakers were trying to say. This is where the pretentiousness of the film really came out the hardest. We all know that it's very rare for action/adventure films to receive awards for anything other than stuff like special effects or maybe music. The Academy is run by old, unimaginative sorts who seem to have an aversion to big blockbusters. There's this consensus among them that you can't tell a meaningful, moving story with good characters if it's in one of these sorts of films. This is what they were getting at. Birdman's monologue near the end of the film really summed it up. Keaton's character used to play a superhero, but he wants to distance himself from that kind of stuff and create moving dramatic plays. It doesn't go so well, and the voice in his head that he hears throughout the film eventually tells him to just reboot Birdman and/or make a big action-packed blockbuster because people will eat that up more readily.
This propagates the (dishonest, IMO) idea that action films and blockbusters are basically like fast food - dumb flicks that appeal to the lowest common denominator in order to fill seats and nothing more. Like I implied earlier, anyone who believes this has no imagination. People have told incredible, moving stories with fantasy, science fiction, and action. Look at authors like Phillip K. Dick or JRR Tolkien. Look at directors like Steven Spielberg or Joss Whedon. Heck, even animators like DiMartino/Konietzko and Pendleton Ward can do it. The filmmakers of Birdman are essentially trying to make themselves martyrs by saying "If you don't like this film, you're just as dumb and shallow as the idiots who eat up superhero films and sci-fi franchises." They are not only ignorant of the fact that you can have moving personal stories in a superhero film, but they are actively campaigning against that notion.
Finally, let's go into the concept of the Oscar winner itself. Every now and then you get a few gems that are remembered forever, but let's be honest. Most people will only watch a big Oscar winner once and then rarely, if ever, see it again. Most people also can't name the winners a few years after the awards are given. Why? They're boring. Yeah, they're probably well-made, but they were made so the filmmakers could get an award and then brag about that for the rest of their lives. There's usually no re-watch value to these, and the only initial value in watching them is curiosity to see why they were awarded anything to begin with.
So what DO people remember? The films that they had fun watching. Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean, Back to the Future, Ghostbusters, the Marvel universe, etc. Yes, some of these big franchises have won Academy Awards (LOTR, Star Wars IV, etc.) but like I said, every now and then a real gem gets an award, but it's uncommon. My point is, a truly good film that stands the test of time usually isn't awarded anything.
Final verdict - 4 out of 10. Cinematography was nice, acting was good, but the story was very basic and the message was abhorrent.
reply
share
partydjz (424)
7 years ago
Wrong, the films and directors you mentioned were crap. Some of us have higher standards. Super Hero "movies" are for kids or those that have a short attention span. Grow up and start screening Kubrick films.
reply
share