So here’s what I knew about Birdman going in. Michael Keaton plays a has been actor who used to play a superhero named Birdman and in an attempt to get the spotlight back he does a play on Broadway. That’s all I knew going in but the movie was about much more. The problem with summarizing a movie like Birdman is that it’s an indie movie. I don’t mean indie as in a truly independent movie. This was produced by Regency and distributed by Fox Searchlight, neither of which are small companies. When I say indie here I’m referring to the style. It’s a cerebral movie. My mind was going the entire time and even now, almost a week after seeing it, I’m still thinking about it. Birdman was a very good movie but just be ready pay attention.
This film had one big story line with quite a few smaller ones which thankfully never got confusing. Each and every story was easy to follow and, unlike movies like Sin City 2, they were paced well so I never forgot about anything. One of the reasons this worked so well was due to the style of camera work. The movie is one continuous shot. I’m not saying it was all done in one take. I’m just saying that the camera never cut away. When one scene ended the camera would do one of three things. It would either follow a character to her/his next scene, walk through the theater to the next scene without following a character, or pan to a part of the scenery as time fast forwards. The choice in style gave me the impression that I was there in the theater and the set became familiar. As the movie progressed I started to figure out which hallways led where and which doors went outside and which ones went to the stage. It’s not a big deal but the familiarity was something I really enjoyed.
There were parts of the movie that had hints of magical realism but, for the most part it stayed grounded in reality. I could try to tell you what it all meant. What each different magical part stood for, but that’s a rabbit hole I want to stay away from. This is one of those movies that you watch and then go to a cafe or pub with your friends and discuss what you thought the movie really meant and what various things represented.
The acting was fantastic and everyone, every role, was vital. Michael Keaton was… what’s a cliche thing critics say? He was inspired. That’s it! Keaton gave an inspired performance. The entire movie I saw Riggan (Keaton) try to balance his play, which faces a new problem every day, his relationship with his daughter Sam (Emma Stone), and all the while battling his inner demons. It was fun watching him go from playing Riggan to playing Riggan’s character in the play. So in a way Keaton played two different characters and he played them well. Emma stone didn’t impress me at first but once her character started opening up more it became easy to see why she deserves to be so popular. The early parts of the movie didn’t have much for her to chew. Her scenes with Edward Norton were some of the best the movie had to offer, which is high praise as there were many good parts. Norton played Mike Shiner, a Broadway big shot who is dealing with demons of his own. The only other character who got a good amount of screen time was Lesley played by Naomi Watts. I feel like a broken record here but she did a fantastic job showing the struggle Leslie was going through. Do you get the gist of this paragraph? Everyone was great. Zach Galifianakis had a small role and I think it was one of his best performances ever.
I compare Birdman to This is Where I Leave You in the sense that it’s not the kind of movie that you can just zone out to. I know I’ve said it before but I want to reiterate the fact that this is a deep and thought provoking movie. The ending (don’t worry, this is still spoiler free) isn’t obvious. I saw this with my friend Glenn and we discussed what we thought the ending meant and even though we agreed, there is still room for debate. Someone else could have walked away with a totally different idea of what happened.
There were a few small story lines that didn’t get resolutions and that bugged me a bit. But that’s the way things go with an indie style movie. Everything doesn’t get wrapped up with a nice little bow. There were about 3 unanswered questions when all was said and done, but it didn’t bother me as much as it would have if this had been any other movie. Birdman was the kind of movie that asks you to fill in the blank. It was also a movie that was classified as a “dark comedy” but I don’t think that’s entirely right. I belive that it’s a drama that just so happens to have funny moments. In my opinion, dark comedies are more like Four Rooms, Dr. Strangelove, or The Cable Guy but Birdman just doesn’t make the cut. Of course, due entirely to its nature, some rhetorical scholar could write a whole paper proving me wrong, but that’s what’s great about indie style movies. It leaves a lot to the imagination.
Let me wrap all this up. Do you want to think? Do you want to see a movie that will make you ponder the ending long after you’ve left the theater? If that’s the case, then go see Birdman. If you’d rather not, then pick any other movie and then wait until you’re in more of a thinking mood. Birdman was a well written, well acted, well shot movie that I think should at least be nominated for, if not the winner of, multiple Oscars. Everyone should see Birdman. Just be ready when you do.
Birdman gets a 10 out of 11.