SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB: WEEK 122: Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

[europe1]

NOTE to NON-MEMBERS: Interested in joining the SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB? Shoot me a PM for more info!

Here's a quick list of all movies watched by the SMC. Or if you prefer, here's a more detailed examination.

We return to the single-shot formula after 121 weeks since watching Victoria!

Our Director

(yeah no way I'm going to try and spell this guys name)

​

Alejandro González Iñárritu (ih-nyar-ee-too), born August 15th, 1963, is a Mexican film director.

González Iñárritu is the first Mexican director to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Director and by the Directors Guild of America for Best Director. He is also the first Mexican-born director to have won the Prix de la mise en scene or best director award at Cannes (2006), the second one being Carlos Reygadas in 2012. His six feature films, 'Amores Perros' (2000), '21 Grams' (2003), 'Babel' (2006), 'Biutiful' (2010), 'Birdman' (2014) and 'The Revenant' (2015), have gained critical acclaim world-wide including two Academy Award nominations.

Alejandro González Iñárritu was born in Mexico City.

Crossing the Atlantic Ocean on a cargo ship at the ages of seventeen and nineteen years, González Iñárritu worked his way across Europe and Africa. He himself has noted that these early travels as a young man have had a great influence on him as a film-maker. The setting of his films have often been in the places he visited during this period.​

​

Our Star

Best Batman (Outside Adam West)!

​

Film Overview:

Premise: A washed-up superhero actor attempts to revive his fading career by writing, directing, and starring in a Broadway production.

Budget: $18 million
Box Office: $103.2 million
​

Trivia
(courtesy of IMDB)
​

* There are only sixteen visible cuts in the entire film.

* The movie was largely shot inside Broadway's St. James Theatre. Michael Keaton and the rest of the cast had to adapt to Alejandro G. Iñárritu's rigorous shooting style, which required them to perform up to fifteen pages of dialogue at a time while hitting precisely choreographed marks.

* Given the unusual style of filming long takes, Edward Norton and Michael Keaton kept a running tally of flubs made by the actors and actresses. Emma Stone made the most mistakes. Zach Galifianakis made the fewest. He actually did mess up a few lines during the filming, but played his mistakes off well enough, that the shots were included in the film.

* During the press conference in Riggan's dressing room, he says that he hasn't played Birdman since 1992. That's the same year Batman - Återkomsten (1992), the last Batman movie starring Michael Keaton, was released.

* Similar to how Michael Keaton's Birdman reflects on his earlier role as Batman, Edward Norton's character is a parody of Norton's own reputation for being very abrasive and difficult to work with.

* The scene of Riggan running through Times Square in his underwear was filmed after midnight, so that the amount of real bystanders caught on camera in the shot would be limited, and that the majority of people in frame are hired extras or crew members.

* The first winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture to have been shot entirely digitally. Prior to its win every past winner had been shot entirely or partially on film.

* The constant references to the St. James Theatre being "crummy" are an inside joke. In fact, it is one of the most prestigious venues on Broadway, among the many legendary shows that opened there are "Oklahoma!", "The King and I", "The Pajama Game", "Becket", "Hello, Dolly!", and "The Producers".


Members: @europe1 @MusterX @Scott Parker 27 @the muntjac @Cubo de Sangre @sickc0d3r @FrontNakedChoke @AndersonsFoot @Tufts @Coolthulu @Yotsuya @jei @LHWBelt @ArtemV @Bullitt68 @Deus Ex Machina

 

[europe1]

Ah yes, Birdman.


I get constant shit for this movie. I managed to convince my friends to go watch it at the cinema. They all loathed it except me. I haven’t heard the end of it since. However, the next time we went to the movies together, we went and saw the Poltergeist remake. All of them said that it would blow Birdman out of the water. So at least I got the last laugh.

I really like Birdman. Its strong suits are that it’s an entertaining, energetic, heartfelt, funny movie. Keaton is a hotpot of psychological troubles to such an extent that he starts seeing freaking Birdman visions. The single-shot takes and hurried delivery leads to a sense of frantic forward-propulsions that enhances our sense of the stress that he’s under. The garish lightning and tracking camera movements likewise intensify this kinetic sensation. It’s not just that this movie is shoot in one take, the camera almost bumps into his noggin at a few points. The jazzy, drums-focused score also has an animated ring to it that adds to Keaton’s sensation of living on the edge. And through this journey, we have some truly hilarious moments. Keaton getting locked outside the theater in his underpants, Keaton and Norton’s boxing match, his visions of Birdman… and my personal favorite, when we actually see the drummer playing the soundtrack, the very film itself being under such stress that it’s 4th-wall melts away.

This movies weakness though (or at least, its weaker elements) is how it handles its theme. Here we have the conflict between the values of “true artistry” vs mere “popcorn-selling celebrity”. Plenty of actors get showy set-piece monologues were they talk about this conflict (Like Keaton’s dope-addicted daughter who has a very cynical take on it). So the movies raises these questions of “what is art really about? What is its value? How is it achieved”. However, to me, it seems that Iñárritu isn’t really that interested in offering many answers, thoughts or observations about said questions. The movie, frankly, seems to hinge more on seeing Keaton experience a personal triumph. Basically, the movie is more invested in the cathartic experience we get from seeing Keaton fortune than it is dealing with its questions about “the art”. This impression is greatly enhanced in how theatrical this movie is. Iñárritu and the actors really indulge themselves in the playfulness of their work, offering up a high-kicking top-show. That makes Birdman a great ride to go on, fun and entertaining, but I’m unsure if it says something of profound substance during that ride.

In the end, Keaton is so absorbed in his madcap psychosis that he attempts to commit suicide on-stage. Basically, only by stooping so such an insane mental-level can he win over his audience, awe even the most jaded cynics. On an artistic level for Keaton, this does seem to really wow everyone, affect them deeply, making him an instant sensation. So what’s the movie saying here? That artistry is a game of pain, constatly escalating by how cynical your audience is? Frankly, shouldn’t this outcome instead be played as a sign of mental illness, a guy driven to such psychological extremes that he finally loses all touch with reality?

And no, once again I haven’t actually rewatched this movie yet. I just felt like writing about it first. As club president, none of you can stop me

 

[BisexualMMA]

Your friends didn't like Birdman? I'll be your wingman.

 

[europe1]

Your friends didn't like Birdman? I'll be your wingman.

I've known some of those mooks since kindergarden... but they have terrible taste in movies.

Imagine actually expecting that the Poltergeist remake will be a better movie than Birdman

 

[BisexualMMA]

I've known some of those mooks since kindergarden... but they have terrible taste in movies.

Imagine actually expecting that the Poltergeist remake will be a better movie than Birdman

Birdman makes the remake of Poltergeist look like a reboot of Condorman.

 

[Yotsuya]

I get constant shit for this movie. I managed to convince my friends to go watch it at the cinema. They all loathed it except me. I haven’t heard the end of it since. However, the next time we went to the movies together, we went and saw the Poltergeist remake. All of them said that it would blow Birdman out of the water. So at least I got the last laugh.

I got some laughs too, lol!

This movies weakness though (or at least, its weaker elements) is how it handles its theme. Here we have the conflict between the values of “true artistry” vs mere “popcorn-selling celebrity”. Plenty of actors get showy set-piece monologues were they talk about this conflict (Like Keaton’s dope-addicted daughter who has a very cynical take on it). So the movies raises these questions of “what is art really about? What is its value? How is it achieved”. However, to me, it seems that Iñárritu isn’t really that interested in offering many answers, thoughts or observations about said questions. The movie, frankly, seems to hinge more on seeing Keaton experience a personal triumph. Basically, the movie is more invested in the cathartic experience we get from seeing Keaton fortune than it is dealing with its questions about “the art”. This impression is greatly enhanced in how theatrical this movie is. Iñárritu and the actors really indulge themselves in the playfulness of their work, offering up a high-kicking top-show. That makes Birdman a great ride to go on, fun and entertaining, but I’m unsure if it says something of profound substance during that ride.

In the end, Keaton is so absorbed in his madcap psychosis that he attempts to commit suicide on-stage. Basically, only by stooping so such an insane mental-level can he win over his audience, awe even the most jaded cynics. On an artistic level for Keaton, this does seem to really wow everyone, affect them deeply, making him an instant sensation. So what’s the movie saying here? That artistry is a game of pain, constatly escalating by how cynical your audience is? Frankly, shouldn’t this outcome instead be played as a sign of mental illness, a guy driven to such psychological extremes that he finally loses all touch with reality?

I think Birdman could be a nasty satire about ambitious actors and not so much about art. I’ll try to watch it again if I’m in the mood.

 

[sickc0d3r]

On an artistic level for Keaton, this does seem to really wow everyone, affect them deeply, making him an instant sensation. So what’s the movie saying here?

 

[MusterX]

I have a review incoming in a little while. I'm not even going to try to hide it, I was pretty blown away by this film.

 

[sickc0d3r]

I have a review incoming in a little while. I'm not even going to try to hide it, I was pretty blown away by this film.

Ditto. I'm a mark for Keaton as it is, but he absolutely killed it. I need some private reflection time before reviewing.

 

[europe1]

I have a review incoming in a little while. I'm not even going to try to hide it, I was pretty blown away by this film.

Ditto. I'm a mark for Keaton as it is, but he absolutely killed it. I need some private reflection time before reviewing.

I'm rewatching it right now.

Ditto. I'm a mark for Keaton as it is

I think its hilarious how they're throwing shade at other, inferior actors like Robert Downey and George Cloney. Evil Birdman tells him that they're just half-talented hacks traveling in his footsteps, tredding the ground he walked 20 years earlier. It's funny because it's true

 

[sickc0d3r]

I think its hilarious how they're throwing shade at other, inferior actors like Robert Downey and George Cloney. Evil Birdman tells him that they're just half-talented hacks traveling in his footsteps, tredding the ground he walked 20 years earlier. It's funny because it's true

 

[LHWBelt]

I remember really liking it but it not striking me as something I'd re-watch. Other than that I frankly don't remember it. Maybe I should re-watch it because it's strange I know I liked it but can't even really remember it. Like I got the basic premise but that's it.

 

[Scott Parker 27]

I remember really liking it but it not striking me as something I'd re-watch. Other than that I frankly don't remember it. Maybe I should re-watch it because it's strange I know I liked it but can't even really remember it. Like I got the basic premise but that's it.

This^^^

I saw it about a year ago but it didn't stick with me. Am rewatching for a fresh perspective.

 

[LHWBelt]

This^^^

I saw it about a year ago but it didn't stick with me. Am rewatching for a fresh perspective.

My wife and I both liked it which is rare. We do better with TV shows than movies.

 

[MusterX]

Michael Keaton is glorious as Riggan Thomson. The movie opens with a shot of Riggan levitating in his dressing room. Its the type of shot that throws the viewer straight into the mind of the films protagonist. Riggan is called to stage and as he puts on his pants we follow him to the stage where a rehearsal is taking place. Riggan is unhappy with one of his actors and he glances at the area above the actors head just before a light falls and knocks him out. Hmm, ok that's weird.

We see later in the film that Riggan believes he is using telekinesis to throw things around but his friend and lawyer Jake walks in and sees Riggan throwing things with his hands. I can only assume that Riggan is either a schizophrenic, or he really is Birdman, or we are looking at some sort of metaphor. The problem I have with it being a metaphor is that pesky ending where Sam, played by Emma Stone appears to see Birdman flying when she looks out of the hospital window.

Maybe we could assume that this is the symbolic moment that Sam looks up to and respects her father, loves her father, which is what Riggan desperately wanted all along. I don't know. This film seemed deep to me on many levels. There is also that weird Batman reference in the back of my mind. Michael Keaton playing Batman just adds to this already richly layered film. I don't want to get too far into that though because the posts can get unbearably long sometimes.

I felt the acting turned in by pretty much the entire cast was just ridiculously high level. Michael Keaton, Ed Norton, Emma Stone, Zak Galifianakis, Naomi Watts, all just absolutely on point all the way through this film. The weakest link in the chain was probably Emma Stone and even she managed to find some acting chops in the presence of so much talent. Here disemboweling of her father was hard to watch and the way she realizes at the end that she's gone too far seemed real. I would urge anyone to rewatch the scene if you think otherwise. Bonus during the scene is to pause it at 1:52 and you will see a tattoo of birds on her shoulder.



There were so many good scenes in this movie its hard to nail down the best ones really. I used Emma as an example because she was probably the weakest actor on set and even she manged to nail down her part. The lighting was also superb. Strangely, the stage lighting looks almost the color of Birdman.

Another little Easter egg I noticed was that when the club watched Mulholland Drive, we saw that Diane Selwyn, played by Naomi Watts had a red lamp by her bed.

In Birdman we see Naomi Watts with a red lamp by the bed.

I could probably heap too much praise on this movie but I think it deserves it. The continuous long shots, the claustrophobic hallways, the lighting, the acting, the comedy, the script, the score, the layered meanings, just aces, all of it. I certainly have more to say about it but I want to hear what others think first.

9/10 for me.

 

[MusterX]

I also want to add that in the scene where Sam and Riggan fight, she says something I didn't notice at first. At 2:35 she says, "You're the one that doesn't exist." She is referring to the point that he doesn't even have a Facebook or Twitter page and hates bloggers.



That is what Riggan ends the play with, "I don't exist. I don't exist."

It appears to be saying that in this new modern, or Brave New World, that if one doesn't have a social media presence, some sort of internet presence, they don't exist. The more I think about this film the more I see that its not only about how we view artistry and entertainment, but also at its core level this film has a lot to do with Riggan's missed opportunity to be a good father. Its his relationship with Sam driving him to be relevant.

I don't know. I just want to say again I'm blown away by this movie.

 

[Prefect]

Ah yes, Birdman.


I get constant shit for this movie. I managed to convince my friends to go watch it at the cinema. They all loathed it except me. I haven’t heard the end of it since. However, the next time we went to the movies together, we went and saw the Poltergeist remake. All of them said that it would blow Birdman out of the water. So at least I got the last laugh.

I really like Birdman. Its strong suits are that it’s an entertaining, energetic, heartfelt, funny movie. Keaton is a hotpot of psychological troubles to such an extent that he starts seeing freaking Birdman visions. The single-shot takes and hurried delivery leads to a sense of frantic forward-propulsions that enhances our sense of the stress that he’s under. The garish lightning and tracking camera movements likewise intensify this kinetic sensation. It’s not just that this movie is shoot in one take, the camera almost bumps into his noggin at a few points. The jazzy, drums-focused score also has an animated ring to it that adds to Keaton’s sensation of living on the edge. And through this journey, we have some truly hilarious moments. Keaton getting locked outside the theater in his underpants, Keaton and Norton’s boxing match, his visions of Birdman… and my personal favorite, when we actually see the drummer playing the soundtrack, the very film itself being under such stress that it’s 4th-wall melts away.

This movies weakness though (or at least, its weaker elements) is how it handles its theme. Here we have the conflict between the values of “true artistry” vs mere “popcorn-selling celebrity”. Plenty of actors get showy set-piece monologues were they talk about this conflict (Like Keaton’s dope-addicted daughter who has a very cynical take on it). So the movies raises these questions of “what is art really about? What is its value? How is it achieved”. However, to me, it seems that Iñárritu isn’t really that interested in offering many answers, thoughts or observations about said questions. The movie, frankly, seems to hinge more on seeing Keaton experience a personal triumph. Basically, the movie is more invested in the cathartic experience we get from seeing Keaton fortune than it is dealing with its questions about “the art”. This impression is greatly enhanced in how theatrical this movie is. Iñárritu and the actors really indulge themselves in the playfulness of their work, offering up a high-kicking top-show. That makes Birdman a great ride to go on, fun and entertaining, but I’m unsure if it says something of profound substance during that ride.

In the end, Keaton is so absorbed in his madcap psychosis that he attempts to commit suicide on-stage. Basically, only by stooping so such an insane mental-level can he win over his audience, awe even the most jaded cynics. On an artistic level for Keaton, this does seem to really wow everyone, affect them deeply, making him an instant sensation. So what’s the movie saying here? That artistry is a game of pain, constatly escalating by how cynical your audience is? Frankly, shouldn’t this outcome instead be played as a sign of mental illness, a guy driven to such psychological extremes that he finally loses all touch with reality?

And no, once again I haven’t actually rewatched this movie yet. I just felt like writing about it first. As club president, none of you can stop me

I never took the movie to be really about acting or art. The movie could have just as easily been about people who who start their own business and those who sell out working some mid level job at a large corporation. The main theme to me is "how important is external validation to personal validation and why do we care?" The main character is doing the play for validation due to his perception as an actor and failings as a husband and father. I think most people feel this at some point in their lives. People in my opinion either give up on the need to feel validation or they wrap themselves around something to feel superior, personal fitness, success at work, sports, mma. Not bad to drive at a hobby or work but it is coming from a place that is using that thing to fill a hole that can never be filled by the activity. Work or the hobby is being used to relieve a temporarily agitation. The main character in my interpretation kills his ego and can then be happy without being burdened with the need to seek validation.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Good film. Anti-climatic. Edward Norton stole the show. Wanted to like Batman more than I did. No real take-away here.

PS. Chick's ass was totally not worthy of the commentary.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Maybe I should re-watch it because...

You're in the club?

The problem I have with it being a metaphor is that pesky ending where Sam, played by Emma Stone appears to see Birdman flying when she looks out of the hospital window.

My take is he splatted and she saw his spirit. Was that sirens in the background?

Sweet little bobtail commander. Nice piece for a dude who didn't think to remove the red thing-a-ma-bobber from his prop-gun.

 

[MusterX]

Nobody really diving in at this point so I'll continue my ramblings. I want to use the rooftop scene as an example of how this film slips from delusion to reality and does it in a way that is meaningful and dreamlike while at the same time subtly illustrating what the reality actually is.

Cliffs:

0:04 : A lady asks Riggan, "Is this for real or are you shooting a film?" Riggan replies, "A film", to which the lady replies, "You people are full of shit." I would say this is the dose of pessimism and negativity that is peppered into the entire movie to represent the doubt of any artistic endeavor. Never good enough, critics lurking everywhere. Riggan fears that he's full of shit.

0:16 : A man approaches Riggan and asks him if he's okay as he brings him down off the ledge. At 0:24 Riggan cues his own music. he looks disheveled and disoriented as the man asks him, "Do you know where to go?" Riggan is having some sort of dissociative moment and he tells the man, "Yea, I know where to go", and he runs and leaps off the building, majestic score playing as he soars away.

1:27 : The score cuts abruptly leaving only the sound of the wind as Riggan's inner voice of Birdman reassures him that the sky is where he should be, "above them all." At 1:45 the score continues. The sound of only the wind made me think he was in the middle of a suicide, it was the sound of him falling from that rooftop but the next part clarifies that wasn't the case, it was his mental illness or inner voice reassuring him that he should be "above them all."

2:00 : Riggan can be seen soaring through a tunnel with taxi cabs down below him. At this point he is traveling to the theater after the man on the rooftop brings him off the ledge. He is in one of the taxi's imagining or hallucinating that he is flying.

2:24 : Riggan comes in for a landing in front of the theater, remember though, he isn't flying, he's in a taxi pulling up to the theater.

2:42 : BONUS - At 2:42 you can see a pedestrian pull something off Riggan's back, probably his wire from flying.

2:44 : Riggan tells the doorman to, "Stop the music." The score stops as he enters the theater.

2:45 : The taxi cab driver yells, "Hey, hey, hey, sir, hello, sir you did not pay me!" and pursues Riggan into the theater to get the money. Riggan was in the cab the entire time but he's disoriented and doesn't pay the cab driver.