I saw Birdman. It was pretty good. I love the use of long takes, and it was an ambitious movie with a lot to say. Michael Keaton is an obvious standout, and showing off multiple runs of the play, all which have believable reasons to be different, were an excellent way to punctuate the developments of the plot and Thomson's thoughts IMO.
In some areas it just fell flat to me. I think about halfway through the movie or in the last third none of the characters besides Thomson really matter. It's an interesting reflection on his (arguably) his narcissism but it wasn't really handled well and I don't understand what it's trying to convey. I mean ostensibly you could say that Thomson just embraced who he was, which is important because the play was called "what we talk about when we talk about love" or w/e and the opinions of some people matter to him a lot. because but he has been kinda self-absorbed since the beginning of the movie (refinancing the house, not really paying attention to his girlfriend etc.) The other thing I don't like is that all of these subplots don't really get a lot of attention or a chance to develop. Like the lesbian relationship, Keaton's relationship with his girlfriend, Edward Norton and Emma Stone. Like they were OK as is but could've been better with just a bit more screentime.
The movie made a lot of comments about the modern condition and social media, celebrity, big action movies (that dancing sequence after the final performance of the play was stupid and really pretentious =D), what it's like to be an an actor, critics. It had a lot to say which is difficult to pull off in one movie. I kinda don't know what the takeaway is once everything is said and done but I respect how ambitious it was. That's what I'll say about the movie, ambitious and a bit messy but pretty passionate. I could go on but I'll just leave this alone.
It's worth a watch still yet IMO, for sure. it's an experience
I wonder if the casting of Michael Keaton (formerly Batman in like the early 90s or something) was intentional. It's extremely meta =P but kinda funny. What wasn't funny was the Macbeth quote towards the end ("it is a tale told by an idiot...") nice going folks, no subtlety
edit: I have to add that the ending was an absolute roller coaster. I thought it would be lame, but in hindsight it was actually pretty cool. I can't really have a good discussion about it without spoilers so spoilers ahead:
so first, it was pretty apparent that he was going to shoot himself, and of course Edward Norton complaining about the gun is the perfect lead in to Michael Keaton shooting himself. it's perfect, considering the release of him shooting himself matches the release he feels as he embraces Birdman, which is shown in his inner peace during the play.
May I add first that Edward Norton's character, short lived as it was (not literally), was awesome. His conception of art is so detached and utilitarian, objective. It contrasts with Keaton, who is similarly motivated by ego but more concerned about being respected by the public and general purveyors of art. They really are similar characters except Norton moves in a straight line all of the time. Norton apparently doesn't care about sleeping with Keaton's daughter (this is probably fairly common in Broadway and any other highly internal industry) And of course, his unresolvable conundrum with the concept of art and acting. He wants things to feel more real, he wants to be more real in his performances, but being real up to a point isn't acting - it's just being. Anyone know the relationship between the words "art" and "artificial"?
Anyway, I was really dreading the concept of him shooting himself. It sounded like a stupid, predictable idea and I expected the movie to glorify Keaton and be done with it. But right as he shot himself my mindset completely changed. Did he intend to kill himself? If I can reasonably assume that Keaton's character doesn't typically use guns, I would also be able to speculate that perhaps that particular weapon may have had some recoil that he wouldn't be used to, and that the nose being shot off was accidental. Because if he didn't intend to kill himself, that makes Keaton cynical in a very disturbing but cool (for the purposes of the movie) way.
It's like he came to accept what he considered was the depravity of modern society and his tenuous relationship with social media blah blah. The depravity is highlighted by the people clapping (yawn) when he shoots himself, Birdman mocking people in their dialogues and Keaton destroying stuff in the City with SWAT people and explosions and stuff, and of course being made a spectacle of when he was running to the front entrance of the theatre in his underwear. The poor guy wasn't looking for the attention but he sucked it up and just went for it, and continued the play. It's like he embraced what the movie argued was a very modern path to fame - extremely dramatic/attention grabbing stuff and instant gratification on behalf of the viewer (measured in high youtube views.)
Anyway I love the hospital scene. The wife, it has to be known, was a great character when she was around. She insisted on keeping him honest even if it didn't necessarily mean things went her way. Edward Norton is of course blunt but caught up in himself, Emma Stone spends the better part of the movie retaliating against Thing or Whatever. Of course the gauze setup is reminiscent of Birdman. But the trippy thing is, when he takes it off, of course Keaton looks like a different person entirely. It mirrors his change as a person. The other amazing thing is I feel like the laying of the lilac bunch on the hospital bed is analogous to laying flowers on someone's grave.
The final shot of the movie, I was like "what the hell is this" but still a pretty good ending overall.
