 |
(Image via Fox Searchlight Pictures, found at WUNC)
|
The idea of
Birdman was brilliant. A washed up actor (Michael Keaton) known for playing a
superhero (*cough* Batman *cough*) wants to finally be taken seriously in his
acting (perhaps via a film such as this).
Film ideas don’t get much more meta than that. And if you were me 2014, having heard about this incredibly clever premise and the ‘Best Picture’ buzz surrounding this film, you would obviously thought this would be a perfect film for you.
Film ideas don’t get much more meta than that. And if you were me 2014, having heard about this incredibly clever premise and the ‘Best Picture’ buzz surrounding this film, you would obviously thought this would be a perfect film for you.
Well surprise surprise,
it wasn’t.
Birdman was a
plodding, dull, self-indulgent waste of my time. Granted I may be a fan (for the most part)
of comic book movies, but I don’t mind if a film wants to point out and criticise the
homogeneity in cinema the comic book genre has created. In many ways I agree. But
to create a film seemingly designed to appeal to Film Academy who despises the
current uprising of superhero movies while kicking people in the teeth that
enjoy that type of media just felt wrong.
As a fan of both
mindless films and more ‘serious’ OSCAR-bait movies, I just found Birdman too
preachy and pretentious to enjoy. If a film is going to try and make me feel
guilty for something I enjoy, then it should at least offer a better alternative
– not the soul-crushing, unsympathetic characters I was stuck with for two hours! I think
Mirror writer David Edwards put it best, “[Birdman is] a film littered with
passably amusing industry in-jokes designed to appeal only to middle-aged
failures – which may explain why critics are so in love with it.”
I think the main
reason I did not enjoy Birdman was it was falsely advertised to me. For
example, if you watch the trailer for the film, you get a sense that Birdman
will be a dark comedy, a bit surrealist in parts, but overall a pretty typical ‘Best
Picture’ nominee.
I think what conveys this most for me is the use of music in the trailer. It, like music should, gives life to the image – filling the hollow spaces with something to enhance the emotions being depicted on screen. But in the actual film the only score (when there was any) consisted entirely of Antonio Sánchez's jazz-drum work, which became incredibly taxing within the first 30 minutes of the film. This dull score mixed with unlikable characters with no redeeming qualities just left me feeling drained. People see movies to escape, to be challenged, confronted, experience things they otherwise couldn’t. Birdman did none of these things; it was a story about nothing, and not in the good Seinfeld kind of way.
That’s not to
say Birdman is a bad movie. It’s
good. The characters, despite how much I didn’t care for them, are well acted
by Michael Keaton, Edward Norton and Emma Stone. The cinematography is phenomenal!
I know it’s been said a million times, but the way Alejandro G. Iñárritu shot
the film to look like a single take is a marvel and a triumph to him, his team
and his dedicated actors.
In the end for
me, Birdman is a movie I’ve far more enjoyed reading people’s analysis and
seeing them enjoy a film I just could not find the same enjoyment in. While
Birdman is definitely a GOOD movie,
it was also completely OVER HYPED
and OVERRATED, particularity by film
critics. I guess if anything I should learn not to dive head-first during
OSCAR season. 3/5
– James
0 comments :
Post a Comment