My overall reaction to the movie, BTW, was absolutely positive. I thought it was great.
I went back and forth a bit on whether the extended take technique and the artsy framing (lots of shots of a character in the foreground talking to a character seen in a mirror, for example) were brilliant or distracting and too self-conscious. In the end, I decided the style worked for the film. They were part of the language of the film. Like the superpowers in a superhero movie, they required a little extra suspension of disbelief at first, but their effective use made the world of the movie more real and compelling once you buy into them. The “single” shot really worked to heighten the jazz-groove feel of the movie, like something at once intricately crafted and apparently spontaneous and organic. And like B. Serum pointed out, it was very effective at showing the seamlessness that exists between reality and illusion.
Speaking of jazz, what an amazing soundtrack! One of my friends who saw it with me is a professor of jazz, and he was very impressed with the drumming. It took me a long time to realize that the main incidental music was just drums only, because it was such a complete sound.
I have just one question, and it relates to what I think was the movie’s one weak point in terms of characterization: Has a movie ever portrayed a critic in a positive light?
It was one of my favorite scores in recent memory- I’m surprised it took 21 posts here before anyone mentioned it, it is so integral to the film. The percussion really made me feel like I knew what it felt like inside his head. I would be very surprised if a percussion-only score got an Oscar nomination, but in my opinion, it really does deserve it. I thought it was so good that I figure there have to be other people who agree with me, so maybe I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if it got nominated but I would be very surprised if it won.
P.S. Birdman would make for a great double-feature paired with Black Swan!
Antonio Sanchez is now touring with Pat Metheny. I would always encourage anyone to see Metheny at any time, so now is an especially good one.
Sage Rat, please assure me that you were joking about Roger Ebert: A Life, since it’s a documentary, not a “movie.” A funnier joke is that running on Broadway right now is a revival of a play that also makes the New York Times drama critic the specific target of its bile. That’s really playing insider baseball.
Did it? It was supposed to be the next day but he had an almost fully-healed new nose? I think he did shoot himself dead.
And I hated the shit out of watching this movie. I can respect what it did, and I can see the performances were very good, and I don’t have to be pulling for anyone (everyone was unlikeable) to enjoy a movie, but this one rubbed me the wrong way. It was so self-conscious. I guess that fact that I hated experiencing it means it was great art.
Self Indulgent/Important Industry Masturbatory FanService, how could it not get good reviews and a nomination?
I joked that it was hard to hear the lines over the slurping sounds of the industry c*cksucking.
So many circles around Trope Central you could play Industry Cliche Bingo
“Artsy Shot that Constantly Gets In The Way”
“Elder Artist seducing Damaged Ingenue”
“Elder Artist reflecting on and gifting youth with insight”
“I used to be successful and want to be an artist”
“I missed my life, and being a father”
“I cheated, but I love you”
“Estranged Daughter’s head on broken father’s chest”
“Delusions of Grandeur in artsy overlay”
etc.
Saw it last night. Liked the acting, cinematograph and the sets where great. Great grit.
The sound track was really great. Saw it in brand new (second movie played there) small theater with a great surround sound system.
I was confused for a bit if he really had special powers. Some scenes really, really suggested he did. For instance, the opening, he is seen from behind, alone just floating.
But, there is one scene where he is flying and just lands gently on a crowded NY street, and no one takes notice. So no super powers there.
But then, at the end when he leaps, his daughter watches him fly away.
Finally got to see this. Really enjoyed it. I loved the drums-as-soundtrack - frankly, I found the whole movie to be one be jazz riff, so having drums support it made perfect sense. The men were great; the women were great but, per 'Xap, underwritten.
Good film, some really strong acting. Only Edward Norton’s bit didn’t work for me.
But too much artistic conceit by the director.
So much confusion thrown in just to be confusing.
The long shots got in the way of the story. I found myself going “He’s coming to a door, time for a cut.” There’s no reason to pretend that weeks of time were happening within hours. And then it became inconsistent near the end with the sky shots to mark passing of time.
I just assumed that Mrs. FtG knew that the star was Michael Keaton and he played Batman decades ago and therefore got the parallels. Turned out she didn’t. Oh, well.
That’s why they had the scene with the cab driver who’d been stiffed for his fare. **Riggan **fantasized he’d flown to the theatre but in fact he’d just taken a cab like everyone else.
All the magic powers stuff happened when there was no-one else in the room.
I agree, brilliant soundtrack. I loved loved loved it when suddenly we *saw *the drummer playing in a side-room as we zoomed by, a great touch.
I see it was ruled as ineligible for best original score Oscar because it has too much classical music - which I have to say I barely noticed. I hope it wins some sort of award for sound because the stuff happening all around the soundscape was genius.
Not a bad movie, but I didn’t care for it. Definitely a movie about movies/actors/acting/critics themselves, and not so much about anything that particularly interests me. The ending was a huge letdown.
We went to see this in the second-run theatres last week; to sum up my take on the movie, that’s the closest I’ve been to walking out of a movie in a long time (and I’ll watch damned near anything on Netflix). My husband’s take - “Wow, they really disappeared up their own asshole in that film!”
What I think the film is about: I think Riggan Thompson is dying on a beach in Los Angeles, having been stung to death by jellyfish. The entire movie is his hallucination, caused by the jellyfish poisons. That’s why we see the jellyfish in an extremely quick cut right at the start of the movie - that’s what Riggan is seeing as he lies dying. Then at the end, his hallucination is over because he is dead, and the perspective goes back to the beach, except it’s not from his perspective any longer because he’s dead - it’s the perspective of the audience now.
I saw it yesterday. I enjoyed the movie, but I don’t think it was worthy of the Best Picture Oscar. It was full of in-jokes about Hollywood and the New York theater district. Most people in the audience won’t catch on.
It was fun, though, to speculate about whether Riggan really did have powers. I kept thinking he was hallucinating, but at the end his daughter, looking out the hospital window to see if his body was down there on the ground, looked up and smiled in amazement… as if she saw him flying.
I can see why it won Best Picture, probably for the same reason Shakespeare in Love did - it’s about actors, and actors were voting on it.
I found it mildly interesting with some good parts, but ultimately less than enthralling. One element that threw me was the “We share a vagina” line, i.e. the woman delivering it was saying she and the Norton character were lovers, i.e. sharing her vagina. For some reason, though, I initially interpreted the line as meaning they had come from the same vagina, i.e. they were siblings. This made the bit where Norton suggested they have actual sex during the motel scene seem especially bizarre with its incesty tones (already in place by characters I thought were brother and sister playing lovers in the play-within-the-play), but the follow-up conversations clarified the issue for me.
Anyhoo, the parts we saw of the play-within-the-play didn’t strike me as compelling or interesting (maybe they would have were I previously familiar with the work of Raymond Carver) and that hurt the movie for me. At least Shakespeare in Love’s play-within-the-play was written by, y’know, Shakespeare.
The comparisons to Black Swan are apt. Once it’s established the major parts of the film are just the main character hallucinating, I find it hard to remain invested. I was just curious how they were going to end it - if the theater had had a fast-forward button, I would have been sorely tempted.
I favor drama. The title alone scares me. The seemingly silly premise and trailer(s) also scare me. That it won several Oscars and this thread, though, intrigue me. So, it is more drama than comedy, yes? If so, I think I will see it.