Birdman (2014) - An accurate portrayal of the self-indulged lives of thespians

We always hear stories about the pretentious attitudes of some of Hollywood’s most prestigious actors, some good, others… not so good. But it takes a special film like 2014’s Birdman to really give an accurate portrayal of their self-indulged lives.

Director, Alejandro G. Iñárritu has produced a really smart and interesting take on the world of acting. Does the film feel a little self indulged itself sometimes with it’s story? Yes, but that thankfully isn’t something you’ll notice on a lot. The basic story of a washed up actor trying to put on a play, while his past argues his worthlessness in the modern world is really interesting, and something that even those who don’t enjoy the spotlight can relate to. In the modern age of social media, those who use it are all aching to be the person everyone talks about. Even if they are unknowingly doing it. Whether it’s posting pictures wearing something particular, or using their platforms to voice their message on something, we all use the internet to keep ourselves relevant. And this film really cleverly demonstrates how actors often use projects as fuel to keep their career moving. I mean come on, do you really believe Patrick Stewart agreed to be in The Emoji Movie, because he thought the script was good?… OF COURSE NOT! He clearly just wanted to be paid, while being aware that the publicity of his involvement would get people talking about him and the work he actually cared about. Although most people were just questioning what glue he might have been sniffing in order to accept the job in the first place. Keaton’s character embodies what many actors like Christopher Reeve, Robert Downey Jr. and Hugh Jackman could easily be feeling, with themselves also being cemented with particular superhero characters as part of their legacies.

The first striking aspect is how the camera seemingly kept rolling throughout the whole narrative. Now the story doesn’t play out in real time, but thanks to theclever camera work by cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki and some ever smarter invisible editing, the story never loses momentum due to the seemingly endless scene being played out. I do personally believe Roger Deakins did this a lot better when shooting 1917, primarily because the narrative had to flow as if it was real time for the most part, whereas the narrative in Birdman has more skips in time in order for time to pass in-between these moments. The camera work is still sublime, with incredible uses of colour, angles and lighting to reflect mood and tension throughout the scenes. The best examples are scenes in the dressing room of Michael Keaton’s Riggan Thomson, as well as moments where the final scene of the play being performed is shown to us on all 3 occasions. The lighting and colour really hits home on the 3rd and final time, as the meaning and outcome of the scene becomes more apparent.

Each actor also reflects particular caricatures that are synonymous with popular actors. You’ve got Keaton giving his top level game as someone who clearly has passion for what he’s doing, while fighting the demons from his past, which often plague his primary intentions. Edward Norton was really a smart choice for playing the pompous, self obsessed method actor type. With stories about him being difficult on numerous sets circulating, it was the perfect time for Norton to essentially play a mock version of these stories. There’s so many method actors who could fall into this caricature, as well as those who don’t method act, and just like the spotlight on them. But it’s not just those cast as theatre actors who give stellar performances, Emma Stone gives her usual 1st class acting as Keaton’s on-screen daughter. She plays the balance of recent substance abuser, playful young adult and neglected daughter really well. Just look at the scene of her and Keaton arguing about a quarter of the way through the film. Listen to the frustration and volume in her voice, and tell me she doesn’t sell that moment brilliantly.

At first, I found the few digital effects a little off-putting. Especially as the majority of the film is practical, but then I realised that this was intentional. Keaton’s character has the voice of a fictional 90’s superhero in his head, so his mind keeps escaping back to the times when he made these Birdman films, hence why the digital effects look slightly off. They’re meant to demonstrate us being outside of reality, and within Riggan’s imagination. Plus digital effects were to the same standard as they are now. While groundbreaking at the time, you could still pinpoint what was done for real, and what was computer trickery. One aspect that really surprised me was the music. I wasn’t sure what to make of it at first, but quickly grew to love the use of building drums through most of the soundtrack. It adds a lot of rhythm to the drama, increasing tension like a rising crescendo, despite not actually being one. It cements moments in the film as being vital to a character’s decisions, their mindset or even the connection they have to other characters. I wouldn’t call the music groundbreaking, but I would say it’s a really clever choice for this really clever film.

Overall, Birdman stands proud as a modern classic, it takes our modern superhero obsessed world of acting, and shows how many people use different methods to keep themselves relevant, and how being cemented as one particular character can have the wrong impact on certain actors. The film is a joy to watch and marticulously crafted, the cast really sell the story, and Iñárritu’s unique voice was just perfect for this narrative. It’s director’s like him that makes cinema still an engaging and colourful art form to invest in!

SCORES

Story - 4/5

Characters - 4.5/5

Production - 5/5

Acting - 5/5

Music - 4/5

TOTAL - 9/10