Kevin's Watch

Incredible film. I saw this last Friday, and had to travel further than usual for it - it's on a limited release here - but but it was worth it.

I didn't know much going in, only that it starred Michael Keaton as an actor who is best known for playing the superhero Birdman. The film's pretty meta in that sense: Keaton playing a character clearly based on himself is one thing, but then you have him, Emma Stone, and Edward Norton delivering lines about celebrities in superhero movies and comparing that to "real" actors who work on stage (then again, Hollywood films about acting making meta-commentary on Hollywood is nothing new).

Keaton's Riggan Thompson, best known as Birdman from three films in the 80s/early 90s, is trying to reinvent himself by adapting, directing and starring in a stage version of Raymond Carver's What we Talk About When We Talk About Love on Broadway. He's also hearing Birdman's voice in his head, and thinks he can move things with his mind. His daughter, played by Emma Stone, is working as his assistant after leaving rehab for drug addiction. Also starring in the play is Mike Shiner (Edward Norton), a popular broadway actor who turns out to be something of a volatile diva; Lesley (Naomi Watts), who is Mike's girlfriend and got him to take the part; and Riggan's own girlfriend Laura (Andrea Riseborough).

It's the performances that make the film - Keaton in particular is excellent - and the fact that the vast majority of the film is put together to look like a single continuous take, with the camera following the actors around from scene to scene (and some digital trickery to cover the breaks).

Despite the seemingly mundane story of "people having problems putting on a play", it's a decidedly weird film, owing to the way it's put together and the seemingly supernatural elements of what may be Riggan's delusion, which are presented to the viewer as real. There's something, also, in the performances of the actors that seems slightly askew from reality - Norton's character in particular swings between extremes of hostility and pleasantness in a way that's not quite right.

It's probably not a film for everyone, but I enjoyed it a lot.

So I hear Michael Keaton won a Golden Globe for his performance in this. No one else here seen it?

To be honest, it wasn't on my radar screen 'til Keaton won the Golden Globe. I may go see it this weekend -- it sounds interesting.

And I did go, and I liked it a lot. I'd file it under "magic realism," and indeed, in the credits, the guys who made the movie give a shout-out to Alfonso Cuaron and Guillermo del Toro (among a whole bunch of other folks).

The Serious-Theater-vs.-Popular-Entertainment part of the plot felt very much like the trad-pubbed-vs.-indie and literary-fiction-vs.-genre-fiction debates.

I did a blog post on the movie. hearth-myth.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-birdman-cometh.html

not playing here and I really want to see it. have to wait for the video.

I saw it today with my youngest son. We both loved it; it's a really great film.

The film itself had its moments, but overall I thought it was trying too hard to play to it's small audience of actors/theater geeks (which is what Oscar-bait films do). Keaton's performance is fantastic though, and worth sitting through the film.

I just saw it last night and thought it was brilliant. I'm still figuring out different facets of what makes this a very well constructed film.
And I disagree with Cail about trying too hard to be Oscar bait. First off, do you know why there are so many films about Hollywood and theater? Because people write what they know, and if they've been immersed in that world, it tends to be what they write about. Which is why you see so many authors with main characters who are writers. And after thinking about trying to translate it over to any other profession, it either losing something meaningful in translation, or it simply doesn't work.
To some degree, it is a bit of a Death of a Salesman with more of a has-been instead of a never was.
But from the mood it evokes from the way it is shot (faked single take shots primarily in claustrophobic interiors) to all the clues given about what is "really going on" makes this a think piece that you don't usually see as Oscar bait. Most Oscar winners are pretty easy to understand on a base level, which is why I suspect it will not win tonight, and the easy to understand/easy to consume Boyhood will be the winner.
For those that have seen it,

Spoiler

at what point do you think he was successful at killing himself?
I thought at first it was when he jumped from the building and flew initially, because after he gets into the theater, he is lying on a table that looks a bit coffin-like in a pose like being in a coffin while his ex-wife is in a black outfit that looks a bit like she is attending a funeral. But once I noticed that he had actually taken a cab I felt that was a clue that it didn't actually happen, and felt like he was successful when he shot himself on stage. After that is a too happy ending to be true, taking place the day after with a new nose with minimal bruising and a good review from the awful reviewer lady.
Just curious what other interpretations are.

And it won the Best Picture Oscar. I feel so prescient.

Cag, I see what you're saying in your spoiler. I think the last one is probably right -- which is depressing. I'd like to think happy thoughts...

Spoiler

...that he survived right up until the moment when he jumped from the window. Although that doesn't explain why his daughter would then have seen him fly. So I dunno. You're probably right. Damn it.

I don't think it's meant to be ultimately explainable. We see the film from the perspective of Riggan, including treating his break from reality as real (floating, moving things with his mind), and by the end that version of reality has fully taken over, so that we cannot know what is "real".

I'll accept that maybe I'm a dolt, but....

Spoiler

He's not dead.

This film starred Michael freaking Keaton....Batman. The film is a surreal treatise on typecasting. Riggan is trapped in the role of Birdman no matter how hard he tries to escape it. Point is, he's not trying that hard, as he "uses" his "powers" whenever it suits him. The film is an internal struggle inside of Riggan.....The fame, notoriety, and money of his sure-thing franchise, or the road less traveled of Broadway theater and the road to being taken seriously as an actor.

The whole film is about that struggle, and the flying scene, as well as the ending scene (remember, this movie's got surreal all over it) are confirmation of his acceptance of his past. He's no longer haunted by Birdman; he embraces him as an important part of his past. The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance refers to his knowledge of the theater....Namely none....Yet he's able to wow the critic through amazing self-sacrifice. He stopped caring (remember, he was suicidal) and let the character flow through him (the way he came to terms with Birdman), and delivered the performance of his life.

His daughter sees the reviews, sees her father "soaring", and is happy.

The. Freaking. End.

I like that better than Cag's conclusion.

I finally saw this last night. I enjoyed it a lot, especially the metaness of it. It reminded me a good bit of 'Synecdoche, New York' (which I also enjoyed).

I'm not generally gone on magical realism etc. and so found the ending didn't really do it for me.

Spoiler

Did anyone else notice that when he loaded the gun the bullets were definitely blanks? (I watched very closely because (like everyone) I knew there was a chance at that stage of them being real.)

u.

I like Cail's explanation best, but I give equal weight to Cag's and I'm in agreement with Murrin that I'm not sure the film is meant to be explainable. I think you pays your money and takes your choice. The end for me had resonances of two other movie ending's - those of Funny Bones [Peter Celsom] and Lars Von Triers' Breaking the Waves. I had something of a problem with the movie in that I was really struggling to hear what they were saying and so no doubt lost much of the 'wit' [or whatever] of the script [Is this the film, my tv, my ears or all of the above; I have no idea] but I did enjoy the film never the less. perhaps not as much as some [both of the above films I name I would consider better] but yes, a couple of hours well spent.

I thought about this film some more afterwards (always a good sign of a film, in my experience) and I started to remember

Spoiler

that the dialogue in the play at the start centred on the idea of 'absolute love'.

It occurred to me then that

Spoiler

the presence of his ex-wife at the end and his explanation about trying to drown himself in the sea because he had lost her (due to his infidelity)

became much more significant than I'd first thought.

I'm not sure how that fits in with the whole celebrity and magical realism thing, but it does incline me to go and have another look at the film.

u.