Birdman (2014)

(or)
The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance


Director: Alejandro G. Iñárritu
Story: Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Jr., Armando Bo
Cast: Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, Zach Galifianakis
Music: Antonio Sánchez
Time: 120 minutes
Bottom-line: Soars high up 

The beautiful thing about Birdman or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance is that it criticises critics – a small quote in the film says “A thing is a thing and not what is said of that thing”. But still, I felt that I should go ahead and write a review of the film, and here it is. The 120 minute comedy drama film features Michael Keaton, Edward Norton and Emma Stone in the lead roles, with Zach Galifianikis and Naomi Watts in the supporting roles. The film is about an actor, who attempts to regain his fame by directing and starring in a play. While the story is not very impressive, the cinematography and the acting are responsible for making Birdman soar above the rest of the films. Birdman is tied with The Grand Budapest Hotel for maximum Academy Award nominations this year, with nine, including Best Picture, Director and three acting nominations.

Keaton as Riggan, with Birdman behind him

Riggan Thomson (Keaton), an actor known for playing the superhero “Birdman” (also voiced by Keaton) several decades earlier, is now almost unrecognised. He seems to be able to perform telekinesis and levitation, because of Birdman, who appears to be a personality inside Riggan. He attempts to reinvent his career by directing, writing and starring in a Broadway adaptation of a short story: What we Talk About when we Talk About Love. Riggan realises he needs another good actor, and hires a brilliant but explosive method actor, Mike Shiner (Norton). Riggan’s daughter Sam (Stone) is a recovering marijuana addict, who serves as his assistant. With Shiner’s unpredictable nature causing a disastrous preview, and Sam’s drug addictions creating problems, Riggan must find a way to win back his family, his career and his life.

Norton (right) as Mike 

The story was not that great to me. I liked the main theme: how an actor puts heart and soul to creating a successful play, and how he pulls through all the mishaps and speed bumps en route. What I didn’t like was the split-personality of Riggan – the “character” of Birdman hardly appears for more than 5 minutes in the film. Perhaps the one reason I can think of, as to why Birdman is important, is we see Riggan’s transition from “supernatural” in the beginning to “super-real”, towards the end (which will be evident once you see the film). Birdman combines comedy and drama quite superbly. There are few scenes to watch out for: the scene where Mike stars in the first preview, the one where Sam lashes out against her father, and of course, the scene where Riggan is locked out of the theatre in his underwear! The “shocking” that Riggan does on the opening night to show his devotion to realistic portrayal wasn’t that shocking to me because I have already seen the same thing happen in another play here, few years ago. The last scene of the film is left ambiguous for us to interpret what happens: I, for one, can’t find a satisfactory explanation, and am still thinking about it...

Stone as Sam

Now, what I loved most, was the cinematography. The entire film consists only of long shots – giving the impression of a continuous flow. There are very few cuts – all the scenes flow smoothly from one to the next, even though it is not exactly real time. I think that this gives relates the film to a drama, where the actors have only one shot to get their dialogues and actions right: there is no second chance. What the audience see is really what they see, and is not edited or created using a computer. Emmanuel Lubezki certainly deserves the Oscar for cinematography. I remember being so amazed when I saw few long shots in GoodFellas. This film has just left me speechless. Another unique thing about the film is the score: it contains only drums and some classical pieces. But the remarkable thing is that the percussion score actually works – somehow it seems to be in accordance with the scene.

Galifianikis (right) as Riggan's friend
and producer. Naomi Watts as Lesley,
another actress in the play

As far as acting is concerned, Birdman has a great chance of bagging two out of its three nominations: Keaton is simply stunning as Riggan Thomson. There is not a single flaw in his performance from starting to finish. As many others have said already, it would be a shocker it he does not win this time. In fact, the only reason Keaton should not win this time... is because I personally want Cumberbatch to win! Edward Norton is equally remarkable. With his character’s volatile nature, he provides us with loads of entertainment, and his acting style is superb. Norton is my pick for the Supporting Actor category this year. Emma Stone has a comparatively small role, but her performance is amazing, especially in the scene where she has a powerful monologue. Not to forget Zach Galifianikis, whose acting is quite good, and much better than his role as Alan in the Hangover series.

Based on what I have heard and seen, I believe that almost all of the impartial movie watchers have chosen Birdman as their pick as the Best Picture this Oscar ceremony. With powerful acting performances and terrific cinematography as its strengths, Birdman or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance is expected to win big at the 87th Academy Awards. The story is okay, but almost everything else about the film is worth mentioning. It provides a whole new experience: a new way of viewing cinema, because of its theme (a film about the theatre) and cinematography. If you love films, Birdman is not to be missed!

My Rating: 4/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 92%  

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

Director: Wes Anderson
Story: Wes Anderson and Hugo Guinness
Cast: Ralph Fieness, Tony Revolori, Willem Dafoe, Adrien Brody, Edward Norton
Music: Alexandre Desplat
Time: 100 minutes
Bottom-line: Delightful to watch... a superb drama

The film with the 9 Oscar nominations – the most this year – The Grand Budapest Hotel seems to be sitting pretty, with a very good chance of garnering awards at the ceremony. Wes Anderson’s film combines comedy, drama, violence, romance... all against the background of the period between the World Wars, into a nice, compact story. Ralph Fieness and Tony Revolori play the lead roles, with a long list of supporting actors, including Willem Dafoe, Edward Norton, and others like Bill Murray and Harvey Keitel in cameo roles.

The story is split into seven parts. The first part starts in the present day, with a girl reading a book written by “The Author”. The time shifts to 1985, where the Author narrates his experience of staying at The Grand Budapest Hotel. Back in 1968, when a younger Author (Jude Law) went to the hotel, he notices that it is in a poor state, with very few guests. The state is also ravaged by war. He meets the owner, Zero Moustafa (Murray Abraham), who agrees to share with him his tale. He takes the Author to 1932, when the hotel was under strict supervision of the concierge, M. Gustave H (Fieness), and at that time, Zero had joined as a lobby boy (Revolori). Gustave courts many elderly women residing at the hotel, one of them being Madame D. (Tilda Swinton). A month later, she dies under mysterious circumstances, and in her will, she leaves an expensive painting to Gustave. Hoping to save the painting from the angry family members, Gustave and Zero steal it. Soon, Gustave is also framed for her murder. The pursuit of Gustave by Madame D’s son (Brody), other related events, and how he gets control of the hotel are narrated by Zero to the Author.

Fieness as Gustave H (left)
and Revolori as Zero

Ralph Fieness in a comedy role... that was something that shocked me initially! I mean, seeing him as Lord Voldemort in the Harry Potter series and an equally ruthless villain, Amon Göth in Schindler’s List and now knowing that he would be playing the lead role in the comedy film made me eager to watch The Grand Budapest Hotel. I am still stunned, but this time because I am left speechless by his performance... it was simply amazing. So many subtle expressions, displayed with such panache and grace... he has truly given one of his career-best performances here. Tony Revolori, in his debut film, is quite impressive. Though his face carries a deadpan expression throughout the film, what I liked is that he was able to support Fieness in the lead role. He makes sure the audience notices him, and it is not as though his acting is completely overshadowed by that of Fieness. Willem Dafoe plays Jopling, an assassin hired by Madame D’s son to pursue Gustave. He has the same look – and job – as Schwarzenegger in The Terminator, the doings of Jopling could send a few chills up your spine too! All the other actors do not have much screen time. But one thing I feel is that, because of the costumes and facial make-up, it is quite difficult to recognise some of the familiar faces in the film – personally, it was difficult for me to spot Edward Norton and Harvey Keitel, or even Owen Wilson till I saw their names in the closing credits.

From top left: Fieness, Murray Abraham, Mathieu Amalric,
Brody, Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum, Harvey Keitel (bottom left), Jude Law,
Bill Murray, Edward Norton, Saoirse Ronan and Jason Scwartzman

The visual style of the film is something else I loved. Now, visual style is not synonymous with visual effects – in fact, I hardly found any effects being used, and in several scenes, the settings looked very artificial. What I liked, however, is the content I saw on screen: the superb performances, costumes and the colourful way (probably the best example of Anderson's stylised use of colour) of presentation on screen. The comic actions, the violent murders, the chases in the snow... all this accompanied by a foot-tapping, racy score by Alexandre Desplat (who has two nominations this year, for this film and The Imitation Game) make The Grand Budapest Hotel a treat to watch.

The story is a little slow to start with, and in fact, it gets interesting only after the death of Madame D. There are many instances of subtle humour, either due to action or due to the dialogues, but you cannot watch the film without laughing all the way. Like I said before, Wes Anderson has beautifully woven a tale of romance, comedy, murder, and friendship. In fact, if you may be wondering why the story is told in several layers (first the girl with the book, the then the Author, and then Moustafa...), the answer is told towards the end. We see how, after spending several years and undertaking many dangerous routes, all to save the picture, in the end it ironically hangs in a pitiable condition in one of the hotel walls. Also, we come to know that the reason Moustafa continues to run the hotel, though it is practically making no business, is because it is his last connection to his love. When he is doing all he can to protect it, the least the Author can do is to keep it the tale alive. So that is the reason I think, as to why the story is narrated in this fashion – to show that the story is not completely dead, and that it has survived for well-over 50 years.

With a fast-paced story, first-class performances from the ensemble cast, wonderful visuals and not to forget the “bouncy” score, Wes Anderson’s The Grand Budapest Hotel is one of the best feel-good films of recent times. However, I wouldn’t recommend it for people of all ages, because of some language and violence; but otherwise, this is one of those films that you must see, for it gives you all-round entertainment, without taking too much time.

My Rating: 4.5/5
Rotten Tomatoes rating: 92%