(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.
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.
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...
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.
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 Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance
Director: Alejandro G. Iñárritu
Story: Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Jr., Armando BoCast: 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%
No comments:
Post a Comment