The General
Footballguy
Great movie, maybe a tad overrated at this point. People that think it's too artsy or whatever should stick to the comic book movies maybe Forrest Gump when feeling extra whimsical.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Birdman - new film starring Michael Keaton and Zach Galifianakis (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter jdoggydogg
- Start date
Jack White
Footballguy
First, it's Rope, not The Rope.Phrasing.
For those that haven't seen it, it is shot to simulate a continuous unbroken shot for the length of the movie, with no cuts. They seemed to think it was unprecedented, but Hitchcock's The Rope had a similar conception. He would have shot it continuously, but the film rolls ran out so he had to have a half dozen or so cuts, done in such a way that the edits were discrete, unobtrusive and seamless. It also was, I think, shot like a play would be staged, in that case in one room (somewhat similar to Rear Window, but even more extreme). Birdman had a play inside the play, so there is behind the scenes material, unlike The Rope. One of the principals, maybe the production designer, decribed it like making a movie upside down, in which post-production needs dictated much of the planning and structure form the inception. Everthing from the script on up, had to be meticulously organized up front, because they couldn't do edits in the usual sense.
I thought it started slow, but it gradually drew me in as the movie unfolded and progressed. Reportedly Josh Brolin was originally cast in the Ed Norton role, but schedule conflict prevented it. Maybe a case of life mirroring art, since Norton is a recast in the movie, due to a fortuitous (if you could call it that) actor injury mishap early on.
Second, there were almost no real edits in Rope. When each magazine of film was about to run out, the camera would move behind an object, usually a person, then emerge on the other side of that object. The only real cuts were when the projectionist had to change reels in the theater. From Wiki:
Long takes[SIZE=small][edit][/SIZE]Hitchcock shot for periods lasting up to 10 minutes (the length of a film camera magazine), continuously panning from actor to actor, though most shots in the film wound up being shorter.[4] Every other segment ends by panning against or tracking into an object—a man's jacket blocking the entire screen, or the back of a piece of furniture, for example. In this way, Hitchcock effectively masked half the cuts in the film.
However, at the end of 20 minutes (two magazines of film make one reel of film on the projector in the movie theater), the projectionist—when the film was shown in theaters—had to change reels. On these changeovers, Hitchcock cuts to a new camera setup, deliberately not disguising the cut.
As for Birdman, I thought it was interesting, but not a great film. Certainly there were better films in 2014.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Thanks for that background.
I didn't have the shooting details of Rope committed to memory or reference them, but I think there are more similarities than differences with Birdman, in that respect (just surprised it hasn't come up in the few reviews, articles and discussions I've seen). Other than that, I can't think of another movie that would be even remotely alike, in terms of citing as a comparison.
Anyways, a good movie, imo, others may want to check it out, especially if they are Hitchcock fans that haven't already seen it. It has Jimmy Stewart (one of Hitchcock's favorite leading men, with Cary Grant, also did Vertigo, Rear Window, The Man Who Knew Too Much - or was it Man Who Knew Too Much? ), as well as Farley Granger, who was also in Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train.
I didn't have the shooting details of Rope committed to memory or reference them, but I think there are more similarities than differences with Birdman, in that respect (just surprised it hasn't come up in the few reviews, articles and discussions I've seen). Other than that, I can't think of another movie that would be even remotely alike, in terms of citing as a comparison.
Anyways, a good movie, imo, others may want to check it out, especially if they are Hitchcock fans that haven't already seen it. It has Jimmy Stewart (one of Hitchcock's favorite leading men, with Cary Grant, also did Vertigo, Rear Window, The Man Who Knew Too Much - or was it Man Who Knew Too Much?
), as well as Farley Granger, who was also in Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Mojo
Footballguy
For me it was mixed results.
Positives:
Good acting from excellent ensemble cast
Clever camera work that enhanced story
Liked the "Birdman" conversations
Negatives:
Unlikable, self absorbed characters
Very strange soundtrack that was distracting
Ending that didn't make any sense from every angle I have considered so far
The fact that it won Best Picture mean higher expectations, which works against it
Positives:
Good acting from excellent ensemble cast
Clever camera work that enhanced story
Liked the "Birdman" conversations
Negatives:
Unlikable, self absorbed characters
Very strange soundtrack that was distracting
Ending that didn't make any sense from every angle I have considered so far
The fact that it won Best Picture mean higher expectations, which works against it
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
I liked the use of music. Sometimes it was actually there and we walked into the drummers and I presume we are supposed to think any other music was in his head, rather than it being a score or soundtrack of the movie.
I think it takes away from the film that there is some type of ambiguity that he had powers at the end. I don't buy that at all. He was searching for relevance and approval from society and himself. He was suicidal. He was a little nuts and getting worse the more he reflected on himself and his life. The play was a reflection of himself. He threw stuff around and trashed his place. He took a cab and didn't pay for it. But I have no clue about the end because she looked up.
Can any of you make out what the police etc are saying over the credits? That should be the clue in for the ending.
I think it takes away from the film that there is some type of ambiguity that he had powers at the end. I don't buy that at all. He was searching for relevance and approval from society and himself. He was suicidal. He was a little nuts and getting worse the more he reflected on himself and his life. The play was a reflection of himself. He threw stuff around and trashed his place. He took a cab and didn't pay for it. But I have no clue about the end because she looked up.
Can any of you make out what the police etc are saying over the credits? That should be the clue in for the ending.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Can't remember if it was posted in here or not but there is a very good review/essay out there about "Birdman" and the ending (and other strange stuff). Essentially the theory is that Riggan is in some sort of state of limbo/purgatory. Remember he talks about trying to kill himself?
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
SPOILER
Article below runs through some interpretations. The writer's preferred one uses differences in the score demarcating reality and fantasy as a clue to the ending. Another is that he killed himself with the gun on stage, and everything that follows he is in kind of a mental construct bardo realm between life and death, right before his corporeal body expires. One thing I forgot to mention earlier, but if a lot of time hasn't elapsed between shooting himself and waking up and being visited in the hospital (maybe she could have had an old newspaper review of his performance handy, but the crowds of press in the hospital suggests this is in the immediate aftermath - maybe if he was out for a while and there was news that he regained consciousness, but that is far fetched, they would just tell family first, unless there was a leak in the hospital), I don't see any way his nose could have healed so quickly, if it was basically shot off and rebuilt with plastic surgery, it does look dramtically different. This may suggest the bardo realm/limbo-ending interpretation.
How to interpret a movie depends on the nature of a movie. If it was about Superman, we wouldn't be wondering whether he could fly or not. In some ways, maybe the movie is somewhat inconsistent in the clues used to inform the reader what kind of universe the protagonists inhabit and in which the story unfolds in, and what kind of laws they may be subject to or restricted by. Consciously and intentionally so, to add to the mystery of the ending, and lead to people talking about different end interpretations. If you saw his broken and bleeding body on the sidewalk at the end, not much mystery, and we aren't talking about it. Perhaps if you see him flying away, there might still be some ambiguity (did the daughter go crazy and is just imagining it like her father, if in fact that is what he was doing all along). I thought seeing the drummer break the fourth wall was a clue that this should be interpreted surreally, but I suppose no different from the Birdman character, he could just be hallucinating that, too.
* What is the "real" meaning of Eraserhead or Mulholland Drive, and what does that even mean, when they may have been purpose-designed to be a kind of cinematic poem that lent itself to multiple interpretations. Lynch has always refused to explain the "meaning" of his movies, and seems to sincerely think/feel, and consistently stated that whatever interpretation the viewer brings, is valid FOR THEM. He has also said of all the interpretations he has ever heard of Eraserhead, he has yet to hear one that lines up with HIS. That is kind of remarkable, if you think about it, given how many there have been. Eraserhead and Mulholland Drive are still talked about years and even decades later, not in spite of, but precisely because of the seemingly impenetrable mystery that surrounds them. Nobody talks about Elephant Man or Straight Story from his body of work. That won't be his legacy, or why he is considered a genius by some (Eraserhead was reportedly at one time Kubrick's favorite movie).
http://patch.com/california/northhollywood/birdman-or-lets-talk-about-ending
Article below runs through some interpretations. The writer's preferred one uses differences in the score demarcating reality and fantasy as a clue to the ending. Another is that he killed himself with the gun on stage, and everything that follows he is in kind of a mental construct bardo realm between life and death, right before his corporeal body expires. One thing I forgot to mention earlier, but if a lot of time hasn't elapsed between shooting himself and waking up and being visited in the hospital (maybe she could have had an old newspaper review of his performance handy, but the crowds of press in the hospital suggests this is in the immediate aftermath - maybe if he was out for a while and there was news that he regained consciousness, but that is far fetched, they would just tell family first, unless there was a leak in the hospital), I don't see any way his nose could have healed so quickly, if it was basically shot off and rebuilt with plastic surgery, it does look dramtically different. This may suggest the bardo realm/limbo-ending interpretation.
How to interpret a movie depends on the nature of a movie. If it was about Superman, we wouldn't be wondering whether he could fly or not. In some ways, maybe the movie is somewhat inconsistent in the clues used to inform the reader what kind of universe the protagonists inhabit and in which the story unfolds in, and what kind of laws they may be subject to or restricted by. Consciously and intentionally so, to add to the mystery of the ending, and lead to people talking about different end interpretations. If you saw his broken and bleeding body on the sidewalk at the end, not much mystery, and we aren't talking about it. Perhaps if you see him flying away, there might still be some ambiguity (did the daughter go crazy and is just imagining it like her father, if in fact that is what he was doing all along). I thought seeing the drummer break the fourth wall was a clue that this should be interpreted surreally, but I suppose no different from the Birdman character, he could just be hallucinating that, too.
* What is the "real" meaning of Eraserhead or Mulholland Drive, and what does that even mean, when they may have been purpose-designed to be a kind of cinematic poem that lent itself to multiple interpretations. Lynch has always refused to explain the "meaning" of his movies, and seems to sincerely think/feel, and consistently stated that whatever interpretation the viewer brings, is valid FOR THEM. He has also said of all the interpretations he has ever heard of Eraserhead, he has yet to hear one that lines up with HIS. That is kind of remarkable, if you think about it, given how many there have been. Eraserhead and Mulholland Drive are still talked about years and even decades later, not in spite of, but precisely because of the seemingly impenetrable mystery that surrounds them. Nobody talks about Elephant Man or Straight Story from his body of work. That won't be his legacy, or why he is considered a genius by some (Eraserhead was reportedly at one time Kubrick's favorite movie).
http://patch.com/california/northhollywood/birdman-or-lets-talk-about-ending
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Mojo
Footballguy
Thanks for posting those.
For me, I just don't care much for films with this many possible and odd interpretations.
Herb
Footballguy
Agree with all of this.
I can't even figure out how I feel about this movie, that's how bizarre it was. At times I felt like I was watching brilliance; at others unfathomable garbage. Did NOT think it deserved best picture, especially over Boyhood, That said, I'm pretty sure if I watched it a couple more times I'd like it more. It's one of those films that my friends and I would deconstruct for months over half a dozen or more viewings in our college years, but no longer have the time for such pursuits.
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
This is what I think Samantha Thomson was looking at in the last scene...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfV-0Yv5vNY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfV-0Yv5vNY
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Maybe the 4th interpretation in that Patch article is it after all. It could be he is indeed in his hospital bed but, uh oh, the hallucinations have not stopped. But now he has finally rid himself of Birdman, and now his daughter has taken Birdman's place in his dreams, and the dream is a positive one, one in which he is free, free of Birdman, and where his daughter and ex-wife are his center. Artistically and personally, he has survived, transcended and transformed.
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
I thought AI was saying that we all have our own inner Birdman... Do you remember, much earlier in the film, where Sam was sitting when she talked to Mike Shiner on the roof top?
Last edited by a moderator:
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
I was impressed that Michael Keaton did not try to make his own character more likeable. He showed the confidence and braveness that great actors have.
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
Yeah, it was not that good a superhero movie.
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
I think it deserves best picture because the directing, acting, cinamatography, screenplay are top notch. It was a great achievement because the movie was made without the safety net of typical film editing.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Yes, a thread exists.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Wifey and I made it through about an hour, then gave up. Perhaps at another time in my life I would appreciate it more, but currently I found it exactly as you described, self absorbed and overly dramatic.
