Birdman Review- By Michael J. Carlisle

Title: Birdman
Year: 2014
Director: Alejandro Gonzales Innaritu
Country: US
Language: English

Upon seeing the trailer of Birdman or: The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance I had a sense that the Director, Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu, was trying to mimic the style of 60's French film icon Jean Luc Godard. Indeed either consciously or subconsciously he had made references to Pierrot Le Fou, Every Man For Himself and Breathless. There is no doubt that Birdman was an attempt to mix arthouse cinema with the mainstream and appeal to a massive audience. Remarkably it won "Best Picture" at the Academy awards for its efforts. My thoughts can be summed up by stating that Birdman was a half-assed approach to Cinema.

A washed-up actor, played by Michael Keaton, who once played an iconic superhero, battles his ego and attempts to recover his family, his career and himself in the days leading up to the opening of his Broadway play. 

Inarritu depends on real world references to get his world across. Washed up actor who once played an iconic superhero? Why that's Michael Keaton, who formerly played the role of batman. Both character and actor played their iconic roles multiple times before refusing to do another sequel and fading into obscurity. The film thinks it's clever, but only a fool wouldn't be able to grasp the not-so-subtle references. The picture does its job by generating "Oscar Buzz" and ensuring the comeback of Keaton, but unfortunately that's the only good thing about the film. 

Birdman asks big questions but never delivers on the answers, and no, it isn't intentionally leaving us in the dark. It reduces complex stagings, shots and technical ideas into simplistic compositions that in no way shows Innaritu was the "Best Director" at the Academy Awards. Many consumers gawk at the editing of this film, after all it was shot in one continuous take like Russian Ark! Actually there are transitions achieved digitally that are sewn together throughout a gap of time. Even when there is no transition, Innaratu has us staring at a wall while he changes the scene.

The long take has become a trope of cinema, everyone from Iranian Director Abbas Kiarostami to Tommy Wiseau has used it. This is no more praiseworthy than any other cinematic device. If Birdman was filmed solely with extreme close-ups would we praise it? Though I would say Keaton's acting was good, perhaps the best feature of this film, it was very hammy. Every actor tried their best to chew the scenery, and they did, but not in a good way. I was rolling my eyes at the dialogue between Emma Stone and Michael Keaton. "Dad you're a washed up actor and I did drugs because blah blah blah" I GET IT, quit shoving the movie's premise down my throat.

In conclusion, I could barely stay awake during Birdman even though I was watching it in the mid-afternoon. I have seen this type of film made over and over, I'd say The Wrestler did it best. This is an inadequate film that tries to say much about the nature of theatre, art and cinema but fails in every respect. The picture is a timid creature that excretes wholly unoriginal, uninspiring and mediocre drama. It's more pop than art, a ridiculous attempt to be "hip" and clever. We should be ashamed that Birdman was nominated for Best Picture, let alone was nominated for it. This does not say much for our current state of cinema. Piss on it! 2/5