Birdman

     Birdman is a fantastic story about a film actor who decides to direct, finance, and star in a Broadway play. Riggan, played by Michael Keaton, takes on this enormous undertaking to prove to himself (and everyone else) that he is a talented actor who is still relevant. Throughout the story we hear the main character's inner dialogue through Birdman, the superhero Riggan is famous for playing in his movies. Birdman is Riggan's ego, the devil on his shoulder, and the source of his self-doubt. The movie uses special cinematography to make it look like it is filmed in one continuous shot. This continuous shot technique makes the setting feel chaotic and as an audience member, you get a sense for all the moving parts Riggan has to balance in the days leading up to opening night. I don't want to spoil the movie so I won't go into much more detail about its plot.

     I am still contemplating all the points this movie touched on more than a week after watching it. One of the main points being that today's movie industry is neither deep nor diverse. Alejandro González Iñárritu, the director of Birdman, argues the following: what makes a "successful" movie does not necessarily make a great work of art. I agree with Alejandro's point of view, however not to the same extreme. I will agree that Hollywood has identified a formula for raking in massive amounts of cash: spend lots of money hiring big name actors and adding special effects, add in the standard plot of good versus evil, and leave room for sequel after sequel. The use of this formula does make me upset sometimes, however I am not enraged. This is the way of the world. Not everyone who goes to see a movie is basing its quality off of its contributions to the world of art. The point is to be entertained, and some people find entertainment in watching things blow up for 2+ hours! I could see how it would be upsetting for an actor to make less money than someone who is less talented than you because of their participation in the standard Hollywood formula, however that is your choice. You are not a victim in this scenario, you may be a "purist" or a "real artist," but not a victim.

     I also do not believe the use of special effects cheapens a movie's quality or appeal. If time in a movie is not spent on a close up of a character's facial expressions or dialogue, and is instead used to show a beautiful  CG landscape that could not be achieved (or would be very difficult to achieve) through traditional filming, then that is just showcasing the talents of other artists instead of the actors. The people behind the explosions and sci-fi worlds in film are artists. They are 3D environment masters, programmers, and special effects teams. These scenes they create take direction and storyboarding to achieve, much like traditional film making. Arguing against this feels to me like an old person refusing to learn how to use email or a smart phone because these things are part of the problem with today's lazy youth.

    My apologies for the rant. I found Birdman to be a great movie that makes its audience think, and I wouldn't be surprised if the continuous shot technique started showing up in more movies. The actors, writers, and directors in this movie worked for much less money than the average box office hit, and it paid off (9 Academy Award nominations and 4 Academy Awards). Birdman and Alejandro González Iñárritu sure did get a lot of praise from the industry it criticizes so much, perhaps adding another level of comedy to the movie.