Plot Details: This Review Reveals Minor Details About the Plot.
Super Realism
Plot Overview
A star falls from the heavens and we watch the fireball. Washed-up actor Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton of “Batman” fame) who played an iconic Birdman in a three-film franchise declined to do the fourth and is himself now in decline. To recoup his reputation, he is directing and acting in a Broadway play that he also wrote, a stage production of Raymond Carver's short story, “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love”. We find him doing yoga meditation to center himself, but the project is still up in the air.
He joins rehearsal at St. James Theater in New York City, close to Times Square, where a mediocre actor Ralph (Jeremy Shamos) has an untimely accident. They find a replacement for him in 'method' actor Mike Shiner (Edward Norton) who doesn't come cheap, so Riggan goes further into hock. He is plagued by: his rebellious daughter Sam (Emma Stone) who's in rehab from drugs, his former wife Sylvia (Amy Ryan) who doesn't like him giving away the store for his project, his worried friend/ producer/ lawyer Jake (Zach Galifianakis), his overly sexual actress mistress Laura (Andrea Riseborough), his insecure co-star Leslie (Naomi Watt), a hostile New York Times theater critic Tabitha (Lindsay Duncan), and a deep persistent inner Birdman voice that's always on his case. As opening night looms and failure seems imminent, he may resort to cutting off his nose to spite his face.
Ideology
There's an oft-displayed note on Riggan's dressing room mirror: A thing is a thing, not what is said of that thing, attributed as a quote by someone whose name is unreadable. A “thing” comes up when his lawyer averts a lawsuit by threatening to publish the photographic contents of Ralph's computer, of whom it was said, “He has a thing for nuns in diapers.” Ralph wouldn't want anything said of that “thing” of his. This is a double entendre on the word continence that can mean control either of (especially sexual) appetites or of bodily discharge, the lack of it in the latter case necessitating diapers. Hey, whatever turns him on.
This “thing” also correlates to the bedroom scene they are rehearsing in which a man who Riggan plays burst's into his wife's bedroom brandishing a pistol, to find her in bed with another man, she being incontinent with respect to sexual fidelity. Riggan's line when she reveals she doesn't love him is, “I'm nothing. I'm not even here.” He doesn't exist. That's almost identical to a line from the movie/play “Chicago,” which cuckold Amos sings in the song “Mr Cellophane” (designating his invisibility).
The reason for the nuns' incontinence is echoed by Laura who finding it difficult to get pregnant, says, “My body is not cooperating with me.” Another kind of bodily noncooperation is encountered by Mike who can't perform sexually—except sometimes (“I'm hard.”) Also by aging Riggan whose gift of easy telekinesis seems to have deserted him when he closes a locking door behind him and can't open it from his side—his usual gift would have allowed him to. Where is the miracle when he needs one?
The general point seems to be that a man's identity is to some extent invested in his marriage being the vehicle for procreation that carries his name (identity) through succeeding generations. That identity is still there even for (temporary?) lack of one's body cooperating because of sickness, diminished desire, or age, resulting in no offspring jumping out of the womb. The nuns, after all, are still married to Jesus even if they've got the trots.
The other rehearsed scene we see is one in a kitchen where they are discussing (appropriately enough) the meaning of love. A backstage open ended discussion concerns a lesbian pass one actress makes to another (“What are you doing?”) In our broader society, there is a lot of debate, state by state, whether homosexuals who love each other could be accommodated by a legal marriage. By this movie's formulas, their identities would not be as much wrapped up in such a same-sex marriage because it could produce no offspring, and not for a (temporary?) lack of bodily cooperation, but because they have the wrong body pairings to begin with. If we were to call such marriages real, then a heterosexual marriage would be “super real” as was termed this play's artistic endeavor. Or to use common dictionary definitions, one marriage is the close union of two unspecified entities, the other of a heterosexual couple, the latter being synonymous with holy matrimony, the former in the case of gays, synonymous with domestic partnership or civil union.
The thrust of this movie is that the only opinion that matters is that of the critic on opening night, which is similar to a Christian's position that the only opinion that matters is God's, see 1Cor. 4:3-5. All the voting in the world to make a homo marriage equivalent to a hetero one won't matter a hoot if God doesn't agree.
Production Values
“Birdman” (2014) is shot as a play adaptation of Raymond Carver's classic short story, “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love.” It was masterfully directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu. It was written by him, and co-written with Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris Jr, and Armando Bo. It stars Michael Keaton, Zach Galifianakis, Edward Norton, Andrea Riseborough, Amy Ryan, Emma Stone, and Naomi Watts. Three standouts are Keaton, Norton and Stone. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki and editors Douglas Prise & Stephen Mirrione did an outstanding job augmented by a jazzy drum score by Antonio Sanchez.
Cineasts will appreciate the filming device of long takes subtly edited to look like (after the intro) a single long take for the whole movie, as was seen before in “Silent House” and more notably in Hitchcock's “Rope.” I don't know, though, whether it adds much to the regular moviegoer's experience. It's rated R for language throughout, some sexual content and brief violence.
Review Conclusion w/ Christian Recommendation
“Birdman” is fast paced and intense, happening almost entirely in a warren backstage at an “800 seat shithole.” I appreciated it because it reminded me of my high school theater days. It's perhaps comparable to jazz music: some people will love it, others not so much. If you like something twisty and weird and involving, go see it. If you like standard fare stick to that. But it's well made and might be worth it just for a different experience.
Movie Ratings
Action Factor: Weak action scenes. Suitability For Children: Not Suitable for Children of Any Age. Special effects: Absolutely amazing special effects. Video Occasion: None of the Above. Suspense: Keeps you on the edge of your seat. Overall product rating: Four stars out of five.
bibles.n7nz.org