Birdman or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance (Quickies)

 Editors Note: Watched on November 8th

     Before I discuss any praise for Michael Keaton, it's good to see Edward Norton back on the grind where he rightfully belongs. He's had a rough outing with films that didn't fit a man of his talent. Now, he was fine in Grand Budapest Hotel, but he was basically a supporting character in a movie that featured a bevy of other great performers. Here, he's grabbing scenes, even overshadowing Keaton. Birdman is really at how your past isn't your best benefit. Keaton plays Riggan Thomson, an actor who used to play Birdman for three successful films (Keaton was once Batman from 1989-92). As with all actors, he decided to venture into a different direction, so he goes to do Broadway shows and creates a production, in which, he stars, writes and directs. Unbeknownst to him, he's able to levitate and use telekinesis, something his alter ego was able to do.

     Having known very little about it, I was pretty much able to pick up many of the elements here to understand what was going on here. The casting is outstanding, especially the key actors in this production. A big round of applause, once again, to Emma Stone. I don't think there's anyone in Hollywood who uses their facial muscles in the way that she does. There's one scene where she and her father, Riggan's, are arguing over careers and other things, and the way she emotes her lines really added to the depth of her character. You can't say that about a lot of actors, and that speaks strongly of her strengths. Naomi Watts, Andrea Riseborough, Zack Galifianakis, and Amy Ryan are all strong for their roles. As for Keaton? This is probably his best role in years. He was fine in this year's Robocop reboot, but here, he owns the portrayal of an actor trying to stray away from his past. I don't know if he'll get an Oscar nomination, but I hope he gets one. Same for Norton.

     Director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu direction is interesting because the entire film is one long "long shot" where there minimal cuts and edits to the way a scene is processed. My guess is, sense much of the film takes place in the production of a play, it's directed like one. It's quite novel, really. The movie doesn't have a noticeable flaw other than that long shots may not be for the casual cinema viewer. Otherwise, you have a pure Oscar contender with this one.

Good: Direction, Strong performances throughout, excellent cinematography

Bad: May not be for casual viewing (i.e Inarritu's long shots)

4.5 out of 5