Birdman and other reviews..
May. 25th, 2015 10:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatEverything I've watched this weekend, including the Avengers, seems to have the theme of feeling invisible or unimportant, and the need to, ahem, strut one's stuff. To matter. To make a difference somehow. Even if it's just making a legendary cocoa cola commercial. Of the one's I've seen, Birdman and Mad Men were by far the best.
1) The Academy Award Winning Film Birdman is a surrealistic film, starring Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, and Zach Galifanks. It takes you inside the New York theater world, and the psyche of a former blockbuster film star who has sunk his savings and everything he has into a Broadway play adaptation of Raymond Carver short stories. (Several years back, Robert Altman did a film adaptation of Raymond Carver entitled "Short Cuts". )
Riggan Thompson (Michael Keaton) used to portray "Birdman" - a comic book superhero in blockbuster movies. But he feels like he was a failure. Has a failed marriage. A daughter just out rehab, who he barely knows, and a stalled career. This is his comeback, his chance to prove that he is an actor. When the film begins, Thompson has just replaced the co-star with a highly touted Broadway Actor, portrayed by Ed Norton, and they are in the midst of previews. Things...well, don't go according to plan. And Thompson appears to be having visions of his alter ego, Birdman, who talks to him.
It's a rather funny film - I burst out laughing during several scenes, and moving in others. There's one scene- that well, had me rolling with laughter.
The focus though is on the idea of accomplishment, of whether creating something, a work of art defines who we are. Do we matter? Does the art matter? If no one likes it? What then?
There's a brilliant scene in the middle of the movie with a theater critic (theater critics as any New Yorker knows are the worst, they can kill a play, which is why many actors never read them). In the scene, the critic informs Thompson she is going to destroy his play, even though she hasn't seen it. Merely because she hates what he represents. That he isn't an actor, just a celebrity. He counters, grabbing a review she's been scribbling at the bar - what has she created? Anything? What is this critique? Just labels? Nothing constructive, nothing about structure, or how the story is built or what worked, or didn't? She's lazy, he tells her. A coward. She labels his work as less than art, not worthy, because it doesn't meet her standards. And informs him that he is entitled, cheap, a maker of cartoons. The cinematographer..warps her face in the image, and she herself feels like a caricature or cartoon in Thompson's eyes.
The film shows the dangers of wrapping one's ego in one's art, and yet, how do we separate the two? Ed Norton's character, Mike, can't get it up unless he's performing in front of a hundred people. It's only real when he's performing. His life is nothing off-stage. He feels that he is nothing, off stage.
Carver himself often wrapped himself up in his stories. And famously was edited to death by his editors, fighting them to keep phrases and words intact.
From Wiki:
Carver's editor at Esquire, Gordon Lish, was instrumental in shaping Carver's prose in this direction - where his earlier tutor John Gardner had advised Carver to use fifteen words instead of twenty-five, Lish instructed Carver to use five in place of fifteen. Objecting to the "surgical amputation and transplantation" of Lish's heavy editing, Carver eventually broke with him.
It's a layered film, that haunts long after the final credits roll. Playing with one's head.
Overall rating? A
[Almost want to write a meta on Mad Man and Birdman, if I had the time - I would.]
2. The film adaptation of the Broadway musical The Last Five Years details the decay of a five year romantic relationship between a successful novelist and a struggling actress. The reviews describe it as the anti-rom com. It stars Jeremy London (of SMASH) and Anna Kendrick (of Pitch Perfect and Into the Woods).
I found it to be a difficult movie to watch. My attention kept wandering during it, and it wasn't compelling. The characters weren't likable. The male lead, Jamie, was...self-absorbed and into his career and his fame. A textbook narcissist. Cathy barely exists outside of his needs. Cathy seems to slowly disappear, when he's on screen - as if she is just an object or someone to reflect his brilliance. He doesn't appear to hear her at all. She falls in love with his smile, his success, and aches for that something more, for love. Constantly searching for something more, something better - convinced she's found it in him, and perhaps her own success will follow. But alas, it doesn't. As he rises, she struggles, one rejection after another. And he's never quite there for her. When she has a shitty day, he tells her a story, a funny one - but doesn't listen to her day or her struggles, instead shrugging them off. And when she tells him how she feels invisible at his book promotion parties...and doesn't want to go through the humiliation again, he sings how she needs to be there for him. By the end of the story, which is told out of order, I was rooting for her to summarily dump him. Instead, as we know from the very beginning, he dumps her.
It has an interesting narrative style - Cathy's side is told in reverse chronological order, while Jamie's is told in chronological order. The film jumps back and forth between them - which is jarring, I think it may have worked better on stage. Their only overlap is the marriage duet in the middle, where they meet. Also the end, has an overlap of their first night and his final goodbye. He is a douchebag, though. At one point, while she's waiting for him to see her in Ohio, to support her, he's busy having an affair with another woman. And after he marries her, all he can think about is all the lovely ladies - and how great they look and how available.
Was a bit disappointed in it - I'd heard of it on NY1 On Stage - Theater Reviews. But it was less than stellar. Rotten Tomatoes appears to have liked it better than I did.
But the theme of falling in someone else's shadow and the hollowness of success...shines through. From the beginning you can tell the relationship is doomed, since the characters never sing a duet, instead they sing solos at one another...the other barely hearing it. And they appear to be more in love with the reflection of themselves in the other's eyes...than what is actually there.
[According Wiki - this was based on the writer's own failed marriage, and his ex-wife threatened to sue him, so he changed various songs and details, to make it less similar.
Writer's? Be careful about writing about yourself. You either come off pathetic or a douchebag.]
3) Broadchurch S2 - drug. I skipped to the end and just watched the last two episodes. Considering I was able to figure out the whole thing based on the last two episodes, and felt no need to go back and watch the rest -- probably says it all.
The court room scenes took me out of the story - they entered a lot into evidence that would have been thrown out in a US court, and the UK can't be that different.
Also, it never quite commented on the fact that both murders were accidental. Actually all three murders were accidental or involuntary manslaughter. There was no clear intent.
See? Having a criminal law background can be detrimental to watching criminal procedurals on television.
It also had a sense or flavor to it of futility. That you put all your energy into a career, but for what purpose? I remember a friend telling me ages ago...your career does not define you. I found it reassuring. I still do.
1) The Academy Award Winning Film Birdman is a surrealistic film, starring Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, and Zach Galifanks. It takes you inside the New York theater world, and the psyche of a former blockbuster film star who has sunk his savings and everything he has into a Broadway play adaptation of Raymond Carver short stories. (Several years back, Robert Altman did a film adaptation of Raymond Carver entitled "Short Cuts". )
Riggan Thompson (Michael Keaton) used to portray "Birdman" - a comic book superhero in blockbuster movies. But he feels like he was a failure. Has a failed marriage. A daughter just out rehab, who he barely knows, and a stalled career. This is his comeback, his chance to prove that he is an actor. When the film begins, Thompson has just replaced the co-star with a highly touted Broadway Actor, portrayed by Ed Norton, and they are in the midst of previews. Things...well, don't go according to plan. And Thompson appears to be having visions of his alter ego, Birdman, who talks to him.
It's a rather funny film - I burst out laughing during several scenes, and moving in others. There's one scene- that well, had me rolling with laughter.
The focus though is on the idea of accomplishment, of whether creating something, a work of art defines who we are. Do we matter? Does the art matter? If no one likes it? What then?
There's a brilliant scene in the middle of the movie with a theater critic (theater critics as any New Yorker knows are the worst, they can kill a play, which is why many actors never read them). In the scene, the critic informs Thompson she is going to destroy his play, even though she hasn't seen it. Merely because she hates what he represents. That he isn't an actor, just a celebrity. He counters, grabbing a review she's been scribbling at the bar - what has she created? Anything? What is this critique? Just labels? Nothing constructive, nothing about structure, or how the story is built or what worked, or didn't? She's lazy, he tells her. A coward. She labels his work as less than art, not worthy, because it doesn't meet her standards. And informs him that he is entitled, cheap, a maker of cartoons. The cinematographer..warps her face in the image, and she herself feels like a caricature or cartoon in Thompson's eyes.
The film shows the dangers of wrapping one's ego in one's art, and yet, how do we separate the two? Ed Norton's character, Mike, can't get it up unless he's performing in front of a hundred people. It's only real when he's performing. His life is nothing off-stage. He feels that he is nothing, off stage.
Carver himself often wrapped himself up in his stories. And famously was edited to death by his editors, fighting them to keep phrases and words intact.
From Wiki:
Carver's editor at Esquire, Gordon Lish, was instrumental in shaping Carver's prose in this direction - where his earlier tutor John Gardner had advised Carver to use fifteen words instead of twenty-five, Lish instructed Carver to use five in place of fifteen. Objecting to the "surgical amputation and transplantation" of Lish's heavy editing, Carver eventually broke with him.
It's a layered film, that haunts long after the final credits roll. Playing with one's head.
Overall rating? A
[Almost want to write a meta on Mad Man and Birdman, if I had the time - I would.]
2. The film adaptation of the Broadway musical The Last Five Years details the decay of a five year romantic relationship between a successful novelist and a struggling actress. The reviews describe it as the anti-rom com. It stars Jeremy London (of SMASH) and Anna Kendrick (of Pitch Perfect and Into the Woods).
I found it to be a difficult movie to watch. My attention kept wandering during it, and it wasn't compelling. The characters weren't likable. The male lead, Jamie, was...self-absorbed and into his career and his fame. A textbook narcissist. Cathy barely exists outside of his needs. Cathy seems to slowly disappear, when he's on screen - as if she is just an object or someone to reflect his brilliance. He doesn't appear to hear her at all. She falls in love with his smile, his success, and aches for that something more, for love. Constantly searching for something more, something better - convinced she's found it in him, and perhaps her own success will follow. But alas, it doesn't. As he rises, she struggles, one rejection after another. And he's never quite there for her. When she has a shitty day, he tells her a story, a funny one - but doesn't listen to her day or her struggles, instead shrugging them off. And when she tells him how she feels invisible at his book promotion parties...and doesn't want to go through the humiliation again, he sings how she needs to be there for him. By the end of the story, which is told out of order, I was rooting for her to summarily dump him. Instead, as we know from the very beginning, he dumps her.
It has an interesting narrative style - Cathy's side is told in reverse chronological order, while Jamie's is told in chronological order. The film jumps back and forth between them - which is jarring, I think it may have worked better on stage. Their only overlap is the marriage duet in the middle, where they meet. Also the end, has an overlap of their first night and his final goodbye. He is a douchebag, though. At one point, while she's waiting for him to see her in Ohio, to support her, he's busy having an affair with another woman. And after he marries her, all he can think about is all the lovely ladies - and how great they look and how available.
Was a bit disappointed in it - I'd heard of it on NY1 On Stage - Theater Reviews. But it was less than stellar. Rotten Tomatoes appears to have liked it better than I did.
But the theme of falling in someone else's shadow and the hollowness of success...shines through. From the beginning you can tell the relationship is doomed, since the characters never sing a duet, instead they sing solos at one another...the other barely hearing it. And they appear to be more in love with the reflection of themselves in the other's eyes...than what is actually there.
[According Wiki - this was based on the writer's own failed marriage, and his ex-wife threatened to sue him, so he changed various songs and details, to make it less similar.
Writer's? Be careful about writing about yourself. You either come off pathetic or a douchebag.]
3) Broadchurch S2 - drug. I skipped to the end and just watched the last two episodes. Considering I was able to figure out the whole thing based on the last two episodes, and felt no need to go back and watch the rest -- probably says it all.
The court room scenes took me out of the story - they entered a lot into evidence that would have been thrown out in a US court, and the UK can't be that different.
Also, it never quite commented on the fact that both murders were accidental. Actually all three murders were accidental or involuntary manslaughter. There was no clear intent.
See? Having a criminal law background can be detrimental to watching criminal procedurals on television.
It also had a sense or flavor to it of futility. That you put all your energy into a career, but for what purpose? I remember a friend telling me ages ago...your career does not define you. I found it reassuring. I still do.