"Birdman" film review "Please love me, but only once is not enough"

Some English words in the article are inside jokes. If you don't understand, please ignore it.

Twenty years ago, Riggan Thomson became famous for starring in the comic book hero series Birdman trilogy. However, when his popularity was still high, he refused to participate in the filming of the fourth film of Birdman. Twenty years later, the middle-aged Riggan has long been out of fashion, and the public still labels him simply as a "birdman." Due to the entanglement of vanity and conceit, time has not helped Riggan adapt to and accept the gap in his popularity and sense of existence. He wanted to prove that he was a real artist, so he personally adapted a play script and acted as the director and lead actor, which will be staged on Broadway. What the movie shows us is Riggan’s experience from initial production to premiere. Do you think things will go well?

This film is amazing and actually very jazzy (I just watched Whiplash). It is one of my favorites that I have seen this year. As usual, let’s list why it is good:

First, casting and performance

The person who plays the protagonist Riggan Thomson is the one who played "Batman" and "Batman" many years ago Michael Keaton of "The Return". Seth Rogan said to Zac Efron in "Neighbors", "Your generation thinks the real Batman is Christian Bale, but for our generation, the real Batman is Michael Keaton." The experience cannot be replicated, as explained by Nolan We are so spoiled that it is difficult for us to buy into Tim Burton’s style. The name Michael Keaton gradually faded out of people's conversation after the 1990s (it seems that the latest movie I have seen out of his country was Jackie Brown in 1997, and that was because of Tarantino). An actor who has played the classic Batman, but now "no one cares" about it, comes to play an actor who once played Birdman, but now no one cares about it. Keaton is said to have acted in his true colors. But there was one thing we didn't get right - from the director Alejandro González I?árritu to the co-star Edward Norton, they all said that compared to the Riggan he played, Michael Keaton himself had completely opposite personalities and mentality. Riggan in the movie is insecure, but Keaton is very clear about his current position and his direction. If this is the case, Keaton's performance is actually very breakthrough when it comes to those scenes of panic, despair, and cluelessness.

In addition to the protagonist, the other castings are also perfect. There are a few supporting characters I particularly want to talk about.

This movie is not particularly challenging for Naomi Watts. Compared with Keaton playing an exaggerated and deformed version of herself, Watts seems to be playing herself, or playing someone she is best at. "Character": An actress who constantly doubts her rocky career. First we go back to the 2001 classic, Mulholland Drive (that David fucking-with-our-dreams-Lynch, right?). In that play, Naomi played Diane, a good-acting but not-so-confident, desperate An actor who is famous but not famous. In an interview with Inside the Actor’s Studio, Naomi said that she is more like Diane (why do you say “more”?). She said that director David Lynch “brought out the dark side of me, and I found that I didn’t need to hide it.” She also said that self-doubt ("self-doubt") is a good thing for her.

I like Naomi Watts as an actress, firstly because of her great acting skills, and secondly because she allows me to see how insecure she is, and I don’t know why this gives her extra points in my mind.

Edward Norton plays Naomi Watts' bedmate. His character is that of a skilled but extremely conceited actor. I guess Watts was able to realize that she was very similar to his character when he read the script, but Norton may not have realized it at all when he read the script, because Norton himself is such an actor, and he may be so conceited that he cannot see what others are saying about him. . Director Alejandro González I?árritu said in an interview that as soon as Norton came and read the script, he started to suggest to the director, "Hey, why don't we shoot this?" "How about this!" and so on. The director immediately laughed and asked him, "Do you know what you are doing now?" Norton said, "No." "You are doing exactly what your character would do." On the difficulty of working with Edward Norton on the set I have been saying for a long time that he is not a big name, he just takes his work and his art very seriously and is unwilling to compromise. The following is just a "version" found online: When he was filming The Incredible Hulk, after he got the script, he added about 70 minutes of dialogue to highlight the depth of the character of Bruce Banner, the Hulk. And after Marvel cut all of them, he immediately stopped working. After that, Mark Ruffalo played the Hulk in "Avengers", and he was also most people's favorite. (The two actors are secretly good friends). The reason why I emphasize the "version found online" is because Gone Girl reminds us that it is too easy to fabricate hearsay. And that "version" of Norton seems to be carved from the same mold as his character in Birdman. However, no matter how talented this character is, he still doesn't have enough confidence in himself. He can only be the best (literally) on stage, and we can still feel his insecure side behind the scenes. I don't know what the real Norton is like. In this film, Norton steals the show from everyone else whenever he goes abroad. Fortunately, he said that this film is his most enjoyable creative experience.

Knowing the connection between the three main characters and the real-life characteristics of the actors gave me an extra level of enjoyment when watching the movie. At the very beginning of the movie (forgot who), there was a line saying that so-and-so shot himself in the mouth, but was not dead yet. My first reaction was Tyler Durden. But we're not supposed to talk about it.

I also want to briefly talk about two actors.

Emma Stone plays Riggan’s daughter. She is a soul who has had a heavy past and is now enlightened, but has not yet shed the burden. Emma Stone's character is very "Easy A," similar to Jennifer Lawrence. She is also relatively carefree and tells the story of "going to the toilet in the Forbidden City" on a talk show. In Riggan's Daughter, I can see Stone's freedom, like a kite trying to fly high, but Stone's scenes are more about interacting with Keaton and Norton. In these interactions, I can see a very tough kite. Line, this is where her acting skills lie. The camera gave many close-ups of her big eyes, and the emotions captured were real enough.

Zach Galifianakis (oh yeah, right for once) also does a great job as the agent/lawyer. I mention him because you don't usually expect a performance like this from him. He's the guy who messed around with Between Two Ferns, and he got serious this time, and of course he also provided some witty dialogue. Seeing that he also has a hairy face, we can't help but hope that he will follow Robin Williams and act in more dramas.

Second, script, photography, direction, editing

The cinematographer of this film is Emmanuel Lubezki, who just won the statuette for Gravity last year. One of the directors and screenwriters is Alejandro González I?árritu, who directed 21 Grams and Babel. With their cooperation, the film seems like a two-hour long shot from beginning to end.

This effect was set in advance in the script, which originally required actors to perform a long scene. The fact that this movie was shot for 30 days at a time really proves the high intensity and pressure on the set. This kind of shooting not only requires each actor to be reliable (especially the last actor to speak, because if he messes up, everyone will have to start over), but also requires a tacit understanding among the photographer, actors, and director. The latter is a big factor in the film's success, because not only are each scene long, but there's also a lot of movement and interaction between the actors in the scene. In order to capture the most expressive scenes and produce the effect of tracking shots, the camera cannot always take panoramic shots in the distance. It needs to follow the actors all the time, sometimes taking close-ups and constantly changing angles. At the same time, the camera should not interfere with the actors. In order to highlight the theme, there are a lot of mirrors in the movie, and the framing of scenes with mirrors in the movie is also very good.

I am very familiar with many long shots in Aaron Sorkin's script, so after watching this movie, I was happy to find that I didn't even think about Aaron Sorkin for a second. The movie was shot on his own. into style. The result of this kind of shooting feature is that it not only allows us to fully understand the characters, but also allows us to see the hustle and bustle backstage on Broadway, which colors the atmosphere of the movie (speaking of coloring, the lighting design is also unique). Due to the long lens tracking, the rhythm and tension of the movie were simply suffocating. I was quickly attracted to the dialogue and plot, forgetting to think about the "long lens". And because of this, this technical feature did not become a distraction. A distraction gimmick (this is a subjective conclusion). What's even more amazing is that when I watched it, I could clearly see that they must have said "click" in some places, but I just couldn't tell where it was cut. It's amazing.

Third, an in-depth theme

After talking for a long time about “XX highlights” and “YY highlights”, it’s time to talk about the theme in detail. But at this point, most of it comes down to personal understanding.

In fact, after reading this, you should have guessed that a major theme of the movie is the actors' extremely thin sense of security and their "addiction" to acceptance and affirmation. I've given some examples by talking about Keaton, Watts, and Norton. These actors all have varying forms of self-obsession. Keaton keeps bickering with his dark side. On the one hand, he wants to care about the quality of his plays and worries about other people's opinions of him as an artist. On the other hand, he angrily sighs, "I was so brilliant back then, but you guys are nothing! I You can make a fortune by filming Birdman 4!" But although he has already started doing dramas, it is not enough to perform well to complete the task, and it is very easy for him to be disturbed by the outside world and lose his self-confidence. So he kept thinking about putting on the costume of Birdman again and being loved by everyone again through commercial movies. Watts and the other actress have an extreme need for approval from others and need to hear praise to feel at ease. As for Norton, although he has no doubts about his acting skills, he is probably the most obsessed with it. He only has confidence in the character but not himself, so all his experience is poured into the performance and he doesn't care about anything else. , his life off stage is a mess, no one likes him. The subtext of everyone is "Look at me! Love me!" And as soon as you receive a little light, you want more light. What is this if not addiction? The mirrors in the movie are a symbol of this self-obsession.

This paragraph is very short and seems like a spoiler:

Emma Stone’s roll of toilet paper was to help her quit alcohol (or drug) addiction. In the long history of the earth, human beings Just that little piece.

The purpose of telling her father about this roll of paper was to help him get rid of his addiction to "Look at me! Love me!"

End of spoilers

However, everyone should not judge others too early. Amy in Gone Girl is also obsessed, and Andrew in Whiplash is also obsessed. I think all of us are like this now. The actors just happen to be celebrities, representatives of the vain and conceited group of people typified by the media. It is not an exaggeration to say that they are "things". Who of us really knows the actors? How many times have we assigned their roles to them, and how much do we like to over-interpret one of their expressions? "We" is a very general pronoun. I personally feel that Asian girls are one of the sickest groups, but everyone is really not that different. Compared with Riggan, who cannot tweet in middle age, we who talk about new things on Weibo and WeChat every day and look forward to replying are probably better at deceiving others' attention. Those who don’t know Riggan at all and call him Birdman when they come up and ask him for photos and autographs are just trying to fill their own vanity. “I saw Birdman a few days ago!” will become a topic of conversation, and that The photo received many clicks.

This brings me to the second topic that comes to mind, which is the comment on "celebrity" and "fame." But be careful: actors' expectations and pursuits of praise are different from some people's pursuit of "celebrity" status. Both have vanity at work, but the former is obviously a mentality that any entertainer must have, while the latter is extremely unhealthy from the beginning, and I think most actors think that being a "public figure" is ridiculous and sad. things. The above paragraph talks about how we treat celebrities. We put our own thoughts on them, we imagine their thoughts, and then we communicate with them. We use them when they are good to make ourselves feel better, and laugh at them when they are bad so we feel less dissatisfied with our lives. But on the other side, a "celebrity" must maintain his own image and public belief while working like a normal person and handing in good-quality work to the public, otherwise they will be dissatisfied. In addition, from time to time, some people say that they are old, have had plastic surgery, have been dating, or have had quarrels. There are always paparazzi taking pictures, and there is always public scrutiny. This pressure is so strange. The film can express this more vividly, which makes people sigh.

In addition, I would like to talk about society’s views on “comic hero” movies. Comic book movies have created an unprecedented sensation in the United States, at least among movie fans. In Michael Keaton's day, this kind of movie was not very credible, and people didn't take it seriously, which is understandable. Today is an era where Marvel and DC are competing for quality and content. Marvel has gained full trust from the industry through high-level films such as "Avengers", "Captain America 2" and "Galaxy", and the new trailer for "Avengers 2" is also very exciting. However, many people who like movies still sneer at such movies, thinking that they are just a joke and can only be watched casually. I am writing this now, and I definitely feel in my heart that "Captain America 2" and "Galaxy" are respectively one of my favorite films this year, but even I dare not list them on the Oscar nomination list. Because no matter how realistic and serious you make the film, you can't cover up the absurdity of the comic elements. In this regard, is it too much to take comic book movies so seriously now? It seems that shooting this kind of film will really reduce your sense of security. People are really going to say "you're not a real artist" and the more money you make, the lower your status is probably. And this attitude, anyone who really loves comics will tell you is wrong (none of that Transformers 4 bullshit).

This is why Robert Downey Jr. wanted to make The Judge. Now that it has been released for so long, he obviously did not get the box office revenue he wanted, and the score on Rotten Tomatoes is also fixed at below 50.

I really wonder what Downey is thinking right now. The whole movie amazed me from the technology to the content, which made me feel a little strange, and the ending also left me a little confused. It's been a day since I read it, but I'm still thinking about it. This is art.