tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post1493338174528419419..comments2024-03-27T10:27:59.266-04:00Comments on John Kenneth Muir's Reflections on Cult Movies and Classic TV: Cult-Movie Review: Birdman (2014)John Kenneth Muirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15629979615332893780noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-56169930054025976612016-04-13T20:23:35.852-04:002016-04-13T20:23:35.852-04:00Thanks, Maybe I should give this one a second watc...Thanks, Maybe I should give this one a second watch. To be honest, it reminded me a lot of JCVD (2008) which I enjoyed more. Though, that may be just because I'm not a very deep thinker. I'd love to see you review that film, which I believe is underrate but has built a small following. <br /><br />For me JCVD just felt more real: like it was impossible to tell where the man stopped and the character began, and this made the film feel more tragic and his search for redemption more touching.<br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-72330233740282651702016-04-12T15:19:48.128-04:002016-04-12T15:19:48.128-04:00Thank you, Hugh, for asking such a great question,...Thank you, Hugh, for asking such a great question, and spurring me to write about this filmmaker and his recent works. I loved Birdman and The Revenant, but on rewatch found that I actually preferred the intellectual dance and amusing Birdman. Both great films, but Birdman is a one-of-a-kind.John Kenneth Muirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15629979615332893780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12380553.post-17990662472911489802016-04-12T14:16:42.281-04:002016-04-12T14:16:42.281-04:00John,
Obviously (since it was my query), I was an...John,<br /><br />Obviously (since it was my query), I was and am very interested in your take here, and you do not disappoint. I think that [i]Birdman[/i] is quite a film, and you touch on several of the reasons why in this excellent review. As I wrote in my original question, this film recalls for me George Cukor's [i]A Double Life[/i] (1947), in which Ronald Colman plays a past-his-prime stage star trying to rekindle his career with a production of [i]Othello[/i] that begins to intercept his life. Both films deal with actors contemplating their own reputations and legacies and deal with the issues you so thoroughly elucidate about high vs. low art (though Inarittu's film more directly deals with this, the fact that Ronald Colman's character of Anthony John is a stage, and not film, actor is noteworthy). (I think the two might make for an interesting double-bill (as would [i]Birdman[/i] and [i]Black Swan[/i], a pair of films suggesting lengths performers go to for their art.) Part of the weight behind Colman's performance is the fact that he starred in that film years after his last true film triumph, as though he was making a final statement that he still was master of his craft, and there is a similar meta-quality to the casting of Michael Keaton. Obviously, this gets read as a sort of followup to his two takes on Batman, and given how much of the current superhero film trend has been linked to Tim Burton's take on the Dark Knight, this becomes, as you note, a commentary on the entire genre. <br /><br />I think the sliding it does into magical realism is part of what lifts the film in my mind to another level--the whole world seems potential overturned at points, which is heightened with the (seemingly out-of-nowhere) moments of telekinesis & levitation, as well as the possible psychic breaks in which Birdman appears. One thing that I just realized during your review, however, is that the Birdman isn't older--Riggan is. Because we're watching an older Keaton, in my head I was making the superhero alter ego aged as well, but he's still the in-his-prime hero, the lurking shadow of Riggan's youth, and that, to me, makes the visions that much more haunting.<br /><br />Thanks for the great food for thought.Hughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10790273832065126540noreply@blogger.com