Review – Birdman

What I found so refreshing about Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) was just how many different layers there were to the film.

On the surface, it is a satire of modern films and celebrity culture with Michael Keaton playing a thinly-veiled fictional version of himself named Riggan. Riggan once starred in a series of summer blockbusters, but had his career stall out once he jumped off of the Birdman gravy train. He is now attempting to stage a comeback by adapting Raymond Carver’s short story What We Talk About When We Talk About Love.

Hollywood, celebrity culture, the New York theatre scene and highbrow critics are all skewered by the film. The satire rings true and seems to be coming from someone frustrated with the current system of filmmaking (and film critique). And anyone who has done a play knows just how true its depiction of theatre culture is. But, most importantly, it’s incredibly funny.

But if you did a bit deeper, there is a wonderfully meta level to the proceedings that goes beyond Keaton playing a fictional version of himself. There’s also Edward Norton, who is rumored to be notoriously difficult to work with, playing a notoriously-difficult-to-work-with theatre actor named Mike. (And making things even more meta, Mike fears that Riggan will replace him with a big name actor like Jeremy Renner, if he’s not too busy filming the next Avengers movie – which, of course, was a franchise that big name actor Norton parted ways with amidst rumors he was difficult to work with.) Then there’s Riggan’s plea to theatre critic Tabitha (Lindsay Duncan) to look beyond the gimmick of having a high profile actor star in this play, which feels like co-writer and director Alejandro González Iñárritu pleading with the audience to look past the gimmick of having Michael Keaton play the lead in this film.

And beyond the satire and the meta commentary, there’s a rather touching exploration of what drives an artist to work their craft, which any creative person will relate to. Riggan wants to do an adaptation of a Raymond Carver story because Carver once saw him perform and left him a touching note on a napkin after the show. It was what convinced him to follow his dreams of becoming an actor. And he wants to get back to the purity of that dream, which became muddled once the fame and the mechanics of Hollywood turned him into a superstar instead of an artist.

There’s an emotionally-powerful scene between Riggan and his daughter Sam (Emma Stone) where in a fit of anger she tells him that he’s staging this comeback because he’s trying to create a meaningful legacy to validate his existence, but it’s all futile because ultimately he doesn’t really matter. The struggle a creative person faces to make meaning of the world and to produce a worthwhile body of work is the core conflict of the film and it’s something I could definitely relate to.

The Wrestler did a great job telling the story of a man seeking to recapture his former glory. And while on the surface this film may seem similar to that one, it’s actually quite the opposite. Fame is meaningless to Riggan. In fact, it’s an obstacle because his fame as Birdman keeps people from seeing him as anything beyond Birdman.

But that temptation to sell out and embrace the fame is something Riggan struggles with throughout the film. This is presented in the form of an alterego inside Riggan’s head convincing him that he should give up the theatre ambitions and simply sign on for Birdman 4. Iñárritu depicts this internal struggle through lush dream sequences that feature CGI battles and Riggan’s ability to move objects with his mind and to fly. It’s a joy to watch.

Even if somehow Riggan’s struggle to create or the biting satire doesn’t resonate with you, the film should still be celebrated on a technical level. The entire story is presented as one continuous tracking shot that never cuts or fades to black. (It, of course, wasn’t all shot in one take, but it is edited so flawlessly that it’s almost impossible to notice where the edits take place.) This effect helps to give the entire film the feel of a stage play and it also keeps you engaged since the camera’s focus is always shifting and exploring.

The performances are also top notch. Keaton is absolutely brilliant and I sincerely hope this does begin a comeback for him. Norton and Stone are also great in their supporting roles, as is Naomi Watts as Lesley, an insecure actress in the play who has the misfortune of dating Mike. Zach Galifianakis’ portrayal of Jake, Riggan’s friend/lawyer, is my favorite role of his to date. My only complaint about the cast is that the phenomenally-talented Amy Ryan feels underutilized as Riggan’s ex-wife Sylvia.

I highly recommend giving this film a chance. It’s a refreshing change of pace from the typical Hollywood fare that is smart and funny and rewards close viewing and critical analysis. That, sadly, feels like a rare occurrence these days.

Written by Joel Murphy. If you enjoy his reviews, he also writes a weekly pop culture column called Murphy’s Law, which you can find here. You can contact Joel at murphyslaw@hobotrashcan.com.