|
Regarding Norton's disappearance: This was something I noticed right after I saw the movie this weekend and I got the impression it was intentional. The movie seemed to be doing that whole "the reality of the play mirrors the narrative within the play," but on a slightly different level with the movie's narrative mirroring Riggan's narrative as an actor in a play. Basically shifting everything up one narrative level, but the same idea. In Riggan's setting, he's brought an incredibly talented and well-known actor into his production and he gets pissed off when that actor begins to upstage him, so he starts stepping up his own game in order to take control of the play back from Mike. Similarly, Michael Keaton's character is getting upstaged by Edward Norton's character, so Keaton has to step up his acting and take control of the narrative back from Norton. The movie sort of subconsciously mirrors this by having Keaton's acting become both better and just more important and by sidelining Norton. Mike-the-character doesn't disappear from the story or anything, Norton is still there in the underwear-walking scene and the opening night performance, but Riggan (and Keaton) have seized the play/film back from the younger and better-known actor by being crazy as hell. The film's narrative structure bends to Riggan's will. How effectively it did that is another matter; I can see people acknowledging it was doing that but still finding Norton's near-irrelevance in the third act odd. I guess I did, since I noticed it to begin with, but it didn't bother me once I thought about it and about the "Mike is stealing my publicity" part. Norton is so good he steals the show from Keaton, just like Mike's stealing it from Riggan. He's got to be upstaged himself. As far as the message, the only conclusion I really got beyond what anyone said is that it seemed like the movie was challenging whether there's a difference between art and spectacle. Riggan hates Birdman because he sees Birdman as the avatar of cheap spectacle that isn't real art, but he's also jealous of the success of people who engage in spectacle and celebrity so he isn't sincere about that. Birdman tells him outright in the third act that spectacle is awesome, that people love him because of it, and that's kind of borne out throughout the film. The main characters all scoff at Riggan and act like Birdman is nothing special, but everywhere he goes people love him and reporters wet themselves at the thought of a Birdman 4 and everybody recognizes him. This is pointed out multiple times, like when Mike's giving him poo poo about how he's cooler than Riggan and nobody knows who Riggan is anymore and some tourists immediately show up wanting a picture with Birdman. Or how everyone in the middle of Times Square realizes the crazy guy in his underwear is the Riggan Thomson (note that strangely enough nobody's really mocking him, they're all just amazed). It seems like Riggan becomes more conflicted in how he thinks about Birdman as the movie goes on; he acts like Birdman's criticism is intrusive early on and tries to shut it out, and then toward the end of the movie he tells someone that the voice in his head "tells me the truth." He also abandons the cocktail napkin that he says inspired him to become an actor after the scene with the critic. Once he embraces the stuff Birdman is telling him he can fly and stuff. He's indistinguishable from Birdman, the artist from the spectacle. To perfect his art, Riggan has to turn it into spectacle by shooting himself, and the payoff is that he just ends up in the same spot he was when he was Birdman. I don't know if hearing from his producer that the play is going to be huge and run for years all over the world is what he really wanted, because that sounds suspiciously similar to what Birdman was saying about doing another superhero movie and making a billion dollars. I guess the idea is he can be Icarus or he can be wading through jellyfish, no in between. Or... something. That said, after thinking about all that I really couldn't tell where the movie was coming down on it and I'm not sure if it's clear, particularly him taking off the beak-like bandage and leaving Birdman on the toilet and the ambiguous ending. I honestly don't know how I feel about the movie right now. I loved the performances, I liked the style, but I'm not sure about the message and I'm not sure if it's sure about its message. I feel like it's saying something about art and yet I'm also not really sure my own reading of the film is anywhere close to correct or if the things I noticed are even intentional (like the screwball geometry created by the single-take illusion; was that supposed to be noticeable or not?). I'm with others who hope we get more Keaton though. Nakar fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Jan 21, 2015 |
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:58 |
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Interesting. I guess I read it differently. I thought Carver's work meant something to him on a deep level. Lots of lost and broken men in Carver's stories. Carver's endorsement of his career means nothing if nobody will take it seriously, so he just gives up on it; alternately, it could be read that nobody cares about how much Riggan likes and respects some writer, everyone will shut down that side of him and will only respect him for Birdman. There's no shortage of people throughout the film who respect or admire Riggan, after all, it's just always for one thing, and none of them have probably ever heard of Raymond Carver.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 17:24
|
|