Reviews

For persons with a strong aesthetic sensibility, the film Birdman instantly draws them into its artistic ambiance. Before any words are spoken, we hear the sounds of a jazz drummer beating out a message of HERE and NOW, giving the opening scenes an immediacy that must be the first element of the creation of art. The fact that the film is set in a theater, where immediacy is the name of the game, strongly establishes this theme. Instances of this also appear in scenes such as the one in which Riggan, the main character, tells himself to "breathe in, breathe out," a technique used in forms of meditation and mindfulness training to bring the subject to the present moment.

Riggan Thomson, played intensely and sublimely by Michael Keaton, is the story's protagonist. He had been a Hollywood superhero film star twenty years earlier, but now attempts serious art by writing, directing and acting in a challenging intellectual drama on Broadway at the St. James Theater, where this film was shot. Some other critics have described Riggan as a"washed-up" Hollywood actor, but events in the film do not support this claim. For example, one guy gets really excited to think that Riggan might make a "Birdman 4" movie. Another asks for his autograph, and a woman in a bar wants a photo taken with him. The intent was to show that he still had adoring fans, was commercially successful, and could have continued to be, but he quit voluntarily and now, much later, wants to prove himself as a "real" actor in the risky immediacy of the live stage drama.

Riggan is not just an actor but an everyman, certainly an "any artist", who struggles with self- doubt on the way to artistic self-expression. The great scene when Riggan wrestles with his alter "birdman" ego and in the process destroys his dressing room is actually a mechanism to show the battle between the forces of commercial schlock, represented by the big birdman character, versus true art, represented by Riggan and his desire to be taken seriously as a Broadway director, writer, and actor.

The film plays out on several levels, and within each level, there exists content and issues that educate, illuminate, and pose questions, making it a intellectual and aesthetic masterpiece. The ontological levels the film presents are not even mentioned by most critics. There are at least four fundamental co-existing levels:

First, the discourse or message level where various views are expressed and statements made. This certainly exists in the strained interactions between Riggan and his stage foil, Michael Shiner, played by Ed Norton. As another example, Sam, Reggin's existentialist and rebellious daughter, presents the generation gap by pointing out that cyberspace determines relevancy, not the lily-white, bourgeois theater of Reggin's distant past, nor his current quest for recognition and appreciation. She even denounces his quest as self-delusory, and insists that no one even cares, and that he is not so important, begging the question "Is anyone?"

Then there is the verismo level of daily life, seen from backstage where an actor's perspective exposes the industrial or "plant-level" nature of the theater. The continuous filming as actors move through hallways, rooms and various areas of the theater gives one the experience of being there, another element lending an immediacy to the rhythm of the shots.

The aesthetic level where the directing, acting, writing, camera work, special effects, and just raw comic energy are all excellent. Keaton and Norton deserve best actor and supporting actor awards for their superb portrayals. Zach Galifianakis expands his acting talents successfully in a well-played dramatic role as Riggan's best friend and lawyer. Emma Stone, as Riggan's daughter gives an honest, intense and convincing performance worthy of a best supporting actress award. Naomi Watts, Andrea Riseborough, and Amy Ryan all contribute their outstanding acting abilities to the story's success. All those players behind the camera, especially the director, Alejandro Inarritu, and the Director of Phototgrapy, Emmanuel Lubezki, must be commended for their magnificent work. Together they have created a very real story of conflict, struggle, ambition, self-doubt and creative ambition.

Alongside this very real story there also exists a surreal co-story, in which seemingly impossible things occur. But even within the surreal level there is an evolution between the early birdman inner voice that denounces Riggan's interest in theatrical acting and directing and the later inner birdman voice that wants Riggan to use his superpowers in the theater at least as a last grand gesture, a "we'll show" them kind of approach. This is no more and no less than the true artist calling upon his or her most hidden, inner powers to persevere in the face of public ridicule, derision, and misunderstanding. It is the triumph of art and the artist.

Many reviews have missed the mark on this film, possibly because those writers really don't have a clue about the process of artistic creation. A good example of this is David Nussair's critique of Birdman on a site called reelfilm. I won't use space here to pick apart his very weak and uninspired piece, but just to say that he was unable to "get" this multi-layered, profound work of art. Even the majority of the critics at the New York Times haven't understood the genius of this film. It is the hope of this reviewer that those who are in a position to bestow awards will realize that, even with all the other fine films of 2014, Birdman is the number one film of the year.

***this review may contain spoilers*** The other reviewers, in my opinion, focus too much on the minutiae of this story. I must admit my first reaction to the film is that it lacked coherence and punch. However, in the middle of the night, awakening with my own "road to Damascus" (as one reviewer said)regarding this film, I realized that the story elements served to make the statement that the authority and credibility of the Catholic Church in the 21st century is about to undergo a complete transformation, if not collapse. With all the sexual abuse scandals worldwide, the lack of appropriate consequences for the bishops and cardinals who protected those offending priests (see Cardinal Bernard Law, who was given an important position in Rome, after leaving Boston in disgrace), and the appalling treatment of and attitudes towards women all point to an institution that can only survive as long as a belief in the concept that the pope is "god's representative on earth" prevails. Within the context of this film we see that the newly elected pope is just a human being like any of us, and maybe only men, not god, have chosen him to lead. When the infallibility of the pope is called into question, then the whole thing begins to unravel. This belief in the pope's infallibility is what the authority of the Catholic Church rests upon. If he's just another guy, does he have the moral authority to make pronouncements about gay marriage, women as priests, celibacy of priests, birth control, and so many other controversial issues. At the end of the film, when Melville finally leaves, the cardinals are completely aghast, showing absolute shock in their reactions, covering their mouths in horror, realizing that their world is about to drastically change. It is no longer "business as usual." I think Moretti knew that this is exactly the message he was unleashing with this film. And to him, I say Bravo!! By the way, I was raised Catholic, have a sister who is a nun, and I attended a Jesuit university, until I was told upon entering a pre-law class on the first day of school that "all you women -- you go to the back of the room. You get a C for the term." There are many, many good people who follow the Catholic faith. But I am referring to the male hierarchy which, since the beginnings of the church, have used all kinds of means to grasp and stay in power. This film takes a little of that power away from them.