BIRDMAN cannot escape its all-too-obvious self-awareness in spite of its equally overt artisanal conceit

Rating: 8/10 (11 February 2015)

Finally I can get around to watch several current Oscar contenders before this year's ceremony arriving in mere two weeks. BIRDMAN is the most intriguing one, it might give Alejandro González Iñárritu the prestige which his fellow Mexican compatriot Alfonso Cuarón has received one year earlier for GRAVITY (2013, 9/10), simply because the film is the another formidable labor-of-love with a paradigm-shifting cinematographic endeavor, not a coincidence, the two films share the same DP Emmanuel Lubezki, not even detractors can deny BIRDMAN's spurious one-long-take gimmick is a wonder to witness, sometimes viewers are so much so that being overpowered by the slithering camera movements in the masterly spatial structures and even overlook the proceedings on screen, so, a re-watch is highly recommended.
Basically the movie is a self-referencing parody, the former Batman Keaton plays a washed- up actor Riggan Thomson, whose most popular role is also in a money-grubbing franchise called Birdman as the titular superhero, now 20 years has past since the last time he was in that bird uniform, he is going to Broadway and trying to revive his career by writing, directing and staring a play adapted of Raymond Carver's WHAT WE TALK ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT LOVE, finally this is a career-defining opportunity for Keaton and he nails it remarkably. Naomi Watts is Lesley, one of the actress of the play, it is her Broadway debut, she is so insecure of her acting capability, and also shares a girl-on-girl kiss with another actress Laura (Riseborough), sounds familiar, a tribute to MULHOLLAND Dr. (2001, 9/10), right? Also there is Edward Norton plays Mike Shiner, a vainglorious actor who comes on board in the last minute but turns out to be quite a prick both on and off stage, so Iñárritu must be fully aware of Norton's reputation before offering him such a meaty part which would be a comeback call for the once prodigal son (his play-off with Keaton is terrific!). One cannot left out Emma Stone, who plays Sam, Riggan's rehab-retreated daughter, with her druggy make-up and ever-so-popping eyes, an ex-junkie is so full of life. Her flaring-up tirade against Riggan's last-straw investment on this play is her ticket to an Oscar nomination.
Antonio Sanchez's syncopated drum beats amps up the narrative wonderfully, in particular when Riggan battles with his undying alter-ego, the Birdman, his own demon which urges him to fight, to still be relevant in the downfall, through his illusory telekinesis, the imagined flying, and a real Time Square streaking, until the surprising curtain call in the premiere of the play, Riggan succeeds, which in an ironical way leaves him a bird-man mask on the face, he is on the top page of the newspaper again, until the inexplicable ending, the film tries very hard to maintain its strength as a dark comedy (against its unique faux-one-take guideline), yet Sam's expression in the coda certainly is a perfect solution to render this tall- tale with a phantasmagoric explanation.
The race between BOYHOOD (2014, 8/10) and BIRDMAN has reached its acme thanks to the divisive outcome from SAG, PGA, DGA (all favor BIRDMAN) and BAFTA (BOYHOOD captures the top honor), although neither of them are in my top 3, I will give an edge to BOYHOOD. BIRDMAN owns its undiminished flair with its distinguished style, but personally, like the theater critic in the film (who is marvelously played by Lindsay Duncan in her cameo appearance), none of the characters are sympathetic enough to deserve our care and attention, a has-been cannot cope with the fact that he is past his prime, and needs a miracle to feel alive; an arrogant actor who can only liberate himself on stage whereas off stage, he is a giant pain in the neck; a spoiled daughter wandering in her post- rehab anxiety, these are awful personae who should not have the privilege to win audience over, of course, maybe in the eyes of academy members, they are way too relevant, too visceral, too reverberating but for the general mass, BIRDMAN cannot escape its all-too- obvious self-awareness in spite of its equally overt artisanal conceit, and for Iñárritu, one can assume that he knows showbiz is a stinking vat, but he cannot fully resist its alluring temptation, instead, he gives its a leeway and fawn on for its highest recognition. My sole hope is that the majority of the academy members' eyes are limpid enough to discern that.