The Ending and what it means to me

Rating: 8/10 (6 February 2015)

This is a character study, meaning its a movie that centers around the events of mainly Keaton (with a bit of side stuff that I think is of some relevance that I can appreciate, others may only find it as plodding). The movie does a great job at setting up its premise of being about a aging Hollywood actor with lost stardom who had at some point refused to do another of his trademarked superhero movies (Birdman 4), and finding his life is yesterdays news and now using the theatre stage to bring credibility back, improving his reputation is everything, the point of all of this work and even spending out of own pocket to get this play to happen. It all feels real and this is I think a crucial element to making it work. Especially with Keaton playing the lead who seems to be living embodiment of this part. Firstly Keaton's performance is magnificent, hes juggling dealing with delusions/inner struggle, to acting through backstage drama through back and forth between Edward Norton and his wife and doing theatre styled acting on a stage. Its these differing styles that require a tremendous range. Edward Norton is great and makes for a good 'opposing character' that fuels Keaton's development, fighting for the spotlight almost as much character- wise as performance wise. Keaton hangs onto to his ambitions as his drive while Norton lives on stage, and that proves to be a good catalyst.
There are aspects of the movie where unlikely weird things happening (like that bed scene, lesbian kiss or Keaton being locked outside) sort of prepares you for whats coming and we go with it (even if you don't go with the ending). I've seen people speculate that hes in purgatory at the end but this doesn't seem right to me. Mainly because purgatory is a punishment and not something to be seen in a positive light.
The scene with his nose looking like a beak is supposed to be a symbol of him accepting that he is Birdman. It is the only real physical transformation he goes under, because there has to be a cue to the audience that hes becoming Birdman without outright telling everyone that (and give some tiny bit of leeway for other interpretations). The him flying away part is also a metaphor for him being happy and free now that he can be Birdman. The Twitter/Facebook account followers, PR stunts, all the fame and army of critics now (even the most distinguished critic) on his side to help him soar, and the daughter looking up to see him fly is a metaphor for even his family is now happy that he is Birdman. One giant over the top sellout, that cares about having everything & not about struggling with every aspect of his life anymore. He no longer cares about creating art & that voice that always asks him to be greater than he is, he has become the perfect version of himself that embraces the ridiculousness and power that it wields over people. He has in his mind accepted Birdman (and has many reasons why) BUT I interpret it in this way WITHOUT having him to be dead.
ie hes not actually in the bathroom or jumping out the window, hes just laying in bed with all of this manifesting in his mind, and we are seeing it metaphorically.
He made the critic feel, in the end. That crusty old bitch only wants what everyone else of bored lives want, a conveyor belt that manufacturers emotions that we can swallow and gladly play for (under the pretense of theatre, paintings/sculptures, opera, ie "high art"). The scene where he critiques the critic by looking at her notes was just that, showing that making people feel is its own reward and over intellectualizing it can be pretentious (like one paragraph of actually being about the play and not needless comparisons or labels).
The movie is stuck between the idea of doing great performances for the sake of showing and arousing emotions and always wanting to do better or doing shallow things and getting everything for it (even real happiness it seems). Its a character study about important things happening in the life of Keaton or Birdman or parallels between them, but mainly a study of what us the audience want. Its clearly bringing us into this reality by constantly making us question whether its a movie or a theatre play we are witnessing, does it matter which it seems to adhere more to? Diegetic or non- diegetic sound, reality or non-reality. Constant shots where it seems like there are no breaks (there are breaks at various times and are quite well hidden, a few times quite deliberately obvious). Scenes that seem to want to become fiction (like the powers) but also scenes that want to come back to reality because that seems to be more important to us and at first more important to Keatons character.
In the end what we learn is that the critics want hyper reality, perhaps even to the extent of life imitating art and art imitating life (which here comes in the form of almost killing himself). What we want may just be Birdman, the stage just seems to be a place Keaton and the others play out their own drama & constantly struggle with aspects of their own lives between family, creating art and the sellout culture of entertainment/financial success. Keaton is freed and perhaps we are the shown as the shallow ones for giving into his Birdman or.. Batman you could say :)