One of this era's defining films

Rating: 10/10 (24 September 2016)

It often occurs that the truly challenging films that instantly divide audiences prove to be the ones finding their place in film history. The reason why half the viewers love them and half the viewers hate them are essentially the same, they just provoke diverse reactions. I am sure Birdman is THE film of this decade (so far) that will overcome polarised reviews, subsequently going down as one of the definitive classics of our time. Still, while being an admirer of the film, I totally see how somebody could be put off by it. Because Birdman is unique, bold and absolutely committed to its central ideas in a way not many films are. So the confusion this can cause might turn into annoyance. However, this commitment is exactly what makes watching it such a remarkable experience.
We follow Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton), a former Hollywood actor famous for his superhero films "Birdman", who tries to push his career in a different direction by bringing a play he wrote to Broadway. In contrast to the blockbuster films, he wants to do something meaningful. Still, he has a hard time finding his way in the theatre world that is so different from the environment he is used to. On top of that, his former role seems to haunt him as a voice in his head. He tries to convince him to return to the movies in order to make mindless works whose sole purpose is distraction and entertainment.
This is the set-up for a satirical dark comedy. The humour however plays out very subtly and presents itself as a mere by-product of the actual existential crisis Riggan goes through while trying to stop the play from turning into a disaster.
The way the film is presented is often (at least here on IMDb) a point of criticism. As most people probably know by now, it is depicted (seemingly) without any cuts, resulting in one epic shot captured by a camera floating through the tiny halls of the theatre. What could be a pseudo-artistic gimmick is actually a genius metafictional way of framing a film about the making of a play, since the film itself feels like a play. Furthermore, it effortlessly deconstructs conventional means of depicting time lapses. With one camera shift the film sometimes progresses several hours (for example when two characters talk about the preview later that evening and the camera moves away from them to the stage where this very preview is already happening). It is a depiction of time unlike anything I have ever seen before. Incidentally, it is much more similar to our actual experience of passing hours as they also seamlessly glide from one to the next. It is a filmic anomaly just because the viewer is used to decode montages, flashbacks, jump cuts and so forth which are just conventions. Therefore, aside from the metafictional aspects (of which they are a lot more in the film), this lack of visual cuts has a lot to say about the discrepancy of how we experience time and how we portray time.
That's why this is not a self-indulgent, "artsy" show-off technique. It is unique, but not for its own sake.
Apart from that, director Alejandro G. Iñárritu (who proves himself to be ready to explore new grounds since you would have never expected a black comedy by him) has assembled one of the greatest casts of all time. Moreover, as he often does, he manages to push each and every actor and actress to his and her top level. Zach Galifianakis instantly overcomes his stereotype of being the cartoonishly stupid imbecile in a film; Emma Stone got an Oscar nomination practically with one monologue (absolutely deservedly, since it is utterly intense); Edward Norton playfully fleshes out the pretentious theatre diva and gives this archetype some real depth; Naomi Watts scintillates (once again) with nailing jokes with perfect timing as well as depicting truly heartbreaking despair; and Michael Keaton just gives the performance of his career by examining a man breaking down bit by bit, mostly because of his inner conflicts he cannot resolve.
These actors bring to life a script that is packed with clever thoughts about our perception of art, the relation between fiction and reality and the mechanisms that come into play when trying to achieve something exceptional, which is in the end a very universal strive of humankind. Thereby, the narrative gains an extra dimension that goes way beyond the theatre context.
Basically, I can just encourage anyone to see this film. I actually consider IMDb to be quite a trustworthy source. But that Birdman is missing from the Top 250 list due to its ludicrously low rating is just madness.