Batman

Rating: 8/10 (25 February 2015)

We've seen a few Hollywood's self aware and cynical self criticisms in a form of film. Inside look into industry, the heroes and the victims, the "I'm tiny and unimportant on a grand scale of things"...but rarely so much fun as this.
I was a sceptic. The subject did not appeal to me particularly, I do not care about comic book heroes and washed up actors very much. But I do care about what Inarritu has to offer, as he had rarely disappointed in his fruitful career.
Then there is (almost forgotten) Michael Keaton and Edward Norton in supporting role. I needn't know much more than that to peak my interest. Let's focus on "Birdman" (Riggan) to start off this brilliant satire. "That was back in 1992", Keaton says, referring to Birdman character in one of his externalized communications with his alter ego, at one point. What else was back in '92? Batman Returns, starring Mr Keaton himself. So, I'm focusing on real life references here, Keaton is playing himself, Birdman=Batman. I thought that was startling and pretty obvious irony, and Keaton has played along perfectly. The role was written for him, as it seems. This actor could do comedy, action and character roles, and he 's still got it.
Apart from all this, Riggan himself was kind of hard to relate to. Unlike Norton's character, this guy was very secluded, he's got quirk and is exhibitionist by nature, but his private world does not get shared with other people. He's crazy, he's entertainer but he isn't approachable. Let's face it...dude's not all there. But he's himself, and dealing with it.
Norton, on the other hand, provides great comedic relief, you must have know people like him, you might even be him! He's method actor, going for hyper realism on stage, lives for acting but shares very little in his private life. Just a real person. Very natural actor, does his thing with unbelievable lightness.
A shout out for Zach Galifianakis, such subtle, completely restrained and toned down, yet very likable role for him. And for the ladies, Stone, Watts and others provided big support with what little space they had within their characters.
Editing is absolutely insane in parts, you see the world through actors' eyes, and it's fast and furious, while preparing to go on stage and do their thing. Score: blasting jazz drumming was a character for itself, stressing tense and important moments as seen through Riggan's perspective. Felt like I wandered off and found myself in the middle of "Whiplash" at times. Took me a while to get used to music as character (apparition) itself.
Took me a while to get with the program, really! Something that seems so complex, let's call it "pretentious" for lack of a better word and the lack of understanding, shall we, it sure sucks you in: using bunch of well known entertainment industry references, social issues, referencing real world and all the hip stuff you need to do, or have to be to get noticed, to exist.
Absolutely modern, facing the issues and raising questions that are relevant, what is art, how thick is the line between what's "fun" and what's "philosophical, talky bull****", can a role define an actor, a person...Are we allowed to change, to grow, to rise above ourselves and our established social roles. Who are film and theater critics, and what are those people risking while staying in shades and observing, not moving forward, just being there, nothing to lose, nothing to gain. Perpetuum mobile of pop culture.
It's like a swarm, I swear it resembled one, the whole atmosphere, just very frantic. Can't help but to ask yourself, what does it take to desire a place under spotlight, be a part of this hectic world. It's alluring, glamorous, absolutely seducing, ordinary people feel it too. So, Birdman's underneath all the show biz satire, big questions and overview just that, a personal story, another day at work, theater, home, restaurant...another day in ever beating heart of the city and under its lights. A day in life, less ordinary but one nonetheless... Truth or dare? Dare....