Another Award Winner...

Rating: 2/10 (28 March 2016)

I've almost recovered from watching this but unfortunately have not yet cleansed it from my head. I also see so many other writers have made the comment that from here on, they will avoid movies the Academy serves large numbers of awards and seek out more rewarding entertainment offerings. I think perhaps they maybe right.
Raymond Carver's short story (and stage play) has been adapted by Mexican director Inarritu (+ others) and transferred to the screen as an endless torture session for the unsuspecting viewer. Perhaps this is a product by or for those who were educated within consumer/conformist education systems, where 'art' is made up of: Campbell's soup posters, cheap copies of Marilyn and Elvis movie reproductions and Splash and Drip works that resemble a dogs dinner that's been spilt into a well used kitty litter tray. Now and then they come up with an exiting innovation but more often they add to each others downward spiral without even realizing it. Other movie goers, critics and judges also now belong to this school...so it perpetuates itself. Some see themselves as heading to be the new 'messiah's' of the creative arts. New? sorry, it's all been done before and perhaps maybe better.
What ingredients seem to represent success today?...Lots of psycho angst, mixed with superhuman occultish powers - cleaver performers willing to over act on call, swear and blaspheme at every level of the story's weaker points (in a meagre attempt to add 'power'), mix in lashings of vulgar sexual taboos (not because they add anything to the story but because the film maker is no doubt getting off on it), then add somewhat pretentious camera work that leaves you lurching from one set piece to the next (can't blame the talented photographer Emmanuel Lubezki, he gives the director just what he called for). Keaton and Norton do well but their characters are too shallow to care for - is there really as much going down here as we're supposed to think? - Perhaps to those who like to analyze 'superficial' till it means 'substance', then this is a must.
Beautiful British born Naomi Watts also works hard in an ill defined, ultimately unsatisfying role. There is a sequence where it looks like it may begin to work. This comes during a bar scene that brings 'Birdman' face to face with a famous critic (nicely played by Duncan) Here, there's an exchange of the better variety of discourse but it all falls over with the director reducing the critic to a caricature - obviously displaying his own contempt of critics. Another wasted opportunity.
The music score (or lack of) is a money-saving percussive device that at first works, then becomes as tiresome as the rest of the movie. As for the end...don't even go there!. Seems when a movie can't be decently categorized they label it a 'satire' - but even good satire needs defining quality characteristics. Overall the final result is a disappointment. Then of course, you may just think it's terrific - Such is modern 'art' - Or, it could also be as the title suggests, requiring a large serve of "ignorance"....