There is no single movie like Birdman - creativity and masterpiece at it's finest

Rating: 10/10 (16 August 2016)

This is not going to be a classical review but the explanation of the movie from how I see it.
When I first saw it I... Got blown away. Totally. I don't remember I had ever had such fun before.
It's easiest to start with music so lets start with it. You'll remember that most of Birdman's soundtrack is only percussion. I asked myself why did Innaritu go with such simplistic music. If we understand Birdman as a satire to modern Hollywood and audiences, answer sprungs up. And it's this: modern audiences often take soundtrack for granted. People don't know how music really is important to the movie. We see only actors and CGI effects not appreciating all the time, effort and money it took in order for soundtrack to be made. Do you remember we actually see guy playing percussion (main theme) in two occasions? That strongly emphasizes my point: there IS someone working really hard in order to make soundtrack; but that person remains behind the curtain. His talents are not vividly shown on screen and are hence harder to appreciate. So, Innaritu decided to go mostly only with percussion because he wanted us to know that even the most basic music requires real talent and work, let alone sophisticated orchestral music.
OK, so I've understood Birdman as a satire to modern Hollywood and audiences. Let's analyze a few quotes from the movie to back this up. We'll all agree that Ema Stone shined as Sam. But what exactly is Sam's role in the movie? She says to her father in one scene and I quote: "You hate bloggers. You make fun of Twitter. You don't even have a Facebook page. You're the one who doesn't exist. (...) It's not important. You're not important." She's the one who thinks that being popular is what really matters. Her father had devoted himself to making a theater show which can't be popular as modern movies are; nevertheless, his show is no less art than any movie is. She represents new, modern audiences who sincerely believe number of Twitter followers or likes is a measure of quality. Let's now turn to one of the most important scenes which will shine much more light to the point I'm trying to convey.
So Riggan goes out and his bathrobe gets stuck. He can't come in or pull it out. So what does he do? He goes to his own show almost completely naked in order to act. What was he supposed to do? He's been working for this so hard! But as he walks on the streets of NYC more and more people start to take photos and videos of him. Ooo yeah, they're enjoying this so much! Much more than they would enjoy his show. His daughter Sam later tells him that he's made it. She has made social media accounts for him. Now he has thousand of followers and millions of YouTube views. That's what people want and that's what they enjoy! He has now climbed back to a level of fame he enjoyed when he was young. How crazy and fun you have to be it to walk the streets like that?! Oh, if they only knew the half of it...
But now, after that public stunt which Riggan didn't want in the first place comes the central scene - a conversation with a movie critic Tabitha (Lindsay Duncan). She says that she will destroy his show although she hadn't seen it. When Riggan asks why, she responds: "You're no actor, you're a celebrity. Let's be clear on that. I'm gonna kill your play." How many movie critics in reality review movies not objectively but with prejudices? She doesn't know he didn't do that public stunt on purpose but nevertheless doesn't even bother asking him about it. And there you have the dichotomy: people and his daughter on the one hand appreciate him but critics on the other hand don't. But that's tragicomic since he's not responsible for the fondness or hate! And furthermore Riggan doesn't care for the social media crowd but cares for what critics have to say. If they only knew the half of it...
And finally we arrive to a moment when out of nowhere a bird-like robot arrives and starts to destroy the city and kill people. Why, for God's sake, did Innaritu make that scene? Is it somehow beneficial to the story? No. Birdman doesn't have a story in a classical sense. It gives a glimpse into a world Riggan and his co-workers live in. The reason why Innaritu made that scene was because that's exactly what audience wants - action and mayhem. Not story; not philosophy; not some peculiar Shakespearean bullshit. We want action and cool stunts! Demolition! A moment before (or later; I can't remember) that scene we can see some homeless guy quoting Shakespeare. But people pass him by like he's not there. This two scenes put together form a nice contrast on audience and cinema matter.
This movie was shoot to look like one uninterrupted scene. That's because this way movie becomes very fast paced and very entertaining. All the acting is superb. Camera work is amazing. Birdman won an Oscar for cinematography as well.
And so we come to and end of this short analysis. I've analyzed only a few scenes in order to show from which framework should Birdman be seen - it's a satire to modern Hollywood and audience. And unbelievably clever one. And I've not even scratched the surface of it. There are so many clever little things put to it that make Birdman so thoroughly enjoyable. But I'll leave interpretation of those to your own reason and imagination.
If you've decided not to watch Birdman because it seemed obnoxious from the beginning, you've made the wrong decision. Don't expect anything and you'll see how good "The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance" is.